Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation

Full text

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
1
Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation
James E. Grunig, University of Maryland
Abstract
Although the attention being paid to the new
digital media may be the latest fad in public
relations, these new media have the potential
to make the profession more global, strategic,
two-way and interactive, symmetrical or
dialogical, and socially responsible.
However, many practitioners are using the
new media in the same ways they used the
old—as a means of dumping messages on the
general population rather than as a strategic
means of interacting with publics and
bringing information from the environment
into organizational decision-making. For
public relations to fully use digital media,
practitioners and scholars must
reinstitutionalise public relations as a
behavioural, strategic management paradigm
rather than as a symbolic, interpretive
paradigm. This article provides a model of
strategic public relations and offers
suggestions for the use of digital media in
each phase of this model.
Introduction
Public relations has long been a professional
practice where fads are common and
conceptualisation of faddish concepts is weak
or nonexistent. Public relations fads have
focused on such concepts as images,
perceptions, messaging, reputation, brands,
integrated marketing communication, return
on investment (ROI), strategic
communication, and corporate social
responsibility projects. Most practitioners
following these fads have skill sets that are
limited to media and media relations, and
they fervently believe that publicity in
traditional media will produce the faddish
outcome currently in vogue. Thus, it is not
surprising that so many public relations
practitioners view the new digital social media
as a revolutionary force that changes the way
they think and upsets the way they practice
public relations.
Fads change quickly, however, and public
relations practitioners have rapidly embraced
social media as being at the centre of what they
consider to be a new form of public relations.
The traditional media frenzy of so many
practitioners has been replaced by a new social
media frenzy. Each day, I receive
announcements of conferences, seminars,
online discussions, publications, books,
websites, and blogs discussing how
practitioners can use social media to
revolutionise their public relations work.
Although many practitioners have simply
transferred their traditional media skills and
techniques to digital media, the new fascination
with social media promises to have positive
consequences for the public relations
profession. If the social media are used to their
full potential, I believe they will inexorably
make public relations practice more global,
strategic, two-way and interactive, symmetrical
or dialogical, and socially responsible.
In 1996, Verčič, Grunig, and Grunig
proposed a global theory of public relations that
was elaborated by Sriramesh and Verčič (2003,
2009) in their Global Public Relations
Handbook and by Sriramesh in this special
issue of PRism. Our global public relations
theory attempted to answer the question of
whether public relations theory and practice
should be unique to each country or culture or
whether it should be practiced in the same way
everywhere. We answered this question by
theorising that global public relations should
fall in the middle between standardisation and
individualisation. We theorised that, at an
abstract level, there are a set of generic
principles that could be applied universally but

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
2
that at a local level these principles should be
applied differently in different locations. I
emphasise the words ‘could’ and ‘should’ in
the previous sentence because we did not
argue that public relations ‘is’ currently
practiced according to these principles, as, for
example, Bardhan (2003) mistakenly
interpreted one principle of the global theory
(symmetrical communication) in a study of
Indian public relations.
Our global theory is not a positive theory,
which describes a type of public relations that
currently is practiced everywhere in the
world. Research, such as that reported in the
Global Public Relations Handbook
(Sriramesh & Verčič, 2003, 2009), does show
that there are many idiosyncrasies in public
relations practice around the world that reflect
cultural differences. It also shows that the one
worldwide universal in public relations
practice is what I have called the press
agentry/publicity model (Grunig, Grunig,
Sriramesh, Huang, & Lyra, 1995)—the least
effective of the models. Rather, our global
theory is a normative theory that argues that
public relations will be most effective
throughout most parts of the world when it
follows the generic principles and applies
them with appropriate variations for local
cultural, political, social, and economic
conditions. Its absence in a country, however,
does not serve as evidence that it could not be
practiced there.
The generic principles have been described
in different ways in different publications, but
the essential principles can be summarised as:
• Empowerment of public relations.
The chief communication officer is part of or
has access to the dominant coalition or other
coalitions of senior managers who make
decisions in the organisation.
• Integrated communication function.
Excellent departments integrate all public
relations functions into a single department or
have a mechanism to coordinate the
departments responsible for different
communication activities.
• A separate management function.
Many organisations splinter the public
relations function by making it a supporting
tool for other departments such as marketing,
human resources, law, or finance. When the
function is sublimated to other functions, it
cannot move communication resources from
one strategic public to another as it becomes
more or less important—as an integrated
function can.
• Headed by a strategic manager rather
than a communication technician or an
administrative manager who supervises
technical services. Technicians are essential to
carry out day-to-day communication activities.
However, excellent public relations units have
at least one senior manager who directs public
relations programmes; or this direction will be
provided by members of the dominant coalition
who have no knowledge of public relations.
• Involved in strategic management.
Public relations develops programmes to
communicate with strategic publics, both
external and internal, who are affected by the
consequences of organisational decisions and
behaviours and who either demand or deserve a
voice in decisions that affect them—both
before and after decisions are made.
• Two-way and symmetrical
communication. Two-way, symmetrical public
relations uses research, listening, and dialogue
to manage conflict and to cultivate relationships
with both internal and external strategic publics
more than one-way and asymmetrical
communication.
• Diverse. Effective organisations attempt
to increase the diversity in the public relations
function when the diversity in their
environments increases. Excellent public
relations includes both men and women in all
roles, as well as practitioners of different racial,
ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.
• Ethical. Public relations departments
practice ethically and promote ethical and
socially responsible organisational decisions
and behaviours.
We have identified six contextual conditions
that should be taken into account when these
generic principles are applied multinationally:
culture, the political system, the economic
system, level of economic development, the
extent and nature of activism, and the media
system (see Sriramesh’s discussion of the

