Not just a normative ideal: How two-way symmetric communication can be a positive model for public relations practice
The following essay was written as a Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Advanced Certificate assignment and earned the ‘distinction’ grade.
One of the most widely examined, debated and even derided theoretical models of public relations practice is the two-way symmetric model, one of four put forth by the University of Maryland’s Professor James Grunig in the early 1980s.
Criticised gently as an idealised model of PR and more severely as ‘a myth that Grunig dropped on the profession and [which] subsequently weighted the field down like an anchor for the last 25 years’ (Batchelor, 2009: online), two-way symmetry has suffered flak from both scholars and practitioners for three decades.
This critique will seek to advance understanding of two-way symmetry by examining both the criticisms levelled against the model and the reasons for its normative status. This will begin with a literature review, followed by discussion of a British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) campaign based on ‘taking the time to listen, learn and act’ in line with the two-way symmetric model.
The two-way symmetric model
Grunig first developed his models in order to ‘describe the four types of public relations that we believe have evolved through history’ (Grunig & Hunt, 1982: 21). These comprised two ‘one-way’ models and a pair of ‘two-way’ models.
The first one-way example, press agentry/publicity, is propaganda-based. Under this model, organisations disseminate messages that may not even be entirely true, with the aim of persuading receivers to change their behaviour in such a way that benefits the organisation. Crucially, the organisation has no interest in what the receivers have to say in return.
The public information model is similar inasmuch as the organisation’s mouth is open and ears closed, although under this model truth is considered an important characteristic of the message.
In contrast, the two-way asymmetric model incorporates the idea of stakeholder feedback. The word ‘asymmetry’ refers to the fact that only the organisation’s publics are expected to change their behaviour, with their feedback merely serving to inform the organisation’s programme of persuasion by helping it to evaluate attitudes.
Finally, we arrive at the two-way symmetric model. This model also incorporates stakeholder feedback but to a greater degree, such that the terms ‘sender’ and ‘receiver’ become redundant. Crucially, the feedback isn’t used solely to further the organisation’s own agenda; its purpose is to achieve mutual understanding between the organisation and its stakeholders, with the word ‘symmetric’ referring to the fact that there is behavioural change among both groups.
However, this model has been criticised by a variety of scholars. Theaker (2001:36), for example, opines that the model ‘describes a level of equality of communication not often found in real life’, while L’Etang (1996; cited in CIPR, 2009: 47) suggests that the model ‘misrepresents the reality of communications process in reality, where vested interests dictate the nature of PR practice and rarely encourage a truly balanced communications process’.
Some go even further and criticise the model as a normative theory, with the likes of Laskin (2009: 46) doubting that two-way symmetry could exist at all in the real world.
Given such criticisms, it is perhaps little surprise that the two-way symmetric model did not fare well in the findings of arguably the largest study of PR practice ever conducted. Commissioned in 1985 by the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Research Foundation, the Excellence study sought to determine ‘how, why, and to what extent communication affects the achievement of organizational objectives’ (Grunig et al, 2002: ix).
The key conclusion drawn on two-way symmetry was that ‘the two-way symmetrical model appears to be a normative ideal for public relations practice’ (Grunig et al, 2002: 377). That is to say it is how PR should be practised but not how it actually is practised.
Grunig et al (2002: 377) further concluded: ‘Organizations that define public relations as a marketing function, in particular, tend to see public relations only in asymmetrical terms – or in one-way terms’. This echoes some of Grunig and Hunt’s (1982: 22) earlier sentiments: ‘the definitions [of public relations] that stress persuasion … fit the description of the two-way asymmetric model. Those that stress mutual understanding fit the two-way symmetric model’.
This leads us to the point at which we must begin if we are to examine the two-way symmetric model’s criticisms and the reasons for its lack of real-world usage: the simple fact that there is no single industry-wide definition of PR.
Tench and Yeomans (2006: 4) put this down to the fact that PR is ‘used in a huge range of industries and in each one slightly different skills and competencies have emerged among practitioners’. This, they say, is why ‘there is no one universally agreed definition of PR’.
