Towards An Emerging Paradigm of Strategic Communication: Core Driving Forces

Communicatio
South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research
ISSN: 0250-0167 (Print) 1753-5379 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcsa20
Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic

communication: Core driving forces
Nina Overton-de Klerk & Sonja Verwey
To cite this article: Nina Overton-de Klerk & Sonja Verwey (2013) Towards an emerging
paradigm of strategic communication: Core driving forces, Communicatio, 39:3, 362-382, DOI:
10.1080/02500167.2013.837626
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2013.837626
Published online: 20 Sep 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 702
View related articles
Citing articles: 6 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcsa20
COMMUNICATIO Volume 39 (3) 2013 pp. 362–382
Copyright: Unisa Press ISSN 0250-0167/ONLINE 1753-5379
DOI: 10.1080/02500167.2013.837626
Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic

communication: Core driving forces
Nina Overton-de Klerk and Sonja Verwey*
Abstract
Major forces such as globalisation, the digital network revolution and the empowerment of myriad new
stakeholders have resulted in a blurring of communication genres such as marketing and corporate
communications, and are redefining the role of the communications professional within business and society.
Such fundamental changes require that both scholars and practitioners challenge their own assumptions and
consider the implications of these paradigm shifts. The values of the modernist age, resulting in linear, top-down,
consensus-seeking decision-making behaviour, must be revisited to make way for emerging values such as
activism, dialogue, communal values and dissent, which allow for co-creation and a multiplicity of viewpoints.
This article reflects on paradigmatic debates and identifies shifts from modern to postmodern organisational
practice, and how these impact on communication practices and integrated communication. Consideration
is given to some theoretical, practical, research and educational implications of these shifts as core driving
forces towards the new emerging paradigm of strategic communication, which can best be conceptualised
as purposeful communication to realise the organisational mission.
Keywords: convergence, dialogue, dissent, organising, paradigm, paradigm shifts, paradigmatic debates,
post-modern communication practice, stakeholder empowerment, strategic communication
INTRODUCTION
Communication professionals increasingly find themselves at points of inflection, as new forms of
organising and new realities emerge as a result of major forces. Included here are globalisation and
the development of interactive technologies such as Web 2.0, which went beyond the information-
sharing capabilities of Web 1.0, and made possible connecting, communicating, collaborating, social
networking, individual and group publishing, blogging, crowd-sourcing and the transformation of
traditional media.
These new forms of organising challenge assumptions related to the concept of organisation which
is based on notions such as fixed organisational structures, functional differentiation, hierarchy
and bureaucracy. In effect there has been a symbolic paradigm shift from mechanistic monologue
forms of organising, to complex dialogical and dialectical forms of organising – in essence, a shift
from a modernistic to a postmodernist ideology (Parboteeah and Jackson 2011, 688–689).
Kuhn (1970, 103) suggests that a paradigm is characterised by two specific requirements, namely
that it is ‘sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing
* Nina Overton-de Klerk is professor of strategic communication, School of Communication, University of Johannesburg.
E-mail: ndeklerk@uj.ac.za; Sonja Verwey is professor and head: Department of Strategic Communication, School of
Communication, University of Johannesburg. E-mail: sverwey@uj.ac.za
Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic communication: Core driving forces 363
modes of scientific activity’ and is ‘sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the
redefined groups of practitioners to resolve’. In Kuhn’s view an approach that shares both these
characteristics can be referred to as a paradigm. Paradigm shifts contrast and reveal both the
differences and the interplay that exist between competing paradigms, and as such frame the nature
of those paradigmatic issues that require resolution. Paradigm shifts are thus always subject to
paradigmatic debate, and to a scrutiny of the moral reasoning on which such a shift is based.
While theoretical paradigms may frame and guide research in a field, they may also result in
the inability to question intellectual assumptions through paradigmatic struggles. According to
Hassard (1994, 318) ‘the constructs we employ to make sense are moral imperatives which serve
to presuppose certain features while excluding the possibility of others’. While shifts in underlying
paradigms may arguably result in stronger and better practice, substantially new approaches
are required that can only evolve if communication professionals challenge existing intellectual
assumptions and develop multi-paradigmatic approaches for evaluating and researching strategic
communication. Much like organisations, it is important for communication professionals to be
sensitive to their environment and to pay attention to the challenges facing them.
The field of strategic communication faces a challenge not only in coordinating and integrating the
communication activities of organisations on the level of practice, but also in developing a more
appropriate multidisciplinary body of knowledge that is better suited to the multiple emerging
organisational forms, as well as the fragmented nature of communication and audiences in post-
bureaucratic global business contexts.
A lack of a coherent body of knowledge exists in multi-paradigmatic contexts. This is because,

unlike single-paradigm approaches which are based on similar sets of assumptions, multi-paradigm
approaches require paradigm crossing and interplay. In a sense, this could be regarded as the
research problem. Another problem is the ambivalence contained in the word ‘strategic’, which is
more often associated with behavioural management paradigms than with the emerging paradigm
of strategic communication.
One of the key objectives of this conceptual article is therefore to evaluate and reflect on the
coherence which emerges from the diverse (even somewhat fragmented) academic and relevant
industry literature within the multi-paradigmatic context of strategic communication. Through
the identification of the trends driving a strategic communication paradigm, this article adopts
an integral approach to strategic communication which can eventually be tested in practice. The
purpose here is to contribute to a much needed higher-level understanding of the complex nature of
the strategic communication paradigm, and to raise the possibility of further paradigmatic debates
within this multi-paradigmatic context.
364 Nina Overton-de Klerk and Sonja Verwey
The approach is structured in the following ways:

(1) To consider the shift in paradigm from modern to postmodern communication practice, and
to reflect on paradigmatic debates.
(2) To identify key trends in organisational communication that culminate in the emerging
paradigm of strategic communication.
(3) To identify resultant shifts in organisational communication that characterise strategic
communication and can be regarded as the core driving forces of this emerging paradigm.
(4) To reflect on the implications of an integral, multi-paradigmatic approach to strategic
communication, also at the level of theory, research and discipline.
Against this background, the article considers the shift in the underlying paradigm through a
consideration of the interplay and differences between the modern and postmodern approaches
to communication, thus identifying the core driving forces of the emergent paradigm of strategic
communication.
TOWARDS POSTMODERN COMMUNICATION PRACTICE

