Kent, M. L. & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21-37.
Kent & Taylor (2002) explain some of the advantages of a dialogic approach to public relations include a mutually beneficial relationship. The publics and the organization rely on each other for growth and a fulfilling experience. Each factor could gain valuable knowledge about the other and encourage ways for the organization to grow.
By taking a dialogic approach, organizations are elevating the publics to equals. What does that mean? How much influence should they have on the operation of the organization?
It also changes the relationship by “placing emphasis on the relationship”, (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 24).
According to Kent & Taylor (2002), dialogue includes five features:
- mutuality (recognizing the organization-publics relationships);
- propinquity (spontaneity of interactions with publics);
- empathy (acknowledgement and support of public’s goals and interests);
- risk (interact with publics on their terms);
- commitment (the extent to which they will engage with the publics.)
Organizational leaders might be wary of these dialogic features due to the amount of control over the direction of the company they would have to relinquish. Leaders are bound to the publics if they take a dialogic approach toward engagement.
As unsettling as a dialogic relationship with the publics can be, organizations can reap huge benefits from this relationship. By recognizing fully interacting and listening to the publics, they might catch mistakes or problems before they spiral out of control. When the Black customers were thrown out of Starbucks a few years back, the organization responded quickly with strategies to combat discrimination in their stores. They recognized the publics connection and investment in Starbucks as a corporate leader.
In the case of the Will Smith slap at the Oscars, the choice was made to spin his violent assault in front 15 million people as an example of protecting people he loved. That was a clear violation of the mutuality of the relationship he has with the public. He and his PR person assumed the public would not see through that sham of a lie.
PR people sometimes see themselves as fighting for their organization instead working in tandem with the publics. They may not see the publics as equals but as beings to manipulate. They might prefer to use rhetoric, which goes bac to control, instead of honesty. They may want to avoid risk by staying clear of spontaneous interactions. However, that distance could prevent publics from fully engaging with the organization. Publics want to participate.
L2: Demonstrate the ability to assess complex organizational environments and achieve communicative goals.
L4: Apply communication-centered scholarship to strengthen communication effectiveness.
D1: Iteratively develop inter-professional leadership competencies.
D2: Utilize communication to embrace complexity and difference.
Keywords: organizational leadership, public relations, dialogic relationship, communication, empathy, mutuality
