Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparisons of U.S. Government

Communication Practices: Expanding the
Government Communication Decision Wheel
J. Suzanne Horsley1 , Brooke Fisher Liu2 , & Abbey Blake Levenshus2
1 University of Alabama
2 University of Maryland

Government communication is pervasive and has an impact on every aspect of American

public life. However, there is minimal theory-driven research in this critical area of
communication. This research explores comparisons of communication practices and the
status of professional development among the four levels of U.S. government organizations
through a survey of 781 government communicators. The study identifies six significant
differences and two similarities in how the public sector environment affects communication
practices at the city, county, state, and federal levels. The findings were applied to a
modification of the government communication decision wheel, a model that offers a
theoretical foundation for the study of government communication within its unique
environmental context free from the bias of corporate-centric research assumptions. The
findings contribute to communication theory development for the underresearched public
sector.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01363.x

Communication takes place in every aspect of government in the United States,

including the city, county, state, and national levels. American government com-
munication exists to serve the information needs of a democracy, to help citizens
make informed decisions, and to provide a mechanism for accountability of public
agencies (Baker, 1997; Graber, 2003; Liu, Horsley, & Levenshus, 2010). To date,
however, there is minimal theory-driven research in this vital field, as the pre-
vailing research has not explored government communication on its own merit
but instead has studied government within the scope of corporate communication
theory and practice. For example, a search of the last 10 years of articles in Com-
munication Theory, Journal of Communication, Journal of Public Relations Research,
and Public Relations Review revealed only one article that specifically addresses
government communication theory as a subfield of communication research

Corresponding author: J. Suzanne Horsley; e-mail: horsley@apr.ua.edu

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 269

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

(Liu & Horsley, 2007). More research is needed to develop theory that explains
and predicts communication practices and decision making in government and its
ultimate impact on publics.
On the applied side, recent government communication research does not explore
the nuances among bureaucratic layers of government outside of the United States,
but rather explores trends and initiatives in government communication in other
countries (i.e., Glenny, 2008; Gregory, 2006; Vos, 2006; Vos & Westerhoudt, 2008). In
addition, communication scholars have not fully examined differences among the four
primary levels of U.S. government: city, county, state, and federal. Liu and Horsley
(2007) proposed a government communication theoretical model that differentiates
the public sector from the private sector based on the operating environment. This
article empirically advances that model by creating intergovernmental comparisons
of communication practices and professional development opportunities through
a survey of 781 government communication practitioners. The model establishes a
theoretical foundation for the study of government communication within its unique
environmental context free from the bias of corporate-centric research assumptions
that dominate much of the research on communication practices. This model is
founded upon the public sector organizations’ unique environmental context, rather
than incorporating those parameters into a model that applies to all sectors (e.g.,
contingency theory and the public relations process model).1 Public organizations are
sufficiently different from corporations and deserving of study in their own context
(Allison, 2004; Beckett, 2000; Graber, 2003; Lee, 2001).

The government communication decision wheel

The government communication decision wheel—derived from an analysis of
literature from the public administration and communication fields—is the first
attempt to model the practice of communication within the specific operating
environment of the public sector (Liu & Horsley, 2007). Differences between public-
and private-sector organizations have been well documented (see Gelders, Bouckaert,
& van Ruler, 2007; Heffron, 1989; Pandey & Garnett, 2006; Rainey, 1983, 2003;
Viteritti, 2008). However, scholars disagree on the specific characteristics, suggesting
the comparison may be more complex than a public-versus-private distinction and
may also include size, mission, and use of technology (Rainey, 2003). Although
not all scholars agree on the exact differences between the public and private
sectors, two sets of distinguishing characteristics emerge from the communication,
political science, public administration, and public relations literature that describe
the public environment in terms of influences on daily communication activities
(complex system of federalism; intense media scrutiny; precarious relationships with
publics; legal constraints; the weight of politics; a devaluation of communication
by management; and the goal of public good) and professional advancement for
communicators (few leadership opportunities and lacking professional development)