Lyotard (1988) describes the rise of postmodern science as the abandonment of absolute standards,
universal categories and grand theories, to be replaced by an awareness and tolerance of social
differences, ambiguity and conflict.
Holtzhausen (2002, 253) sees modernism reflected in many areas of public relations practice,
theory and research (Grunig 2009; Grunig and Pepper 1992; Grunig and Verčič 2000). Grunig
(1992) views strategic public relations management as a process of winnowing constituencies, and
negotiating to increase stability and reduce uncertainty. Stokes (2005, 556), however, argues that
modernist approaches to public relations and communication management are mostly tactical and
short term, and are characterised by a tendency to examine controversies through an instrumental
approach, evaluating how well a given company’s tactics and strategies help it reach its pragmatic
goals. Ströh (2007, 201) argues that this paradigm is tightly linked to a consciously intended course
of action that is premeditated and deliberate, with strategies realised as intended.
In contrast, postmodernism may be seen as characterised by pluralism, temporality, fragmentation,

de-differentiation and ambiguity – all of which defy attempts to generalise and extrapolate from past
experience. Holtzhausen (2008, 141) argues that it is the very desire to resist dominant theoretical
discourses through a rejection of prescriptive and normative approaches, that sets postmodernism
apart. Holtzhausen (2002, 253) suggests that a postmodern approach to communication management
requires a focus on public relations as an institutional process and on its role in organisational
discourse. A postmodern approach would, in particular, be critical of how public relations and
communication are used to create perceptions of truth, and to devalue certain terms and positions
to create and promote a particular organisational ideology.
According to Sandhu (2009, 87), an alternative approach would require expanding the theoretical
horizons in communication management and public relations, in order to ‘free communication
management from the iron cage of the Excellence study’. Grunig (2009,10), however, rejects this
view and argues that it is in fact necessary to re-institutionalise public relations as a strategic
management discipline (as opposed to a strategic communication approach), before it can reach
its full potential as a profession that serves the interests of society as well as organisations. Grunig
(ibid, 15) notes:
To reach this state as a profession, however, public relations practitioners and scholars must minimise
the extent to which the symbolic, interpretive paradigm of public relations affects their thinking and
institutionalise public relations as a strategic management, behavioural paradigm.
Against this background, Mahoney (2011, 144–145) suggests that there are two possible future
scenarios for communication – one, a recidivist normative state (as propagated by Grunig) in which
traditional approaches to public relations and communication and advertising will be revived,
and the other, the emergence of a strategic approach that differs from integrated communication
because it spans across all organisational endeavours and activities. Gioia and Pitre (1990, 256)
suggest that ‘[g]iven that a uniquely correct perspective does not exist, and given the multiplicity of
organizational realities, a pluralistic multiple-perspectives view becomes a necessity for achieving
any sort of comprehensive view’.
TOWARDS ‘STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION’

Such a comprehensive view is offered by the emergent approach of strategic communication. Within
this approach, communication as strategy is conceptualised as emergent because it arises from
the interactions of others (Seidl 2007, 201). It must be distinguished from the strategy discourse
employed in other genres such as management, because meaning is determined by the respective
discourses which have their own internal logic (ibid.). Research findings from a study conducted
by Tindall and Holtzhausen (2011, 75) suggest that strategic communication can be viewed as a
‘common denominator for all forms of communication practice across different contexts’. As such,
strategic communication must be defined in its own genre, and positioned as part of a multitude of
other autonomous strategy discourses. As pointed out by Deetz (2001), part of the problem with
the term ‘strategic’ is that it has previously been positioned within management discourses as an
intentional rational basis for decision making, and for predicting and controlling the destiny of
the organisation. Grunig (2009, 9) summarises this approach to communication management as
follows: ‘The behavioural, strategic management paradigm focuses on the participation of public
relations executives in strategic decision-making so that they can help manage the behaviour of
organisations.’
This arguably represents a limited view of strategic communication – one that is often associated
with managerial decision making, power and control, and that has unfortunately come to be closely
associated with the concept of strategic communication within the Excellence approach, and is still
embraced by its key proponents such as Grunig (ibid, 16):
Using a normative prescriptive theory, my colleagues, students, and I have long provided evidence that
public relations has greater value both for organizations and society when it is strategic, managerial,
symmetrical, integrated but not sublimated, diverse, and ethical – as captured by our generic global
principles.
By contrast, Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Van Ruler, Verčič and Sriramesh (2007, 3) define strategic
communication as the ‘purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission’.
They point out that, inasmuch as such communications are strategic and therefore not random
or unintentional, ‘strategic’ communication, in particular, should not be defined too narrowly,
but should remain the rich, multidimensional, inclusive – even contradictory – descriptor of
communication practice that it currently is:
Although it emphasizes the role of communication as management practice, it does not necessarily
imply power and control of management over stakeholders. It also allows for the study of participatory
communication practices that include stakeholder communication, change management, and complex
analysis of stakeholder environments. Strategic further includes the study of all communication
practices, including those of public relations, advertising, and marketing as well as others. (ibid, 16)
This approach is supported by Zerfass and Huck (2007, 107) who state that
strategic communication … concentrates on the core drivers of organizational success. It also expands
the traditional set of institutionalised communication measures in order to manage meaning in all kinds
of interactions with internal and external stakeholders.
What these authors also seem to suggest, is that the need for an exact, academic and scientific
delineation and definition of strategic communication vis-à-vis ‘other’ forms of communication has
become redundant, in view of the wave of developments that have overtaken and revolutionised
the very nature of organisational communication and all its sub-disciplines in recent years, despite
earlier efforts to the contrary. While they may be differentiated by their tactics, all share the same
end goal as far as the organisation is concerned. As Hallahan et al. (2007, 10) note: ‘Communication
theory and research must focus on how communications contribute to an organization’s purpose
for being.’
TOWARDS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

