Bulwark of the Company or Advocate of Stakeholders? Public Relations Strategies between Influencing and Consulting

Hoffjann, Olaf; Hachmeister, Philine

doi:10.1108/s2398-391420160000001006

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the concept of informality is rarely found in either the narrower research on public relations, which is primarily interested in the legitimacy of organizations (Everett, 2001; Hoffjann and Hachmeister, 2016; Holmström, 2005; Metzler, 2001), or in the broader research on strategic communication, which ultimately encompasses all communication activities (Hallahan et al. , 2007).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2007, p. 3) comes quite close to this understanding, which understands strategic communication as “purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission.” Thus, the following considerations are based on a broad understanding of strategic communication, which, as a “transboundary concept” (Falkheimer and Heide, 2014, p. 123), is particularly well suited to depict the diverse and, in practice, hardly distinguishable strategic organizational communication processes in very different organizational areas. Specifically, these include the traditional fields of (a) internal communication, (b) marketing communication and (c) public relations (Falkheimer and Heide, 2014) which aims to legitimize the organization (Everett, 2001; Hoffjann and Hachmeister, 2016; Holmström, 2005; Metzler, 2001).…”

Section: Informality In Strategic Organizational Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Informality in strategic communication. Making the case for a forgotten concept

Hoffjann

2023

CCIJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAlthough current strategic communication research is particularly interested in deviations from normative ideals, there is a surprising lack of interest in the structures that lead to such deviations from formal specifications. To this end, this paper explores the classic, but of late largely forgotten concept of informality. The aim is to develop a theoretical framework and a systematization that can be used to answer central questions in strategic communication research. The focus is on three research questions: How can formal and informal structures of strategic organizational communication be systematized? How are formal and informal organizational structures thematized in strategic organizational communication? What is the relationship between (in)formal structures of strategic organizational communication and the thematization of (in)formal organizational structures?Design/methodology/approachThe conceptual contribution is based on systems theoretical organization theory, which understands formal structures as decided decision premises and informal structures as undecided decision premises.FindingsThe understanding of informal expectation structures presented here has enormous potential for describing and researching central issues in strategic communication research in a far more significant way, both theoretically and empirically. For example, decoupling can be described in a much more differentiated way than is possible using the neo-institutionalist perspective.Practical implicationsThe systematizing framework for researching informal structures enables a deeper understanding of informal structures and thus a better handling of them in practice. In addition, the framework provides a basis for future empirical studies.Originality/valueInformal phenomena and structures seem to be the elephant in the room in many discourses in strategic communication research. With the theoretical perspective and systematization presented here, these phenomena can finally be explored in a differentiated and meaningful way.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Informality In Strategic Organizational Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informality in strategic communication. Making the case for a forgotten concept

Hoffjann

2023

CCIJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The next step was assessing the role ESA assumed in the context of individual communication issues. The coding categories included corporate self-management and external context management [Hoffjann & Hachmeister, 2016], but also two-way stakeholder management as a symmetrical option (see Table 2). The strategic communication documents exclusively indicated self-management, 100%, n = 9.…”

Section: Communication Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic communication at the European Space Agency: juxtaposing strategy and public attitudes

Pfleger¹,

Gerber²,

Struck³

2022

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study analyses the efficacy of the European Space Agency's (ESA) strategic communication through a content analysis and an online attitudes survey in Germany. Our findings generally indicate low efficacy as ESA's communication strategy strongly focusses on press agentry, and is not managed in a sufficiently strategic manner. ESA pays little attention to evaluation and lays emphasis on targeting ‘the general public’. By contrast, we reveal a diversity of attitudes towards ESA among various publics. In light of this disconnect from best practice and public attitudes, we argue for a more inclusive approach which maximises public participation and introduces a more diverse and evidence-based science communication portfolio so as to make ESA's communication more efficacious and sustainable.

show abstract

Advocacy, Internal and External

Hoffjann

2018

The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In general terms, advocacy means publicly providing support for some interest, organization, or issue position. External advocacy can generally be understood as the act of publicly representing an individual, organization, or idea with the object of persuading targeted audiences to look favorably on the individual, organization, or idea. Thus, the goal of external advocacy is to give an organization a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints. Internal advocacy, on the other hand, represents the views of external stakeholders in the organization and thus brings external views into the organization. In so doing, internal advocacy allows the organization to respond to and adjust to meet the demands of societal changes. External advocacy in particular has long been criticized as manipulation and propaganda. As a result, for several years now, there has been intense debate surrounding the question of how ethical and responsible advocacy might look.

show abstract

Bulwark of the Company or Advocate of Stakeholders? Public Relations Strategies between Influencing and Consulting

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Informality in strategic communication. Making the case for a forgotten concept

Informality in strategic communication. Making the case for a forgotten concept

Strategic communication at the European Space Agency: juxtaposing strategy and public attitudes

Advocacy, Internal and External

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About