Miller (1989; cited in Grunig et al, 2002: 312) described PR and persuasion as being ‘two Ps in a pod’, while Porter (2010: 127-129) suggests that PR’s real purpose is to ‘persuade and ultimately influence behaviour’. If one agrees and perceives PR to be a marketing function whose purpose is to persuade, then two-way symmetry does indeed seem somewhat nonsensical and therefore irrelevant. However, if one instead takes the view espoused by the likes of the CIPR that PR is about reputation (CIPR: online), or to a greater degree those that suggest it is about relationships, then the model gains traction.
The general PR theory of stakeholder management, for instance, is based on the notion of PR being about relationships, which Ehling (1992; cited in Botan & Hazleton, 2006: 468) suggests is representative PR shifting from an erstwhile raison d'être of manipulation to being about the ‘building, nurturing, and maintenance of relationships’.
It is interesting to note that while Ehling talks about a shift from manipulation to relationship building, some of PR’s early definitions were borne of the latter. For example, in 1952 Cutlip and Center (1952; cited in Grunig & Hunt, 1982: 42) defined PR as: ‘the communication and interpretation of ideas and information to the publics of an institution; the communication and interpretation of information, ideas, and opinions from those publics to the institution in an effort to bring the two into harmonious adjustment’. One would be forgiven for thinking that Cutlip and Center were describing the two-way symmetric model itself, rather than PR as a whole.
Cutlip et al (2006: 4) later quoted Yale professor Harwood L. Childs, who believed that the purpose of PR ‘is to reconcile or adjust in the public interest those aspects of our personal and corporate behaviour which have a social significance’. That said, they also recognised that ‘many still define public relations as merely persuasion’, acknowledging that such a view was reflected in the early writings of Edward Bernays, one of the profession’s founding fathers.
So, it could be that two-way symmetry is so rarely employed simply because persuasion has prevailed over relationships in the definitions debate. But it may also be that the model has simply been misunderstood by many PR professionals.
Perhaps critics have taken the word ‘symmetry’ and the term ‘balanced effects’ too literally and thus concluded that the model requires the balance of power, communication and behavioural change between an organisation and its stakeholders to be absolutely equal.
However, in this context ‘symmetry’ only denotes that the model works in the interests of both the organisation and its stakeholders rather than just the former, while ‘balanced effects’ merely refers to the fact that both groups change – or are willing to change – their behaviour to some degree. The model does not actually decree that the balance of communication and behavioural change between the two groups must somehow be equal.
Harrison (2000: 46) is one of the few scholars who appear to view two-way symmetry in such terms, suggesting that a simple example of the model in practice would be for the police to meet with local community representatives to discuss heightened car theft. At the end of the process, says Harrison, the police should have a better understanding of the
community’s concerns and what it wants to see done differently, while the community should understand what the police can and cannot do to solve the problem.
We should view two-way symmetry simply as an approach to communication involving an organisation and its stakeholders engaging in dialogue to achieve greater mutual understanding and subsequently changing their behaviour – if necessary – for mutual benefit. Is that really such an unrealistic ideal? Or is it in fact a relatively straightforward and logical model when applied in the correct environment?
The correct environment would not be the persuasion-based consumer PR practices of competitive business, for which two-way asymmetry is a better fit, tailored as it is to benefitting the organisation first and foremost. Instead, two-way symmetry should become relevant to all organisations – particularly non-competitive organisations or regulated business – that view PR primarily in terms of reputation and relationships.
In such cases stakeholder engagement should be on the communications agenda and, as Theaker (2001: 117) points out, organisations adjusting their goals to accommodate stakeholder views is ‘key to public relations people implementing a stakeholder approach’. Theaker further suggests that a lack of symmetrical activity in the context of such an approach could be viewed as a ‘bastardisation of term’. In other words a stakeholder approach without a degree of symmetry is akin to a motor car without a motor.
