A Delicate Equilibrium: BalancingTheory, Practice, and Outcomes

Terence (Terry) FlynnDeGroote School of Business

McMaster University

The purpose of this article is to offer thoughts on the future research directions for pub-lic relations scholars. More specifically, 2 areas of potential research are offered: thebalance zone model of public relations management and an outcome-based model ofpublic relations. I argue that we need to move well beyond the current 2-way thinkingabout publics and begin to reconceptualize public relations in a multidimensional per-spective, where dialogue, collaboration, and negotiation with multiple stakeholders andstakeseekers occur simultaneously. A new role of the public relations practitioner is tomaintain an equilibrium that satisfies the mutual interest of all parties.

As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it.—Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1948)

When I was asked to participate in a panel and write an essay in response to theleading theorists of our field for the Journal of Public Relations Research, I wasthrilled and flattered. Having recently graduated with a PhD from the NewhouseSchool of Public Communication at Syracuse University apparently qualifiedme to represent the “newbie scholars” of the future generation. As my deadlineapproached, the flattery and thrill quickly turned to fear and trepidation. I wasalmost cognitively paralyzed by the difficult and complex questions that this op-portunity raised: “How could I respond to the legends of public relations theory(Broom, 1982; J. E. Grunig, 1984; L. A. Grunig, 1988; Heath, 1993)?” “Whatcan I write, with only a few years of scholarship behind me, that could benefitour practice and the further development of our theories?” “How do I know

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH, 18(2), 191–201Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence should be sent to Terry Flynn, Communications Management, DeGroote School ofBusiness, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4M4 Canada. Email:tflynn@mcmaster.ca

where the field is going?” The purpose of this article is to offer my thoughts onthe future research directions for public relations scholars. More specifically, Ioffer two areas of potential research: the balance zone model of public relationsmanagement and an outcome-based model of public relations.

A PRAGMATIC, IDEALISTIC PERSPECTIVE

It may be the optimistic side of me that constantly refuses to utter the word chal-lenge and instead sees the world full of opportunities and potential. Then again,it may be that, after spending 20 years as a public relations consultant, I see ev-ery organizational communications challenge as an opportunity to give mean-ingful advice, albeit for a price. And now, as a newly minted PhD, I find myselfat the intersection of where the possibilities of the academy meet the realities ofthe practice, with an opportunity to enable the future of public relations theorybuilding for the handsome reward of collegial recognition: A reward that is, asthey say, priceless.

Although I briefly mentioned my modest consulting career as the backdrop tomy scholarship, let me admit to my philosophical and professional bias: I am apragmatist by nature, shaped by the world of politics and cast in the field of busi-ness and management consulting. The skills and knowledge of the public relationsindustry that I accumulated over the last two decades were borne out of delicateclient assignments and raised on the frontlines of some of North America’s recentcrisis, risk, and environmental case studies. Some would contend that these experi-ences, and my lack of formal public relations training in the formative years of mypractice, would necessitate a pragmatic social viewpoint of public relations(Grunig & White, 1992). Having been raised in a family of eight children, edu-cated both formally and informally in the field of Canadian politics and politicalscience, and being a strong believer that my chosen field can make a tremendouscontribution to our local communities, however, I tend to see public relations froma more idealistic, social perspective:

This worldview presupposes that public relations serves the public interest, developsmutual understanding between organizations and their publics, contributes to in-formed debate about issues in society, and facilitates a dialogue between organiza-tions and their publics. (Grunig & White, 1992, p. 53)

As a result, I have always envisaged our role, as both practitioners and scholars,as central to the success of both the organizations we represent or study and thecommunities that we serve. In short, I believe that public relations is at the focalpoint of where organizations and stakeholders attempt to create and maintain a del-icate balance between the interests of the organization, the stakeholders, and the

192 FLYNN

many publics that travel through this intersection. Our task, as scholars and practi-tioners, has never been more difficult, as the markets, the communities, the publicspaces in which we compete and communicate have never been more complex andunpredictable. In a matter of seconds, organizations have the ability or obligationto communicate directly to countless key stakeholder groups about informationthat directly affects the ongoing operations of their enterprises. Furthermore, aswitnessed by the research launch and successful return of the space shuttle Discov-ery, technology now enables, or in this case compels, organizations to be almostnakedly transparent—communicating raw data in real time with little opportunityfor analysis.