This conceptualisation of strategic communication as purposeful communication suggests the need
to clearly distinguish between different concepts. Each represents its own logic and discourse in
very different contexts between which no transfer of meaning is possible. As noted by Seidl (2007,
201) the social world is made up of incommensurable discourses in which one discourse can merely
cause ‘perturbations’ in another, but it cannot transfer the meaning of one discourse to the other.
Paradigm incommensurability has been a point of departure for most paradigm debates. Kuhn
(1970, 103) also recognised paradigm incommensurability in that each paradigm engages a
unique perspective from which concepts are defined and theories are developed, thus preventing
combinations of concepts and methodologies. The concept of paradigm crossing, as first introduced
by Gioia and Pitre (1990), argues for the existence of bridging zones that allow transitions between
paradigms by emphasising similarities rather than differences. Schultz and Hatch (1996, 530)
propose that paradigm interplay represents a paradigm-crossing strategy that simultaneously
recognises both contrasts and connections between paradigms. As such, it produces new forms of
understanding that could be equated with paradox. Schultz and Hatch (ibid.) argue that interplay
provides a strategy for engaging with multiple paradigms because it allows the researcher to move
back and forth between paradigms, so that multiple views are held in tension. These authors further
argue that the purpose of interplay is not to resolve the contradiction of paradoxes, but rather to
preserve the tension between contrasts and connections so as to arrive at new ways of theorising
(ibid.).
By employing this approach the authors examine key trends and thrusts in both academic and
professional organisational communication (including corporate communications, marketing
communications and other) that may cast more light on the relevance and emergence of a strategic
communication approach, and its potential as a multi-paradigmatic framework that can facilitate
new ways of theorising in the field.
The core driving forces towards an emerging paradigm of strategic communication, as indicated in
Figure 1, are discussed hereunder.
TRENDS AFFECTING ORGANISATIONAL COMMUNICATION

The trends that will be discussed in this section must all be seen within the context of changes in
the larger organisational environment, which include the shift from modernism to postmodernism
(as discussed earlier), the shift from a post-industrial to a globally interactive era, and the balance
of power that is moving from the institutional communicator to the individual recipient.
Disintermediation
Organisational communication has moved from a post-industrial into a global-interactive age
(Arens, Schaefer and Weigold 2009). Strategic communication is essentially necessitated by the
digital communication revolution (Overton-de Klerk 2010), which has irrevocably changed the
order of things, and has rendered all organisational systems such that they are poised on the edge
of chaos, as complexity science approaches have predicted (Neher 1997). This is a phenomenon
called ‘disintermediation’ (Verwey 2001), which is a direct consequence of the digital revolution.
Disintermediation greatly democratises access to the means of communication and to information

and knowledge through direct access to one-to-many communication channels. It takes the power
conferred by the control of information out of the hands of the limited elite and makes it available
Figure 1: Core driving forces toward an emerging paradigm of strategic

communication
to many. Digital communication platforms allow people to completely sidestep institutions, and
individuals who once felt powerless to change the course of events are discovering new ways of
making their voices heard. The power has shifted from the management to stakeholders and from
the institutional communicator to the individual recipient.
Blurring communication genres

The massive technological developments of the global-interactive age have caused the boundaries
between traditional organisational communication disciplines to dissolve. As noted by Hallahan
et al. (2007), communicators find it increasingly difficult to differentiate between traditional
communication activities and their effects. More and more, PR practitioners are relying on paid
advertising to communicate critical messages on issues. Marketers, in turn, are leading cause-
related marketing and cooperative programmes that once were the exclusive domain of PR.
Companies function in an era where stakeholders’ perceptions of a company are shaped by

many different perspectives. Any claims to exclusive responsibility (and turfs) for particular
communication activities in a company are increasingly challenged by communication practitioners
and theorists alike (Bosman 2000; Hallahan et al. 2007; Zerfass and Huck 2007).
Media convergence
Media convergence is described as the process whereby the content of many different media
forms becomes accessible through a variety of media types and devices (Bosman 2000). Digital
technologies have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate between various message types.
A vast offering of hybrid messaging is being solicited by profit-driven media companies. More
important than the convergence of media is the resulting convergence of information and data,
which has added to the fusion between the familiar genres of public communication (Bosman
2000) and the ‘fluidity’ of the organisational communication environment due to media accessibility
(Sriramesh and Verčič 2009, 80).
The truth is that communication professionals find themselves in the middle of a revolution that has
struck silently at the core of what the marketing, corporate and PR communication business does
every day (Hallahan et al. 2007). Current business models are becoming obsolete. It has become
highly questionable whether ‘above’ and ‘below-the-line’ are still relevant (Bosman 2000), and can
be conceptually grounded in disciplines that continue to emphasise these differences.
Organisation as communication
The organisational perceptions of various stakeholders may be affected by a host of interactions
in the process of ‘organising’ their impressions, or may be affected by a particular interaction at
the time, which may not be confined to a particular marketing, corporate or PR activity. These
interactive networks evolve and change all the time, and create various complex micro and
macrostructures or systems overlaying one another, which come to define the organisation and
what it means – also as a brand.
This notion of the organisation as communicatively constituted in terms of ‘organising’ and

‘enacting’ is most frequently linked to the key organisational theorist Weick (Ashcraft, Kuhn and
Cooren 2009; Putnam and Nicotera 2010; Schoeneborn 2011). Indeed, ‘organisations are made
through communication’ (and not the other way around), as Littlejohn (2008, 277) concludes,
referring to Weick’s (1979) influential theory which sees communication as the basis for human
organising. It is also interesting to note that at the recent 2012 Melbourne Mandate, in which
scrutiny of the discipline of communication management was invigorated, communication was
viewed as ‘something that defines what the organisation is rather than what the organisation does’
(Rensburg 2012, 8).
Strategic communication is about how an organisation functions to advance its mission by

intentional, persuasive means of communication, not only via marketing, corporate and other
institutionalised forms of public communication, but via all of the organisation’s communication.
What this in fact means, is that communication is no longer a function or a role in the organisation,
but through its enactment it is reflexively shaping the organisation itself.
THE EMERGING PARADIGM: STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

The above trends may not be exhaustive, but in themselves they have culminated in shifts, also coined
‘core driving forces’, which have led to the emerging paradigm of communication management
in organisations, namely strategic communication. The following shifts in organisational
communication are evident from the literature, as also depicted in Figure 1. These shifts highlight
the differences between the modernist and postmodern approaches to strategic communication.
From divergence to convergence