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
3
contextual conditions in this special issue). At
times, these contextual conditions make it
difficult to apply the generic principles, such
as in a country with an individualistic or
masculine culture, an authoritarian political
system, or a low level of activism.
Nevertheless, I believe that the principles can
be practiced incrementally, and carefully,
almost everywhere. The new digital media, I
also believe, are a global force that conform
well to the generic principles and that make it
possible to overcome the contextual
conditions that limit the practice of these
principles.
As of June 30, 2009, there were
1,668,870,408 internet users in the world—
24% of the world’s population of nearly 6.8
billion (Internet World Stats, 2009). The
percentage of the population that uses the
internet ranges from 6.7% in Africa to 73.9%
in North America. Internet usage is higher in
developed regions of the world (50.1% in
Europe and 60.1% in Oceania/Australia) than
in developing regions (23.7% in the Middle
East and 30.0% in the Latin
American/Caribbean region). Although only
18.5% of the Asian population uses the
internet, 42.2% of all internet users in the
world are in Asia. In addition, internet use
worldwide grew 362% from 2000 to 2009,
including 516% in Asia, 1,360% in the
Middle East and Africa, and 873% in the
Latin American/Caribbean region. Finally, in
2008, China surpassed the United States as
having more internet users than any other
country in the world (CNN.com, 2009). On
December 31, 2008, there were 298 million
internet users in China, 22% of the
population, with an annual growth rate of
41.9% (China Internet Network Information
Center, 2009).
The statistical evidence, therefore, is clear.
A huge proportion of the world’s population
now has access to and is using digital media,
and usage in developing countries is catching
up to that in developing countries. In addition,
digital media have made most public relations
global and force organisations to think
globally about their public relations practice.
Public relations departments of organisations
are moving rapidly to adjust to this change in
media. According to a report from iPressroom,
Trendstream, PRSA, and Korn/Ferry
International, as reported in PR News online
(2009), 51% of public relations departments in
the United States are responsible for digital
communication, 49% for blogging, 48% for
social networking, and 52% for micro blogging
(such as text messaging, instant messaging, and
Twittering). In addition, a 2007 study by the
Arthur Page Society, a US association of chief
corporate communication officers, included
“Leadership in enabling the enterprise with
‘new media’ skill and tools” (p. 7) as one of
four priorities and skills that will be needed by
chief communication officers (CCOs) in the
future. (The other three skills, which fit
squarely into our global theory of public
relations, were leadership in defining and
instilling company values, building and
managing multi-stakeholder relationships, and
building and managing trust.)
Recent books on online public relations,
such as Phillips and Young (2009) and Solis
and Breakenridge (2009) have argued that the
digital media have changed everything for
public relations: “The Web has changed
everything” (Solis & Breakenridge, 2009, p. 1);
“… it is hard to avoid making the claim that
‘the internet changes everything.’ … for public
relations the unavoidable conclusion is that
nothing will ever be the same again” (Phillips
& Young, 2009, p.1). In one sense, I agree with
these assertions. For most practitioners, digital
media do change everything about the way they
practice public relations. Other practitioners,
however, doggedly use the new media in the
same way that they used traditional media.
From a theoretical perspective, in addition, I do
not believe digital media change the public
relations theory needed to guide practice,
especially our generic principles of public
relations. Rather, the new media facilitate the
application of the principles and, in the future,
will make it difficult for practitioners around
the world not to use the principles.
Abandoning the illusion of control
Most of the discussions I have heard about the
impact of the digital media on public relations

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
4
have begun with the assertion that
communication professionals previously
could control the flow of messages and
influence from the organisations they
represent to their publics—usually by trying
to control the information entering traditional
media. With the advent of digital media, the
arguments continue, neither public relations
practitioners nor journalists working in
traditional media are able to control the flow
of information. Anyone now can be a
journalist, members of publics can talk freely
to each other about organisations, and
information is widely available to everyone
with little cost and effort. Although I agree
that digital media now make control of
communication largely impossible, I also
believe that the assumed control of messages
and influence has always been an illusion
rather than a reality of public relations
practice.
The illusion of control comes from a
traditional paradigm of public relations that
views public relations as a messaging,
publicity, informational, and media relations
function. Practitioners who think within that
paradigm emphasise publications, news,
communication campaigns, and media
contacts in their work. Often, they define
public relations as a marketing
communication function that supports
marketing through media publicity or by
combining publicity with advertising in a
programme of ‘integrated marketing
communication’. Practitioners within this
paradigm generally believe that they can
control what messages members of publics
are exposed to. Often they describe the
recipients of their messages as audiences,
rather than publics, which further suggests an
illusion of control. These practitioners also
typically believe that organisations can
define, or even create, their publics and
‘target’ them. Then, they believe that publics
can be persuaded—i.e., that their cognitions,
attitudes or behaviours can be influenced
through asymmetrical communication—
communication designed to promote the
interests of the organisation with little or no
concern for the interest of publics.
Persuasion, as explained by these practitioners,
usually takes place when messages change the
cognitive representations in the minds of
publics—representations they typically call
images, reputations, brands, impressions,
perceptions, or similar names. These cognitive
representations, therefore, supposedly can be
‘managed’ through programmes given such
names as image management, reputation
management, brand management, or perception
management.
In contrast to the paradigm that produces this
illusion of control, research that my colleagues,
my students, and I have conducted over the
years yields a different picture of the public
relations process and discredits the notion that
control ever occurred. This research reflects a
behavioural, strategic management paradigm of
public relations rather than a messaging and
purely cognitive paradigm. This paradigm
describes public relations as a participant in
organisational decision-making rather than a
conveyor of messages about decisions after
they are made by other managers. It also views
public relations as research-based and a
mechanism for organisational listening and
learning. Its purpose is to help all management
functions, including but not limited to
marketing, to build relationships with their
stakeholders through communication
programmes that cultivate relationships with
the publics that can be found within categories
of stakeholders that are relevant to each
management function.
Extensive research on a situational theory of
publics (Grunig, 1997) has shown that members
of publics always have controlled the messages
to which they are exposed—not the
organisations or media that disseminate
messages intended for them. Research on the
theory began with studies in the 1960s of
Colombian peasant farmers (Grunig, 1971) and
large landowners (Grunig, 1969), studies that
showed that even poorly educated peasant
farmers in a developing country control their
own exposure to information. Recently, Kim
(2006) and Kim and Grunig (in press) extended
this theory to explain why and how people not
only control their exposure to information but
also why and how they develop cognitions and