Furthermore, technology has also provided stakeholder groups with the oppor-tunity to be more vocal and more influential in their interactions with the organiza-tions. The ability of stakeholders (employees, customers, owners/investors,advocacy/activist groups, regulators, neighbors, suppliers, etc.) to apply moremeaningful pressure through multiple inputs can have a significant impact on theorganization’s ability to achieve its mission (Martinez & Norman, 2004). There-fore, when I conceptualize the nature of public relations and our role in attemptingto make sense of the practice and the future directions of theory building, I see ourtask as seeking to understand the myriad of interests and multiple influences thatconstantly apply collaborative and conflicting pressure on what I call “the balancezone of organizational–public relationship management” (see Figure 1).

A DELICATE BALANCE

It is not my intention to revisit the debate about the nature and intent of the orig-inal four models of public relations (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984), nor is it to pon-der whether pure symmetry is an achievable organizational goal or aspiration. Infact, I accept J. E. Grunig’s (2001) movement beyond the original typology to-ward a new theory of excellent public relations that is “both symmetrical andasymmetrical, two-way, ethical, and both mediated and interpersonal” (p. 30). Iwould argue, in fact, that we need to move well beyond the current two-waythinking about publics and begin to reconceptualize public relations in a multidi-mensional perspective where dialogue, collaboration, and negotiation with mul-tiple stakeholders and stakeseekers occur simultaneously and that the new roleof the public relations practitioner is to maintain an equilibrium that satisfies themutual interest of all parties.

The balance zone theory finds its roots in organizational–public relationshipmanagement (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning,2000; Toth, 2000) and acknowledges the dynamic and fluid societal context withinwhich all entities must now operate. In fact, Murphy (1996) suggested that publicrelations managers should turn to chaos theory as a means of understanding the is-

A DELICATE EQUILIBRIUM 193

sues that enable or inhibit our ability to establish and maintain organizational–pub-lic relationships in today’s complex civil society. If the picture still is not clearenough, management theorists have defined this new operating realm as“hyperchange”—“involves changes that come more quickly; are more dramatic,complex, and unpredictable; and have more significant impact on the way organi-zations are managed than did the changes of the past” (Lewis, Goodman, & Fandt,2004, p. 15). It has been decades since we moved past the original, linear paradigmof communications and organizational design through and beyond open-systemsapproaches to a new place where transparent communications and interactions be-tween and within stakeholder and stakeseeker groups and organizations is in a con-stant state of engagement. According to Tapscott and Ticoll (2003), “theaccessibility of information to the stakeholders of institutions, regarding mattersthat affect their interests” (p. 22), suggests that organizations are under continuingeconomic and ethical pressure to maintain mutually beneficial relationships.

194 FLYNN

FIGURE 1 The balance zone of organizational–public relationship management. 1Relationalcommunications goes beyond “interpersonal communications” to include organization-to-organization communications.