Strategic communication, defined simply as purposeful communication, recognises that the various
communication ‘functions’ are only differentiated by their tactics, but they all share common
purposes, and similar objectives and strategies. Wang (2007, 93) regards strategic communication
as a single coordinated effort in which all communication activities work together to create
synergy. As such, the concept of strategic communication has become broader in its application,
since products and services are developed in consumers’ minds as a result of any interactions they
have with the business and brand, and across all touch points (Wang 2007, 93).
Consequently, strategic communication is fast emerging as the overarching, converging

communication function of the organisation, which refers to all informational, persuasive, discursive
and relational communications used in the context of achieving an organisation’s mission.
From top down to bottom up

A postmodern approach favours communication as an interaction, as opposed to the modernist
notion of simply diffusing messages to a target audience (the ‘Lasswellian’ concept of who says
what in which channel to whom with what effect is typical of this approach).
The flow of communication within organisational structures in a modernist approach was aimed
at ensuring ‘an information transfer from supervisor to subordinate to gain compliance and to
establish networks to ensure the organisation’s power in relations with the public’ (Hallahan et al.
2007, 11).
Ströh (2007, 134) contrasts this linear strategy with the emergent strategic communication approach
as an ‘evolving and emerging process of discourse and negotiations’, and communication intended
to create buy-in from the facilitation of discussion and discourse for change to evolve, bottom up
and spontaneously, out of the communication process.
Central to the bottom-up approach is the new emphasis on organisational ‘listening’ and embedding
(according to the Melbourne Mandate, a culture of listening and engagement), particularly on the
side of leaders (Rensburg 2012, 11). Indeed, to paraphrase Peter Drucker’s oft-quoted remark ‘the
most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said’. Listening to what’s on the
mind of organisational stakeholders becomes a way of counteracting the danger of ‘organisational
silence’, which is largely caused by the fear of supervisors who shy away from hearing what they
do not want to hear (Morrison and Milken 2000).
The bottom-up shift is also evident in marketing and corporate communication and research in
general. Communication professionals increasingly listen to, and engage, the co-participation
of community stakeholders, including poor communities, in the development of corporate
communication strategies (Overton-de Klerk and Oelofse 2010). Many companies use crowd-
sourcing (using social network sites to garner the ideas/skills of global online communities)
rather than advertising agencies to promote themselves and their facilities to clients (Chatterjee
2011; Stokes 2009). Whereas ‘above-the-line’ marketing campaigns traditionally produced
communication at the lowest common denominator in order to appeal, top down, to all target
markets, brands increasingly recognise the need to identify, bottom up, those consumers most
likely to buy their brands and use their services, and target them accordingly (Bester 2007).
From monologue to dialogue

Implicit in the shift from top down to bottom up is the shift from monologue to dialogue, identified
by Du Plessis (2006), Hallahan et al. (2007), Ströh (2007), and Sriramesh and Verčič (2009),
where the traditional approach of one voice has shifted to the emergent approach of many diverse
voices in which experimentation, openness to diverse viewpoints and freedom of speech encourage
creative approaches to problem solving. Media convergence and digital connectivity are forcing
institutions to engage in increasingly a-symmetrical dialogue, and challenge the ideal of achieving
communication symmetry between the organisation and its stakeholders (Grunig, Grunig and
Dozier 2002).
In marketing and corporate communications, dialogue now extends to a permanently connected

‘super-consumer’ (Bosman 2010), who is capable of having an instant two-way relationship
and also of talking back – sometimes instantly. Word of mouth, like in the days of the Roman
street vendors, has once again become the most important medium of communication, albeit in
cyberspace.
Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) and the dissemination of information online by the super-
consumer have forced organisations to engage in dialogue to minimise reputational risk, particularly
in an era where brand or corporate image – a ‘façade’ created through planned communication
driven by the mass media – is replaced by brand or corporate reputation, which is built on the
narratives written (positive or negative) by organisational stakeholders in consumer-generated
media (Satterthwaite 2010). Moreover, the need for dialogic connections amongst the under-30
generation, which makes up more than 50 per cent of the world’s population (Bosman 2010),
means they do not respond well to mass media monologues.
As noted, dialogue now transcends the boundaries of the various disciplines, leading to fluidity and
blurring between these traditionally distinct genres.
From consensus to conflict/dissent

The very existence of complexity represents a shift in power and control from management to
individual stakeholders, allowing them to make decisions based on the value systems they are able
to support. Because heterogeneity is an unavoidable aspect of any post-bureaucratic organisation,
it stands to reason that consensus as a modernist authoritative concept is no longer valid. Strategic
communication in post-bureaucratic contexts acknowledges and fosters multiple propositions and
perceptions so as to allow for conflict and rhetoric that ultimately advance the organisation, to the
benefit of all stakeholders (Janssens and Zanoni 2005).
The role of management is no longer to control heterogeneity, but to moderate and steer through
complexity. Whereas modernist approaches to communication management legitimate managerial
power through consensus-seeking processes, within strategic communication paradigms this is
achieved through the opportunity to participate in the discourse, even though the process may
ultimately give rise to conflict and dissent, which may or may not lead to new forms of understanding
and knowledge. Strategic communication thus becomes a process that legitimates many different
and heterogeneous forms of meaning and understanding.
From the above discussion, it is evident that purposeful (strategic) communication is not
necessarily aimed at achieving consensus, but rather at ensuring multiple voices are heard and
even encouraging dissent. Postmodern philosophers and critical scholars (Lyotard 1988) would
argue that organisational conflict should be encouraged ‘to the extent that conflict serves as a
pathway to the emancipation of subjugated groups and individuals’ (Miller 2009, 176). This would
be of particular relevance where deeper conflicts as a result of class, economic, racial or gender
differences exist, in culturally diverse organisations and in emergent economies.
From communication management to communication influence