270 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

(Liu et al., 2010). Appendix A summarizes the public sector attributes and their impact
on government communication.
Because of the inherent differences between the public and private sectors’
operating environments, the prevailing communication models (e.g., government
communication process model, synthesis model of government crisis communi-
cation, and public relations process model) and theories (e.g., excellence theory
and contingency theory) do not account adequately for the public sector environ-
ment’s influence on communication practices (see Appendix B for a summary of the
communication theories and models that contribute to this model of government
communication).
Within the government communication decision wheel, the public sector envi-
ronment is divided into four microenvironments in which communication decision
making takes place: intragovernmental, intergovernmental, multi-level, and exter-
nal (see Figure 1). At any time, communication professionals from any level of
government may find themselves operating in one of these microenvironments. In
the intragovernmental microenvironment, all communication decisions are made
within a single organization. In the intergovernmental microenvironment, two or
more communicators from the same level of government (i.e., city, county, state, or
federal) work together. In the multi-level environment, communicators from two or
more levels may need to cooperate to produce and disseminate communication for
internal and external publics. Finally, in the external microenvironment, one or more

Environmental
attributes within the
Intergovernmental public sector:
M -complex system of
ed
ct

ia
re

te federalism
Di

d -intense media
scrutiny
Intra- -precarious
governmental Multi-level relationships with
publics
M -legal constraints
ct ed -weight of politics
ire ia
te
D d -devaluation of
communication by
External management
-goal of public good
-few leadership
opportunities
-lacking professional
development.
Four Public Sector Microenvironments
Figure 1 The government communication decision wheel encompassing nine attributes of
the public sector environment (Liu & Horsley, 2007).

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 271

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

government communicators work in cooperation with at least one private sector,

nonprofit, or international organization to communicate on an issue.
The model visually depicts the decision making that communicators must
consider in all four microenvironments. The nine organizational attributes outlined
in Appendix A comprise the operating environment of the public sector. Decisions
must be made by the communication department or function of the government
organization regarding who is involved in the communication activity and whether to
employ direct (i.e., information published by the organization) or mediated (i.e., news
releases and media pitches) communication or a combination along the continuum.
The dotted lines dividing the microenvironments depict the permeability among the
sectors, suggesting the possibility of increased complexity in the decision-making
process. The arrows reflect the direction of the communication, varying from purely
one-way to two-way communication along a continuum.
Mounting empirical evidence supports the fundamental concept that differ-
ences exist in the practices of public and private sector communicators, but more
research is needed to test the model’s ability to explain and predict how commu-
nication is practiced within the U.S. public sector. For example, a survey of 976
corporate and government communicators supported the underlying assumptions
of the government communication decision wheel by confirming that eight envi-
ronmental attributes related to communication practices were stronger in the public
sector: inadequate budgets, political influence, communication frequency, public
pressure, interaction with other organizations, media coverage frequency, media
coverage evaluation, and impact of legal frameworks (Liu et al., 2010). In addition,
interviews with 49 government communicators supported the concept of the four
microenvironments (Liu & Levenshus, 2010).

Literature review, research questions, and hypotheses

There is little research available from which to draw conclusions as to whether the
practice of communication varies among the levels of U.S. government. Liu and
Levenshus (2010) interviewed 49 communicators from city, county, state, and federal
agencies and concluded that the participants’ experiences were dissimilar and worthy
of additional study. More specifically, of those who believed the public did not trust
government communication (n = 15), most participants (n = 11) believed the level
of public distrust was greater for federal and state communications. In addition,
more than half (n = 18) of those who reported a strong impact of politics on their
work were federal communicators. Scholars have examined the four primary levels
of government, but, unlike the private-public comparisons, there appears to be no
commonly agreed upon list of differences and similarities for how communication is
practiced within the four levels of U.S. government. Therefore, this is the first known
study to specifically examine how the unique public sector attributes identified in the
government communication decision wheel affect the daily activities of U.S. federal,
state, county, and city government communicators.2