THE BALANCE ZONE MODEL

My goal in conceptualizing the balance zone model (see Figure 1) was to visu-ally represent the successful and important theory building that has taken placein public relations over the last 20 years. In fact, the roots of this model grew outof my preparation for doctoral qualifying exams in the summer of 2003. Ineeded a way to visually articulate the current thinking and theory development.At that time, J. E. Grunig (2001) had stated that it was time to move beyond thefour models approach (publicity/press agentry, public information, two-wayasymmetrical, two-way symmetrical) and see the practice of public relations as aseries of continua—from mediated to interpersonal communications and fromone-way advocacy to two-way collaborations. In my study notes, I created atwo-by-two matrix with level of communications (mediated to what I called re-lational to incorporate a broader, organizational focus) and the level of interac-tion (from advocacy or zero-sum to collaborative or mutual gains). The diagramin my mind, however, was still too linear and did not represent the competingstakeholder interests that can simultaneously confront an organization. In addi-tion, the preliminary model did not recognize that an organization could, attimes, use publicity to communicate with one stakeholder group while anotherstakeholder group may demand that the interactions with the organization be afacilitated, face-to-face dialogue. Therefore, the model needed to represent themultiplicity of public relations methods and the multidimensional nature ofstakeholder relations in today’s complex environment. As a result, the newamoeba-like shape of the model (it is interesting to note that amoeba comesfrom the Greek word amoib —change1) tries to capture the variable zone of or-ganizational/stakeholder interests that is in constant motion as a result of the on-going interactions between all parties.

BALANCE FACTORS

As I have already indicated, in the give and take of public relations where the in-terests of the organizations compete at times with the interests of the stakeholdergroups, those organizations that achieve their goals and objectives do so bymaintaining an optimal balance between internal and external interests. From theliterature and from personal and anecdotal experience, I can begin to identifythose factors that directly and indirectly impact the equilibrium of the organiza-tion. Although the publics and factors that can apply pressure on the organiza-

A DELICATE EQUILIBRIUM 195

1http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amoeba

e

tion’s balance zone are situationally specific (J. E. Grunig, 1994), the followingfactors can be considered relevant for each organization:

• Relational mindset—the degree to which the organization fosters and supportsmutually beneficial relationships with its key stakeholder groups: employees, cus-tomers, owners/investors, neighbors, local community, regulators, and so forth.(Broom et al., 1997, 2000; Dozier, L. A. Grunig, & J. E. Grunig, 1995; J. E. Grunig &Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000; Toth, 2000).

• Reputation management—the degree to which the organization has a positivereputation among its key stakeholder groups (Dowling, 2002; Fombrum & vanRiel, 2004; Jackson, 2004; Rayner, 2003).

• Civic/social responsibility—the degree to which the organization believesand behaves in the best interests of its community and civil society (Cutlip, Center,& Broom, 2000; J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002).

• Ethical foundation—the degree to which the organization engages in ethicaldialogue and decision making (Bowen, 2000, as cited in L. A. Grunig et al., 2002;Curtin & Boyton, 2001; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).

• Regulatory regime—the degree to which an organization must adhere to gov-ernmental regulation and furthermore whose activities are strictly monitored bygovernmental bodies (Bridges & Nelson, 2000; Heath, 1997; Mintzberg, 1983, ascited in L. A. Grunig, 1992).

• Economic/market pressures—the degree to which the organizations operatewithin a competitive economic marketplace (Daft, 1998; Griffin, 2000; Lewis etal., 2004).

• Risk management—the degree of real or perceived risk posed by the organi-zation on affected stakeholder groups (Fischoff, 1995; Heath, Bradshaw, & Lee,2002; Heath & Palenchar, 2000).

• Level of internal and external activism—the degree to which advocacygroups, internal and external to the organization, seek to promote an independentideology/agenda seemingly contrary to the mission of the organization (J. E.Grunig & Hunt, 1984; L. A. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).

• Media visibility—the degree to which the organization operates in an arenathat encourages or is the recipient of increased media coverage (Fombrum & vanRiel, 2004; Heath, 1997; Spicer, 1997).

Although the previous list of factors is far from complete and does not take intoaccount the situation-specific issues that organizations will experience from timeto time, it does provide us with a foundation from which we can build a better un-derstanding of the stability or instability of the balance zone. My proposition isthat those organizations that have a higher degree of the previously listed factorswill have a more stable and more predictable balance zone. It is for the next gener-

196 FLYNN

ation of public relations/communications management scholars to determine thevalidity of the proposition.