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
5
give information to others as publics move
from loose aggregations of people facing
similar problems to active publics
communicating with each other.
Thus, the situational theory shows that
publics create themselves and that they are
motivated to do so by the problems they
experience in their life situations.
Stakeholders, therefore, define their stakes in
an organisation; organisations cannot do that
for them. Many of the problems that bring
publics into existence are caused by the
consequences of an organisation’s behaviours
on people both inside and outside the
organisation—such as loss of a job, an unsafe
product, pollution, interference with
government decisions, or discrimination.
Other problems are simply experienced by
members of publics, and they seek help from
organisations to solve those problems, such as
a drug to cure the disease AIDS,
unemployment, or excessive traffic. There are
many people who are not members of active
publics, whom I have described as passive or
non-publics—even though the organisation
might want them to be publics. Typically,
public relations people try to create active
publics by disseminating messages to passive
or non-publics; but those messages have little
effect because non-publics are not exposed to
them and passive publics hear and remember
little of the messages.
Our research also shows that programmes
of symmetrical communication are more
successful than asymmetrical communication
in building relationships between
organisations and publics (see, for example,
Grunig, 2001; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon &
Grunig, 1999)—further undermining the
persuasion assumption underlying the illusion
of control. Finally, research shows that
reputations, images, brands, and other types
of cognitive representations are what
members of different publics think and say to
each other, not something that organisations
can create or manage (Bromley, 1993; Grunig
& Hung, 2002). In addition, our research
shows that these cognitive representations
reflect organisational decisions and
behaviours, the extent of active
communication with publics, and the quality of
organisation-public relationships (Yang, 2007;
Yang & Grunig, 2005). Therefore, the only way
in which public relations managers can
‘manage’ cognitive representations is by
participating in managing the behaviours of
organisations and by managing communication
with publics in order to cultivate relationships
with them. In their book Online Public
Relations, Phillips and Young (2009)
maintained that this
Excellence model developed by James
Grunig and various collaborators has
provided the underlying paradigm that
has dominated much public relations
theory for over 20 years. The issue now
for those trying to understand the
changes being brought about by the
internet society is to determine whether
the developments outlined in this book
are sufficiently dramatic to challenge
the Grunig model. Let’s try. (p. 247)
The Excellence model they described can be
found in Grunig (1992) and Grunig, Grunig,
and Dozier (2001). It has produced the global
theory of generic principles and specific
applications described at the beginning of this
article. The Excellence model actually is much
more than a model. It is a general theory that is
made up of a number of middle-range theories
such as a theory of public relations and
strategic management, the situational theory of
publics, practitioner roles, the organisation of
the public relations function, internal
communication, activism, ethics, and gender
and diversity. Today’s digital world, according
to Phillips and Young (2009), challenges the
Excellence theories because, in their words,
Excellence characterizes the vector of
communication as being between an
organization and its publics, and is
concerned with the balance—the
symmetry—of this transaction. The bold
claim that emerges from the arguments
put forward for ‘the new PR’ is that the
fundamental vector of communication
that shapes reputation and an
organization’s relationship with its
stakeholders has flipped through 90
degrees. Now, the truly significant

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
6
discourse is that which surrounds an
organization, product or service, a
conversation that is enabled and given
form and substance by the interlinked,
aggregated messages that emerge from
internet mediated social networks.
(pp. 247-248)
In contrast, I do not believe that the
‘internet society’ or the ‘new PR’ challenges
the Excellence paradigm, as Phillips and
Young argued in these two passages. They
seem to believe that ‘an organisation and its
publics’ are distinct from ‘internet-mediated
social networks’. Instead, I believe that an
organisation and its publics now are
embedded in internet-mediated social
networks but that public relations is still
about an organisation’s relationships with its
publics. Organisations do not need
relationships with individuals who are not
members of their publics even though these
people might be actively communicating with
and building relationships with each other.
Organisations simply do not have the time or
resources to cultivate relationships with
everyone—only with individuals or groups
who have stakes in organisations because of
consequences that publics or organisations
have or might have on each other.
At the same time, I believe that the internet
society has empowered publics in a way that
is truly revolutionary. People now are less
constrained by the information that traditional
media choose to make available to them or
that organisations choose to disclose directly
or through the media. Now, members of
publics, as well as journalists, can seek
information from millions of sources,
anywhere in the world. Members of publics
can interact with each other, and publics as a
collectivity can interact with any organisation
they choose and with other publics whenever
they want. Conversations are taking place
within and among publics throughout the
world, and organisations must now use public
relations to join these conversations. These
conversations may still include journalists
writing online or in the traditional media1
I believe that similar conversations took
place before the advent of the digital media but
that they were far more limited then. Digital
media now make it easier for publics to form
and to establish relationships anywhere in the
world. They also make mediated dialog as easy
as interpersonal dialogue—mediated dialogue
that Phillips and Young (2009) described as “a
conversation that is enabled and given form and
substance by the interlinked, aggregated
messages that emerge from internet-mediated
social networks” (p. 252). Thus, rather than
challenging the Excellence theories, I believe
that the digital media actually facilitate the
theories and make it much easier for
organisations to apply them—if, indeed, they
choose to do so.
, but
people now have many more sources of
information available to them than
journalistically mediated sources.
Using new media in the old way
The new digital media have dialogical,
interactive, relational, and global properties that
make them perfectly suited for a strategic
management paradigm of public relations—
properties that one would think would force
public relations practitioners to abandon their
traditional one-way, message-oriented,
asymmetrical and ethnocentric paradigm of
practice. However, history shows that when
new media are introduced communicators tend
to use them in the same way that they used the
old media.
For example, journalists first used television
just as they used radio. Accustomed to reading
news on the radio, they continued to read the
news on television without making use of the
pictures that the new medium allowed.
Similarly, Mark Westaby, the founder of the
London-based media analysis firm Metrica,
pointed out in an online discussion that the
same pattern occurred in “the film industry
when ‘talkies’ first came along … [and] …
1 For example, a 2006 report by Edelman and First&42nd
found that bloggers are more likely to comment on issues
of corporate social responsibility identified by
mainstream media than to initiate these issues
themselves.