272 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

Factors that influence government communicators’ daily activities

Federalism
Federalism is a complex system of organization in which the federal government over-
sees and creates policy for programs that are actually implemented by state, county,
and city agencies (Heffron, 1998). This decentralized yet interwoven organizational
structure can create tensions among city, county, state, and federal agencies as they
coordinate with each other and with nongovernmental organizations on communi-
cation efforts. Public administration scholars indicated that federalism causes state,
county, and city governments to experience both cooperation and opposition from
federal agencies that dictate some of their policies. Wright (1990) observed that the
inextricable links among the levels of government present a challenge for each level
to maintain its independence. For example, the federal government had to support
state Medicaid program administration by creating an easier flow of grant funds to
states and localities after the states were crippled by federal directives (Thompson,
2008). Besides grants, state and federal laws can have a trickle-down effect on city
and county governments, and agencies at all levels can find themselves competing for
resources and authority (Rainey, 2003). The uncertainty of the influence of federalism
on communication among the levels of government leads us to our first question:

RQ1: Is there a difference in the impact of federalism on the daily activities of

city, county, state, and federal government communicators?

Media coverage
Public administration and public relations scholars generally agree that the media
exhibit a negative bias when reporting government news (Graber, 2003; Lee, 2008). A
survey of 976 communicators supported this consensus: Government communicators
were more likely than corporate communicators to negatively evaluate media coverage
of their organizations (Liu et al., 2010). This intense media scrutiny can be viewed
as a benefit as well as a burden. For example, interviews with 49 government
communicators revealed that nearly one-fourth believed media watchdogs are good
for the government and create opportunities for publicity (Liu & Levenshus, 2010). At
the city and county levels, the importance of external communication is underscored
by a closer relationship with citizens (Liu & Levenshus, 2010) and pressure to be
accountable (Sanger, 2008). Sanger stated that cities and counties do a better job
communicating with citizens. Therefore, we propose:

H1: City and county government communicators report more positive media
coverage of their organizations than do state and federal government commu-
nicators.

Relationships with primary publics

Liu and Levenshus’s (2010) interviews with 49 government communicators suggested
that publics may have greater trust in government communication from the city or
county level than from the state and federal levels. Research indicates that cities and

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 273

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

counties have done a better job measuring citizen satisfaction than states have done
(Sanger, 2008). This commitment to customer service reflects the increased visibility
of local services that citizens experience on a daily basis. To clarify relationships
government communicators have with their primary publics, we ask:

RQ2: Is there a difference in how frequently city, county, state, and federal
government communicators interact with their primary publics?

Because of the closer relationship described in the literature between localities

and their publics, we predict:

H2: City and county government communicators report greater pressure from
their primary publics to meet their information needs than do state and federal
government communicators.

Legal frameworks
Government organizations in general have more legal and procedural constraints than
private sector organizations (Gelders et al., 2007). A survey of 976 communicators
reported that the strongest factor that distinguishes how communication is practiced
in the public and private sectors is the effect of external legal frameworks (laws
and regulations) such as the federal Freedom of Information Act (Liu et al., 2010).
Pandey and Garnett (2006) reported that red tape from information systems and
communication policies had a negative impact on internal communication. However,
external communication in state agencies was less susceptible to barriers created by red
tape. This suggests that state agencies have fewer barriers to external communication
efforts. We ask the following question to clarify the impact of legal frameworks on
government communicators operating in the four levels of government:

RQ3: Is there a difference in the impact of external legal frameworks on the daily
activities of city, county, state, and federal communicators?