RELATIONSHIPS, REPUTATION, AND RESPONSIBILITY

It is obvious that today’s public relations managers must be more than commu-nications specialists, more than boundary spanners, and more than strategic ad-visors. Public relations managers must now be relationship builders, reputationmanagers, and responsible advocates, for both their organizations and the stake-holders, to achieve a mutually beneficial end state—established and maintainedthrough a collaborative and dynamic process of negotiation and facilitation witheach stakeholder group. Over the last number of years, there have been two newareas of management study that I believe pose a danger to the excellent workthat has been done in understanding the contribution and value of public rela-tions to the organizational mission. The new fields of reputation managementand corporate responsibility/governance have gained significant attention andimportance in management journals, in business schools, and in the executivesuites of organizations. This new-found success is attributable, in my view, tothe attempt to quantify and measure the intangible assets of reputation, corporateresponsibility, employee and customer satisfaction, and brand equity.

Although the value of some measures is debatable, what is not debatable is thelevel of attention that these outcome measures are receiving and the level of inter-est in further refining these measures. Ironically, although many of these indexesand measures evaluate relational factors, such as employee and customer satisfac-tion, levels of product quality and service, leadership and governance, and socialresponsibility, the basis for the measurement is perceptions of these factors, andwhat creates perceptions but communications and public relations. Much of thescholarship at this time, however, relegates public relations to communicationsoutputs and does not view it as an integral part of, for example, the relational foun-dation of organizational reputation.

Therefore, I believe another immediate challenge facing both the practice andscholarship of public relations is the ability to demonstrate the outcomes and rela-tionships that public relations facilitates for organizations to enhance their reputa-tion. We must seek to qualify and quantify the outcomes of our programs todemonstrate the effect that they have in helping the organization to achieve itsgoals and objectives. From Figure 2, you see that I have once again attempted to vi-sualize this challenge. If we assume that the primary outcome of public relations ismutually beneficial relationships with our key stakeholders, then the outcome ofthose relationships will be, in fact, enhanced reputation (as measured by increasedstakeholder satisfaction), and that once organizations achieve an enhanced reputa-

A DELICATE EQUILIBRIUM 197

tion, they will engage in more socially responsible programs, the outcomes ofwhich have a more global effect.

My point is that reputation theorists (Davies, Chun, DaSilva, & Roper, 2003;Dowling, 2002; Fombrun & van Riel, 2004; Jackson, 2004; Neef, 2003; Rayner,2003) and reputation consultants have keenly and successfully influenced man-agement scholars and business executives to believe that one of the critical, intan-gible assets of an organization is the reputation of the entity. As we know,however, reputation follows relationship, and relationships are a direct outcome ofpublic relations/communications management. The challenge goes out to scholarsto develop a more systematic methodology to measure the outcomes of public rela-tions programs and show a direct (and indirect) relationship to the overall reputa-tion of the organization.

CONCLUSIONS

We have been extremely fortunate in the public relations academy to have hadthe opportunity to work with, learn from, and be the recipient of such brilliant

198 FLYNN

FIGURE 2 Public rela-tions/communications manage-ment outcome analysis.

and meaningful scholarship. Although the giants (e.g., Glen M. Broom, James E.Grunig, Lauri A. Grunig, Robert L. Heath) may be handing over the reigns tothe next generation of public relations scholars, I am confident that the founda-tion they have built over the last three decades will stand our practice, our pro-fession, and educational institutions in good stead for many years to come. Eachof these individuals has given us years of further research opportunities, and Iam certain that their retirement from the classroom does not and will not equatewith a retrenchment from their positions as advocates for our field of study andpractice. Our challenge, as the next generation of scholars, is to build on theiraccomplishments and extend their theories while continuing to proceed with ourown conceptualizations and theory building.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many times during the research and writing of this article, I felt compelled to contactboth Elizabeth L. Toth and Linda Aldoory to admit to my theoretical shortcomingsand beg that I not embarrass myself. I had plenty of excuses over the last few months:hard drive crashed; teaching three courses; spending guilt-free times with my fam-ily; and the list goes on. And yet, the temporary dread was vanquished by the oppor-tunity and obligation that my two wonderful colleagues have given me. I am in-debted to them for their guidance and mentorship.

