LM7 - Public Affairs and Governmental Communication
Meznar & Nigh (1995)
“Buffer” and “bridge” activities
Meznar and Nigh, in their 1995, investigate the ways in which organizational
public affairs management interacts with its environment. The authors support the
view that public affair activities can either; a. “Buffer” relationships with the
environment, meaning the way communications are being managed has a
protective role, like a cushion absorbing possible tensions between the organization
and the environment while at the same time the organization is in a place where it
can infuence but not be as easily infuenced (p. 976), or b. “Bridge” relationships with
the environment, meaning that the organization has an intention to adapt to
environmental expectations and be infuenced by external circumstances.
The authors form hypotheses including variables such as environmental
uncertainty (p. 978), organizational size & resource importance (p. 978-979) ,
visibility (p. 979-980) as well as type of enterprise strategy (p. 980-981) to test
whether they have implications to whether public affairs management buffers,
bridges or does both; with this research, they are able to recommend possible ways
of managing these affairs based on such variables, along with desired outcomes.
The hypotheses are tested by analyses on data from large US frms, resulting
bridging to be positively associated with uncertainty and institution-oriented
philosophy of top management (p. 989), and buffering to be positively related to
environmental uncertainty and organizational power (p.989). The results highlight
the importance of top-management principles can frmly impact the way a frm
communicates with social and political stakeholders, as well as the interplay
between these two types of connecting and the reasons why and when some
organizations choose to perform buffering, bridging, both or neither.
Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). BUFFER OR BRIDGE? ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ACTIVITIES IN AMERICAN
FIRMS. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 975–996.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256617
Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012
● Waeraas and Byrkjefot focus on public organizations and the problems these
face when trying to manage their reputation in a “traditional”, management-
book way, as it is somewhat different than applying tested recipes to for-proft
1
, organizations, due to the public sector’s lack of autonomy (p. 188). The authors
recognize and categorize fve main constraints;
a. the politics problem (related to the reasoning behind establishing such public
organizations, their lack of autonomy, and the diffculty in separating politics
and administration activities, p. 194)
b. the consistency problem (related to the inherent inconsistency of values in
such institutions and the inherent multiplicity of their identities, p.195)
c. the charisma problem (related to the inability to choose followers, the
traditional bureaucratic focus on rule orientation and equity being kind of
“old-fashioned’, and the fundamental association of such institutions with
problems and thus, negative news, p. 197)
d. the uniqueness problem (related to the inability of being distinctively
different from rivals, as management books are preaching, p. 197)
e. the excellence problem (related to poor ranking in excellence, the diffculties
of maintaining it and the constraint of competing with sisterly similar
institutions with the same mission, p. 199)
They visualize these problems with a model, explaining the dynamics that lead to
them (p. 190), and conclude to some suggestions that could assist these attempts,
such as recognizing the existence and fexibility of these problems, and not try to
eliminate them but fnd a proper balance, as well as not linking legitimacy only with
reputation, as this is not the case for public institutions, in the authors view.
Arild Wæraas & Haldor Byrkjefot (2012) Public Sector Organizations and
Reputation Management: Five Problems, International Public Management
Journal, 15:2, 186-206, DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2012.702590
Garland, Tambini & Couldry, 2018
The authors’ in ther article describe the process of mediatization, related to
governments and their relations with the media. Their main inquiry is a study of
government’s relations with media from within; trying to identify ways in which
central bureaucracies and executive agencies adapt to the media, and how media
have become integrated into government’s long term relations to society. With a
focus on UK media and government relations, they support that such media impacts
are increasingly becoming institutionalized and normalized within state
bureaucracies: the identify this process as mediatization; mediatization theory
supports that government is continuously infuenced (directly and indirectly) by its
interactions with media; simply put, political actors integrate media logic into their
political logic and act accordingly. The authors describe these processes extensively
(p. 499-500) and move towards their fndings, which came to light from expert
interviews and archival research. Although their fndings are not thorough for this
matter, they remain a satisfying frst step that provides guidance and terms for
2
, future research on the matter, aiming attention at the small, everyday practices that
slowly shape and form general stances and behaviors, integrating media logic into
political life, as well as transforming media institutions into social institutions of their
own right.