Politics
Internal and external politics had a much greater influence on the practice of
communication in government settings than in corporate settings, according to
a survey of 976 communicators (Liu et al., 2010). However, these results were
not broken down by government level. Liu and Levenshus (2010) found that
federal employees believed politics had a strong impact on their communication
activities. Other researchers disagreed as to the level of influence that politics has
on federal government communications. In interviews, 18 federal communicators
indicated that political agendas can constrain the release of information, but that
this is more evident when the communicator is a political appointee rather than a
career bureaucrat (Fairbanks, Plowman, & Rawlins, 2007). However, Fitch (2004)
suggested that most communication is actually apolitical and that the day-to-day
communication may require more reviews prior to public release. Because public

274 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

messages from federal agencies appear to require more political scrutiny prior to
release, we predict:
H3: Federal communicators report a greater influence of politics on their daily
activities than do city, county, and state communicators.

Devaluation of communication
Research has produced mixed results regarding the value that government leadership
places on the communication function. In Fairbanks, Plowman, and Rawlins’s (2007)
18 interviews, they found that agency leaders who are not comfortable dealing with the
media may inhibit the release of information. But in agencies in which communicators
are part of management decision making, communicators do a better job of informing
the leaders and gathering information from management. When agency management
does not value communication, or does not trust the communicators with vital
information, barriers are created that prevent effective and accurate communication
efforts. The researchers also indicated that the devaluation of the communication
function at the federal level has decreased the communication staff to one full-time
employee or less per program. Other studies have found little or no devaluing of
communication by management. A survey of 976 communicators found no significant
difference in management support for communication between the public and private
sectors (Liu et al., 2010), and interviews with 49 government communicators revealed
that 86% believed they had strong support from management (Liu & Levenshus,
2010). However, neither study examined the issue by level of government. To
determine the extent of the devaluation of the communication function among the
levels of government, we ask:
RQ4: Is there a difference in management support for communicators within the
city, county, state, and federal levels of government?

Factors that influence professional advancement

Few studies have examined government communicators’ opportunities for profes-
sional advancement, especially among the four levels of government.

Leadership opportunities
The little research that exists on government communicators’ leadership opportu-
nities offers contradictory insights. Liu and Levenshus’s (2010) interviews with 49
government communicators revealed that 61% stated they did not have good oppor-
tunities to take on a leadership role in their organizations. However, the National
Association of Government Communicators’ 2008 survey found that a majority
(59%) reported they play a part in important management decisions, and 53% have
supervisory responsibilities. To clarify the leadership opportunities for government
communicators, we ask:

RQ5: Is there a difference in leadership opportunities for city, county, state, and
federal communicators?

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 275

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

Professional development
Professional development can help government communicators overcome negative
media and public perception (Sieb & Fitzpatrick, 1995). The Public Relations
Society of America (2007) defined professional development as activities that give a
practitioner the ability to be more effective as well as any experience or knowledge
that improves the practitioner’s capabilities. A survey of job satisfaction among
government employees, while not specific to communicators, provided comparisons
of employees’ perceptions of their development opportunities among the levels of
government (Durst & DeSantis, 1997). The researchers found that local government
employees had a higher rate of job satisfaction and greater promotion opportunities
than did state and federal employees.
Elaborating on these findings, Liu and Levenshus (2010) discovered that federal
respondents who worked for an elected official rather than a bureaucrat reported they
had no opportunities for career development. However, the researchers also found
that government communicators generally were satisfied with their professional
development despite limited opportunities for career advancement. In terms of
employer-sponsored training, a survey revealed most government communicators
(70%) were satisfied with the job training they received, and 80% indicated their
agencies had training budgets (NAGC, 2008). These results were not reported by
level of the government employer. To clarify the influence of organizational factors
on government communicators’ career development, we ask:

RQ6: Is there a difference in the professional development opportunities for city,

county, state, and federal government communicators?

