Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how the field of strategic communication is shaped and driven by several different logics that not only simply underpin each other, but also and simultaneously oppose each other and point in many different directions.

The authors address the multiple logics in strategic communication and their interplay by drawing on Edgar Morin’s theory of “dialogics.” According to Morin, complex systems are characterized by multiple logics that are at once complementary, competitive and antagonistic with respect to one another.

The authors present and discuss five dialogics that challenge conventional notions of managerial control: deliberate vs emergent perspectives on communication strategy; top-down vs participatory approaches; bounded vs unbounded notions of communication; consistency vs inconsistency in organizational messages; and transparency vs opacity in organizational practices.

While the dialogical perspective defies the ideal of strategic communication as a unitary discipline, the authors argue that the field can only develop by acknowledging, embracing and bringing to the fore of analysis principles that are at once complementary, competitive and antagonistic.

When organizations set out to manage their communications in accordance with the corporate ideal, they seem to take for granted that they are transparent, not only to their surroundings but also to themselves. The notion of corporate communications, in other words, builds on the assumption that organizations are able to have a general view of themselves as communicating entities. But is this really the case? And, if not, is it possible to articulate the challenge of corporate transparency in alternative, strategic terms? Since contemporary organizations increasingly relate to their surroundings as if they are transparent, these and related questions are highly relevant in both theoretical and practical terms. Discusses the notion of transparency both as a condition and as a strategy, and deconstructs conventional assumptions associated with the use of the term. Looking at corporate transparency as a staging process that involves strategic disclosure, institutionalisation and mimetic behaviour, asks fundamental questions about organizational openness in an age of transparency.

The purpose of this paper is to engage with the issue of construct clarity in corporate communications research giving particular attention to corporate branding and identity whereby a critique of existing alignment models provides a basis for a shift in the debate geared towards an alternative approach.

The commentary offers a discussion of a particular challenge to theory development around the clarity and specification of key constructs such as corporate identity and corporate brands. This leads to an elaboration of existing models of corporate branding and identity management and the subsequent suggestion for a shift towards alternative analytical interpretive models that are not premised on ontological assumptions of a conduit model of communication and objectivist assumptions of alignment and consistency. Shifting the debate in this direction has significant implications for research as well as practice.

There is a need to move away from sender‐dominated conduit models of communication and towards a constitutive model. This emphasizes the constitutive character of communication thus giving credence to the role of language and framing in the processes and products of organizational branding and identity. It also considers the relational or social process in the ascriptions of identity.

The paper proposes a new approach to corporate branding and identity and highlights the need for a more integrated understanding of the role of communication in the creation and promotion of these brands and identities.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how tensions and challenges associated with the implementation of integrated communications in practice have intensified in recent years under the impact of two conflicting trends: new social and organizational “drivers” towards integration; and the appearance of savvy and sophisticated audiences.

Taking the point of departure in now classical discussions of structural “barriers” to integration, today more fundamental difficulties limit the implementation of integrated communications – difficulties rooted in epistemological issues of organization and communication are argued.

Integrated communications present a paradox to contemporary communication management. On the one hand, integration seems to be the most logical and sensible way of managing communications in a complex world of multiple and critical audiences. On the other hand, its prescriptions are essentially at odds with what is known today about organization and human communication. While representing a significant communication ideal, integration in communications is simultaneously beyond reach – at least if the full process of communication is taken into proper consideration.

The paper usefully makes the claim that it needs to adapt the ideals of what integrated communications is to what integration can possibly do to an organization and its communications.

Asserts that the marketing discipline has been quite instrumental in securing and maintaining both practical and theoretical attention to the issues of identity and image in contemporary organisations. Discusses and critiques much of the discourse of corporate identity and image management. This is accomplished through a semiotic exercise in which prevailing perspectives and assumptions with respect to corporate identity and image are explained, analysed and subjected to a coherent interpretive framework. Rather than trying to legislate terminology or suggest conceptual parsimony, we use the semiotic framework as one way to illustrate the benefits of theoretical consistency and to stimulate self‐reflection among scholars who use the notions of identity and image.

