This essay discusses and analyses the Excellence Theory in academic perspectives. Also, discourse the intensive arguments between the scholars regarding the content of the theory and symmetry communications. (Grunig, 1992) states “The excellent organisations stay close to their customers, employees and other strategic constituencies”. On the other hand, some scholars think the excellence theory is the dominant paradigm and would benefit the organisations only. (J L’Etang, 2006, pp. 333-358) argues that “This world is dominated by people or side who have power and they use their power to achieve their objectives”. This essay is divided into five sections: Describing the excellence theory symmetry approach, weather is applicable in public relations field or not, discussing critiques that rise along with the two-way symmetry concept, other scholars’ point of view, and the conclusion about the debate.
The publicity, public information, asymmetry, and symmetry are four models of public relations that were introduced by James Grunig and Hunt in 1984. Later, through time, Larissa Grunig (James’s wife) and his supporters further developed the concept of symmetry. According to (Macnamara, 2012) and (Davidson, 2016), the symmetric concept is the central consideration of the four models and is considered as the dominant paradigm in the field of public relations. This concept is generally used by organizations or companies when they intend to diminish the issues that may go against the organization’s goals. According to (Webster, Peter J. , 1990) public relation practitioner should be part of the team in order to help them to create the corporate mission and set the objectives for the organisation. In the symmetric approach model, public relations has the same position as manager. (Grunig & Grunig, 2003) state that public relations is a unique management function that assists an organization to interrelate with the social and political components of its environment.
The symmetrical correspondence idea should keep up a decent connection between the organisation and the public by profiting the two sides through research and discourse (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) and (Grunig, 2009). According to (Grunig, 1992, p. 223) excellent organisation ought to enable individuals which works for the organisation by giving them more opportunity or independence in order to let them to make the strategic decisions. Despite the fact that the symmetric approach utilizes discourse in its procedure, it doesn’t endorse influence inside the dialogue. (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) consider persuasion as asymmetrical communication. In addition to that, (Brown, 2010) explains Grunig’s symmetric concept as “rejected persuasion as ethically and effectively inferior to what could and should achieve through the properly balanced management of systems.
127 our experts are availableright now
As per (Grunig, 2006), the public relations practitioners need to convey their skills of strategic correspondence for directing the enthusiasm between the organisation and public and they are not permitted to assume control of how the others think and behave. That is the reason, in this perception, the public relations experts legitimately manage the contentions by building and keeping up a solid long-term connection between the two sides. Grunig in the excellence theory endeavoured to make the organisation, partners and strategic supporters closer to one another so as to make an excellent organisation. It implies that they all can join the decision making for the improvements. (Grunig, 1992, p. 231).
According to Freeman and Gilbert which is cited in Public Relations Theory II by (Botan, Carl H; Hazleton, Vincent, 2006, p. 32), the relationship with the stakeholders adds the value to the organisation as they stated like that:
“We need to understand that the stakeholders are in it together, rather than competing for limited and scarce resources, and that the fundamental reason that organisations as connected networks are effective is that they are built on the principle of cooperation and caring. Each stakeholder is “adding the value” of others, creating a good deal for all”.
During symmetrical communication, both the organization and public are supposed to share the same interests in order to obtain it easier. Furthermore, the public relations practitioners who follow this thought are supposed to have ‘mixed motives’ because they are committed to serving organization and public. The mixed motives are the developed concept that was proposed by Grunig by combining symmetrical and asymmetrical approaches after he was criticized by public relations scholars ( (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) (Macnamara, 2012). By facing critiques through the path, this concept evolved into many continuous extents that quickly replaced with separated non-continuous scales (Laskin, 2009, pp. 37-54).
In the symmetric idea, the public relations professionals are classified and act as boundary spanner (Macnamara, 2012) (Davidson, 2016). Public relations practitioners typically are incorporated or participate as an individual of the dominant coalition, so they can have the voice of public in front of the organisation. (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) (Edwards, 2012) (Davidson, 2016). Based on (Roper, 2005), in this concept for having a long-haul relationship, the public relations experts fulfil both the organisation and public instead of overlooking one side. Be that as it may, public relations specialists should, Ideally, serve more the public in general than the organisation or organization’s advantage (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002). Consequently, it will serve in a more moral manner than the other three models of public relations.