However, Theaker (2001: 117) adds a cautionary note, highlighting that the ability to achieve real engagement has been contested. The best way to counter such contestations is to delve into a case study of successful stakeholder engagement, one of the finest being British Nuclear Fuels’ National Stakeholder Dialogue of 1998 to 2004, which bore many of the two- way symmetric model’s hallmarks.
British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
Until its closure in 2010 as part of the coalition government’s ‘bonfire of the quangos’ (Curtis, 2012: online), British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) was a government-owned nuclear energy company.
In the mid-1990s BNFL watched as another energy company, Shell UK, came under fire from political and public groups after announcing its intention to sink a decommissioned oil rig, Brent Spar, in the Atlantic Ocean. Greenpeace, for example, occupied the rig, while others boycotted Shell products. A Shell rig in Germany was even firebombed (BBC, 1998: online).
After losing millions of dollars, Shell eventually bowed to the pressure and changed its plans, deciding instead to decommission the rig on land. Having witnessed the damage wrought upon Shell by the stakeholder backlash, BNFL decided to review its own decision making
and stakeholder engagement processes.
The organisation thus embarked upon a communications strategy closely resembling the two-way symmetric model, the aim being to establish dialogue with stakeholders in order ‘to inform their [BNFL’s] decision-making process about the improvement of their environmental performance in the context of their overall development’ (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2010: 86).
The specific term used to describe this approach was ‘define, agree and implement (DAI)’, which contrasts with the one-way ‘decide, announce and defend (DAD)’ approach that landed Shell UK in such hot water. The new strategy introduced a number of symmetrical elements to BNFL’s decision making process, such as:
Identifying all stakeholders affected by a decision
Understanding their interests and concerns
Jointly agreeing processes and agendas
Mutually developing trust with stakeholders
Sharing information, even if confidential or sensitive (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2010: 87-88).
This dialogic strategy was most vigorously tested in the early 2000s when Norwegian stakeholders emerged with environmental concerns, specifically that nuclear waste – Technetium-99 discharges – from BNFL’s Sellafield site in Cumbria was being carried north by ocean currents and contaminating marine life. This was particularly serious given that the 25,000 inhabitants of the Lofoten islands, situated off the Norwegian coast, are heavily reliant on their surrounding waters (Madslien, 2003: online).
The stakeholders concerned included: the Bellona Foundation, an international environmental NGO based in Norway; Lofoten mot Sellafield, an anti-Sellafield pressure group; the Norwegian government; and a number of UK government departments.
Rather than responding to these stakeholders’ concerns by attempting to control the message and write the narrative, as it might have done under the press agentry/publicity model, or trying to persuade them to come round to its way of thinking, as per two-way asymmetry, the BFNL communications team set about a process of intense dialogue using the following tactics:
Being open and honest with stakeholders
Talking and meeting regularly
Developing close personal relationships
Jointly recording and agreeing actions to avoid potential misunderstandings (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2010: 89).
Perhaps the most symmetrical element of the entire BNFL campaign was a joint international conference with its Nordic stakeholders on solutions for the discharge of Tc-99. It is notable that when the idea was first floated, BNFL’s managers greeted it with ‘extreme caution’ and the communications team had to work hard to convince them – and other UK stakeholders – that it should go ahead (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2010: 90).
This is perhaps indicative of why two-way symmetry has struggled to acquire positive status; organisations’ dominant coalitions – those with the power to determine the organisation’s goals (Grunig et al, 2002: 141) – are afraid of rescinding power or potentially acting against their own interests by taking a symmetrical approach.
Nevertheless, with the communications team having won the argument the conference went ahead at Summergrove Hall, near Sellafield on 22-23 April 2003, co-hosted by BNFL, Bellona Foundation and Lofoten mot Sellafield (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2002:91).