Marketing organisations increasingly talk about the importance of integrating their communications, of aligning symbols, messages, procedures and behaviours across formal organisational boundaries. Often this implies tighter central control over communications and other organisational processes. This paper sets out to discuss potential negative consequences of such tight control in terms of organisational incapability to react to market changes in increasingly fluid environments due to a loss of sufficient corporate complexity and diversity.

In response, a flexible integration approach that draws attention to the handling of difference and variety within the context of an integrated communications project is articulated. The paper proposes a framework that balances centralisation and decentralisation through attention to dimensions of endogenous control, tight and loose couplings, networks, and common process rules.

The paper demonstrated that, in order to integrate its communications, an organisation needs to embrace diversity and variety and to balance the wisdom of its many voices with the effort to secure clarity and consistency in its overall expression.

The flexible integration approach advanced in this paper opens new avenues of research, practice and pedagogy, encouraging scholars, practitioners and teachers to explore the following dimensions of integrated communications: reception, variability, organisation, voice, couplings and transferability.

The paper contributes to the literature on integrated communications and corporate communications by addressing the organisational dimensions of integration and suggesting a new avenue of integrated communications research that is far more sensitive to the organisational context in which projects of integration exist and unfold.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss issues of PR theory and practice.

The paper presents seven questions that are crucial to the conversation between PR theory and practice. The questions center on these concepts, in turn: identity/image, organizational culture, modes of representation, advocacy, audiences (including “the self”), dialogue in idealism and practice, and social engagement.

The persistent, negative reputation of PR has to be of concern to theorists as well as practitioners. PR has tended to ignore, hold static, or even render invisible the internal affairs of organizations, including the values, opinions and preferences of employees. The idea of representation, with its epistemological, political, and linguistic senses, can help to inform PR theory through a full‐blown consideration of what it means to “stand for” an organization or a cause or an industry. Advocates of PR practice who essentially argue that “the wrangle of the marketplace of ideas” will yield some kind of truth, or at least a high‐quality debate, fail to acknowledge that the quantity of views expressed and the quantity of organizations engaged may no more bring us toward genuine deliberative democracy than 500 TV channels make us better informed. In PR practice, as well as in marketing and other communication functions of the organization, a great deal of the symbols organizations produce are both shaped by and tailored to self‐consumption. Rather than assuming that the procedural correctness of symmetrical communication systems is necessarily to the same as dialogue, PR scholars and practitioners need to come to terms with the more subtle forms of power at play when organizations engage in talks and negotiations with their stakeholders. The paper advocates a perspective that takes into account the full “pragmatic” possibilities of persuasive campaigns – viewed not only in isolation but also in terms of their broader and cumulative effects.

The paper adds to the debate on PR theory and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, under conditions of postmodernity, the market is too complex to be responded to with an IMC‐framework. While the desire of IMC scholars and practitioners to reinstate order and predictability in an increasingly disordered and fragmented world is understandable, such a mission may be misguided. The paper seeks to discuss the possibility that such attempts instead precipitate the production of complexity of an even more unpredictable nature.

The paper proceeds through a critical juxtaposition of postmodernity and IMC, arguing that the latter – with its ambition to impose order and control – fails to understand important dimensions of contemporary markets.

Rather than imposing a monological and hegemonic identity on markets and organizations – an identity that will unavoidably be challenged by consumers and employees – contemporary marketers and managers need to realize that organizational change and adaptability presuppose openness to variety, difference and polyphony.

Although organizations, just like individuals, need a coherent narrative, polyphony promotes shared understandings and involvement and permits a kind of collective ownership that cannot be attained through the simple application of one‐way managerial models that claim consistency and coherence without founding it in the life‐world of the receiver.

Postmodern communication cannot adhere tightly to principles of IMC. Instead, openness towards fluidity and a certain degree of indeterminacy must be nurtured if organizations wish to cope with the postmodern world. Along with tolerance toward variety, organizations need to develop a tolerance for meanings negotiated together with consumer communities, such as brand communities, in the market.

Reviews the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoints practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

The factors involved in strategic communication are made up of various interplaying elements. Taking an inclusive approach towards these can lead to a more effective approach

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.