In accordance with (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002), the symmetric concept has its own definition for the public in which, it means “strategic constituencies”. Moreover, (Davidson, 2016) defines public as people who can interfere with organization interest. (Grunig & Grunig, 2003) classify public as people who seek assistance from the organization and expect them to take care of everything. Furthermore, (Grunig, 2006) categorizes public as devastating people who can devastate the relationship between them and the organization. According to (Davidson, 2016), the public in symmetric concept has the same degree as ‘monetary cost’. That is why the public in this concept is mostly seen as people who would never be willing to work cooperatively with the organization.
The symmetric approach assists the organizations to obtain their objectives or at least save their money (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) (Grunig, 2006) (Davidson, 2016) because in case of struggling the organizations need to spend money “ that manifested in regulation, legislation, litigation, campaigns, and other forms of pressure from activist groups or regulatory bodies” (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002). Therefore, according to (Davidson, 2016), economic aspect plays a major role in this model of public relations.
According to (Botan, Carl H; Hazleton, Vincent, 2006) Relationships provide the context for behaviour by consumers, investors, employees, government, the community, the media, and other strategic constituencies. He believes that the behaviour of these constituencies affects financial performance plus some other factors too. However, (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) admit that the organizations might lose some money in return for obtaining trust in order to build and maintain a long-term relationship. In addition to the above elaboration, (Edwards, 2012) states that the symmetric approach is following the functional paradigm since it is more related to organizational context, organizational interest and reputation, and organization position.
The symmetric concept has a positive effect role in the public relations field with which it influences public relations to be viewed as an academic subject. (Fawkes, 2006) states that public relations obtained the mark for publicity or propaganda exercises after the Second World War. Furthermore, Grunig and Hunt in 1984 additionally referenced purposeful propaganda on the main dimension of their four models of public relations (Fawkes, 2006). Because of acknowledging public relations just as a propagandist, symmetrical communications happen as a piece of the academic subject in the public relations field. (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) contend that ‘symmetrical public relations attempts to balance the interests of the organisation and its public’ is based on research.
Despite the fact that the symmetrical approach has been known as the dominant paradigm in public relations, it has gotten numerous critiques (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) (Grunig, 2006) (Brown, 2010) (Davidson, 2016). (Macnamara, 2012) states that the symmetrical concept has been the most contended subject in public relations in the most recent decade. Besides, (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002) concede that the four models of public relations in general and particularly symmetrical model have been the most controversial and the most discussed segment of the magnificence excellence theory since their book was distributed. As indicated by (Laskin, 2009), most researchers disagree this idea by saying that it is an idealistic model since it is progressively standardising theory rather being a positive hypothesis, while (Davidson, 2016) demonstrates the symmetry concept as a credulous methodology. Besides, Dover (1995) as cited by (Laskin, 2009) argues that this idea ‘does not have a place in genuine public relations’.
The symmetrical concept has received critiques in several ways. Firstly, Grunig’s concept of symmetry fails in completely defining what symmetry is because there is an unbalanced position between organization and public. (Laskin, 2009) argues that, although the process of conducting the dialogue seems like symmetry, it mostly results in bringing more advantage to organizations. Moreover, it cannot be symmetrical since there is power imbalance (Curtin, P. and Gaither, T. , 2005) (Gower, 2006) (Brown, 2010). In addition, according to (Holtzhausen, 2000), the symmetry concept makes public relations practitioners become members of the dominant coalition by which it inevitably makes them more powerful than the public. Furthermore, since the symmetry concept has an imbalance of power, it can lead to manipulation and control.
