Guest editorial

Citation

Henderson, A. and Edwards, L. (2010), "Guest editorial", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 14 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom.2010.30714caa.001

Guest editorial

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Journal of Communication Management, Volume 14, Issue 3

What does it mean to be “authentic” in a world of reality television and virtual communication? How is an organisation, or a brand, positioned as “authentic”? Our understanding of the term “authentic” in terms of authorship, trust, and truth is challenged in the communication “clutter” of an increasingly globalised world. As contexts change, individuals and organisations deploy symbolic discourses to underpin claims to authenticity that are in part self-referential and in part determined by socially-defined norms that shape identity. In a competitive public sphere, for example, the “authentic” voice makes a play for greater attention than inauthentic fakery. Explicit claims to authenticity, such as those made by organisations or politicians seeking to improve their credibility with audiences, reveal the constructed nature of authenticity, perhaps paradoxically rendering the subject inauthentic. Similarly, acting authentically in relationships with others means acknowledging their interests, yet market-driven organisations that engage with audiences directly, often using social media, are driven primarily by their own self-interest rather than the interests of the audience.

This special issue of the Journal of Communication Management has its origins in a panel presentation at the International Communication Association conference held in Chicago in May 2009. Four of the papers in this special issue were first presented as part of this cross-unit panel bringing together different perspectives on the problematic of authenticity, including theoretical groundings in philosophy, perceptions of authenticity in public relations, socially-mediated conversations in political communication, and metaconversations in organisational communication. In this special issue, these papers are complemented by a further empirical study of authenticity in a social media context, and two commentaries on The Authentic Enterprise: An Arthur W. Page Society Report (which can be accessed online at www.awpagesociety.com/images/uploads/2007AuthenticEnterprise.pdf), one from an academic perspective and one from a practitioner perspective.

Together, the papers reveal the fluidity of meanings surrounding the concept and enactment of authenticity in very different contexts; they shed new light on theoretical understandings, and at the same time raise questions about how authenticity is perceived and evaluated in practice. The first paper by Peter Debreceny presents a practitioner perspective of authenticity in response to The Authentic Enterprise Report, and calls for the public relations profession to embrace the challenges of being “true to who they are.” Yet, in the second response to this report, Tom Watson points out that the report’s discussion of authenticity fails to develop new understandings of reputation or identity management. Furthermore, he comments that the report misses an opportunity to examine the role of ethical concepts in corporate communication and public relations.

Lee Edwards continues the challenges raised by Watson, problematising corporate notions of authenticity exploring how “being” authentic – for organisations as much as individuals – requires a level of genuine engagement and authenticity “work”. This work is done in the context of a social world to which our authenticity efforts are directed, but which shapes the final outcome of those efforts as much as our own strategies.

The social world of organisations forms the context for the remaining papers, which examine various forms of authenticity work undertaken in a range of circumstances. From an internal perspective, Simon Torp’s discussion of metaconversations in organisations takes us within the value systems of organisations, to examine in some detail the processes by which different organisational voices may be “authentically” represented. He presents a brief case study of a managerial metaconversation that clearly demonstrates the challenges involved and raises questions about how different standpoints shape perceptions of authenticity. More instrumentally, Juan-Carlos Molleda begins to examine what it means for an organisation to be perceived as authentic, and takes on the challenge of whether we can measure authenticity. His “authenticity index” is aimed at meeting the dual purpose of increased effectiveness for strategic public relations practice and the evaluation of corporate performance.

One of the most common ways organisations attempt to present themselves as authentic is through social media, a channel that spans the internal and external organisational environments. The last two papers in this issue both address this context, albeit from very different perspectives. Alison Henderson and Rachel Bowley’s empirical case study of a social media recruitment campaign, demonstrates how attempts to create authentic “friendships” through a social-networking site became problematic, not only because of the external perceptions of the relationship, but also because of expectations of the “friends” themselves about their role and how they might conduct themselves “authentically” in that context. The study clearly identifies the importance of audience perceptions of authenticity in commercial contexts and illustrates how the permeability of organisational boundaries can muddy the waters of authenticity work.

In the final paper, Dawn R. Gilpin, Edward T. Palazzolo and Nicholas Brody situate their analysis in the world of public affairs to develop a theoretical model of authenticity in the context of discourses enacted through social media. The model reminds us once again of the complexity of authenticity, the difficulty of measuring it, and the interdependence of the various factors that influence perceptions of authenticity among audiences. One is inclined to ask, how realistic is it for organisations to maintain both legitimacy and interactivity when transparency is deemed paramount by audiences and organisational identity is negotiated through interaction?

What can we learn from these different perspectives? Clearly, authenticity is explicitly socially embedded, creating particular challenges for communications managers when reputation can no longer be carefully controlled by the organisation. Moreover, in (increasingly popular) online contexts, organisations seeking authenticity through transparency and engagement with audiences may in practice find that authenticity is more, rather than less, contested. We hope that, together, the richness in this collection of papers will form the beginning of ongoing conversations about the problematic of authenticity, leading to the development of new theoretical frameworks for understanding both the process and practice of what it means to be “authentic” in a highly mediated world.

As guest editors for this special issue, it has been a privilege to work with international scholars who each bring such different perspectives on authenticity. We would also like to thank our anonymous reviewers, who gave such useful suggestions for the development of the papers. Finally, special thanks to Professor Anne Gregory and Dr Magda Pieczka for their encouragement and support in helping us to bring this special issue to fruition.

Alison Henderson, Lee Edwards