Testing the government communication decision wheel

Survey sample
The survey sample was 1,617 government employees who at the time of the study
worked for a government entity in the United States at the city, county, state,
or federal level as a communication professional. Government communicators’
primary responsibilities are communicating internally and/or externally to vari-
ous publics regarding organizational policies, decisions, or actions and/or guiding
communication strategy. To recruit participants, we worked with four prominent
professional government communicator associations: the City-County Communi-
cations and Marketing Association (3CMA), the Federal Communicators Network
(FCN), the National Association of County Information Officers (NACIO), and the
National Association of Government Communicators (NAGC). These organizations
are unique in that they provide networking, education, and development oppor-
tunities specifically for communication professionals in the public sector. The four
associations also are dominant professional organizations for government commu-
nicators in the United States and represent communicators from all four levels of
government in geographically diverse areas (e.g., unlike other associations, such as

276 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

the Senate Press Secretaries Association). These associations provided us access to

their members’ e-mail and mail addresses and also sent e-mails to remind their
members about the survey.

Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was developed from Liu and Horsley’s (2007) operationaliza-
tion of the theoretical constructs of the government communication decision wheel
and refinements by Liu and Levenshus (2010). It consisted of 68 questions regarding
daily communication activities, relationships with the media and primary publics,
the influence of politics on communicators’ work, satisfaction with professional
development opportunities, and demographics of respondents and their employers.
The instrument noted that respondents did not have to complete all the questions
and that the responses were confidential.
Respondents rated 23 daily activities on a 5-point anchored scale from ‘‘never
engage in the activity’’ to ‘‘very frequently engage in the activity (e.g., daily).’’ Activities
included media relations, community relations, advertising, strategic development,
and digital media. Respondents had the option to add and rate items not listed on
the survey.
To understand relationships, respondents rated the frequency of involvement
with seven outside groups (e.g., state government agencies/departments, industry
self-regulating organizations, and nonprofits/associations) on a 5-point anchored
scale from ‘‘never’’ to ‘‘very often (e.g., daily).’’ Respondents also considered their
involvement with their ‘‘most critical primary public’’ through three questions (e.g.,
‘‘How often do you communicate with your primary public?’’) on a 5-point anchored
scale with response options from low to high (e.g., ‘‘rarely’’ and ‘‘frequently’’). Finally,
respondents evaluated media relations through six questions (e.g., frequency of media
coverage and accuracy of media coverage) on a 5-point anchored scale with response
options from low to high (e.g., ‘‘rare coverage’’ to ‘‘frequent coverage (e.g., daily)’’
and ‘‘extremely inaccurate’’ to ‘‘extremely accurate’’).
Respondents evaluated the influence of internal and external politics through four
questions (e.g., ‘‘How much pressure do you feel from external politics?’’ and ‘‘How
much of an effect do external politics have on your job?’’) on a 5-point anchored scale
with response options from low to high (e.g., ‘‘low pressure’’ to ‘‘high pressure’’ and
‘‘minimal effect’’ to ‘‘large effect’’). Respondents evaluated their professional devel-
opment opportunities by rating their satisfaction with nine items (e.g., conference
travel, mentoring program, and tuition reimbursement) on a 5-point anchored scale
from ‘‘not satisfied at all’’ to ‘‘very satisfied.’’ Respondents could select ‘‘N/A’’ if their
employers did not provide a listed professional development opportunity.
Respondent demographics were collected through eight open-ended questions
(e.g., ‘‘How many employees, if any, do you manage?’’ and ‘‘How many years, if any,
have you been employed in government communication?’’) and seven categorical
questions (e.g., ‘‘Do you consider yourself part of your organization’s management

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 277

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

team?’’ with options of ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ and ‘‘Do you work for an elected official?’’
with options of ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’).

Survey administration
The survey was disseminated in two phases: (a) April through June 2008 and
(b) November through December 2008. We added the second dissemination phase
after the presidential election to recruit communicators working for elected officials
after discovering a low response rate for this demographic. We followed Dillman’s
(2000) tailored design method: (a) we e-mailed a brief prenotice letter; (b) we
e-mailed a detailed cover letter with a link to the online survey; (c) we e-mailed
a thank-you/reminder e-mail; (d) we mailed a thank-you/reminder letter with a
replacement questionnaire to nonresponders; and (e) we called and/or e-mailed a
random sample of nonresponders.