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
7
producers just started to film plays and stage
shows … they didn’t understand or appreciate
that talkies enabled film to be used in a
completely different way, which would allow
it to become a new medium in its own right”
(Research., 2009, posted 16-Jun-2009, 11:04
p.m.).
In the same way, public relations
practitioners first used online media as an
information dump, in the same way that they
used traditional media, newsletters, and
publications. Web sites were used to
disseminate information and to post
publications and news releases. Employee
intranets largely have been online newsletters.
Email has been used to push promotional
messages to the extent that they have been
named spam. Social media are being used to
disseminate marketing messages through such
techniques as viral marketing. Spamming has
grown so much that SoftScan, a British
internet security company, reported that in
July 2007 91.52% of all email messages were
spam (as quoted in Phillips & Young, 2009,
p. 14). Russell Powell (2009), a public
relations officer at Elms College in
Massachusetts (USA), has pointed out that
young people are turning away from email
because it is messy, inefficient, takes too
much time, is vulnerable to spam, and lacks
immediacy. He added, “… if we choose to
flood the social-networking sites with
marketing messages, we likely will hasten
their demise” (p. A43).
The use of the digital media as though they
were the old media typically has been named
Web 1.0, which supposedly has been replaced
by Web 2.0 that takes advantage of the
interactive and dialogic characteristics of
these new media. However, the switch from
Web 1.0 to 2.0 has not been universal. As
Fitch (2009) points out in this special issue,
communicators in Singapore are still
confused over what the new media are and
still confuse public relations with marketing
when they think of how to use them.
In his blog, LeverWealth, Phillips (2009)
constructed a model of digital communication
tools to show how they fit into four models of
public relations that approximate my press
agentry/publicity, public-information, two-way
asymmetrical, and two-way symmetrical
models of public relations (see Grunig &
Grunig, 1992). As shown in Figure 1 (over the
page), he called these models propaganda,
information, one-way asymmetrical, and two-
way symmetrical. Although, as I have argued in
this article, the digital media would seem to
force communicators toward the two-way
symmetrical model, Figure 1 shows that digital
tools exist for each of the models. For example,
static web sites can be used to implement the
propaganda model; frequently updated web
sites the information model; blogs with
comment enabled the one-way asymmetrical
model; and open corporate social media sites,
Twitter, and interactive online community
contribution the two-way symmetrical model.
Likewise, many of the same ethical
problems that have plagued traditional public
relations continue to occur in online public
relations. The most common of these problems
has been the use of fake blogs (or flogs) to give
the impression that a blog created by an
organisation or a public relations firm on behalf
of a client to praise the client is managed by a
blogger who is unaffiliated with the
organisation. Also common is Astroturfing, the
practice of public relations practitioners posting
favourable messages on blogs or social media
sites without disclosing the actual identity of
the person posting or their relationship with the
organisation they are touting. Both practices
violate a disclosure principle of persuasion
ethics—that a persuasive communicator has an
obligation to disclose whom he or she is and
what his or her interests are in the topic
promoted in persuasive messages. (Grunig &
Grunig, 1996).

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
8
Figure 1: A new media adaptation of the models of public relations
Source: Phillips, D. (2009).
To understand why many public relations
practitioners use the new digital media in old
ways, I believe it helps to distinguish between
two paradigms of public relations that existed
in the history of public relations, are practiced
widely today, underlie many academic disputes
about the discipline, and are competing for the
future of the profession. I call these paradigms
the interpretive, or symbolic, paradigm and the
strategic management, or behavioural,
paradigm. I believe that public relations cannot
take full advantage of the digital revolution if it
is practiced under the interpretive rather than
the strategic management paradigm.
Interpretive and strategic management
paradigms
In her textbook on organisational theory, Hatch
(1997) identified three perspectives on
organisations—the modernist, symbolic-
interpretive, and postmodernist perspectives.
The modernist perspective is based on classic
theories of management that view reality as
objective and management as a set of activities
designed to achieve organisational objectives—
objectives that can be measured objectively.
The symbolic-interpretive paradigm sees reality
as subjective and views concepts such as
organisations themselves, their environments,
and the behaviour of managers as subjective
enactments of reality rather than as observable

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
9
and measurable reality—enactments whose
meanings can be negotiated through
communication.
According to Hatch, postmodernism “found
its way into organization theory through
applications of linguistic, semiotic, and literary
theory via the interest in meaning and
interpretation introduced by symbolic-
interpretive organization theorists” (p. 44).
Postmodernists reject general theories and
favour fragmentation of theorising. They prefer
to ‘deconstruct’ theories to determine whose
interests are served by the theories and whose
way of thinking has been incorporated into
them. Thus, challenges to power are a major
theme in postmodern thinking.
I believe that these three approaches to
organisational theory can be found in two
competing approaches to public relations: the
symbolic, interpretive, paradigm and the
strategic management, behavioural, paradigm.
The strategic management paradigm contains
elements of both modernism and
postmodernism. Thus, I would call it a semi-
postmodern approach to the role of public
relations in strategic management.
Scholars and practitioners who embrace the
symbolic paradigm in their thinking generally
assume that public relations strives to influence
how publics interpret the organisation. These
cognitive interpretations are embodied in such
concepts as image, reputation, brand,
impressions, and identity. The interpretive
paradigm can be found in the concepts of
reputation management in business schools,
integrated marketing communication in
advertising programmes, and critical and
rhetorical theory in communication
departments. Practitioners who follow the
interpretive paradigm emphasise messages,
publicity, media relations, and media effects.
Although this paradigm largely relegates
public relations to a tactical role, the use of
these tactics does reflect an underlying theory.
Communication tactics, this theory maintains,
create an impression in the minds of publics
that allow the organisation to buffer itself from
its environment—to use the words of Scott
(1987) and Van den Bosch and Van Riel,
(1998)—which in turn allows the organisation
to behave in the way it wants.
In contrast, the behavioural, strategic
management, paradigm focuses on the
participation of public relations executives in
strategic decision-making so that they can help
manage the behaviour of organisations. Van
den Bosch and Van Riel, (1998) defined this
type of public relations as a bridging, rather
than a buffering, function—again using Scott’s
(1987) terminology. Public relations as a
bridging activity is designed to build
relationships with stakeholders, rather than a set
of messaging activities designed to buffer the
organisation from them.
The strategic management paradigm
emphasises two-way communication of many
kinds to provide publics a voice in management
decisions and to facilitate dialogue between
management and publics both before and after
decisions are made. The strategic management
paradigm does not exclude traditional public
relations activities such as media relations and
the dissemination of information. Rather, it
broadens the number and types of media and
communication activities and fits them into a
framework of research and listening. As a
result, messages reflect the information needs
of publics as well as the advocacy needs of
organisations.
Critical scholars such as Weaver, Motion,
and Roper (2006) tend to view the interpretive
paradigm as the way public relations actually is
practiced and the strategic management
paradigm as “an unlikely rarity and even
something of a fantastical ideal” (p. 15). I see
these two approaches differently. I believe the
interpretive paradigm reflects the hopes of
many of the clients and employers of public
relations practitioners who prefer to make
decisions in isolation from publics. It also
represents the wishful thinking of many
practitioners who seem to believe that messages
alone can protect organisations from publics
and who promise clients and employers what
they want to hear.
Evaluation research (e.g., as reviewed by
Dozier and Ehling, 1992), however, generally
shows this interpretive paradigm to be
ineffective because it does not deliver the