The conference’s concluding statement confirmed that the various participants had ‘achieved a better understanding of each other’s respective positions’ (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2010: 92). Specifically, BNFL recognised that Tc-99 could pose a risk to the Norwegian marine harvest industry, while Bellona Foundation and Lofoten mot Sellafield understood that BNFL was taking steps to solve the issue by seeking permission to trial the use of tetraphenylphosphonium bromide (TPP), a chemical that could be used to separate Tc-99 from liquid waste (Bakke, 2003: online).
Following the conference Margaret Beckett, UK Secretary of State, approved the TPP trial, which went on to reduce Tc-99 discharges at Sellafield by 90 per cent (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2010: 93). This represents the behavioural change in the organisation called for by the two-way symmetric model.
Meanwhile the behavioural change among stakeholders included the disbanding of Lofoten mot Sellafield, which stated: ‘This cooperation with BNFL started with a certain amount of scepticism, went soon to dialogue and ended with happiness. This dialogue and cooperation gave us the result that we dreamt about’ (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2010: 94).
In terms of the two-way symmetric model this is significant, for there appears to be a common misconception that it entails an organisation and its stakeholders bowing to each other’s every command during the two-way communication process – a situation that would inevitably lead to stalemate.
However, at no point in Grunig’s descriptions of the model is it suggested that each group has to do exactly what the other wants. Instead the model is based on the idea that the organisation and its stakeholders send messages back and forth in an on-going cycle with the purpose of achieving mutual understanding. In other words, the desired outcome is for the organisation and its stakeholders to understand and accept each other’s positions, even if they differ from each other’s original wishes.
In this case, Lofoten mot Sellafield’s original wish had been for Sellafield to be shut down. However, during the process of two-way symmetric communication it gained a better understanding of BNFL’s position and thus adjusted its own position accordingly, just as BNFL did by revising its waste treatment processes.
The BNFL National Stakeholder Dialogue, and particularly the organisation’s dialogic approach to Nordic stakeholders, could be described as a clear real-world case of two-way symmetric communication leading to greater mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics, resulting in mutually beneficial behavioural change among both groups.
It is also a shining example of how two-way symmetry can be an effective tool for issues management, which is about helping organisations to ‘make adaptions needed to achieve harmony and foster mutual interests with the communities in which they operate’ (Heath, 1997; cited in L’Etang & Pieczka, 2006: 15).
And needless to say, a slew of positive media coverage followed the Sellafield conference, particularly in Norway (Osborne & Huston in Moss et al, 2020: 94).
The two-way symmetric model of public relations is nothing if not divisive. For some it represents an ethical approach to PR with the potential to benefit not just an organisation but its publics too, but for many practitioners who are somewhat ‘preoccupied with the task of generating publicity – if only to justify their existence’ (Kitchen, 1997: 11) it has simply not made sense thus far.
However, that is not to say that two-way symmetry is an unrealistic ideal, as many critics have suggested. The BNFL case study shows that if an organisation’s communications team can convince its dominant coalition of the merits of a symmetrical approach, then it can improve important stakeholder relationships, dissolve issues and enhance the reputation not just of an organisation but of an entire industry. Therefore if more communicators can better understand the model and advocate it whenever possible and appropriate, two-way symmetry could yet shed its normative status.
Furthermore, the rise of Web 2.0, the inherently interactive and conversational second generation of the Internet (Wilcox & Cameron, 2012: 334), will likely act as wind in the model’s sails, since it helps to balance communication and accountability between an organisation and its publics by allowing the latter – en masse – to send publicly visible feedback at the click of a button.
Moreover, practitioners must now consider Phillips’ (2001: 2-3) warning that the ‘spin’ which has often been produced by persuasive PR activity now ‘inevitably finds its way into the information-hungry Internet and is thereafter a threat to relationships, a hidden canker and latent threat to the survival of the organization. Untruths, half-truths and extravagant claims become a reputation time bomb. This is why organizations and practitioners need to apply professional, ethical PR discipline to relationship management both online and offline’.
As this becomes ever more the case, so it should follow that two-way symmetry becomes an increasingly viable option for practitioners seeking an ethical approach. Signitzer & Wasmer (in Botan & Hazleton, 2006: 456) would appear to concur with this view, suggesting that a two-way symmetric approach would form the basis of a societally beneficial role of PR.
