Relationalizing public relations: selected interpersonal communication concepts and research with applicability to relationship management.

Thomlison, T. Dean

A PARADIGM SHIFT

My family took a vacation to California when I was a youngster. My parents crammed my two brothers and me into our 1953 Ford Fairlane and we were on our way to palm trees, the Pacific Ocean, and Disneyland! Unfortunately, my father was completely focused on his ultimate goal of getting to our destination. Nothing between St. Louis and Los Angeles held any interest for him! Such wonders as the Painted Desert, the Grand Canyon, and the Petrified Forest were ignored because dad had a mission to accomplish and the goal was all important. My father had a mental picture of an ideal vacation in California without being aware that the vacation was already in progress and that he could be accomplishing his goal along the way. Ironically, the quality of the trip itself with its numerous opportunities for new explorations and building of family relationships became irrelevant in the relentless pursuit of his goal. Our family members were treated as a means to an end rather than as the end. One major truth eluded my father: enjoying and concentrating on the quality of the relationships on the trip would eventually manifest itself in the achievement of a far richer goal than arriving at his preestablished "image" of the destination.

Traditional approaches to public relations tend to focus on the creation of an image or of a perceptual reality. This functional view concentrates on the strategies and technical processes necessary to achieve the desired end state, which is a particular public perception of an organization, product, or service. Little or no attention is traditionally given to the relational dynamics involved. At the very least it is ironic that relationships with significant publics or customers have been such a low priority for public relations practitioners. Historically, they have been blind to the wealth of relationship-building potential and rewards available to them because of their unique communication position. This shortsightedness is reminiscent of the vacation my family took to California. The vacation was a human experience, an interpersonal experience, not a destination.

In recognition of and response to this myopia, an alternate perspective has emerged in the continuous evolution of the discipline and practice of public relations, one which might be termed the "relationalizing" of public relations. This approach involves mutual benefits for organizations and their publics through the development of behavioral relationships rather than the symbolic, persuasion-oriented activities of the "image makers" of the past (for elaboration on these activities, see Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994; Ferguson, 1984; Grunig, 1993).

Relationship management is at the heart of this new perspective, which a growing number of public relations researchers and practitioners are advocating (Ledingham and Bruning, 2000). Relationship management in public relations settings can be defined as the development, maintenance, growth, and nurturing of mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their significant publics. The basic impetus of this new perspective is the recognition of the essential role of strong bonds and relationships between organizations and their internal and external publics. It is an acknowledgment of the fact that public relations involves much more than strategies and formulas to generate a desired image or a series of functions.

This approach has contributed to what some have termed the beginnings of a "paradigm struggle" in public relations in which the "dominant applied model, based (at least in the United States) on a journalistic heritage and business orientation" is now being challenged by other views (Botan, 1993). Botan notes that the field of public relations is faced with choices between assumptions and values of various paradigms Some theorists see such paradigms as the symmetrical/systems, rhetorical/critical, feminist, and social scientific as among those competing in this paradigm struggle for dominance or, at the very least, equity.

However, it may not be necessary to choose which perspective is correct or which will be the dominant view. Some suggest that the traditional symbolic-relationship orientation and the behavioral-relationship orientation are complementary with both being necessary for an accurate and thorough perspective on the role of public relations (Ledingham, Bruning, & Thomlison, 1996). Grunig (1993) believes that this so-called struggle is a result of viewing symbolic relationships in isolation from actual behavioral relationships. He explains:

 When symbolic relationships are divorced from behavioral
 relationships, public relations practitioners reduce public
 relations to the simplistic notion of image building. Public
 relations practitioners then offer little of value to the
 organizations they advise because they suggest that problems in
 relationships with publics can be solved by using the proper
 message--disseminated through publicity or media relations--to
 change an image of an organization.

 For public relations to be valued by the organizations it serves,
 practitioners must be able to demonstrate that their efforts
 contribute to the goals of these organizations by building
 long-term behavioral relationships with strategic publics--those
 that affect the ability of the organization to accomplish its
 mission (p. 136).

Clearly, Grunig supports a cooperative, practical blending of the two approaches if organizations are to achieve their goals. He concludes: "Symbolic relationships and behavioral relationships are intertwined like the strands of a rope. As a result, public relations practitioners must strive to build linkages between the two sets of relationships if their work is to make organizations more effective" (p. 136). Thus, it would appear that public relations has ample room for multiple paradigms which combine the applied with the theoretical and the symbolic with the relational.

Similarly, there has been ongoing tension between those who are grounded in a mass communication perspective and those rooted in an interpersonal communication orientation (Thomlison & Ledingham, 1989). The mass communication grounding manifests itself in a tendency to see the solution to most problems in the production of media or through the placement of media stories. Interpersonal specialists, on the other hand, often decry the lack of application of relational principles to problems in the organization-public relationship. The over-dependence on media is suspect for other reasons as well. Many believe that as media outlets continue to increase exponentially in number, form and diversity, their impact and image-creation ability will continue to be diluted at a corresponding rate. This trend may serve as a catalyst to generate more mutually beneficial bonds and attention to resolving long-standing tensions between those grounded in mass communication and those with an interpersonal orientation.