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
10
effects its advocates promise. Most importantly,
the interpretive approach does not provide a
normative model for how public relations
should be practised—a model that can be
taught to aspiring public relations professionals
or used as a template for constructing a public
relations function. The strategic management
paradigm, I believe, provides such a normative
model for an ethical, effective, and both
organisationally and socially valued approach
to public relations practice.
There has been a great deal of discussion
among public relations scholars about whether
the strategic management approach to public
relations represents a modern or postmodern
approach to management as described by Hatch
(1997). Critical scholars such as L’Etang and
Pieczka (1996) and Leitch and Neilson (2001)
and postmodern scholars such as Holtzhausen
and Voto (2002) have claimed that the strategic
management theory is modernist—that it only
helps organisations control their environment
rather than provide publics in that environment
a bridge to the organisation and a voice in
management decisions. They claim that public
relations serves only the interests of
management or organisations and not the
interests of publics or society.
In contrast, I believe that public relations
departments that are empowered as a strategic
management function rather than only as an
interpretive function represent more of a
postmodern approach to management than a
modern approach. Knights and Morgan (1991)
and Knights (1992) have described postmodern
strategic management as a subjective process in
which the participants from different
management disciplines (such as marketing,
finance, law, human resources, or public
relations) assert their disciplinary identities.
Public relations has value in this perspective
because it brings a different set of problems and
possible solutions into the strategic
management arena. In particular, it brings the
problems of publics as well as the problems of
management into decision-making.
I believe that public relations provides
organisations a way to give voice to and
empower publics in organisational decision-
making (a postmodern perspective). At the
same time, public relations benefits
organisations by helping them make decisions,
develop policies, provide services, and behave
in ways that are accepted by and sought out by
their stakeholder publics—thus increasing the
organisation’s revenue, reducing its costs, and
reducing its risk (a semi-modernist
perspective).
Thus, the strategic management theory of
public relations contains elements of both
modernism and postmodernism, although I do
not adhere rigorously to the assumptions of
either approach. For example, although
postmodernists dismiss general theories as
metanarratives or “grand narratives” (Hatch,
1997, p. 44), I believe in the importance of
integrating and enlarging theories. I also
embrace the centrality of subjectivity in both
theorising and communicating—the central
assumption of the symbolic-interpretive
approach (see Grunig, 1993). However, I
believe the symbolic-interpretive paradigm
devotes excessive attention to the role of
communication and public relations in
negotiating meaning and not enough attention
to their role in negotiating the behaviour of
both organisations and publics.
Although placing most public relations
thinking into two categories is always an
oversimplification, I do believe that identifying
these two ways of thinking helps us to
understand controversies in the discipline and
to understand why much public relations
practice is not adjusting to the opportunities
presented by the digital media. To a large
extent, I believe that the interpretive paradigm
has been institutionalised in the way most
journalists and people in general think about
public relations. To a lesser extent, this
paradigm also describes how a large portion of
the managers for whom public relations people
work and a large portion of practitioners
themselves think about public relations. Thus, I
believe it will be necessary to reinstitutionalise
public relations as a strategic management
discipline before it can reach its full potential as
a profession that serves the interests of society
as well as organisations. And, I believe the
digital media will not be used to their full
potential without this reinstitutionalisation.

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
11
It is important, then, to look at how
digital media can be used in a strategic
management approach to public relations.
Digital media in the strategic management of
public relations
In the Excellence study (Grunig, Grunig, &
Dozier, 2002), we found that the most effective
public relations departments participated in, or
were consulted in, the making of overall
strategic decisions in organisations. Less
effective departments generally had the less
central role of disseminating messages about
strategic decisions made by others in the
organisation. By participating in organisational
decisions, excellent public relations
departments were in a position to identify the
stakeholders who would be affected by
organisational decisions or who would affect
those decisions. Once they had identified
stakeholders, excellent public relations
departments strategically developed
programmes to communicate with them. They
conducted formative research to identify
potential issues and define objectives for
programmes to communicate with the
stakeholders, they specified measurable
objectives for the communication programmes,
and they used both formal and informal
methods to evaluate whether the objectives had
been accomplished. Less excellent departments
conducted no formative or evaluative research
and generally had only vague objectives that
were difficult to measure.
Figure 2 (below) depicts this role of an
excellent public relations department in the
overall strategic management process of an
organisation and the nature of strategic
management of public relations programmes.
Figure 2 is useful in understanding how digital
media can be used in all phases of this public
relations process. The central concepts in
Figure 2 are management decisions at the top,
stakeholders and publics on the right, and
relationship outcomes on the left. Connecting
management and publics are the consequences
Organizational
Reputation
Management
Decisions
Communication Programs
(Relationship Cultivation
Strategies)
Issues
Achievement of
Organizational Goals
Crisis
Management
Relationship
Outcomes
Consequences
Consequences
Behavior of Publics
Creates
Figure 2. Model of Strategic Management of Public Relations
Stakeholders
Publics
P1
Pi
P2
No Consequences

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
12
that the behaviour of each has on the other—the
interdependence between an organisation and
its environment that creates the need for public
relations. The double arrows between
management decisions and stakeholders at the
upper right of Figure 2 show that strategic
decision-makers of an organisation should
interact with stakeholders through the public
relations function because their decisions have
consequences on publics or because the
organisation needs supportive relationships
with stakeholders in order to implement
decisions and achieve organisational goals.
Stakeholders also might seek a relationship
with an organisation in order to attain a
consequence from the organisation to solve a
problem it recognises—such as an
environmental group that seeks a reduction in
pollution from a chemical plant or nuclear
laboratory. Thus the consequences of
organisational decisions (and behaviours
resulting from those decisions) define the
stakeholders of an organisation and, therefore,
the stakeholders with whom the organisation
needs a relationship.
I define stakeholders as broad categories of
people who might be affected by management
decisions or who might affect those decisions—
such as employees or community residents.
When a strategic public relations manager
scans the environment, therefore, his or her first
step should be to think broadly in terms of
stakeholder categories. Then he or she should
use a theory of publics—e.g., Grunig’s (1997)
situational theory of publics—to identify and
segment active, passive, and latent publics from
the non-publics that might also be present in the
stakeholder category.
It is important to segment active publics,
because active publics typically make issues
out of the consequences of organisational
decisions. This behaviour may be individual or
it may be collective—when members of publics
organise into activist groups. Sometimes
publics react negatively to harmful
consequences of an organisation’s
behaviours—such as pollution or
discrimination. At other times, they act
positively to try to secure a behaviour from an
organisation that has useful consequences for
them—such as a community public that wants
cleaner rivers and streams. At still other times,
publics collaborate with organisations to secure
consequences of benefit to both. Figure 2 then
shows that publics that cannot stop the
consequences that harm them or secure the
consequences that benefit them generally make
issues out of the consequences. Issues, in turn,
can become crises if they are not handled well.
When issues or potential issues are discussed
and negotiated with publics, the result is
improved relationships with publics.
At the centre of the strategic processes
described in Figure 2 is an oval representing
communication programmes—programmes to
cultivate relationships with publics and to
manage conflict with them. Communication
with potential publics is needed before
decisions are made by strategic decision-
makers, when publics have formed but have not
created issues or crises, and during the issue
and crisis phases. Communication programmes
at the latter two stages are generally termed
issues management and crisis communication
by public relations practitioners. What Figure 2
illustrates, however, is that communication with
publics before decisions are made is most
effective in resolving issues and crises because
it helps managers to make decisions that are
less likely to produce consequences that publics
make into issues and crises. If a public relations
staff does not communicate with publics until
an issue or crisis occurs, the chance of
resolving the conflict is slim.
The centre oval in Figure 2 depicts the
strategic management of public relations
programmes themselves—as opposed to the
participation of public relations in the overall
strategic management of the organisation.
These programmes are developed from
strategies to cultivate relationships with
publics, a new concept we have used to replace
the models of public relations and to integrate
the concepts of direction (one-way or two-
way), purpose (symmetrical or asymmetrical),
mediated or interpersonal, and ethical or
unethical (see Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2001;
Hung, 2007). Communication programmes
should begin with formative research, then
develop achievable and measurable objectives,