REFERENCES

Bridges, J. A., & Nelson, R. A. (2000). Issues management: A relational approach. In J. A. Ledingham& S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach tothe study and practice of public relations (pp. 95–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, Inc.

Broom, G. M. (1982). A comparison of sex roles in public relations. Public Relations Review, 8(3), 17–22.

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-public rela-tionships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83–98.

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization-public relationships.In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A rela-tional approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

Curtin, P. A., & Boyton, L. A. (2001). Ethics in public relations. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of pub-lic relations (pp. 411–421). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Daft, R. L. (1998). Organization theory and design (6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western CollegePublishing.

A DELICATE EQUILIBRIUM 199

Davies, G., Chun, R., DaSilva, R., & Roper, S. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. NewYork: Routledge.

Dowling, G. (2002). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image and performance. New York: Ox-ford University Press.

Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relationsand communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. RiskAnalysis, 15, 137–145.

Fombrun, C., & van Riel, C. (2004). Fame and fortune: How successful companies build winning repu-tations. New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Griffin, R. W. (2000). Fundamentals of management: Core concepts and applications. Boston: Hought-on Mifflin.

Grunig, J. E. (1984). Organizations, environments, and models of public relations. Public Relations Re-search & Education, 1, 6–29.

Grunig, J. E. (1992). What is excellence in management. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public rela-tions and communication management (pp. 219–250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, Inc.

Grunig, J. E. (1994, July). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges, andnew research. Paper presented to the International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled,Slovenia.

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.

Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: An-tecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham& S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to thestudy and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Grunig, J. E., & White, J. (1992). The effects of worldviews on public relations theory and practice. In J.

E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 31–64).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, L. A. (1988). A research agenda for women in public relations. Public Relations Review, 14(3),48–57.

Grunig, L. A. (1992). Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent pub-lic relations departments respond. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communi-cation management (pp. 503–530). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organiza-tion: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Heath, R. L. (1993). A rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and organizational prerogatives. PublicRelations Review, 19, 141–155.

Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L., Bradshaw, J., & Lee, J. (2002). Community relationship building: Local leadership in therisk communication infrastructure. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 317–353.

Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. (2000). Community relations and risk communication: A longitudinalstudy of the impact of emergency response messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12,131–161.

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999, November). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public rela-tions. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.

200 FLYNN

Jackson, K. T. (2004). Building reputational capital: Strategies for integrity and fair play that improvethe bottom line. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Introduction: Background and current trends in the study ofrelationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relation-ship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. xi–xvii).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lewis, P. S., Goodman, S. H., & Fandt, P. M. (2004). Management: Challenges for tomorrow’s leaders.Mason, OH: South-Western.

Martinez, R. J., & Norman, P. M. (2004). Whither reputation? The effects of different stakeholders.Business Horizons, 47(5), 25–32.

Murphy, P. (1996). Chaos theory as a model for managing issues and crises. Public Relations Review,22, 95–113.

Neef, D. (2003). Managing corporate reputation and risk. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.Rayner, J. (2003). Managing reputational risk: Curbing threats, leveraging opportunities. New York:

Wiley.Spicer, C. (1997). Organizational public relations: A political perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Tapscott, D., & Ticoll, D. (2003). The naked corporation: How the age of transparency will revolution-

ize business. New York: Free Press.Toth, E. L. (2000). From personal influence to interpersonal influence: A model for relationship man-

agement. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management:A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 221–238). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

A DELICATE EQUILIBRIUM 201