With the growing acknowledgment of the rich untapped resources of interpersonal communication and its potential applicability for public relations practitioners, it may be possible to enrich public relations through a greater awareness and appreciation of the complementary nature of these two areas of study. A vital component of this new awareness will be the application of relevant interpersonal communication assumptions, axioms and theories to public relations research, theory and practice.

RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSUMPTIONS

One method of understanding and appreciating the nature of interpersonal relationships is to examine some of its underlying assumptions. Montgomery (1992) points out that theories of relational communication possess a common set of assumptions:

(1) Relationships and communication are inseparable.

(2) The communication determines the nature of the relationship.

(3) Relationships are most often defined implicitly rather than explicitly.

(4) Relationships develop over a period of time through negotiation.

These assumptions have broad-based significance for public relations environments. For example, it is a basic supposition that relationships are an inevitable part of communication with others, including an organization's communication with its publics. Furthermore, these relationships are continually being defined, even if they are not consciously and explicitly being defined.

Over time, these basic assumptions have evolved into some fundamental interpersonal axioms that may provide further insights about the applicability of interpersonal communication concepts to public relations settings.

COMMUNICATION AXIOMS

Beginning in the 1960's, a group of relationship theorists led by Gregory Bateson founded the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. The "Palo Alto Group" studied interpersonal communication and developed a series of observations about the basic nature of relational interaction. They believed there was a need to synthesize the thinking and findings from diverse contexts into a unified communication theory that would explain the everyday interactions of people at home and work. This was not possible if their focus was limited to only select parts of the phenomenon being studied. Thus, the Palo Alto Group was not content to just examine psychological research and theory. Beginning with Bateson's work, Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson expanded the synthesis into other areas of thought including communication and other social sciences, mathematics, philosophy, and literature. Anderson and Ross explain the basic philosophy of these thinkers and the significance of this broadened perspective:

The relationship between the object of study (whether it is the person, behavior, object, etc.) and its environment is where scientists should concentrate their attention. Although this insight had taken hold in the natural sciences by the mid-1960's, the social sciences, they thought, were still searching for properties, characteristics, or traits that made people more or less social, more or less communicative. This stress on relationship-function as a representation of communication, to replace the message transmission and reception model, was their longstanding contribution. "The observer of human behavior ... turns from an inferential study of the mind to the study of the observable manifestations of relationship," they claimed (Watzlawick, et al., p. 21) and "the vehicle of these manifestations is communication" (p.21). (Anderson & Ross, p. 175)

Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson summarized their findings in a classic work titled Pragmatics of Human Communication. They noted that relationships are part of a complex system in which the participants constantly define their relationships by creating, adapting, reinforcing, or revising their interaction patterns (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, p. 120). The importance of this body of work for those seeking a greater understanding of relationships is emphasized by Anderson and Ross when they state: "If there is any professional book that we would recommend to communication undergraduates, both for historical and conceptual values, this would be it" (p. 176).

A transaction is generally considered to be the basic unit for the analysis of interpersonal communication as well as the building of relationships. Although the participants need not necessarily be face-to-face in the same physical space, there must be mutual awareness of each other for a transaction to exist. Therefore, it is possible to engage in interpersonal transactions via mediated channels as long as both parties are aware that their partner is perceiving him or her. In each transaction there is a simultaneous assignment of roles based on three factors: (1) one communicator's imagination or expectation of the other's role, (2) the context, and (3) behavioral cues during the transaction.

Moreover, every transaction is governed by an implicit set of rules. Thus, sets of intricate implicit rules evolve in every type of relationship, whether it be a personal, social, or business relationship. Friend to friend, family member to family member, worker to worker, stranger to stranger, customer to clerk, business representative to business representative, and organization to internal and external publics all have implicit rules of communication behavior. As an example, every relationship has a certain control factor operating, a level of liking, patterns of interaction which vary according to context and conditions, specialized meanings for verbal and nonverbal communication, and a multitude of other adaptive systems constantly functioning. In order to decipher these complex and ever-changing patterns, the Palo Alto Group developed five basic axioms about human communication based on system principles (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).

Axiom One: One Cannot Not Communicate. In other words, people are constantly communicating. This axiom declares that it is impossible to avoid communication once a transaction has been established in which there is mutual awareness (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, pp. 4851). The basic premise is that any perceivable behavior, including withholding behavior, has the potential to be interpreted as meaningful by another even if it was not intended to be meaningful. Prior to the work of the Palo Alto Group, most behavioral researchers viewed communication as only the receiver's reproduction of the sender's understanding, so there was an emphasis upon studying only those acts that led to sender and receiver congruence in understanding. However, this axiom said that all behavior has "message value" (Anderson & Ross, p. 176). Therefore, "one cannot not communicate." The implications of this simple, grammatically incorrect statement are far-reaching and significant, since neither intention nor accuracy of interpretation is required for meaning to be attached to a "message". Behavior which is assigned meaning becomes messages, intended or not. As we all know, ignoring another person is still communicating large amounts of information!