The shifts describe above – in particular, from top down to bottom up and from consensus to
conflict – have profound implications for the role of the communication manager, who should no
longer try to control communication or act as a mouthpiece of management. Rather, s/he should
become a ‘facilitator’ of forums and channels for discourse and free participation in a climate
of constant change, conflict and diversity. This transition from a functional perspective which
focuses on techniques and the production of strategic organisational messages, towards a co-
creational perspective which places great emphasis on sense giving and sense-making activities in
organisations, requires a reconceptualisation of the role of the communication professional.
Karp and Helgø (2008) contend that modernist paradigms identify management process as a role
with fundamental influence over command and control, thus enabling the design of appropriate
interventions for future organisational success. However, communication management is no longer
about predictability and control over the communication messages and activities of organisations.
Such an approach is simply no longer tenable in an organisational reality which is increasingly
complex, uncertain and unpredictable.
Instead, the role of the communication professional is better understood as a shared social influence
that emerges through the process of relating. This necessitates acknowledging feelings of not being
in control as characteristic of the strategic communication process.
The issue of control is now decentralised to individual stakeholders in the organisation, thus
the role of manager has evolved to that of a facilitator who crafts platforms for discourse and
participation within and between the organisation and its stakeholders. This requires both relational
and dialectical strategies that ensure that marginalised voices are also heard. Instead of uncritically
representing/presenting the organisation, communication professionals should not be too closely
aligned to the institution they serve. This distancing is required to ensure critical reflection.
Some scholars (Holtzhausen 2002; Verwey 2010) are of the view that the communication
professional is best positioned as an organisational ‘activist’, and should not necessarily desire to
become part of dominant coalition structures. In this respect, they argue that the communication
agency or agent is in a better position than organisations are, when it comes to playing an active
strategic communication role in the organisation. This is because they resist being dominated
by those in power, and deliberately and effectively choose and carry out actions in defiance of
established rules.
From control to self-organisation

The work of Deetz (1995) and Lichtenstein (2000) provide evidence that change and transformation
in an organisation are more effective when the process begins with stakeholders, and spontaneously
evolves through dialogue from the bottom up towards creative solutions (self-organisation). The
flow of communication within organisational structures has progressed from a one-way monologue
from top-level management (aimed at ensuring compliance and agreement), to a more inclusive
and unpredictable dialogue between organisational members on all levels.
As a result, change can evolve from the bottom up and spontaneously, out of the communication
process through an ‘evolving and emerging process of discourse and negotiations’ (Ströh 2007, 13).
Such self-organising organisations, in which change is produced by the unpredictable behaviour of
the subsystems instead of by the controlled interventions of management, avoid ‘neatness’, tolerate
‘messiness’, and thus also enable certain organisational relationships to become redundant and to
overlap (Wheatley 1994; Wheatley and Kellner Rogers 1996). Instability is thus a precondition for
change, and the role of organisational leaders is to remove any artificial barriers to change which
may discourage innovation.
A number of large-system change methodologies (Holman, Devane and Cady 2007) have been
developed over the past years, with a specific focus on two powerful foundational assumptions: high
involvement and a systemic approach to improvement, where high involvement means engaging
stakeholders in changing their own system, while a systemic approach implies a conscious choice
to include stakeholders, functions and ideas that can affect/be affected by the work, thereby
leveraging sustainable improvements in organisations.
As a result of the transition to a new global perspective, managers are challenged to radically
decentralise authority and responsibility, in order to empower people to care for themselves more
directly, thus simultaneously creating a self-organising system for managing a complex world
(Halal 1993, 61). The increasing need for business transformation in order to position for new
business contexts represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between corporations and
individuals, and society as a whole.
From corporate social responsibility to accountability

Successful corporations in post-bureaucratic contexts need to develop a new social contract which
sees them redefining the boundaries of their responsibility, and accepting accountability for the
way they use resources and how they contribute to the environment. Any business’s raison d’être
is far more complex and socially motivated than purely financial reasons (De Beer and Rensburg
2011; Grimaldi De Puget 2005; Spence and Rutherfoord 2000).
The stakeholder concept, originally described in the influential work by Freeman (1984), has
expanded over the years to include multiple stakeholders that do not have a direct stake in the
organisation, but are viewed as active ‘influencers’ who can affect/are affected by the actions of
the organisation (Coombs 2000, 75; Parmar, Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Purnell and De Colle
2010). This would also entail society’s expectation that organisations are good citizens who can be
held accountable to provide greater support and ‘corporate social responsiveness’ to the society of
which they form part (Carroll and Buchholtz 2008).
Corporate social responsiveness (also called CSR2) represents a more action-orientated

development on the original concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), described by Carroll
and Buchholtz (2003, 36) as a way for organisations to fulfil their ‘economic, legal, ethical and
discretionary obligations’ towards society.
Strongly associated with the active stakeholder concept is accountability, which refers to the two-
way, reciprocal relationship between an organisation and its stakeholders as active participants
(Du Plessis 2006). It includes the extent to which the organisation’s performance meets the norms
of society, even if those norms are not fully enacted in the law (Carroll and Buchholtz 2008).
According to Nothaft and Wehmeier (2007), accountability is not owned by an organisation, but is
granted by stakeholders and society in general, and must be earned (and objectively measured) via
organisational transparency and congruency between organisational words and deeds. Again, this
underlines the shift in the (often a-symmetrical) balance of power from the organisation towards its
stakeholders, which makes the further evolution of stakeholder theory a key research focus in the
emerging paradigm of strategic communication.
The emerging focus on the active stakeholder concept and accountability is especially relevant
in developing countries, where business organisations – as harbingers of development – operate
in a landscape which is ‘densely plotted with protest movements’ (Pratt 2009, 931) and where
stakeholder activism has become a fact of life (Bakardjieva 2009; Grunig 1992; Kim and Sriramesh
2009). In South Africa, recent events in Marikana and the De Doorns farmworker uprisings have
brought home painful lessons to those who underestimated this reality.
The shift from corporate philanthropy towards co-empowerment and accountability to the most
inclusive number of stakeholders has undeniably become not only a social but also an economic
imperative – one that has been legitimised by the King III Report on Corporate Governance.
Indeed, it is the era of the triple bottom line, in which not only organisational accountability but
also sustainability, rather than profitability, have become the growing measures of organisational
success. The focus on profit alone has become unsustainable as a ‘monocontextual’ practice
on the part of corporates, whereas looking after the interests of the people and the planet as a
‘polycontextual’ practice has become an essential precondition for making a profit in the first place
(De Beer and Rensburg 2011, 212).
From integration to collaboration