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
13
implement the programme, and end with
evaluation of whether the objectives have been
met.
The final path in Figure 2 can be found in
the dotted lines from management decisions to
organizational reputation to relationship
outcomes—a path labelled no consequences.
This path depicts the approach taken by public
relations practitioners who are guided by the
interpretive paradigm and believe that positive
messages about management decisions—
mostly disseminated through the mass media—
can by themselves create a positive
organisational reputation. Such a path might
also produce a reputational relationship—a
relationship based only on secondary sources
and not based on an actual relationship between
the organisation and a public (Grunig & Hung,
2002). I believe that publicity about
management decisions can create such a
reputational relationship between an
organisation and the audience exposed to the
messages, but only to a limited extent and in
certain situations. Therefore, I have labelled the
dotted line no consequences because I believe
that organisations have reputational
relationships only with people for whom the
organisation has no consequences. Such people
can be defined as audiences because they are
not truly publics. These audiences have little
importance to an organisation. As soon as an
organisation or public has consequences on the
other, it begins to develop an involving
behavioural relationship rather than a low-
involvement reputational relationship. It is at
that point that a group of people becomes an
active and strategic public rather than a passive
audience.
Figure 2 provides a theoretical overview of
how public relations executives should
participate in the strategic decision-making
processes of the organisations they serve.
Nevertheless, these executives need additional
and more specific theoretical and applied tools
to help them in this process. The digital media,
I believe, provide such tools.
Digital tools for public relations and strategy
Communication programmes
Most public relations practitioners think
immediately about the centre oval in Figure 2
when they contemplate using digital media in
their work, and these media already are used
extensively for such programmes. For example,
a study by the IABC Research Foundation and
Buck Consultants (2009) showed widespread
use of digital media for employee
communication programmes, including social
media (used frequently or occasionally by 80%
of survey participants), emails (75%), intranet
(88%), websites (76%), virtual meetings (55%),
and podcasts (20%). Digital media also are
being used extensively for media relations,
customer relations, financial relations,
community relations, member relations for non-
profits, donor relations, alumni relations for
colleges and universities, public affairs and
political public relations, and many other
programmes designed to cultivate relationships
with publics.
As Phillips (2009) pointed out (see Figure
1), digital media still are used extensively for
communication programmes that are one-way
and asymmetrical. However, many
organisations now are developing two-way,
interactive, and dialogical communication
programmes through digital media, especially
using blogs and microblogs such as Twitter.
Rebecca Harris (2009) of General Motors and
Brandy King (2009) of Southwest Airlines
described two such programmes at the 2009
Summit on Measurement of the U. S. Institute
for Public Relations. Southwest Airlines has a
blog for its employees and customers called
Nuts About Southwest
(http://www.blogsouthwest.com). Southwest
also uses Twitter to interact with customers
about real-time problems they might be
experiencing with a flight or reservation.
General Motors used its GM Fastlane blog
(http://gmfastlane.com) to make its executives
available for interactive discussions about the
company’s 2009 bankruptcy, new products, and
other concerns. A recent post, for example,
addressed a number of rumours about the
privacy of General Motors Onstar navigation
system, such as rumours that Onstar operators
could listen in on people in their cars or track
speeds to give to law enforcement authorities

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
14
(http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2009/11/
web_chat_onstar_debunks_privacy_misconcept
ions.html).
Environmental scanning
The main point conveyed by Figure 2, however,
is that the public relations process actually
begins with management decision processes
and not with communication programmes.
When public relations participates in or has
access to decision-making, its contribution is to
identify consequences, stakeholders, publics,
and issues that result from decisions or require
management attention in decision making. The
public relations process then ends with
communication programmes, rather than
beginning with them as is so often the case
when practitioners use new media to implement
old programmes.
The digital media are ideal for
environmental scanning research, and there are
many tools available for scanning cyberspace
for problems, publics, and issues. These tools
can be as easy to do as setting up Google alerts
using the name of the organisation as a key
word, by entering key words that describe
potential problems and issues that relate to an
organisation, or entering key words related to
decisions or behaviours the management team
might be contemplating but hasn’t yet
implemented. Media monitoring tools now are
available widely for use in cyberspace. I
believe that media monitoring actually is much
more valuable when used for digital media than
for traditional media. Digital media monitoring
can be used for environmental scanning
whereas monitoring of traditional media
typically is done mostly to evaluate media
relations programmes. Although there is still
much debate over whether digital media should
be monitored using automated machine coding
or human coding (Research, 2009), the
researchers debating the issue agree that both
methods can be used in different circumstances
and that both have unique advantages.
Segmenting stakeholders and publics
Although most writers about public relations
tend to use the terms ‘stakeholders’ and
‘publics’ interchangeably, I distinguish between
the two. I use the term stakeholder to define a
broad group of people with similar stakes in the
organisation, such as employees, customers, or
community members. Stakeholders can be
defined as anyone who has a similar risk
resulting from a relationship with an
organisation (Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2002).
Not every member of a stakeholder group is a
member of the same public, however; and, as
Figure 2 illustrates, several different kinds of
publics can be found within each stakeholder
category. These publics can range from activist
to active, passive, and non-publics.
As Phillips and Young (2009) have noted, it
is important to segment stakeholders and
publics to understand their differing
relationships with an organisation and to be
able to communicate with them about their
problems and interests using the new media. I
segment stakeholders by identifying the impact
of consequences or potential consequences of
management decisions on groups such as
employees, customers, or shareholders. I then
further segment publics from these stakeholder
groups using my situational theory of publics
(e.g., Grunig, 1997; Kim & Grunig, in press).
This theory segments publics using the
concepts of problem recognition, constraint
recognition, and involvement recognition.
Phillips and Young (2009) also suggested
segmenting publics by values and concepts. In
addition to values and concepts, I would add
ideology as a segmentation concept. However, I
would integrate these concepts into the
situational theory of publics because I believe
values, concepts, and ideologies influence the
problems people recognise and how they define
them.
I believe that public relations researchers can
segment stakeholders and publics using the
content of digital media as a database.
Although I have not yet done so, I believe that
content analytic techniques can be used with
online materials to identify and code concepts
such as problems, constraints, and types of
involvements, using the situational theory, as
well as values, concepts, and ideologies. Once
identified, the problems recognised by these
publics can be communicated to management
as it makes decisions; and the categories of