Garland, R., Tambini, D., & Couldry, N. (2018). Has government been mediatized? A UK
perspective. Media, Culture and Society, 40(4), 496–513.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717713261
3
, LM8 - Crisis Communication
Coombs, 2009
SCCT posits that by understanding the crisis situation, the crisis
manager can determine which crisis response strategy or
strategies will maximize reputational protection (functional,
instrumental)
● SCCT centers on the crisis manager examining the crisis situation in order
to assess the level of the reputational threat level presented by a crisis. The
threat is the amount of damage a crisis could infict on the organization’s
reputation if no action is taken. Three factors in the crisis situation shape the
reputational threat:
○ initial crisis responsibility,
○ crisis history and
○ prior relational reputation.
● Frames in communication help to shape frames in thought. The way a
message is framed shapes how people defne problems, causes of
problems, attributions of responsibility and solutions to problems.
● Crisis types are a form of frame. Each crisis type features certain
aspects of the crisis. These cues indicate how stakeholders should
interpret a crisis. A crisis manager tries to establish or shape the crisis
frame by emphasizing certain cues. The cues include whether or not
some external agent or force caused the crisis, whether the crisis was a
result of accidental or intentional actions by members of the
organization and whether the cause of the crisis was technical or
human error. It does matter if stakeholders view the event as an
accident, sabotage or criminal negligence. The crisis types or frame
determines how much stakeholders attribute responsibility for the
crisis to the organization.
○ the victim
○ Victim cluster; has very weak attributions of crisis responsibility
(natural disasters, workplace violence, product tampering and
rumor) and the organization is viewed as a victim of the event;
○ Accidental cluster; has minimal attributions of crisis
responsibility (technical-error accident, technical-error product
harm and challenge) and the event is considered unintentional or
4
Meznar & Nigh (1995)
“Buffer” and “bridge” activities
Meznar and Nigh, in their 1995, investigate the ways in which organizational
public affairs management interacts with its environment. The authors support the
view that public affair activities can either; a. “Buffer” relationships with the
environment, meaning the way communications are being managed has a
protective role, like a cushion absorbing possible tensions between the organization
and the environment while at the same time the organization is in a place where it
can infuence but not be as easily infuenced (p. 976), or b. “Bridge” relationships with
the environment, meaning that the organization has an intention to adapt to
environmental expectations and be infuenced by external circumstances.
The authors form hypotheses including variables such as environmental
uncertainty (p. 978), organizational size & resource importance (p. 978-979) ,
visibility (p. 979-980) as well as type of enterprise strategy (p. 980-981) to test
whether they have implications to whether public affairs management buffers,
bridges or does both; with this research, they are able to recommend possible ways
of managing these affairs based on such variables, along with desired outcomes.
The hypotheses are tested by analyses on data from large US frms, resulting
bridging to be positively associated with uncertainty and institution-oriented
philosophy of top management (p. 989), and buffering to be positively related to
environmental uncertainty and organizational power (p.989). The results highlight
the importance of top-management principles can frmly impact the way a frm
communicates with social and political stakeholders, as well as the interplay
between these two types of connecting and the reasons why and when some
organizations choose to perform buffering, bridging, both or neither.
Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). BUFFER OR BRIDGE? ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ACTIVITIES IN AMERICAN
FIRMS. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 975–996.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256617
Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012
● Waeraas and Byrkjefot focus on public organizations and the problems these
face when trying to manage their reputation in a “traditional”, management-
book way, as it is somewhat different than applying tested recipes to for-proft
1
, organizations, due to the public sector’s lack of autonomy (p. 188). The authors
recognize and categorize fve main constraints;
a. the politics problem (related to the reasoning behind establishing such public
organizations, their lack of autonomy, and the diffculty in separating politics
and administration activities, p. 194)
b. the consistency problem (related to the inherent inconsistency of values in
such institutions and the inherent multiplicity of their identities, p.195)
c. the charisma problem (related to the inability to choose followers, the
traditional bureaucratic focus on rule orientation and equity being kind of
“old-fashioned’, and the fundamental association of such institutions with
problems and thus, negative news, p. 197)
d. the uniqueness problem (related to the inability of being distinctively
different from rivals, as management books are preaching, p. 197)
e. the excellence problem (related to poor ranking in excellence, the diffculties
of maintaining it and the constraint of competing with sisterly similar
institutions with the same mission, p. 199)
They visualize these problems with a model, explaining the dynamics that lead to
them (p. 190), and conclude to some suggestions that could assist these attempts,
such as recognizing the existence and fexibility of these problems, and not try to
eliminate them but fnd a proper balance, as well as not linking legitimacy only with
reputation, as this is not the case for public institutions, in the authors view.
Arild Wæraas & Haldor Byrkjefot (2012) Public Sector Organizations and
Reputation Management: Five Problems, International Public Management
Journal, 15:2, 186-206, DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2012.702590
Garland, Tambini & Couldry, 2018
The authors’ in ther article describe the process of mediatization, related to
governments and their relations with the media. Their main inquiry is a study of
government’s relations with media from within; trying to identify ways in which
central bureaucracies and executive agencies adapt to the media, and how media
have become integrated into government’s long term relations to society. With a
focus on UK media and government relations, they support that such media impacts
are increasingly becoming institutionalized and normalized within state
bureaucracies: the identify this process as mediatization; mediatization theory
supports that government is continuously infuenced (directly and indirectly) by its
interactions with media; simply put, political actors integrate media logic into their
political logic and act accordingly. The authors describe these processes extensively
(p. 499-500) and move towards their fndings, which came to light from expert
interviews and archival research. Although their fndings are not thorough for this
matter, they remain a satisfying frst step that provides guidance and terms for
2
, future research on the matter, aiming attention at the small, everyday practices that
slowly shape and form general stances and behaviors, integrating media logic into
political life, as well as transforming media institutions into social institutions of their
own right.
Garland, R., Tambini, D., & Couldry, N. (2018). Has government been mediatized? A UK
perspective. Media, Culture and Society, 40(4), 496–513.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717713261
3
, LM8 - Crisis Communication
Coombs, 2009
SCCT posits that by understanding the crisis situation, the crisis
manager can determine which crisis response strategy or
strategies will maximize reputational protection (functional,
instrumental)
● SCCT centers on the crisis manager examining the crisis situation in order
to assess the level of the reputational threat level presented by a crisis. The
threat is the amount of damage a crisis could infict on the organization’s
reputation if no action is taken. Three factors in the crisis situation shape the
reputational threat:
○ initial crisis responsibility,
○ crisis history and
○ prior relational reputation.
● Frames in communication help to shape frames in thought. The way a
message is framed shapes how people defne problems, causes of
problems, attributions of responsibility and solutions to problems.
● Crisis types are a form of frame. Each crisis type features certain
aspects of the crisis. These cues indicate how stakeholders should
interpret a crisis. A crisis manager tries to establish or shape the crisis
frame by emphasizing certain cues. The cues include whether or not
some external agent or force caused the crisis, whether the crisis was a
result of accidental or intentional actions by members of the
organization and whether the cause of the crisis was technical or
human error. It does matter if stakeholders view the event as an
accident, sabotage or criminal negligence. The crisis types or frame
determines how much stakeholders attribute responsibility for the
crisis to the organization.
○ the victim
○ Victim cluster; has very weak attributions of crisis responsibility
(natural disasters, workplace violence, product tampering and
rumor) and the organization is viewed as a victim of the event;
○ Accidental cluster; has minimal attributions of crisis
responsibility (technical-error accident, technical-error product
harm and challenge) and the event is considered unintentional or
4