Survey results

Response rate
The survey response rate was 48% with 781 government communicators responding
to the survey, which exceeds the average response rates for mail surveys (42%) and
e-mail surveys (30%) in communication journals (Macias, Springston, Weaver,
Lariscy, & Neustifter, 2008). The majority of the respondents self-identified as
working for the federal government (33%), followed by city (27%), county (22%),
and state (16%) governments. We conducted a series of t-tests to determine if there
is a statistically significant difference between the online and mail responses to our
research questions and hypotheses. After controlling for family-wise error rate using
Bonferroni’s correction (α = .005), the following independent sample t-tests revealed
a statistically significant difference: level of involvement with outside groups (t(786) =
−3.83, p < .001, d = .39); amount and influence of political pressure (t(774) =
−3.38, p = .001, d = .34); the evaluation of media coverage (t(766) = −3.90,
p < .001, d = .39), and frequency of communication with primary publics (t(253) =
−5.05, p < .001, d = .35). However, because the magnitude of the differences in the
means is relatively small (i.e., d < .40 for all four factors), we analyzed the data as
one sample. We also conducted a series of t-tests to determine if there is a statistically
significant difference between the data collected for the two phases and did not find
any significant differences after controlling for family-wise error rate.

Respondents’ demographics
The respondents averaged 10 years of experience in government communication
(SD = 8.3). On average, the respondents’ organizations employ nine full-time
(SD = 27.4) and one part-time employee (SD = 2.8) in the communication area,
and the respondents supervise four employees (SD = 9.4). Women completed 62%
of the surveys.

278 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

Differences in daily activities

The top communication daily activities differed slightly among the four government
groups (see Table 1). To test whether there are significant differences in the frequency
of these activities by group, we created a daily activities scale (α = .87). We then
conducted a one-way ANOVA to explore differences among the four government
groups. There was a statistically significant difference in the daily activities for the
groups (F(3, 777) = 13.83; p < .001, η2 = .05). Posthoc tests on the daily activities

Table 1 Differences in Daily Activities of Government Communicators∗a

City County State Federal

n = 215 n = 178 n = 129 n = 259
Activity Scale
(α = .87) M SD M SD M SD M SD

Media Relations
Respond to media inquiries 4.31 .87 4.14 1.11 4.42 1.03 3.64 1.56
Media release 4.22 .90 3.97 1.17 3.91 1.05 3.37 1.55
Pitch stories to media 3.69 .98 3.48 1.20 3.37 1.19 3.08 1.58
Media interviews 3.46 1.15 3.22 1.14 3.60 1.32 3.26 1.52
Train leadership/experts 2.92 1.12 2.85 1.23 3.22 1.10 3.12 1.38
for interviews
News conference 2.25 .94 2.25 1.08 2.4 1.33 2.27 1.44
Research
Track media clips 3.65 1.41 3.79 1.49 4.01 1.24 3.63 1.58
Primary research 2.67 1.09 2.30 1.15 2.06 1.25 2.54 1.38
Planning
Strategic plans 3.05 1.11 2.97 1.02 2.84 1.27 3.45 1.31
Crisis communication plans 2.89 1.07 2.81 1.13 2.77 .97 2.91 1.36
Tactics
Contribute/edit Web site 4.54 .84 4.11 1.13 4.05 1.35 3.76 1.42
Fliers 3.58 1.16 3.41 1.15 3.36 1.09 2.72 1.37
Brochures 3.53 1.12 3.34 1.16 3.46 1.21 2.61 1.29
Network 3.51 1.00 3.21 1.12 3.12 1.03 3.56 1.16
Newsletters 3.25 1.45 2.84 1.20 2.75 1.46 2.57 1.13
Print advertising 3.21 1.19 2.81 1.31 2.33 1.23 1.92 1.17
Community meetings 3.13 1.17 2.54 1.21 2.60 1.21 2.23 1.35
Guides 2.99 1.20 2.82 1.20 3.37 1.21 2.51 1.28
Fact sheet 2.95 1.06 2.80 1.05 3.13 1.28 3.21 1.17
Radio or TV PSAs 2.84 1.18 2.53 1.22 2.10 1.01 2.18 1.25
Broadcast advertising 2.11 1.19 2.11 1.27 1.94 1.07 1.81 1.22
VNRs 1.70 1.04 1.58 .97 1.98 1.18 1.60 1.13
Blog 1.48 .97 1.43 1.03 1.57 1.07 1.98 1.37
∗ Question: On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is never engage in activity and 5 is engage in activity
daily, how frequently do you engage in the following communication activities?
a Each group’s top five activities are in bold.