Axiom Two: Messages Have Both Content and Relational Meaning. Every message contains information about the content under discussion (how much an item costs, when the kids will be home from soccer practice, what's for dinner, who will be going to the concert, where to pick up your friend, etc.) as well as data on the nature of the relationship (roles operating, status of the relationship, who is more in control, defiance, fear, who cares the most, etc.). Content meaning is often termed the denotative level (the literal, surface-level, dictionary meaning of the language used), while relational meaning is often referred to as the connotative or interpretive level (how you intend the message to be decoded or interpreted). Relationship meaning involves information about how each communicator perceives his or her current interaction and the rules guiding that transaction. Each communicator is simultaneously relating to the content information as well as noting and commenting on the relational information. Much of this so-called metacommunication (communication about communication) is manifested through nonverbal means, although verbal choices also convey important data. Thus, communicators use metacommunication to give cues to each other regarding how to interpret the content messages.

Axiom Three: The meaning of Messages Depends on its Punctuation. Punctuation refers to the process of dividing and organizing interactions into meaningful patterns. Much like words must be separated and organized by punctuation marks to generate meaning, our interactions with others are composed of a continuous series of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that must be grouped or punctuated into units to be meaningful. All participants in an interpersonal transaction, such as a conversation, will have their own individualized punctuation of the communication behaviors present. The specific meaning of the interaction will be determined by the way each person punctuates the messages. The classic example often given to illustrate the way sequencing punctuation can affect the meaning of an interaction is a couple involved in a combination of nagging and withdrawing (Littlejohn, 1996; Smith & Williamson, 1981). One participant may punctuate the transaction as follows: "I only withdraw after he nags at me" (an attack followed by a strategic retreat). However, the other participant may see the transaction differently: "The only way I can get through to her is to nag her when she withdraws" (ignoring followed by imploring). Each has interpreted a different meaning to the same situation based on how they organized or punctuated the sequence of communication behaviors. Public relations campaigns sometimes overwhelm their publics with multiple messages and message sources. The interpretation by these publics may well be radically different from the organization's perception.

Axiom Four: Messages Include Both Digital and Analogic Coding. Digital codes are arbitrary in the sense that any sign can be used to represent an action, event, object, or person. As my undergraduate philosophy professor often declared: there is no "deskness" in a desk! The word "desk" is simply an arbitrary symbolic representation of the actual desk. We could call the desk by another symbol and it would not change the nature of the actual object. Just as electronic digital codes are either on or off, likewise our digital communication codes are either present or not present in the form of words, sounds, and phrases. Language is the most common human communication digital code. In addition, nonverbal signs called denotative gestures, such as a hitchhiker's thumb, have a literal translation attached to them and are digital codes.

On the other hand, analogic codes are associated with, are a part of, or resemble the referent they represent. For example, we tell someone how tall the basketball player was with digital codes called words, but we also use our hand gestures (analogic codes) to illustrate or resemble the height and size of the player. We laugh or cry (analogic codes) when we experience certain emotions. In this case, these analogic codes are part of the actual events rather than just arbitrarily selected symbolic representations of the events. Whereas digital is discrete (on or off), analogue is continuous with variations in intensity and longevity. In a transaction we are constantly sending nonverbal messages. Thus, nonverbal behaviors are primarily analogic. As we learned with axiom one, we are constantly communicating even when we are silent. The degree to which a communicator acknowledges the presence of their partner is continuous analogic data about the relationship during the interaction. How often a customer is contacted by the customer relations department at the local automobile dealership where you purchased and have your car serviced is continuous analogic data about how important the dealer thinks customer satisfaction is, whether the dealer intended it to be meaningful data or not. Nonverbal information about the emotions being experienced by our communication partner are analogic and continuous. As human beings it is part of our innate nature to "feel" emotions at all times (Thomlison, 1982, p. 227). Emotions are always present in a transaction with another person--to a greater or lesser extent, we are experiencing emotions, our partner is experiencing emotions, we are aware of their emotional state, and our partner is aware of ours. It is impossible to not feel. Even relatively neutral emotions are still feelings (calm, comfortable, passive, bland, and so forth). Therefore, a rich source of analogic codes comes from nonverbal behaviors indicating one's emotional state at any particular moment in the interaction.

It should be remembered that these two sources of information are interconnected and work together to provide overall meaning for a message and the relationship. Although serving different functions in an interpersonal transaction, both digital and analogic coding combine to create overall meaning. Littlejohn describes this blending process this way: "Digital signs, having relatively precise meanings, communicate the content dimension, whereas the analogic code, rich in feeling and connotation, is the vehicle for relationship messages. So while people are communicating content digitally, they are commenting about their relationship analogically" (Littlejohn, 1996, p. 253). Therefore, developing long-term, trusting relationships involves more than using digital codes to "say the right things"! It is the combination of digital and analogic data that grows and maintains strong, close, healthy relationships.

Axiom Five: A Transaction is Either Symmetrical or Complementary. In a symmetrical relationship the communicators treat each other as equals. Communication behavior directed toward one's partner is similar to that which is received from their partner. For example, each communicator listens when their partner is talking or each tells the other what to do in an attempt to dominate the transaction or neither wants to make the decision about where to have dinner so each keeps deferring to their partner. All of these are examples of various types of symmetrical relationships. If both persons attempt to dominate by being "one-up", we have competitive symmetry; if both attempt to defer control to their partner by being "one-down", we have submissive symmetry. There is a type of equality or balance in symmetrical relationships because both partners experience the reciprocity of "getting what they give"--also termed the "dyadic effect".

On the other hand, in a complementary relationship the communicators behave differently toward each other. For example, a manager tells a worker to do something and the worker complies; or a person has a dominant relationship with a friend who is submissive or passive. Control is usually equal or shared in symmetrical transactions and disproportionate in complementary transactions. Remember that a relationship is constructed of numerous interactions or transactions. Therefore, while a relationship will have a predominantly complementary or symmetrical primary pattern, individual conversations may fluctuate between these two types of exchanges.

The five axioms just discussed provide important insights into the nature of interpersonal transactions and the multitude of meanings encapsulated in every message. Although established from face-to-face interactions, it is reasonable to believe that many of these basic principles for establishing meaning of messages and relationships will also apply to a variety of contexts, whether it be interpersonal, small group, public address, organizational, mass communication, or any combination such as organizational-personal relationships.

For example, even when attempting to not communicate by delaying a response, a profit or not-for-profit organization can be clearly communicating messages to its customers/clientele. Swift, straightforward action by the manufacturers of Tylenol immediately following a few cases of product tampering spoke volumes to a concerned public about the commitment of the company to its customers. There was no attempt at withholding or manipulating information to shirk responsibility or minimize costs associated with recalls, initiation of new safety measures, and manufacturing a more tamper-proof container and tablet.

Not all organizations are as forthright as the manufacturers of Tylenol. March 23, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez leaked 10.1 million gallons of oil into beautiful Prince William Sound resulting in previously unimaginable environmental damage. The attempts by Exxon Oil to divert, distort, and delay information about the oil spill in Alaska were also heard loud and clear by the public. Furthermore, the oil company's corporate relations department was (1) communicating through its choice

of denotative content, a wealth of information at the relational level about a lack of regard for the general public as well as the environment, (2) punctuating the sequence of events to save face and place blame rather than save Alaskan wildlife and take responsibility, (3) communicating with digital as well as analogic coding, with the analogic speaking far clearer than the crafted words of the digital coding, (4) attempting to develop a symmetrical-appearing relationship when it was obvious that a complementary relationship philosophy was the reality. Corporate destroyers of the environment have used a multitude of tactics to distort the reality of their actions or inaction to the point that a new term has been added to our contemporary vocabulary: "Greenscam" (Liska & Cronkhite, 1995).

Thus, the applications and implications of these seemingly basic axioms are far reaching and significant in the information age. Any profit or nonprofit organization that ignores these fundamental principles of communication risks paying a high price figuratively and literally. Additional insights for application of interpersonal concepts can be provided by examining some selected interpersonal theories. Two areas that appear to hold great potential in providing fruitful contributions to the relationship management perspective are Dialogic Communication and Listening.

MONOLOGIC AND DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION

An essential component of an individual's humaneness is communicative interaction with others. Communicologists, philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists, theologians, sociologists, and a host of other contemporary thinkers have approached the topic of communication from varying perspectives. A fascinating area of inquiry about human communication has derived its origins from these diverse fields of thought. Human communication as dialogue is called "the third revolution in communication" by Floyd Matson and Ashley Montagu in The Human Dialogue (1967). The first revolution, in this frame of thought, was the scientific invention phase that produced mass communication. The second revolution was the scientific theory and human engineering phase that produced cybernetics and motivation research. According to Matson and Montagu, the third revolution places emphasis upon openness and mutual respect.

Numerous writers, thinkers, and theoreticians such as Arnett (1981), Brown & Keller (1979), Buber (1958), Howe (1967), Jaspers (1964), Johannesen (1971, 1996), Matson & Montagu (1967), Meerloo (1967), Rogers (1961, 1980), Ruesch (1971), Stewart (1978), and Thomlison (1972, 1974, 1975, 1982) have explored dialogic communication in one form or another. Their approaches and emphases vary, but each deals with some of the prime aspects of dialogue. Because of this diversity, this orientation toward communication has been characterized by several different names including the following: presence, encounter, genuine communication, therapeutic encounter, supportive climate, nondirective therapy, existential communication, facilitative communication, helping relationships, authentic exchange, conversation, I-Thou relationship, and dialogue.

Dialogic encounter assumes an essential faith in human interaction. It is not a method, but rather an attitude or orientation toward communication. In dialogic communication each participant possesses genuine concern for their partner instead of viewing them as a means to an end. This facilitative communication is opposed to coercing and exploiting, dishonest forms of interactions that are used to manipulate people in various degrees. Dialogue is characterized by trust, openness, spontaneity, caring, sensitivity, sincerity, and empathy. In a sense, it is the "stuff" of which ideal interpersonal relationships are made. As we move toward deeper, more honest forms of interpersonal interaction, we are also moving toward dialogue (Thomlison, 1982).

Martin Buber, the renowned philosopher, developed a profound interest in dialogue. His I-Thou and I-It concepts are one well-known way of viewing many different types of relationships. Three types of dialogue were recognized by Buber: (1) genuine dialogue, in which a mutual relationship grows, (2) technical dialogue, in which there is the goal of achieving objective understanding, and (3) monologue, in which one is more interested in self than in the relationship (Buber, 1967). I-Thou relationships are dialogic, while I-It relationships are monologic. It was acknowledged by Buber that communicators will tend to alternate between these types of interaction in everyday life (Friedman, 1956).

Johannesen (1971) states that an I-Thou relationship possesses the following six characteristics:

1. Mutual Openness: Behavior patterns and attitudes of those
 participating in dialogue possess the
 qualities of "mutuality, open-heartedness,
 directness, honesty, spontaneity, frankness,
 lack of pretense, nonmanipulative intent,
 communion, intensity, and love in the sense
 of responsibility of one human for another"
 (Johannesen, 1971, p. 375).

2. Nonmanipulative: There is an absence of forcing one's belief
 on another. Dialogue, in the I-Thou sense,
 can include influence and yet not include
 manipulative intent. Use of propaganda and
 "suggestion" are seen as manipulative
 approaches (Buber, 1966a, p. 112).

3. Recognition of The unique individuality of the people
 Uniqueness: engaged in dialogue is acknowledged. This
 recognition of human uniqueness implies that
 each participant should be allowed equal
 rights and respect in the exchange (Buber,
 1966a). One's partner is not viewed as
 simply another similar member of a
 categorized group.

4. Mutual I-Thou encounters include mutual confirmation
 Confirmation: and awareness. "One becomes totally aware of
 the other rather than functioning as an
 observer or onlooker" (Johannesen, 1971,
 p. 375) Buber knew that people will not
 always agree but they can support and affirm
 each other. Awareness of one's
 communication partner leads to
 confirmation and acceptance of "otherness."

5. Turning Toward: There is a moving toward, turning toward,
 or reaching toward one's partner in a
 symbolic sense. The meeting that results
 from this focus is the core of dialogic
 encounter. Buber summarized this "turning
 toward" as follows: "Where the dialogue is
 fulfilled in its being, between partners
 who have turned to one another in truth,
 who express themselves without reserve and
 are free of the desire for semblance, there
 is brought into being a memorable common
 fruitfulness which is to be found nowhere
 else" (Buber, 1966c).

6. Nonevaluativeness: In dialogue, there is an attempt to see the
 other's point of view even if it is opposed
 to one's own. "Each of the partners, even
 when he stands in opposition to the other,
 heeds, affirms, and confirms his opponent as
 an existing other" (Buber, 1966b).

Buber believed that true dialogic connection and I-Thou relationships could only be derived from the between or "the region of human existence that links self and others" (Anderson & Ross, 1994). This mutuality of communication resides not in either participant but in the relationship between the two (Figure 1). He believed that the essence of communication, language, and even one's identity resides in the "between." In communication terms, the meaning of messages is co-generated by the participants rather than being dictated by one. Thus, dialogue is directly related to the transactional model of communication discussed earlier in this chapter. The shared meaning and the relationship itself are the unique creations of both parties to the interaction.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In basic terms, monologic communication involves manipulation and control just as one would treat a physical object. It is the embodiment of an I-It relationship and obviously takes a one-way, transmission model approach to communication. Johannesen (1996) summarized the characteristics of monologic communication in vivid terms:

 A person employing monologue seeks to command, coerce, manipulate,
 conquer, dazzle, deceive, or exploit. Other persons are viewed as
 "things" to be exploited solely for the communicator's self-serving
 purpose: they are not taken seriously as persons. Choices are
 narrowed and consequences are obscured. Focus is on the
 communicator's message, not on the audience's real needs. The core
 values, goals, and policies espoused by the communicator are
 impervious to influence exerted by receivers. Audience feedback is
 used only to further the communicator's purpose. An honest response
 from a receiver is not wanted or is precluded. Monological
 communicators persistently strive to impose their truth or program
 on others; they have the superior attitude that they must coerce
 people to yield to what they believe others ought to know.
 Monologue lacks a spirit of mutual trust, and it displays a
 defensive attitude of self-justification (p. 69).

The above description of monologue is reminiscent of the approach to communication traditionally used by public relations practitioners. In Botan (1997) made this very point in an excellent journal article advocating a more ethical, dialogic approach to public relations. He believes that the predominant model of public relations in use today is monological. According to Botan, most strategic communication campaigns today "define their goals only from the perspective of the sponsor so they typically seek to reduce the receivers to a vehicle for achieving those needs" (p. 192). Monologic communication targets and treats others primarily to fulfill one's own needs.

Broom and Smith (1979) observed that although there are numerous public relations paradigms and models, practitioners are basically either technicians or managers. The public relations technician was described by Botan (1997) as follows:

 A technician perspective on public relations (otherwise known as a
 "hired gun") is by far the dominant model of public relations
 practice and teaching today ... This view sees public relations not
 from an ethical perspective but as a set of technical
 journalism-based skills to be hired out. Most important among these
 is the ability to write press releases well, but organizing and
 hosting press conferences, laying out or editing publications,
 taking pictures, and handling media relations are also important
 skills. In effect, the practitioner becomes the client's hired
 journalist-in-residence, or a mechanic for media relations. The
 most important attribute of this approach is that practitioners and
 their employers assume that the practitioner should be primarily a
 conduit for strategies, and sometimes even tactics, that have been
 decided elsewhere in the organization. In doing so this approach
 instrumentalizes publics, and to a lesser extent practitioners, and
 negates both the ethical role of the practitioner and the dialogic
 perspective ... (p. 195).

Thus, although the technician generally does not actively plan to bypass rational decision making by being deceitful and manipulative, the inherent lack of emphasis on relationship building and dialogue in this predominantly transmission model of communication will naturally lead to monologue since "the technical model has no specific interest in avoiding these behaviors. As monological communicators, they see communication partners as the means to an end. A dialogical view, on the other hand, sees communicative partners as ends in themselves" (Botan, p. 197).

As discussed early, the public relations practitioner as manager uses dialogic communication to develop, maintain, grow, and nurture mutually beneficial relationships. Pearson (1989) went so far as to declare that "establishing and maintaining dialogical communication between a business organization and its publics is a precondition for ethical business practices" (p. 125). Both Pearson and Botan were among the early advocates for moving away from a transmission-oriented, monologic, technician model and toward a dialogic, transactional, relational manager model of public relations. Botan (1993) summarized their view as follows: "A dialogic view of public relations differs from a technician approach by being more humanistic, communication-centered, relationship-focused, and ethical. This perspective focuses on communicative relationships rather than on technical skills. Traditional approaches to public relations relegate publics to a secondary role, making them an instrument for meeting organizational policy or marketing needs; whereas, dialogue elevates publics to the status of communication equal with the organization" (p. 196).

Botan points out that the new information technologies used for the "demassification" of messages have "the potential to facilitate dialogue, but the presence of a monologic or dialogic attitude remains the primary determinant" (p. 194) of which way it will be used. The Internet is an example of one contemporary context for using new technology to "interpersonalize" the relationships between organization and their publics. Individualized marketing and target advertising combined with interactive capabilities generated by the Internet and the World Wide Web have created a communication environment in which organizations can literally interact with and provide selective information for customers via a mediated channel of communication. Even particular segments of the population are grouped into specialized areas of interest in a highly sophisticated manner based upon the user's history of Internet selections or "hits". For example, a new California-based site is now devoted to the special interests and needs of the first wave of "baby boomers" to be 50 years of age or older. The Third Agers, as they have been dubbed, are as net savvy as the younger Generation Xers, and they are the first of the onslaught of boomers to have reached a period of spendable cash and more free time in which to spend it. Many profit and nonprofit organizations wanting to develop and maintain close ties with their publics have developed web pages to both disseminate information and gather information regarding constituent needs. Similarly, other forms of electronic technology are being combined to relationalize or interpersonalize the cold, impersonal nature of technology. For instance, the banking industry has developed interactive banking centers or "virtual banks" that combine touch sensitive screens, electronic banking, two-way cameras and sound to allow interpersonal, "face-to-face" transactions between customers at remote locations and tellers at central banks.

A new wave in advertising has apparently also taken note of the paradigm shift toward an interpersonal perspective. A glance at television commercials quickly reveals a movement toward greater emphasis upon personalized relations with potential customers. For example, in 1996 the AT&T "reach out and touch someone" advertisements were so successful that many other companies have followed suit. In 1997, TCI published the following ad in newspapers throughout the United States next to a picture of an adult's and a child's footprints in the sand:

 WE SEE YOU AS MORE THAN AN ACCOUNT NUMBER SO YOU CAN SEE US AS MORE
 THAN A CABLE COMPANY.

 We know that each of our customers is an individual. And no two are
 alike. That's why we make sure to never forget how important it is
 to personalize everything from the new products we offer to the
 services we provide. We've been doing it for quite some time and
 getting better at it every day. TCI, Now there's a better way.

No matter how slick or interpersonal looking the ads for McDonalds, AT&T, MCI, or any other commercial enterprise, including the television infomercials that involve interviews or audience participation in introducing new products and services, the fact remains that these are monologic attempts at representing or simulating relationships rather than actually establishing ongoing, dialogic relationships. These ads still follow the traditional image-creation paradigm, but they do at least show an awareness of the need for establishing closer relationships with their publics and an acknowledgment of their individuality.

Public relations and advertising specialists alike have attempted for years to make impersonal media appear as interpersonal as possible. Mass mediated messages can inform significant publics about the actions and efforts of organizations to be more responsive to them and to establish closer relational ties, but this method of communication is no substitute for the actual establishment and maintenance of relationships with individual significant publics. These claims are only manicured images until they are backed up by actions. In Buber's terms, they are monologue disguised as dialogue or, at the very least, technical dialogue leading to basic message understanding but not concerned with genuine dialogic relationships. In common parlance, it is easy to "talk the talk," but the real test for public relations practitioners should be whether or not their organizations are "walking the walk." As interpersonal communication axiom three indicates, it takes a combination of digital coding and analogic coding to create meaning in an interaction, and it is interpersonal contact, even if in symbolic forms, that builds relationships. Generation of images and "saying the right things" or "telling them what they want to hear" is not enough to establish stable, long-term relationships. Words and actions must be congruent if credibility and trust are to be built in a relationship possessing dialogue.

As advocates for public relations as relationship management continue to increase in number, dialogic communication theory will obviously play a key role in providing an interdisciplinary philosophic foundation.

LISTENING

One often ignored or overlooked foundation stone for the public relations communication process is listening--a basic component of interpersonal communication and the heart of dialogue. Interest in the art and science of listening can be traced to ancient thinkers and writers. For example, Plutarch wrote "On Listening to Lectures"--a fairly comprehensive examination of listening skills in public speaking situations--nearly 2,000 years ago (Babbitt, 1949).

Although there are over fifty different contemporary scholarly definitions for listening and many listening models, it is basically the complex process of receiving, attending to, and assigning meaning to aural stimuli (Wolvin, 1996). Listening involves attending to one's partner. Listening models consistently point out that listening goes well beyond the physical act of simply receiving the message. These models are not simply glorified Feedback Models; rather, they take a Transactional and Dialogic Model perspective (Thomlison, 1985). Although it has not been given a strong emphasis in public relations education and application, it is an essential element of successful and fulfilling relationship management.

Listening and public relations have much in common as areas of research and formalized study (Thomlison, 1990). As fields of academic study both are relatively new kids on the block. Although public relations was taught at a few universities in the 1920's, 30's, and 40's, it wasn't until the past three decades that the academic community began to accept and eventually embrace public relations, and even then with considerable reluctance. Two major organizations devoted specifically to public relations pursuits have evolved in the United States--the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). Similarly, listening studies such as Paul Rankin's were conducted as early as 1926 (Brown, 1987), but it was not until the 1950's that Nichols (1957) wrote the first textbook devoted to the subject of listening. In the 1960's a few complete college courses on listening were taught and the numbers have been increasing steadily since then (Wolvin, Coakely, & Disburg, 1990). Many undergraduate programs now include listening courses or, at the very least, listening units in several of their communication courses. In 1979 a professional society was established solely for the advancement of listening education and research--the International Listening Association (ILA). The first formal organizational acknowledgment of the significance of listening in public relations came in 1990 when the ILA was sent to every member of the IABC an invitation to join the ILA. Just as public relations theory has evolved from several disciplines, listening has diverse roots (Thomlison, 1987).

Case study books abound with examples of situations in which public relations practitioners did not listen to their publics or communication partners. Wylie (1990) observed that historically the shortsightedness of organizations and entire industries (health care, insurance) of not attending to the interests and needs of their publics has resulted in dire consequences. Examples of effective and sensitive listening are less abundant but there are a growing number. For instance, listening to the need for parents of seriously ill children to have affordable housing near treatment centers led directly to the establishment of Ronald McDonald Houses. Surprisingly, even with the increasing awareness and general comments about understanding and relating more effectively to significant publics, very few specific references to listening are included in public relations texts and courses. A cursory examination of the subject index of even the most advanced public relations texts will reveal an absence of listening references. Listening texts are equally guilt of ignoring the significant impact of listening on public relations. However, there is great potential for numerous significant applications of listening theory, research, and models to public relations practice.

Since a high proportion of the commonly cited "public relations activities" include human interaction and response, it is inevitable that listening skills and awareness will be a vital component of "relationalizing" public relations. According to Wylie (1990), "public relations becomes involved in the whole organization, and its function of communication is no less from the public to the organization than from the organization to the public" (p. 59). Thus, public relations personnel are heavily involved in listening to their various publics. As the Public Relations Society of America states, "public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other" (Wilcox, et al., 1989, p. 5).

CONCLUSION

As the relationship management perspective in public relations research, theory and practition continues to expand, it will become increasingly valuable to draw from available relationship research and theory from diverse fields of study. The above discussion serves to demonstrate with selected interpersonal constructs that there is a wealth of potential applications of interpersonal communication theory to public relations. In particular, the basic interpersonal communication axioms, dialogic communication theory, and listening research are rich areas that can contribute to the relationalizing of public relations. Perhaps public relations specialists can finally learn the hard earned lesson that my father failed to discover in his quest to get to California: it is not the end state but rather the process which is of greatest importance in relationships. This is no less true whether it involves family communication or an organization relating to its publics.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R.& Ross, V. (1994). Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Arnett, R. C. (1981). Toward a phenomenological dialogue. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 201-212.