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
15
publics derived from these concepts can be
used as formative research to plan
communication programmes.
Anticipating and dealing with issues and crises
The next two phases of Figure 2 relate to issues
and crises. Figure 2 also suggests that most
issues result from the actions of publics
(publics make issues out of problems) and that
most, but not all, crises result from poor
management responses to issues. Thus, analysis
of online media can continue beyond
segmenting stakeholders and publics to search
for and categorise the issues publics might raise
and the crises that might result from these
issues.
Digital media such as websites and blogs
also can be used for issues and crisis
communication programmes (Coombs, 2008).
General Motors, for example, used several
blogs and web pages at the time of its 2009
bankruptcy crisis (Harris, 2009). Organisations
also are developing dark web sites that are
ready to go when a crisis occurs, such as a
natural disaster or accident, that could be
anticipated in their industry or environment
(Coombs, 2007).
Measuring relationships and reputation
The outcomes of the strategic public relations
process, as depicted in Figure 2, are
relationships and reputation. Organisations that
segment their stakeholders and publics,
anticipate and deal with issues and crises, and
actively communicate with publics at all stages
of the process, should be more likely to develop
relationships with their publics that make it
possible to achieve organisational objectives,
develop a positive reputation, and reduce the
consequences of poor relationships on the
implementation of management decisions.
As with other phases of this process, I
believe it is possible to use cyberspace as a
database for measuring the type and quality of
relationships developed with publics using the
concepts of trust, mutuality of control,
satisfaction, and commitment developed by
Grunig and Huang (2000), Grunig (2002), and
Hon and Grunig (1999). Measuring
relationships in this way would require a
content analytic scheme that reflects the
relationship concept. In addition to measuring
relationships from online content directly,
additional survey research can be done to
evaluate the outcomes of communication
programmes implemented through social media
(Paine, 2007a). Finally, reputation could be
measured using Bromley’s (1993) and Grunig
and Hung’s (2002) definition of reputation as
what people think and say about you. This can
be done by measuring themes that reflect the
most common behaviours and attributes of an
organisation discussed in cyberspace. As
Phillips and Young (2009) have said, “your
reputation … will increasingly depend on what
comes up when you are Googled” (p. 157).
Evaluation of communication programmes
A number of analytical schemes have been
developed to evaluate the effects of digital
media programmes (see Jeffries-Fox, 2004;
Paine 2007a, 2007b; Phillips & Young, 2009).
These range from simple measures of hits on a
website to measures of cognitions, attitudes,
and behaviours, as well as indicators of the
types and quality of relationships. In many
cases, these measures can be applied directly to
online content. In other cases, additional survey
or experimental research will be required.
Conclusion
In some ways, public relations has not been
changed by the revolution in digital media.
Many public relations practitioners long have
had the illusion that they could choose their
publics, control the messages received by their
publics, control the cognitive interpretations
publics form about organisations, and persuade
publics to change their attitudes and
behaviours. In reality, however, our descriptive
theories have shown for many years that
publics create themselves and control the
messages to which they are exposed. In
addition, publics form their own cognitive
representations and choose their own
behaviours. Using a normative prescriptive
theory, my colleagues, students, and I have
long provided evidence that public relations has
greater value both for organisations and society
when it is strategic, managerial, symmetrical,