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 279

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

scale using Tukey’s HSD revealed a significant difference between the federal and
city respondents (p < .001), but not between federal and state (p = .006) or federal
and county (p = .008). On specific factors, the federal respondents differed from
all three other groups in the negative direction on news releases (p < .001 for each
group), media inquiries (p < .001 for each group), brochures (p < .001 for each
group), and fliers (p < .001 for each group). Federal respondents were more likely
to work on blogs than state (p = .005), county (p < .001), and city respondents
(p < .001). Federal employees were more likely to work on strategic plans than state
(p < .001), county (p < .001), and city respondents (p = .002). City respondents
were more likely to be involved in community meetings than federal (p < .001), state
(p = .001), and county respondents (p < .001). City communicators were also more
likely to spend time working on Web sites than federal (p < .001), state (p = .002),
and county communicators (p = .003).
The survey also reveals differences in the value that is placed on communi-
cation efforts among the four groups. Most federal respondents (51%) indicated
that their organizations value external communication over internal communi-
cation. However, the majority of communicators from state (63%) and county
(54%) employers and half of the communicators from city (50%) employers
reported that their organizations value internal and external communication equally.
There is a statistically significant difference in the values that the four government
groups place on internal and external communication (χ 2 (6, N = 773) = 45.79,
p < .001).

Influences on daily communication activities and professional advancement

To determine whether the government communication decision wheel’s public sec-
tor attributes differentially affect communication practices among the four levels of
government, we tested eight factors that emerged from the environmental context
identified in Liu and Horsley’s (2007) study: federalism, evaluation of media coverage,
interaction with publics, legal frameworks, politics, management support, leadership
opportunities, and professional development opportunities. For three of these fac-
tors, federalism, media coverage, and politics, we employed the measurement scales
developed by Liu et al. (2010) (see Table 2). For professional development opportu-
nities we used a modified version of the scale created by Liu et al. (2010). The revised
scale includes three factors that influence professional development (α = .81) (see
Table 2). For the legal attribute, we asked how much laws and regulations affected
their daily responsibilities. For the public interaction attribute, we asked respondents
to evaluate the amount of public pressure they have for information and their
frequency of communication with publics. For the management support attribute,
we asked how satisfied they were with the level of support for communication that
they receive from upper management. Finally, we asked respondents to rate their
satisfaction with their leadership opportunities.
We performed a one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) to evaluate seven of the factors. We were unable to include external legal

280 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

Table 2 Message Dissemination and Professional Development Scalesa

Scale Items Reliability

Federalism How often do you work with federal government α = .70

agencies/departments outside of your organization?
How often do you work with state government
agencies/departments outside of your organization?
How often do you work with local government
agencies/departments outside of your organization?
How often do you work with industry-regulating
organizations outside of your organization?
How often do you work with nonprofits outside of your
organization?
How often do you work with corporations outside of your
organization?
How often do you work with activists?
Media coverage Considering all the news coverage of your organization α = .76
in the last six months, how would you rate the tone of the
coverage from extremely unfavorable to extremely
favorable?
Considering all the news coverage of your organization
in the past six months, how would you rate the level of
accuracy of the coverage from extremely inaccurate to
extremely accurate?
Considering all the news coverage of your organization in
the past six months, how would you rate the level of fairness
of the coverage from extremely unfair to extremely fair?
Politics How much external political pressure do you feel, from low α = .84
pressure to high?
How much internal political pressure do you feel, from low
pressure to high?
How much of an effect do internal politics have on your job,
from minimal effect to large effect?
How much of an effect do external politics have on your job,
from minimal effect to large effect?
Professional How satisfied are you with your employer’s support to α = .81
development attend professional conferences, from not at all satisfied to
very satisfied?b
How satisfied are you with your employer’s support to attend
training seminars, from not at all satisfied to very satisfied?b
How satisfied are you with your employer’s ability to
reimburse tuition, from not at all satisfied to very satisfied?b
a Allquestions measured on an anchored five-point scale.
b These questions had a N/A option for those who did not have the programs or benefits at
their workplace.