It is feasible to ask whether a paradigm shift also applies as far as integrated communication
(including integrated marketing communication [IMC]) is concerned. It is argued that such a shift
has indeed occurred, and is moving beyond integration towards collaboration. IMC, as described by
Schultz, Tannenbaum and Lauterborn (1993) and Duncan and Moriarty (1997) was conceived of in
a modernist, post-industrial era when organisations and brands were still in control of the message.
Whereas the ideal of integration has always been to let the organisation speak with one voice,
by ‘strategically’ coordinating all behaviour and messaging to support a consistent positioning,

now many diverse voices, raised in consumer-generated media, add considerable noise to the
organisational message, challenging the very identity that the brand so carefully constructed (as
brands such as Woolworths, Toyota, Absa, Shell, FNB and many others have discovered recently).
Collaboration, on the other hand, according to the Concise Oxford dictionary, means to ‘work in
combination with’, or, more tellingly, ‘to cooperate treacherously with the enemy’. In the era of
the super-consumer, it appears that brand identity is a construct which is constantly co-created in
collaboration with stakeholders beyond the control of the organisation. According to B’beri and
Audette-Longo (2009, 161), collaboration, as an existing actuality occurring in the social realm,
is largely represented as ‘communities of inquiry’ that coordinate as a means to achieve, through
synthesis, new formations of knowledge.
It is true that the ability of many large corporates to align and effectively integrate communication
has been increasingly challenged in recent years (see, for instance, De Klerk 2008; De Wet,
Meintjies, Nieman-Struweg and Goodman 2009). While the inability to integrate may perhaps
be symptomatic of the shift, it should not be viewed as the reason for it. The key driving force is
regarded as the participation of other (sometimes hostile) stakeholders who are beyond the control
of the organisation, in the evolution of the brand identity. One may question whether integration is
still relevant in view of the dissolution of communication subsystems. The purpose of integrated
communication has always been to coordinate disparate activities, but the boundaries between
these genres are rapidly blurring due to convergence, which has caused the interdependencies
created through communication network structures to increase (Hallahan et al. 2007; Miller 2009).
As such, collaboration thus becomes a boundary-spanning activity. It is interesting that Hallahan
et al. (2007, 7) also note that strategic communication differs from integrated communication and
focuses on how an organisation communicates across organisational endeavours.
The importance of consistency, integration and alignment of brand identity, behaviour and values,
where they are within the control of the organisation/brand, cannot be denied. These aspects remain
of cardinal importance, and can still be regarded as the trademark of successful brands (Johnson &
Johnson, Nike, Avis, Klipdrift, MediClinic etc.), which also protect them during adverse periods.
Such brands are well aware, however, that their brand identity will be constantly challenged and
the brand narrative rewritten, and therefore they have collaborative digital reputational risk-
management strategies in place. Collaboration indeed goes beyond integration, and requires an
acceptance (in the era of ‘real-time marketing’) that the organisation itself is no longer the sole
author of the brand script, but requires constant collaboration with (mostly uninvited) guest authors.
CONCLUSION: AN INTEGRAL, MULTI-PARADIGMATIC APPROACH TO

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION
In this article an integral approach to strategic communication has been used to identify and
explain the trends driving the strategic communication paradigm. An integral approach is
aimed at locating contributions to the overall body of knowledge within a broader framework.
Strategic communication has become more relevant within emerging business contexts, which are
increasingly characterised by complexity and uncertainty. Strategic communication trends have,
in turn, influenced the practice of strategic communication which now requires a re-assessment
of the traditional roles of communication professionals within these contexts. Changing consumer
and stakeholder expectations require engagement with both internal and external stakeholders,
including civil society. This engagement is required within emergent business and societal contexts
that transcend boundaries, as technology and digital platforms drive rapid and continuous change.
As an agent for an organisation’s communication, professional communicators have become

