Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

James E.

Grunig and Jon White, The Effect of Worldviews On Public Relations


Theory and Practice, in James E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations
and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.,
1992

Mixed Motives in the Symmetrical Worldview


Some critics of the symmetrical worldview -- both practitioners and theorists -- claim
that the approach is unrealistic or idealistic. They argue that
-45organizations hire public relations people as advocates to advance their interests and
not as "do-gooders" who "give in" to outsiders with an agenda different from that of
the organization. In short, these critics believe that organizations would not hire a
public relations person who does not practice asymmetrically.
Organizations do indeed want public relations people to work in their interest. They
do not want to give in to all outside demands on the organization when they believe
the organization's position is right. As Tuleja ( 1985) put it, "no responsible manager
completely rejects return on investment . . . Corporations are not charitable
organizations" (p. 185). But, he added, people in organizations have "divided
loyalties" to the organization and to society. And, he maintained, "good guys can
finish first": ". . . there is very good evidence that those who behave ethically toward
their various constituencies are also those who make the most money" (p. 199).
Another term for divided loyalties is mixed motives, a concept from game theory
that Murphy ( 1991) introduced to public relations theory. Public relations people
generally are motivated both by their loyalty to the organization that employs them
and by the publics affected by the behavior of the organization. These mixed motives
do not make the symmetrical worldview unrealistic, however. Tuleja ( 1985) pointed
out that the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you)
works because it is a selfish rule: "The Golden Rule works not in spite of selfishness,
but because of it. Jesus, that supreme psychologist, was also a supreme egoist. That is
why he understood love" (p. 24). The rule is selfish because it mandates that people
should think of how they would like to be treated by others and then treat others in the
same way.
Thirty years ago, the functionalist sociologist Alvin Gouldner ( 1960) wrote that a
"norm of reciprocity" is a universal component of moral codes. He pointed out that
Aristotle had observed that people are "more ready to receive than to give benefits."
People tend toward egoism, he said, "a salient (but not exclusive) concern with the
satisfaction of one's own needs" (p. 173). But, he added, "there is an altruism in
egoism, made possible through reciprocity" -- ". . . egoism can motivate one party to
satisfy the expectations of the other, since by doing so he [sic] induces the latter to
reciprocate and to satisfy his [sic] own" (p. 173).
In short, excellent organizations realize that they can get more of what they want by
giving publics some of what they want. Reciprocity means that publics, too, will be

willing to give up some of what they want to the organization. The logic of reciprocity
breaks down, however, when one actor (such as an organization) has more power than
another (such as a public). "Given significant power differences," according to
Gouldner
-46( 1960), "egoistic motivations may seek to get benefits without returning them" (p.
174).
Rakow ( 1989b), for example, criticized the symmetrical approach to public relations
as impractical because she believed that organizations in the U.S. social system, at
least, have more power than publics and therefore no motivation for reciprocity.
Mallinson ( 1990), similarly, argued that the two-way symmetrical model would work
better in the more egalitarian cultures of Europe than it would in the United States.
And Pavlik ( 1989) showed, in game theory terms, that organizations are unlikely to
practice public relations symmetrically until publics gain equal power.
Part of the answer to the dilemma of unequal power has been resolved because
publics have gained power by organizing into activist groups. But in many
relationships with publics, organizations still hold the upper hand. In that case,
Gouldner ( 1960) proposed that a "generalized norm of reciprocity" would solve the
dilemma of unequal power. Most moral codes, he said, contain a norm that
reciprocity is good or necessary -- even if people or organizations can get what they
want by exerting their power. Organizations that do not adhere to this general norm
lose the trust and credibility of the larger society of which they are a part. Thus,
excellent organizations would seem likely to incorporate the norm into their business
or organizational ethics and, in turn, into their public relations ethics. The norm of
reciprocity is the essence of what generally is called social responsibility. In
Gouldner's words:
The norm of reciprocity, however, engenders motives for returning benefits even
when power differences might invite exploitation. The norm thus safeguards powerful
people against the temptations of their own status; it motivates and regulates
reciprocity as an exchange pattern, serving to inhibit the emergence of exploitative
relations which would undermine the social system and the very power arrangements
which had made exploitation possible. (p. 174)
As the last sentence of this quote indicates, Gouldner ( 1960) argued that a norm of
reciprocity stabilizes a social system. But he also addressed the most frequently cited
failure of functional theory -- its inability to explain the origins of social systems as
well as the stability of ongoing systems. The norm of reciprocity provides a "starting
mechanism" for social relationships, he explained, an assumed type of behavior that
allows social actors -- including organizations and publics -- to deal with each other
when they have had no prior relationship.
When we assume that the other party will reciprocate our actions, in other words, we
can treat it fairly even though we might have more power.
-47-