(Grunig, 2006) denies that there is an imbalance of power in the symmetry concept and it does not make it a failure concept. Moreover, he argues that public relations is an informal member of the dominant coalition, and they are in dominant coalition just as empowerment or ‘the expansion of power throughout the organization and to its external stakeholder’. Thus, the public relations and the public are on the same level of power (Grunig, 2006). However, (J L’Etang, 2006) as cited by (Brown, 2010) explains that this world is dominated by the people and side that have power so that they deploy their power to obtain their goals. For instance, the main purpose of the practice of corporate social responsibility is to make the public happy. Once they are happy, the chance of them interfering the organization’s interest is low. In addition to that, (Leitch, S. Neilson, D, 2001) show their critiques by saying:
“It is simply absurd to suggest that an interaction between, for example, a transnational corporation and public consisting of unskilled workers in a developing country can be symmetrical just because the interaction is symmetrical in form. It is even more absurd to suggest the reverse- that the interaction between this worker public and the corporation can be symmetrical if the workers adopt the correct attitude and are willing to compromise. In practice, in cases where access to resources is so unequal, attempting to practice symmetrical public relations might constitute a self-destructive discourse strategy for the least powerful participant”.
In accordance with (Coombs, W. and Holladay, S. , 2012), (Ciszek, 2015), Grunig also defended the symmetry concept from critiques by arguing that public would have the same position and power when they organise themselves into an activist group. In this situation, when the public got into the activist group, they become a pressure group that they can deploy the asymmetrical approach to the organization to activate symmetrical communication when their interest is ignored. The ability to make organization notice activist is also considered as an act of public relations. Therefore, the symmetry concept fails to explain activist public relations. In 2002, due to that circumstances, Grunig accepts the critiques and does not classify activist as disturber anymore, he argues that activist becomes one of the factors that “make public relations expertise valuable” (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002).
Secondly, the symmetry concept has some ethical problems. Although (Grunig, 2006) believes that a symmetry concept is an ethical approach because it does not only serve the organization but also the public, moreover he believes that it can bring the voice of public into the decision-making process, (Roper, 2005) argues that the symmetry concept is considered unethical practice because the organizations usually are selective in classifying their strategic constituencies or public and choose the public that has the power to interfere with the organization objectives. Then, they include them in what they call a dialogue. (Roper, 2005) believes that the purpose of doing that is to make enough concession to deflect more wide-reaching opposition.
Furthermore, (Roper, 2005) states that the symmetry concept does not serve both sides interest but to maintain the organization’s domination. Additionally, (Pieczka, 2006) also criticizes mixed motives in symmetry concept and argues that it is impossible for public relations to equally serve both the organization and the public’s interest. Moreover, according to her public relations is a member of the dominant coalition, so their loyalty most likely is to their boss. Furthermore, she argues that if the organization takes some actions after the two-way symmetry, then it just comes up with benefiting the organization rather than the public.
Furthermore, (Davidson, 2016) states that the two-way symmetry concept is the same as the early detection system because the organization knows their limit to obtain the decisive authority and, public here is seen as a negative cost. The main purpose of two-way symmetry concept is to “neutralize and isolate civic challenges to existing power relationship” (P. 1599). (Davidson, 2016) categorizes this situation as domination by neutralization, because organization usually gives a little bit and gains more in return. Moreover, (Davidson, 2016) argues that the two-way symmetry concept is no more than “shallow dialogue” because what happens in reality is just an act of bargaining to minimalize strategic constituencies or public disagreement to organization’s interest.
To epitomise, Grunig’s excellence theory for two-way symmetry concept and the other scholar’s argument about it, I came to the point that it is important and necessary the organisations be close to the stakeholders and internal public, but it is not the realistic idea to keep the balance of both the organisation and the public interest. On the other hand, the excellence theory is the positive and ethical approach but from one place to another would be different to practice it and become real. The two-way symmetry concept may work for the companies and big corporations to help the selling and make more profit, but with some governmental and non-governmental organisations would make a bit difficult for the decision making in order to satisfy the internal and external public. In my own opinion, the two-way symmetry world-wide is not the realistic theory and not applicable to everywhere equally.
However, the technology made such easier for communications, yet so many people in the world do not have internet access to participate in the organisation’s decisions or dialogues. It means that the power of making the decision would be imbalanced. The public relations practitioners would work for the organisation and get paid by the boss, but the organisation’s interest does not often meet the public’s interest. According to (Grunig, J; Grunig, L; Dozier, D, 2002), public relations practitioners should, ideally, serve more the public side rather than the organization or company’s interest. So, the public relations practitioners would face a big conflict between the organisation and public interest and it may cause the problem for both sides.