increasingly influential, but their discourses of responsibility are dominated by multiplicity,
uncertainty and ambivalence, because of new laws of organisational form and the blurring of
traditional boundaries.
Communication professionals have been slow to adapt to the shift in paradigms, and there is still
a real need to expand theoretical approaches beyond traditional assumptions. This requires that
both scholars and practitioners challenge their own assumptions and debate the implications of
such paradigm shifts. While traditional theory construction is founded on a belief in the factual
nature of a knowable universe, it seems as if post-bureaucratic strategic communication must
(as with postmodern organisational theory) reject the very notion of theory at the institutional
level. There is a need for a balanced, creative approach to both modernism and postmodernism, so
that theory generation and implementation can assist in understanding and evaluating individual,
organisational and societal action. This can be achieved through integral approaches aimed at
reducing complexity, in order to achieve higher levels of explanation.
The transition from a functional perspective that focuses on the techniques and production of
strategic organisational messages, to a co-creational perspective which sees stakeholders as co-
creators of meaning and communication, is a significant development, as is the conceptual move
away from a top-down mass communication foundation towards bottom-up collaboration in
radically open environments. Strategic communication theory and research must develop new,
higher-level frameworks for understanding how these shifts can contribute to an organisation’s
reason for being.
The need for a more balanced research approach does not imply, however, that the concepts, trends
and shifts, as described in this article, should not be empirically tested against random/stratified
samples of organisations or brand leaders to evaluate to what extent paradigm shifts in strategic
communication are indeed emerging amongst communication professionals. The findings of a
recent empirical study, for instance, strongly suggest that some South African brand leaders are
far from geared to implement the ‘active consumer stakeholder’ concept, and are still caught in
a predominantly modernist paradigm where the maximisation of profit is regarded as the only
bottom line (Shapiro 2013). These quantitative studies are and should be undertaken, but should
also be enriched by a more qualitative understanding of stakeholder relationships (bottom up), and
the management of such relationships by organisations.
In line with increasing convergence on the level of practice, greater emphasis on disciplinary
convergence on a curricular level is advocated. Strategic communication should form the
framework for integrated curricula that combine the common strategies of hitherto separate
disciplines (marketing communication, corporate communication, public relations and others),
as is already happening in some university programmes in the United States, Europe and South
Africa. There is also a very real need for academic texts and journals to reflect the convergence
that is required for managing increased communication complexity and that transcend the typically
divergent and outdated modernist approaches to marketing communication, public relations and
corporate communication.
Combining multi-paradigm characteristics draws attention to the many possibilities that exist for
investigating how they might interrelate, and enhance our understanding of the complex nature
of the strategic communication paradigm. Strategic communication therefore requires a set of
theoretical propositions of a higher level and with the potential to integrate various levels of
understanding. While at the paradigm level some debates may not seem resolvable, at the meta-
paradigm level they may, in fact, be complementary.
Through the identification of trends and shifts that drive the emerging paradigm of strategic
communication, this article has made an attempt to spark further, much-needed debate and research
around the emerging paradigm or meta-paradigm of strategic communication.
REFERENCES
Arens, W.F., D.H Schaefer and M. Weigold, eds. 2009. Advertising yesterday, today and tomorrow. In
Essentials of contemporary advertising, second edition, 2–22. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ashcraft, K.L., T.R Kuhn and F. Cooren. 2009. Constitutional amendments: ‘Materializing’ organizational
communication. The Academy of Management Annals 3(1): 1–64.
Bakardjieva, M. 2009. Subactivism: Lifeworld and politics in the age of the internet. The Information
Society 25: 91–109.
Bester, T. February 2007. Appropriate segmentation: A think piece from TGI. Document for internal
circulation. Target Group Index, Johannesburg.
Bosman, M. 2000. Convergence of media: Implications for marketers and advertising agencies. Paper
presented at the Millennium Conference of the European Association of Advertising Agencies,
Johannesburg, South Africa, October 1.
Bosman, M. 2010. The staggering technology trends that are reshaping consumer behaviour and
business growth. Paper presented to the Global Summit 2010 of the Consumer Goods Forum,
London, June 24.
Carroll, A.B. and A.K. Bucholtz. 2003. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management.
Australia: Thomson South-Western.
Carroll, A.B. and A.K. Buchholtz. 2008. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. 6th
edition. USA: Cengage Learning.
Chatterjee, P. 2011. Drivers of new product recommending and referral behavior on social network
sites. International Journal of Advertising 30(1): 77–101.
Christensen, L.T., S. Torp and F. Firat. 2005. Integrated marketing communication and postmodernity:
An odd couple? Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10(2): 156–167.
Coombs, W.T. 2000. Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective. In Public relations as
relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations, ed.
J.A. Ledingham and S.D. Bruning, 73–94. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
De B’beri, B.E. and M. Audette-Longo. 2009. Key concepts in the work of Arnold Shepperson:
Representing communication and collaboration. Critical Arts 23(2): 153–170.
De Beer, E. and R. Rensburg. 2011. Towards a theoretical framework for the governing of stakeholder
relationships: A perspective from South Africa. Journal of Public Affairs 11(4): 208–255.
Deetz, S. 1995. Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and
responsible workplaces. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
De Klerk, N. June 2008. Effective strategic communication … Does it exist? www.marketingweb.co.za
(accessed June 24, 2008).
De Wet, G., C. Meintjes, I. Niemann-Struweg and M.C. Goodman. 2009. Corporate communication
practices and trends: South African benchmark study 2007/8. Johannesburg: Monash South
Africa and Corporate Communication International.
Dozier, D.M. and M.M. Lauzen. 2000. Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice: Public
relations, activism, and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations 12: 3–22.
Duncan, T. and S. Moriarty. 1997. Driving brand value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Du Plessis, D. 2006. Public relations. In Integrated organisational communication, ed. R. Barker and G.
Angelopulo, 193–223. Cape Town: Juta.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Gioia, D.A. and E. Pitre. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management
Review 15(4): 564–608.
Grimaldi De Puget, V. 2005. Would you buy polluted water? Reflections on brand and sustainable
development. http://www.brandchannel.com/brand_speak.asp?bs_id=101 (accessed October 8,
2011).
Grunig, J.E. 2009. Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism 6(2). http://
praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html (accessed September 10, 2012).
Grunig, J.E. and F.C. Pepper. 1992. Strategic management, publics and issues. In Excellence in public
relations and communication management, ed. J.E. Grunig, 31–109. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L. 1992. Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent public
relations departments respond. In Excellence in public relations and communications management,
ed. J.E. Grunig, 503–530. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, L.A., J.E. Grunig and J.M. Dozier. 2002. Excellent public relations and effective organizations:
A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halal, W.E. 1993. Can business lead the global transformation? Strategic imperatives from the World
2000 dialogue. World Business Academy Perspectives 7(3): 1–66.
Hallahan, K., D. Holtzhausen, B. van Ruler, D. Verčič and K. Sriramesh. 2007. Defining strategic
communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 1: 3–35.
Hassard, J. 2002. Essai: Organisational time – modern, symbolic and postmodern reflections.
Organization Studies 23(6): 885–892.
Holman, P., T. Devane and S. Cady, eds. 2007. The change handbook. Second edition. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Holtzhausen, D.R. 2000. Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations 12: 93–114.
Holtzhausen, D.R. 2002. Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Public Relations
Review 28: 251–264.
Holtzhausen, D.R. 2008. Strategic communication. In The international encyclopedia of communication,
ed. W. Donsbach, 4848–4855. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Holtzhausen, D.R. 2011. The need for a postmodern turn in PR. In Public relations in global cultural
contexts: Multi-paradigmatic perspectives, ed. N. Bardhan and C.K. Weaver, 140–166. New
York: Routledge.
Janssens, M. and P. Zanoni. 2005. Many diversities for many services: Theorizing diversity (management)
in service companies. Human Relations 58(3): 311–340.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business
Ethics 67: 241–256.
Karp, T. and T. Helgø. 2008. The future of leadership: The art of leading people in a ‘post-managerial’
environment. Foresight 10(2): 30–37.
Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lichtenstein, B.B. 2000. Self-organized transitions: A pattern amid the chaos of transformative change.
Academy of Management Executive 14(4): 128–141.
Littlejohn, S.W. and K.A. Foss. 2008. Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Lyotard, J.F. 1988. The differend: Phases in dispute. Theory and History of Literature 46.
Mahoney, J. 2011. Horizons in strategic communication: Theorizing a paradigm shift. Journal of
Strategic Communication 5(3): 143–153.
McSweeny, B. 2006 Are we living in a post bureaucratic epoch? Journal of Organizational Change
Management 19: 22–37.
Miller, K. 2009. Organizational communication: Approaches and processes. Fifth edition. Boston, MA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Morrison, E.W. and F.J. Miliken. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in
a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25(4): 706–725.
Neher, W.W. 1997. Organizational communication: Challenges of change, diversity and continuity.
London: Allyn and Bacon.
Nothhaft, H. and S. Wehmeier. 2007. Coping with complexity: Sociocybernetics as a framework for
communication management. International Journal of Strategic Communication 1 (3): 151–168.
Overton-de Klerk, N. 2010. Democratic discourse or nationalistic drivel. Are South Africans truly
empowered? Inaugural address, University of Johannesburg, November 10. http://www.biz-
community.com/Article/196/466/54420.html and http://www.uj.ac.za (accessed March 5, 2011).
Overton-de Klerk, N. and E. Oelofse. 2010. Poor communities as corporate stakeholders: A bottom-up
research approach. Communicatio 36(3): 388–408.
Parboteeah, P. and T.W. Jackson. 2011. Expert evaluation study of an autopoietic model of knowledge.
Journal of Knowledge Management 15(4): 688–699.
Parmar, B., R.E. Freeman, J.S. Harrison, A. Wicks, L. Purnell and S. de Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory:
The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals 4(11): 403–445.
Pratt, C.B. 2009. Managing sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa: A communication ethic for
the global corporation. In The global public relations handbook: Theory, research and practice,
ed. K. Sriramesh and D. Verčič. New York: Routledge.
Putnam, L.L. and A.M. Nicotera. 2009. Communicative constitution of organization is a question:
Critical issues for addressing it. Management Communication Quarterly 24: 158–165.
Rensburg, R. 2012. How do we become more relevant? The Melbourne Mandate … and beyond.
Communika (November): 10–11.
Sandhu, S. 2009. Strategic communication: An institutional perspective. International Journal of
Strategic Communication 3(2): 72–92.
Satterthwaite, C. 2010. Managing reputation in a transparent world. In Modern brand management
fundamentals and latest thinking. The marketing and management collection, ed. A. Marsden.
Henry Stewart talks: London. http://hstalks.com/lib.php?t=HST102.2516&c=250 (accessed
August 23, 2011).
Schultz, D.E., S.I. Tannenbaum and R.F. Lauterborn. 1993. Integrated marketing communications.
Chicago: NTC Publishing Group.
Schultz, M. and M.J. Hatch. 1996. Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in
organisational studies. The Academy of Management Review 21(2): 529–557.
Seidl, D. 2007. General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: A systemic-discursive
perspective. Organisation Studies 28: 197–218.
Shapiro, B.J.N. 2013. A critical investigation of the utilisation of the active consumer stakeholder
concept among South African brand leaders. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of
Johannesburg.
Spence, L.J. and R. Rutherfoord. 2000. Social responsibility, profit maximisation and the small firm
owner manager. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 8(2): 126–139.
Sriramesh, K. and D. Verčič, eds. 2009. The mass media and public relations. In The global public
relations handbook: Theory, research and practice, 68–84. New York: Routledge.
Ströh, U. 2007. Relationships and participation: A complexity science approach to change communication.
International Journal of Strategic Communication 1(2): 123–139.
Tindall, N.J. and D.R. Holtzhausen. 2011. Toward a roles theory for strategic communication: The case
of South Africa. International Journal of Strategic Communication 5(2): 74–94.
Verčič, D. and J.E. Grunig. 2000. The origins of public relations theory in economics and strategic
management. In Perspectives on public relations research, ed. D. Moss, D. Verčič and G. Warnaby,
9–48. London and New York: Routledge.
Verwey, S. 2001. Into the age of communication. Communicatio 27(1): 75–91.
Verwey, S. 2010. Reconceptualising the role of the communication professional within a postmodern
organizational paradigm. Paper presented at the 2010 Academy of World Business, Marketing and
Management Development, July 12–15, Olou, Finland.
Wang, A. 2007. When web pages influence web usability: Effects of online strategic communication.
International Journal of Strategic Communication 1(2): 93–106.
Weick, K.C. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wheatley, M. 1994. Leadership and the new science: Learning about organizations from an orderly
universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Wheatley, M. and M. Kellner-Rogers. 1996. A simpler way. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Zerfass, A. and S. Huck. 2007. Innovation, communication and leadership: New developments in
strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 1(2): 107–122.

Towards An Emerging Paradigm of Strategic Communication: Core Driving Forces

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards An Emerging Paradigm of Strategic Communication: Core Driving Forces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicatio

South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research

ISSN: 0250-0167 (Print) 1753-5379 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcsa20

Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic

Nina Overton-de Klerk & Sonja Verwey

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2013.837626

Published online: 20 Sep 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 702

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic

Nina Overton-de Klerk and Sonja Verwey*

A lack of a coherent body of knowledge exists in multi-paradigmatic contexts. This is because,

The approach is structured in the following ways:

TOWARDS POSTMODERN COMMUNICATION PRACTICE

In contrast, postmodernism may be seen as characterised by pluralism, temporality, fragmentation,

TOWARDS ‘STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION’

TOWARDS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

TRENDS AFFECTING ORGANISATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Disintermediation greatly democratises access to the means of communication and to information

Figure 1: Core driving forces toward an emerging paradigm of strategic

Blurring communication genres

Companies function in an era where stakeholders’ perceptions of a company are shaped by

This notion of the organisation as communicatively constituted in terms of ‘organising’ and

Strategic communication is about how an organisation functions to advance its mission by

THE EMERGING PARADIGM: STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

From divergence to convergence

Consequently, strategic communication is fast emerging as the overarching, converging

From top down to bottom up

From monologue to dialogue

In marketing and corporate communications, dialogue now extends to a permanently connected

From consensus to conflict/dissent

From communication management to communication influence

From control to self-organisation

From corporate social responsibility to accountability

Corporate social responsiveness (also called CSR2) represents a more action-orientated

From integration to collaboration

by ‘strategically’ coordinating all behaviour and messaging to support a consistent positioning,

CONCLUSION: AN INTEGRAL, MULTI-PARADIGMATIC APPROACH TO

As an agent for an organisation’s communication, professional communicators have become

You might also like