Reciprocity, Gouldner ( 1960) added, also can be negative. That is, we can assume
that if an organization treats a public poorly, the public will in turn treat the
organization poorly. The norm of reciprocity, therefore, is an integral part of the
symmetrical worldview that is an essential part of excellent public relations.
The concept of reciprocity -- including both selfish reciprocity and the generalized
norm when there are differences in power -- allows us to accommodate mixed motives
into the symmetrical worldview. Chapter 11 describes research and theory building on
the four models of public relations that integrates the two-way asymmetrical and twoway symmetrical models into a mixed-motive model. In addition, recent
advancements in rhetorical theory by scholars of speech communication allow us to
"come to terms with mixed motives," in the words of Cheney and Tompkins ( 1984, p.
18). Much of this advancement is based on the work of Kenneth Burke and Jurgen
Habermas and has produced theories that "counterbalance the sender orientation of
traditional rhetoric with stress on a receiver orientation in the ( Burke's) rhetoric of
identification" ( Cheney & Tompkins, 1984, p. 18).
Booth ( 1981), for example, described four types of rhetoric that parallel the four
models of public relations:
Sub-Rhetoric . ". . . words or other symbols are being used to deceive or to obscure
issues or evade action" (p. 29). (= press agentry)
Mere Rhetoric . ". . . the whole art of sincere selling of any cause, not just the
trickery part of the disguise, but the genuinely persuasive parts too, including the
logical arguments" (p. 29). (= public information)
Rhetoric-B . This, essentially, is the rhetoric of Aristotle, in which the rhetorician
discovers or invents the "possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject
whatsoever" (p. 31): Rhetoric-B is the art of knowing what you want, and finding the
really good arguments to win others to your side, It is the art of the good lawyer, of
the effective business leader, of the successful fund raiser, and it is not to be scoffed at
or ignored. But it does not itself teach us what ends it should serve; it is still an art
without essential restraints other than those provided by the counterrhetoric created by
other warriors or competitors. The world it builds, left on its own, is a world of a free
market of atomized persons and ideas, each privately seeking victory and hoping that
in the melee a public good will be produced by some invisible hand. (pp. 32-33) (=
two-way asymmetrical)
Booth (1981) description of Rhetoric-B, in particular, identifies the shortcomings of
the asymmetrical worldview. In that worldview, communication becomes a war of
words with no restraints built in to preserve the
-48public good -- an ethical difference that is addressed in the last section of this chapter.
Contrast Rhetoric-B with a new form of rhetoric:
Rhetoric-A. ". . . a supreme art of inquiry through symbols that is designed, not to
win by cheating, as in sub-rhetoric, nor merely to win sincerely, as in mere rhetoric,
and not just to marshall all of the good reasons there might be for accepting what one

knows already, but rather to discover and refine, in critical exchange, our ends, our
purposes, our values" (pp. 34-35). (= two-way symmetrical)
Booth ( 1981) added that no other society has "committed itself so passionately to the
search for rhetoric-A . . . with committee work, with the cumbersomeness of
representative government, with the absurdities of our thousands of national
conventions, colloquia, conferences, workshops and commissions. . . . Well, that
rhetoric-A for you?" (p. 35).
Much argument, debate, persuasion -- and compromise -- take place in these
communication forums. Motives are mixed but when the worldview is symmetrical,
in the words of Cheney and Dionisopoulis ( 1989), "Organizations, specifically their
communications officers, should represent interests in such a way that both persuades
and allows for others to persuade" (p. 148).
The symmetrical worldview can accommodate mixed motives in public relations.
Before leaving the discussion of the difference between asymmetrical and
symmetrical worldviews, however, we address an additional correlate of those
worldviews: gender differences.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen