com510 Discussion Questions
answer the below discussion questions
Topic 3 DQ 1
Find an example of a company that does something you feel is unethical. Why do you feel this practice is unethical? Why do you think the company would do something that you feel is unethical?
Topic 3 DQ 2
Describe a time when you have been presented with an ethically challenging situation at your job or in school. How did it make you feel and what did you do about it? What do you wish you had done differently?
Use the attached documents for references
The professor requires minimum one integrated quotation(s) from the textbook PER DISCUSSION. One idea per paragraph do not be vague – choose only one idea or one point to discuss in paragraph
Pages from Chapter 13
Book Corporate Communication
A guide to Theory and Practice Ebook Public relations, issues management, and most marketing communication cam-
paigns are instances of the broad category of strategic communication, although
by no means the only instances. Such campaigns can be conducted from several
models, but these can be broadly grouped into monological and dialogical
approaches. In an information society such campaigns increasingly provide the
point of contact between an organization and its publics. As a result, these cam-
paigns constitute the primary input with which publics make assessments about
both the ethicality of the organization’s communication and the ethicality of the
organization itself. Using the example of public relations, this article describes
the increasingly important distinction between monologic and dialogic cam-
paigns, explains why the currently dominant monological approach to public
relations has long been recognized by practitioners and scholars to be ethically
perilous, suggests an ethically more viable dialogic approach, and concludes by
discussing some of the reasons the business community has been slow to adopt
such an approach and why its ethical and practical benefits outweigh these
objections.
Ethics in Strategic Communication
Campaigns: The Case for a New Approach
to Public Relations
Carl Botan
Purdue University
Strategic communication is an emerging term often applied toplanned communication campaigns. Although models vary, strate-
gic communication for both business and nonbusiness purposes almost
invariably uses research to identify a problem or issue, relevant publics,
and measurable goals and objectives. Research can contribute to goal
identification, for example, by finding out what subjects want, estab-
lishing a baseline with which to contrast outcomes, or by illuminating
trends, past performance patterns, cycles, and the like. A strategic com-
munication plan then adopts steps, or strategies, for addressing that prob-
lem with target publics and employs a series of measurable tactics
through which to implement those strategies. Strategic communication
campaigns are conducted under many labels including public rela-
tions, community relations, constituent relations, crisis management,
health promotion, issues management, investor relations, member-
ship relations, outreach, public affairs, public health, public informa-
tion, risk communication, strategic advertising, strategic marketing,
and the like. These campaigns typically use the set of skills and
approaches developed over three-quarters of a century by the field of
public relations but often, especially in marketing, advertising, and
health promotion, they are not called “public relations” by their spon-
sors.
Modern public relations campaigns are strategic in nature and most
public relations practitioners and scholars see public relations as
188
The Journal of Business Communication, Volume 34, Number 2, April 1997, pages 188-202
O 1997 by the Association for Business Communication
Ethics in Strategic Communication / Botan 1 8 9
strategic communication and themselves as strategic communicators.
But there are other strategic communicators who do not see themselves
as practicing public relations (interpersonal, group, and organizational
communicators are often considered strategic). As a result, the term
strategic communication, which is not objectionable to public rela-
tions people, is the broader and more inclusive of the two and is an appro-
priate term for referring to planned, research-based persuasive and
informational campaigns including those conducted as public rela-
tions campaigns. Public relations is a paradigmatic example of strate-
gic communication and will be used that way in this article, the
conclusions of which, it is hoped, may be applied broadly to strategic
communication.
Public relations and other strategic communication campaigns can
be conducted for many purposes including (a) public diplomacy, used
to persuade the people of another nation to infiuence their government’s
policies toward the sponsoring nation (Kunczik, 1990; Signitzer &
Coombs, 1992); (b) litigation public relations, used to influence the out-
comes of jury trials (Gomey, 1995); (c) public health promotions (Ander-
son, 1989; Flora, Maccoby, & Farquhar, 1989; Reardon, 1989); (d)
development public relations, used to build support for national devel-
opment programs (Karim, 1989; Pratt, 1985); (e) the sui)port of social
causes suck as charities, religions, the environment, or activist orga-
nizations (Grunig, 1989); and (f) the support of particular candidates
or political policies (Manheim, 1994). Such campaigns can also be used
to gain, acceptance for a corporation’s or industry’s apologies (Hoover
& Garmon, 1990), public policy views (Crable & Vibbert, 1985; Jones
& Chase, 1979), or products. Along with employee directed campaigns
(Ki’eps, 1989) these last three examples of public relations campaigns
may constitute public relations’ primary contribution to business com-
munication and are among the most common kinds of campaigns.
As divergent as the names and purposes of such campaigns are, they
have as a common purpose the infiuencing of individuals, groups, orga-
nizations, even, whole societies. A campaign intended to influence sug-
gests a relationship, or a desired relationship, between the parties,
and the ethicality of such campaigns is determined primarily by the
values and relationships expressed in them, including how the target
publics are treated. Indeed, the social relationships that campaign.s seek
to create, maintain, or change produce the core ethical issues
of public relations, in particular, and strategic communication, in
general.
Influence attempts of the campaign raise serious ethical questions.
The more successful the campaign is at influencing others, and hence
the greater its reach or impact, the more significant the ethical ques-
tions become. So, if we are moving into an era in which campaigns can
1 9 0 The Journal of Business Communication 34:2 April 1997
reach increasingly larger audiences, or be more persuasive by reason
of the media channels or strategies they employ, the ethical questions
raised can be expected to become broader and more urgent.
This essay examines ethical implications of the typical approach to
public relations campaigns, and proposes a less ethically troubling
alternative. First, the two basic models used to conduct campaigns are
presented: monologic and dialogic. The second section of this article
argues that in the new information age, the reach and impact of pub-
lic relations campaigns can be expected to grow. But it also notes that
new information technology can present increased opportunities to
choose between the monologic and dialogic approaches. The third sec-
tion identifies the monologic approach as the dominant model behind
current public relations campaigns, and argues that the dialogic model
is a more ethically sound alternative. In the final section, some of the
practical objections to the dialogic model are discussed. This article con-
cludes by indicating that objections to the dialogic approach are not
convincing.
Ethics of Monological
and Dialogical Campaigns
Public relations is often used for strategic business communica-
tion, and the ethicality of strategic communication can be analyzed not
so much in terms of its content as its process–the relationship it
assumes or enforces between the involved parties-and the attitudes and
values this reflects. It is the question of process, then, where an assess-
ment of any communication campaigns should start. In view of Haber-
mas’s (1984) equation of ethical communication with dialogic process
and the support other scholars (Johannesen, 1996; Pearson, 1989c) lend
to this analysis, this section identifies first monologic and then dialogic
communication. These are the foundational concepts employed in this
article.
Monologic Communication
According to Johannesen (1996), monological communication is:
Characterized hy writers such as Matson and Montagu, Howe, Gusdorf,
Gibh, Shostrom, Jaspers, Meerloo, Geenagle, and Rudinow [using] much the
same vocabulary as Buher to explain the nature of monologue. A person
employing monologue seeks to command, coerce, manipulate, conquer, daz-
zle, deceive, or exploit. Other persons are viewed as “things” to he exploited
solely for the communicator’s self-serving purpose: they are not taken seri-
ously 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 impervi-
ous to influence exerted by receivers. Audience feedback is used only to fur-
ther the communicator’s purpose. An honest response from a receiver is not
Ethics in Strategic Communication / Botan ] 91
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)
As Habermas (1984) suggested, the key is process and relation-
ships. In the case of monologic communication the process is one of seek-
ing to instrumentaiize receivers by engaging in “goal directed,
feedback-oriented interventions in the world of existing states of
affairs” (pp. 11-12) for the purpose of achieving a relationship charac-
terized by “power over people and view[ing] them as objects for enjoy-
ment or as things through which to profit” (Johannesen, 1996, p. 68).
As I will seek to establish later, the predominant model of public rela-
tions in use today is monological. A dialogical model maybe preferable;
however, and dialogic communication has several characteristics that
set it apart from monologic.
Dialogic Communication
In terms of process and attitude, dialogic communication is the
polar opposite of monologic communication and may well be the foun-
dation of higher standards for ethical business communication. For exam-
pie, Pearson (1989c) believed that “establishing and maintaining
dialogical communication between a business organization and its
publics is a precondition for ethical business practices” (p. 125). Dia-
logue is characterized by the relationships and attitudes the partici-
pants have toward each other in that:
Participant attitudes are viewed as an index of the ethical level of that com-
munication. The assumption is that some attitudes (characteristic of dialogue)
are more fully human, humane, and facilitative of self-fulfillment than are
other attitudes (characteristic of monologue). Dialogic attitudes are held to
best nurture and actualize each individual’s capacities and potentials. (Johan-
nesen, 1996, p. 64)
Pearson (1989c), for example, said that “Weaver’s interpretation of
Plato’s Phaedrus suggests successful dialogue takes place only when
speakers treat each other as ends rather than means” (pp. 123-124).
Indeed, “dialogue manifests itself more as a stance, orientation, or
bearing in communication rather than as a specific method, technique,
or format” and those using this approach attempt to generate an atmos-
phere characterized by authenticity, inclusion, confirmation, present-
ness, a spirit of mutual equality, and a supportive climate (Johannesen,
1996, p. 66). Pearson (1989c) concluded by suggesting that “ethical busi-
ness practices can be anal5^zed in terms of speech acts where ethical
communication is operationalized as the opportunity among commvi-
nicators [for example, practitioner or client and publics] both to engage
1 9 2 The Journai of Business Communication 34:2 Aprill 997
in all types of speech acts and to move the discussion toward levels of
increasing abstraction (or concreteness)” (p. 126). Habermas (1984) also
discussed freedom to move a discussion up or down between levels of
abstraction. Examples of this would be the freedom to move to a higher
level of abstraction by questioning the assumptions behind an utter-
ance or to a more concrete level by addressing the utility of a policy or
tbe effects on the listener of acquiescing to a request. Habermas called
this kind of communication dialogue, which for him was S3rnonymous
with ethical communication.
Dialogic communication, then, would be characterized by a rela-
tionship in which both parties have genuine concern for each other,
rather than merely seeking to fulfill their own needs. Many, probably
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. Recent advances
in communication technology make such campaigns able to reach–and
therefore to attempt to instrumentalize-broader audiences more
efficiently than ever before. However, these same advances can facili-
tate dialogic relationships in many situations that have been largely
monologic in the past. Therefore, before turning to a fuller analysis of
the monologic nature of contemporary campaigns, some effects of the
expansion of the information society need to be considered.
Increasing Importance in an Information Society
As the information age unfolds, and we become more of an information
society, public relations and other strategic communication campaigns
will play an ever larger role in the lives of organizations. The information
society has been discussed by Beninger (1986), Dordick (1987, 1989),
Machlup (1962), and Machlup and Mansfield (1983). It is characterized
by a preponderance of the labor force being engaged in information work
(Schement, 1989), as opposed to a minority being so engaged, which has
been true since Aristotle. Paisley (1980) defined information work as
“the production, distribution, transformation, storage, retrieval, or
use of information” (p. 118). Public relations and other strategic com-
munication campaigns are instances of such information work and
are, therefore, part of the emerging information society, both intuitively
and functionally. The former because information is the primary tool
of strategic communication campaigns, including public relations. The
latter because this work is composed primarily of the production, dis-
tribution, transformation, storage, retrieval, and use of information.
Indeed, it is hard to conceive of any endeavor that is more quintessen-
tially information work than is strategic communication.
As we move more deeply into the information age through tbe Inter-
net, cyberspace, satellites, and the like, we descend into the kind of infor-
Ethics in Strategic Communication / Botan ] 9 3
mation-centered economy and work experience that are natural for pub-
lic relations and strategic communication practitioners. In fact, Bovet
(1995) has suggested that:
Perhaps no field of endeavor is better suited to the new millennium than pub-
lic relations. There’s a ‘third wave’ revolution occurring in the civilized world,
according to Aivin and Heidi Toffler . . . power and productivity in the new
order are based on developing and distributing information-two of the pri-
mary activities of public relations practitioners, (p. 1)
The development of an information society, and a concomitant infor-
mation economy, brings with it a certain raising ofthe stakes in the com-
municative relationships between organizations and their publics.
Reasons for this are (a) organizational actions can be communicated,
or exposed, to audiences worldwide in a matter of hours or minutes; (b)
publics come to expect large amounts of information; (c) better educated
publics process information more thoroughly, or at least in greater quan-
tities than in past eras; and (d) an increase in activist and consumer
groups has decreased the probability that a problematic organiza-
tional action will go unnoticed.
Although assertions of a causal relationship are beyond the scope of
this article, a significant drop in confidence in major social institutions
has occurred coincidentally with the emergence of an information soci-
ety. For example, in the slightly more than a quarter century between
1966 and 1994, those expressing a great deal of confidence in major com-
panies fell from 55% to 19% (Samuelson, 1996). These and other fac-
tors suggest that the need for strategic business communication will
increase and that it will play an increasingly important role in estab-
lishing the ethical reputation of organizations in the next decade.
Leading business executives seem to agree that public relations, at least,
will be important in determining how ethical businesses and business
commionication will be perceived to be in the next decade. In a 1995 study,
for example, a retired Johnson & Johnson Products Vice-President for
Public Relations surveyed the CEO’s often ofthe largest and most influ-
ential corporations including Exxon, Ford, General Motors, Johnson &
Johnson, Merrill Lynch, PepsiCo, Phillips Petroleum, Pacific Gas and
Electric, Prudential, and Rockwell International. Among the findings
were that “more than ever before, CEO’s expect their senior manage-
ment people to specifically deal with the public relations ramifications
of their decisions so that potential problems are not allowed to esca-
late into major issues” (Foster, 1995). A perceived lack of ethics is, in
the final analysis, the surest way to leap from a potential problem to
an actual one and this is why public relations scholars have dedicated
increasing attention to ethics.
Indeed, perceived ethics may be part ofthe reason Edward Bernays,
commonly known as the “father” of public relations, turned down many
1 9 4 The Journal of Business Communication 34:2 Aprii 1997
notable clients including Hitler, Franco, and Somoza (Wilcox, Ault, &
Agee, 1995). With this as a precedent, the modern generation of pub-
lic relations scholars and practitioners has moved toward developing
a stronger ethical foundation. This may be partially in response to the
belief that perceptions of a business’ ethics are largely dependent on
how strategic communicators are perceived and partially in response
to the realization that new information technology is assuring that
increasing numbers of people will share in those perceptions more
quickly than ever before.
The result is that new and greater ethical challenges, not all of
which are related to technology, will confront practitioners and those
who hire them. For example, a recent issue of Strategist (Public Rela-
tions Society of America, 1995a), an official publication of the Public
Relations Society of America, featured a point-counterpoint article
about whether a practitioner should represent the Bosnian Serbs. At
about the same time, an issue oi Public Relations Tactics (Public Rela-
tions Society of America, 1995b) reported that today only 34% of pub-
lic relations firms would accept tobacco companies as clients. In another
example, I was the last of three public relations scholars to speak to a
group of colleagues a few years ago, with no idea as to what the other
two had said. During the question and answer period the first question
was, “Are all you PR people preoccupied with ethics?” The answer,
increasingly, is yes, and this seems to be the case in much of strategic
communication as well (Gandy, 1992; Rakow, 1989).
There is another dimension to the information society that is par-
ticularly relevant to a discussion of monologic and dialogic communi-
cation. This is the effect of demassification of messages (Williams,
Rice, & Rogers, 1988). Demassification essentially involves the cus-
tomization or tailoring of messages for increasingly smaller audiences
and is facilitated by several new information technologies such as
computer-driven on-line information systems. These allow people to
select the precise information, or mix of information, they want and avoid
the cost and inefficiency of waste coverage. One popular instance of
demassification occurs when a phone user works through an auto-
mated menu of alternatives to get specialized information on topics like
how to treat a sunburn or order a tax form, rather than having to watch
a television program or buy a whole book in hopes of finding a little rel-
evant information. Because of their interactive attributes and ability
to attend to small groups or individuals, demassification technologies
have the potential to facilitate dialogue, but the presence of a monologic
or dialogic attitude remains the primary determinant.
The emergence of an information society, and its attendant infor-
mation technology, makes resolving the question of monological or
dialogical communication in public relations even more urgent than in
Ethics in Strategic Communication / Botan 1 9 5
the past. The next section explains the approach to public relations most
commonly used in business, the significant ethical questions associated
with, it, a more dialogical and negotiation-centered approach, and the
ethical benefits it carries. Finally, some of the reasons why this model
has not gained popularity in the business community are examined, and
counter-arguments or comments are offered to strengthen the case for
adopting the new model for public relations and strategic communication.
Approaches to Public Relations
Academics have discussed competing approaches to public relations
including paradigms (Botan, 1993a) and four specific models (Grrunig
& Hunt, 1984). In actuality, however, practitioners tend to fall into one
of two roles: technicians or managers (Broom & Smith, 1979). A tech-
nician perspective on public relations (otherwise known as a “hired gi:m”
perspective) is by far the dominant model of public relations practice
and teaching today (Botan, 1994b).
Technician or Monoiogic Approach
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 publi-
cations, taking pictures, and handling media relations are also impor-
tant skills (Botan, 1994b). 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 eth-
ical role of the practitioner and the dialogic perspective discussed
below.
In a technician approach, the practitioner cedes unquestioned
authority to decide major ethical issues such as message purpose, con-
tent, and targeting to someone outside themselves, in this case to cor-
porate leaders (Botan, 1994a). In doing so the public relations department
usually accepts what is essentially a one-way communication role and
assures that it will have little voice in deciding what is ethical for the
organization to do with respect to its publics or in deciding exactly how
public relations itself will be practiced. In fact, those making the calls
under this model are often organizational leaders with little or no
training in communication, in communication campaigns, in persua-
sion, or in the media and its role in society. They often do not even have
1 9 6 TheJournal of Business Communication 34:2 April 1997
basic training in the legal or ethical aspects of public communication
campaigns.
As will be seen shortly, the technician approach uses nondialogic com-
munication. Recall that such communication frequently has the eiFect
of instrumentalizing people (Habermas, 1984), by reducing them to a
site where the speaker seeks to meet his or her needs. A technician
approach to public relations lends itself quite readily to such an instru-
mentalizing process because it focuses only on getting what the client
wants. Implicit in this approach is the idea that practitioners should
view publics as either a source of trouble for the client or as the pos-
sessor of something the client would like to acquire, such as money or
votes. Ethics in the technician’s view is based on what Sullivan (1965)
and Pearson (1989a) called craft and partisan values. In this view
what is labelled good public relations is a technically good product, and
a good motive is loyalty to the employer. Ethical public relations, then,
is simply being loyal to the client or employer’s strategic interests or
being good at the craft. As previously discussed, such a monologic
approach to any communication, including strategic campaigns like pub-
lic relations, is problematic. Thus, an alternative model is needed.
One alternative approach would be dialogic in nature, featuring the prac-
titioner’s ability to facilitate a give-and-take relationship between
clients and publics. This can also be called the negotiation or adapta-
tion model of public relations (Botan, 1993b).
Alternative Dialogic Approach
In the view of Dervin (1989), “communication cannot be conceptu-
alized as transmission. Rather, it must be conceptualized in terms of
both parties involved in creating meanings, by means of dialogue” (p.
72). What is called for in public relations, then, is not the primarily trans-
mission-oriented and monologic technician model but an alternative
model that features an exchange between groups and organizations. Pear-
son (1989a; 1989b) and Botan (1993a; 1993b) have argued that a dia-
logic 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 (see Johannesen, 1996 for a summary of dia-
logic approaches to communication). Traditional approaches to public
relations relegate publics to a secondary role, making them an instru-
ment for meeting organizational policy or marketing needs; whereas,
dialogue elevates publics to the status of communication equal with the
organization. This is because a negotiating relationship means that either
party can take the initiative in seeking to establish a new relationship
or to renegotiate an existing one, hence, public relations is equally the
province of corporations, activist groups, government bodies, and
employee organizations. This model is, therefore, more ethical than a
Ethics in Strategic Communication / Botan 1 9 7
monologic approach because it goes much further toward “treating each
other as an ends rather than a means” (Pearson, 1989c, p. 124).
A dialogic view assumes that the ahility to construct what Boulding
(1973) has called mental images is a fundamental part of the human
experience and that puhlic relations practices that facilitate this process
inside puhlics are more ethical than those that inhihit it (Botan, 1993h).
Consistent with the human nature and dialogic views of ethics (discussed
more fully by Johannesen, 1996), the dialogic approach to communication
shares with the rhetorical approach the view that humans are uniquely
equipped to use symbols and that it is this ability which sets humans
apart from other creatures (Burke, 1966; Langer, 1948; Richards, 1965;
Wieman & Walters, 1957). These writers contend that the hum.an use
of symbols to interpret our social and physical environment is a process
that contributes to our humanity; therefore, communication practices
that contribute to the rational use of symbols also contribute to our
humanity. This view of ethics focuses on the right to free choice based
on the connection between symbol use and a rational mental life which
Langer (1948) described as “characteristically human and above the level
of sheer animality” (pp. 34-35).
A technician perspective focuses on the capacity of a message to elicit
desired behavior from publics. Although not seeking to be deceitful, to
short circuit rational decision making, or to manipulate publics; the tech-
nician 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 commu-
nicative partners as ends in themselves. Prom the dialogical perspec-
tive practitioners would begin from the assumption that target publics
have interpretations of the world that are as varied and valid as the
client’s interpretations. They would assume that the real goal is not
reducing publics to the service of the client through instrumental mas-
tery but joining with the publics in the process of negotiating new mutual
understanding.
Objections to the Dialogic Modei
The answer seems simple. Public relations, like other communica-
tion, should be dialogic, respecting and facilitating the rights of publics
to engage in informed and free decision making by exchanging persuasive
and informative messages. Public relations should simply make avail-
able the information publics need, along with a forthright and honest
advocacy of what the client wants. What could be simpler?
Although conceptually simple, a dialogic approach to public relations
is very difficult to operationalize in the world of business, and conse-
quently, it is rarely used (Gaudino, Pritch, & Haynes, 1989). This
appears to be the case for several reasons, including short-term goals,
costs, and the wishes and rights of publics and mass audiences. But these
1 9 8 The Journai of Business Communication 34:2 April 1997
impediments to dialogic public relations may not be as significant as
they seem at first glance.
First, a focus on short-term goals, such as sales or product promo-
tion, can make clients unwilling to provide information that can be used
to make decisions contrary to their short term goals or to provide
information that does not directly address those short term goals. If
clients are convinced their interests are best served by short-term
(that is, tactical) public relations it can be quite difficult for a practi-
tioner to disagree successfully. The fact that a long-term relationship
can be much more important to the organization’s future, and that build-
ing these requires a consistent practice over an extended period of time,
may be overlooked when responding to the exigencies of a competitive
marketplace or a crisis. Johnson & Johnson Products’ classic handling
of the Tylenol poisonings, however, is just one of many examples of suc-
cessful and ethical public relations practices built on the clear under-
standing that public relations is a long term (that is, strategic) endeavor
and that it is possible to build long term relationships, even in the throes
of a crisis. Finally, in an information environment characterized by near
instantaneous exposure of organizational errors, the whole idea of
what constitutes short-term changes. Ninety days can be an eternity
during a public relations crisis, so even ninety-day goals can be rendered
almost meaningless if, for example, a ship’s captain gets drunk and spills
a few million barrels of oil in a wildlife wilderness.
Second, the cost of establishing and maintaining ongoing dialogic com-
munication with publics, in terms of both time and money, may appear
to be prohibitive. This is particularly so in light of the fact that public
relations is almost invariably treated in corporations as a staff, as
opposed to line, function. It may be very difficult to argue for invest-
ing scarce organizational resources into what is conceived of as a sup-
port function. One source of this difficulty is perceiving public relations
as merely a staff