If realised, this could even help the profession to shed its somewhat stigmatised image – ‘You would be hard pushed to find an industry which is as gleefully vilified as the noble profession of public relations – otherwise known as ‘the latrine of parasitic misinformation’ as it was dubbed by the Guardian’ (Farish, 1998; cited in Moloney, 2000: 23) – which was by far the most common grievance among practitioners surveyed for PR Week’s 2012 Power Book (PR Week, 2012: 14).
However, from this critique of the two-way symmetric model we can perhaps draw another conclusion of even greater significance: the development and understanding of PR theory and practice is being smothered by the industry’s failure to reach an agreed definition of the profession.
PR remains a relatively young field – although Edward Bernays argued that publicity stretches back as far as ancient Egpyt (Baines et al, 2004: 3) – but we must recognise that well over a century has passed since Ivy Lee established Parker and Lee, his first PR firm (Wilcox & Cameron, 2012: 45).
It could therefore be argued that ample time has passed for the PR industry to settle on a common definition of its profession and the sooner it does so, the better for theorists and practitioners alike.
Bibliography
BAKKE, Hanne. (2003) Sellafield launches trial waste treatment for technetium 99 [online]
http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/energy/nuclear/sellafield/31459 [accessed 19
October 2012]
BATCHELOR, Bob. (2009) Blog comment to Desperately seeking symmetry [online]
http://prstudies.typepad.com/weblog/2009/05/twoway-yes-symmetrical-no.html [accessed 19
October 2012]
BBC. (1998) Brent Spar gets chop [online]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/221508.stm [accessed 19 October 2012]
BOTAN, Carl and HAZLETON, Vincent, Public Relations Theory II. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 2006
CIPR. About PR [online] http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/about-us/about-pr [accessed 19
October 2012]
CIPR, The Public Relations Digest: A Collection of Leading Works for Students of CIPR Qualifications. Essex: Pearson Education, 2009
CUTLIP, Scott, CENTER, Allen and BROOM, Glen, Effective Public Relations, 10th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2006
GRUNIG, James, GRUNIG, Larissa, and DOZIER, David, Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. New York, NY: Routledge, 2002
GRUNIG, James and HUNT, Todd, Managing Public Relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 1984
HARRISON, Shirley, Public Relations: An Introduction, 2nd edition. London: Thomson
Learning, 2000
KITCHEN, Philip J., Public Relations Principles and Practice. London: Thomson Learning,
1997
LASKIN, Alexander, The evolution of models of public relations: an outsider’s perspective, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 13 Iss: 1, 2010 pp. 37-54
L’ETANG, Jacquie and PIECZKA, Magda, Public Relations: Critical Debates and
Contemporary Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006
MADSLIEN, Jorn. (2003) Fishermen vent anger at nuclear waste [online]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2941073.stm [accessed 19 October 2012]
MOLONEY, Kevin, Rethinking Public Relations: the spin and the substance. London: Routledge, 2000
MOSS, Danny, POWELL, Melanie and DeSANTO, Barbara, Public Relations Cases: International Perspectives. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010
PHILLIPS, David, Online Public Relations. London: Konan Page, 2001
PORTER, Lance, Communicating for the good of the state: A post-symmetrical polemic persuasion in ethical public relations. Public Relations Review 36, 2010 pp. 127-133
PR Week, Power Book 2012: the definitive guide to the most influential people in PR. London: Haymarket, 2012
TENCH, Ralph and YEOMANS, Liz, Exploring Public Relations. Harlow, Essex: Pearson
Education Limited, 2006
THEAKER, Alison, The Public Relations Handbook, 4th edition. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2012
WILCOX, Dennis and CAMERON, Glen, Public Relations Strategies and Tactics, 10th edition. Glenview, IL: Pearson, 2012
© Tim Swietochowski, autoprose.tumblr.com, 2013.