Babbitt, F.C. (trans.)(1949). Moralia, (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Berko, R. M, Rosenfeld, L. B., & Samovar, L. A. (1997). Connecting (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Botan, C. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public relations. The Journal of Business Communication, 34 (2), 188-202.

Botan, C (1993). Introduction to the paradigm struggle in public relations. Public Relations Review, 19 (2), 97-110.

Broom, G.M., & Smith, G. D. (1979). Testing the practitioner's impact on clients. Public Relations Review, 5, 47-59.

Brown, J. I. (1987). Listening: Ubiquitous yet obscure. Journal of the International Listening Association, 1, 3-14.

Brown, C. T. & Keller, P.W. (1979). Monologue to dialogue: An exploration of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Buber, M. (1967). Between man and man: The realms. In F. W. Matson & A. Montague (Eds.), The human dialogue. New York: The Free Press.

Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (R.G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Buber, M. (1966a). Acceptance and otherness. In N.N. Glatzer (Ed.), The way of response: Martin

Buber. New York: Schocken Books.

Buber, M. (1966b). In this hour. In N.N. Glatzer (Ed.), The way of response: Martin Buber. New York: Schocken Books.

Buber, M. (1966c). Without reserve. In N.N. Glatzer (Ed.), The way of response: Martin Buber. New York: Schocken Books.

Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

Cessna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1990). The contributions of Carl R. Rogers to a philosophical praxis of dialogue. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 125-147.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ferguson, M.A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and MassCommunication, Gainesville, FL.

Friedman, M. S. (1956). Martin Buber: The life of dialogue. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationship. Public Relations Review, 19 (2), 221-139.

Grunig, J. E. & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In

C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton, Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Howe, R. L. (1967). The miracle of dialogue. In F. W. Matson & A. Montagu (Eds.), The human dialogue. New York: The Free Press.

Jaspers, K. (1964). Communication. In M. S. Friedman (Ed.), The worlds of existentialism. New York: Random House.

Johannesen, R. L. (1971). The emerging concept of communciation as dialogue. Quarterly Journal of Speech, LVII, 373-82.

Johannesen, R. L. (1996). Ethics in human communication (4th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D. (Eds.). (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S., & Thomlison, T. D. (1996, October). The applicability of interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of relational loyalty, A qualitative approach. Paper presented at the international conference of The Allied Academies, Maui, Hawaii.

Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S., Thomlison, T. D., & Lesko, C. (1997). Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 1 (1), 23-43.

Liska, J. & Cronkhite, G. (1995). An ecological perspective on human communication theory. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1996). Theories of human communication (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers.

Matson, F. W. & Montagu, A. (1967). Introduction: The unfinished revolution. In Matson, F. W. & Montagu, A. (Eds.), The human dialogue. New York: The Free Press.

Meerloo, J. A. (1967). Conversation and communication. In Matson, F. W. & Montagu, A. (Eds.), The human dialogue. New York: The Free Press.

Montgomery, B. M. (1992). Communication as the interface between couples and culture. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 15. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Nichols, R. G. & Stevens, L. A. (1957). Are you listening? New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pearson, R. L. (1989). Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dialogue. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ruesch, J. (1971). Communication and human relations: An interdisciplinary approach. In K. Giffin & B. R. Patton (Eds.), Basic readings in interpersonal communication. New York: Harper & Row.

Smith, D. R. & Williamson, L. K. (1981). Interpersonal communication: roles, rules, strategies, and games (2nd ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Stewart, J. (1978). Foundations of dialogic communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 183201. Thomlison, T. D. (1972). Communication as dialogue: An alternative. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University.

Thomlison, T. D. (1987). Contributions of humanistic psychology to listening: Past, present and future. Journal of the International Listening Association, 1 (1), 54-77.

Thomlison, T. D. (1990). Public relations and listening. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Central States Communication Association, Detroit, Michigan.

Thomlison, T. D. (1985). Relational listening: Theoretical and practical considerations. ERIC Clearinghouse for Reading and Communication Skills (ERIC document ED 257 165).

Thomlison, T. D. (1974). The existential foundations of dialogic communication. Journal of the Illinois Speech and Theatre Association, 28 (1), 1-5.

Thomlison, T. D. (1975). The necessary and sufficient characteristics of dialogic communication: The dialogic process equation. Journal of the Illinois Speech and Theatre Association, 29 (1), 34-42.

Thomlison, T. D. (1982). Toward interpersonal dialogue. New York: Longman Publishers.

Thomlison, T. D. & Ledingham, J. A. (1989). The challenge of communication curriculum integration. ERIC Clearinghouse for Reading and Communication Skills (ERIC document ED 332 236).

Watzlawick, P., Beavin , J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton. Wilcox, D. L. (1989). Public relations: Strategies and tactics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Wolvin, A. D., Coakley, C. G., & Disburg, J. (1990). The status of listening instruction in American colleges and universities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Listening Association, Indianapolis, IN.

Wolvin, A. D. & Coakley, C. G. (1996) Listening (5th ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.

Wylie, F. W. (1990). The challenge of public relations education. Syracuse Scholar, 10 (1), 57- 66.

T. Dean Thomlison, University of Evansville