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
16
integrated but not sublimated, diverse, and
ethical—as captured by our generic global
principles. Public relations, when practiced
according to this global theory, helps
organisations to achieve their goals, cultivate
relationships in societies and globally, and
reduce conflict.
To reach this state as a profession, however,
public relations practitioners and scholars must
minimise the extent to which the symbolic,
interpretive paradigm of public relations affects
their thinking and institutionalise public
relations as a strategic management,
behavioural paradigm. The digital media
provide tools that facilitate this paradigm shift.
Thus, these media have the potential to truly
revolutionalise public relations—but only if a
paradigm shift in the thinking of many
practitioners and scholars takes place.
References
Arthur W. Page Society (2007). The authentic
enterprise. New York.
Bardhan, N. R. (2003). Rupturing public
relations metanarratives: The example of
India. Journal of Public Relations Research,
15, 225-248.
Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image, and
impression management. Chichester, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
China Internet Network Information Center
(2009, January). The 23rd statistical survey
report on the internet development in China.
CNN.com (January 14, 2009). China tops
world in internet users. Retrieved 1
November from
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/14/chin
a.internet/index.html.
Coombs, W. T. (2007, October 30). Crisis
management and communication.
Gainesville: FL: Institute for Public
Relations Essential Knowledge Project.
Retrieved 1 November 2007 from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/essential_know
ledge/detail/crisis_management_and_comm
unications/
Coombs, W. T. (2008, April 2). Crisis
communication and social media.
Gainesville: FL: Institute for Public
Relations Essential Knowledge Project.
Retrieved 1 November 2009 from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/essential_know
ledge/detail/crisis_communication_and_soci
al_media/
Dozier, D. M., & Ehling, W. P. (1992).
Evaluation of public relations programs:
What the literature tells us about their
effects. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in
public relations and communication
management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Edelman and First&42nd (2006). Corporate
social responsibility and sustainability in the
blogosphere: Who’s participating in the
conversation, and who isn’t? New York:
Edelman Public Relations.
Grunig, J. E. (1969). Information and decision
making in economic development.
Journalism Quarterly, 46, 565-575.
Grunig, J. E. (1971). Communication and the
economic decision making processes of
Colombian peasants. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 19, 580-
597.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). (Ed.) Excellence in public
relations and communication management
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance:
From symbolic to behavioural relationships.
Public Relations Review, 91(2), 121-139.
Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of
publics: Conceptual history, recent
challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T.
MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public
relations research: An international
perspective (pp. 3-46). London: International
Thomson Business Press.
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. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
17
Grunig, J. E. (2002). Qualitative methods for
assessing relationships between
organizations and publics. Gainesville, FL:
The Institute for Public Relations,
Commission on Public Relations
Measurement and Evaluation.
Grunig, J. E. & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models
of public relations and communication. In J.
E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public
relations and communication management
(pp. 285-326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E. & Grunig, L. A. (1996, May).
Implications of symmetry for a theory of
ethics and social responsibility in public
relations. Paper presented to the
International Communication Association,
Chicago.
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., Sriramesh, K.,
Huang, Y. H., & Lyra, A. (1995). Models of
public relations in an international setting.
Journal of Public Relations Research 7, 163-
186.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From
organizational effectiveness to relationship
indicators: Antecedents 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 the study and practice of public
relations (pp. 23-53). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E. & Hung, C. J. (2002, March). The
effect of relationships on reputation and
reputation on relationships: A cognitive,
behavioural study. Paper presented to the
Public Relations Society of America
Educator's Academy, Miami, Florida.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M.
(2002). Excellence in public relations and
communication management: A study of
communication management in three
countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Harris, R. (2009, October 16). Using social
media to remain transparent: Crisis
response, reputation, management and
research. Presentation to the Summit on
Measurement, Institute for Public Relations,
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory:
Modern, symbolic, and postmodern
perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
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.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines
for measuring relationships in public
relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for
Public Relations, Commission on PR
Measurement and Evaluation.
Hung, C. J. (2007). Toward the theory of
relationship management in public relations:
How to cultivate quality relationships. In E.
L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in
public relations and communication
management: Challenges for the next
generation (pp.443-476). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
IABC Research Foundation & Buck
Consultants (2009). Employee engagement
survey: Survey results. San Francisco:
International Association of Business
Communicators.
Internet World Stats: Usage and Population
Statistics (2009). Internet usage statistics:
The internet big picture: World internet
users and population stats. Retrieved 1
November from
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
Jeffries-Fox, B. (2004). A primer in internet
audience measurement. Gainesville, FL:
Institute for Public Relations, Commission
on Public Relations Measurement and
Evaluation.
Kim, J. N. (2006). Communicant activeness,
cognitive entrepreneurship, and a situational
theory of problem solving. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park.

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
18
Kim, J. N., & Grunig, J. E. (in press). Problem
solving and communicative action: A
situational theory of problem solving.
Journal of Communication.
King, B. (2009). What’s really happening with
social media measurement at Southwest
Airlines. Presentation to the Summit on
Measurement, Institute for Public Relations,
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Knights, D. (1992). Changing spaces: The
disruptive impact of a new epistemological
location for the study of management.
Academy of Management Review, 17, 514-
536.
Knights, D. & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate
strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A
critique. Organisation Studies, 12, 251-273.
L’Etang, J. & Pieczka, M. (Eds.). (1996),
Critical perspectives in public relations.
London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Leitch, S. & Neilson, D. (2001). Bringing
publics into public relations: New theoretical
frameworks for practice. In R. L. Heath
(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp.
127-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paine, K. D. (2007a). How to measure social
media relations: The more things change,
the more they remain the same. Gainesville,
FL: Institute for Public Relations,
Commission on Public Relations
Measurement and Evaluation.
Paine, K. D. (2007b). Measuring public
relationships: The data-driven
communicator’s guide to success. Berlin,
NH: K. D. Paine & Partners.
Phillips, D. (2009, January 9). A Grunigian
view of model PR. Leverwealth. Retrieved 1
November from
http://leverwealth.blogspot.com/2009/01/gru
nigian-view-of-modern-
pr.html?disqus_reply=5552359#comment-
5552359.
Phillips, D. & Young, P. (2009). Online public
relations: A practical guide to developing an
online strategy in the world of social media.
London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002).
Redefining the corporations: Stakeholder
management and organizational wealth.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Powell, R. S. (2009, October 9). Who is on the
other end of Facebook? How to use new
communications tools in your PR strategy.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, A41,
A43.
Research. (2009, June 10). Tracking online
word-of-mouth: The people vs machines
debate. Retrieved 1 November from
http://www.research-
live.com/features/tracking-online-word-of-
mouth-the-people-vs-machines-
debate/4000156.article.
Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizational, rational,
natural, and open systems. London:
Prentice-Hall International.
Solis, B. & Breakenridge, D. (2009). Putting
the public back in public relations: How
social media is reinventing the aging
business of PR. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Sriramesh, K. & Verčič, D. (2003). The global
public relations handbook: Theory, research
and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Sriramesh, K. & Verčič, D. (2009). The global
public relations handbook: Theory, research
and practice (Expanded and revised edition).
New York and London: Routledge.
Trendstream, PRSA, and Korn/Ferry
International (2009). iPressroom, 2009
digital readiness report (as reported in PR
News [prnewsonline.com], August 17,
2009).
Van den Bosch, F. A. J. & van Riel, C. B. M.
(1998). Buffering and bridging as
environmental strategies of firms. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 7, 24-31.
Verčič, D., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E.
(1996). Global and specific principles of
public relations: Evidence from Slovenia. In

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2):
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
19
H. M. Culbertson & N. Chen (Eds.),
International public relations: A
comparative analysis (pp. 31-65). Mahwah
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weaver, K., Motion, J., & Roper, J. (2006).
From propaganda to discourse (and back
again): Truth, power, the public interest and
public relations. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka,
Public relations: Critical debates and
contemporary practice (pp. 5-21). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yang, S. U. (2007). An integrated model for
organization-public relational outcomes,
organizational reputation, and their
antecedents. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 19, 91-121.
Yang, S. U., & Grunig, J. E. (2005).
Decomposing organizational reputation: The
effects of organization-public relationship
outcomes on cognitive representations of
organizations and evaluations of
organizational performance. Journal of
Communication Management, 9, 305-325.
Author contact details:
James E. Grunig, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Communication
2130 Skinner Building
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-7635
USA
jgrunig@umd.edu
Copyright statement:
The authors of this article have elected, in
the interests of open dissemination of scholarly
work, to provide this article to you in open
access format. This means that,
in accordance with the principles of
the Budapest Open Access Initiative
(http://www.soros.org/openaccess/), you may
freely copy and redistribute this article
provided you correctly acknowledge its authors
and source, and do not alter its contents.