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 281

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

frameworks in the MANOVA because these data were collected separately due to a
processing error in the survey.3 Thus, we evaluated external legal frameworks through
a one-way ANOVA test. The MANOVA revealed significant differences for seven
factors (see Table 3): federalism (F(3,749) = 4.96, p = .002; partial eta squared =
.02); frequency of communication with primary publics (F(3,749) = 8.84, p < .001;
partial eta squared = .034); pressure to meet primary publics’ information needs
(F(3,749) = 11.21, p < .001; partial eta squared = .043); politics (F(3,749) = 4.27,
p = .005; partial eta squared = .017); management support (F(3,749) = 10.47,
p < .001; partial eta squared = .04); leadership opportunities (F(3,749) = 3.63,
p = .013; partial eta squared = .014); and professional development (F(3,749) =
19.36, p < .001; partial eta squared = .072).
Posthoc tests using Tukey’s HSD further answered the research questions and
hypotheses. For federalism (RQ1), Tukey’s HSD found a statistically significant
difference between federal and state respondents (p = .003), indicating state com-
municators are more influenced by federalism (see Table 3). For frequency of
interaction with primary publics (RQ2), Tukey’s HSD revealed a significant dif-
ference in that the city level was higher when compared to the county (p = .002)
and federal levels (p < .001). For pressure to meet the publics’ information needs
(H2), there was a significant difference for county respondents over city respondents
(p < .001), suggesting there is less pressure for information at the county level. There
also was a significant difference for federal respondents over county (p = .01) and
city respondents (p = .014) and state over county respondents (p = .011). Thus H2
is not supported.
For politics (H3), Tukey’s HSD provided partial support for this hypothesis:
Federal communicators experience a greater influence of politics on their daily
activities than their peers within the three other government levels. The federal group
was more likely to experience political pressure than the county group (p = .021) and
the state group (p = .020). For management support (RQ4), Tukey’s HSD revealed
a significant difference between the federal group and the city (p < .001), county
(p < .001), and state groups (p = .002), revealing that the county group rated its
management support the highest followed by state, city, and federal groups.
For leadership opportunities (RQ5), Tukey’s HSD revealed a significant dif-
ference between the federal group and the city (p = .026) and county (p = .032)
groups, indicating that the federal group rated its leadership opportunities lower
than the city and county groups. For professional development (RQ6), Tukey’s
HSD revealed significant differences for the federal and the county (p < .001) and
the city (p < .001) groups, indicating that the federal communicators had fewer
professional development opportunities than those reported by the county and city
communicators.
Finally, the MANOVA did not reveal a significant result for one factor: evaluation
of media coverage (F(3,749) = 2.40, p = .067; partial eta squared = .01), thus not
supporting H1. The ANOVA did not find a significant difference for the impact of
external legal frameworks (F(3,530) = 2.87; p = .036, η2 = .020), answering RQ3.

282 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

 Table 3 Variables that Influence Communicators’ Daily Activities by Government Level

M SD
J. S. Horsley et al.

Factor Federal State County City Federal State County City

Federalism∗ 18.59 20.71 19.52 19.96 6.04 3.74 4.37 5.34

n = 259 n = 129 n = 178 n = 215 n = 259 n = 129 n = 178 n = 215
Public Pressure for 3.87 3.89 3.57 4.13 1.07 .87 1.12 .85
Information∗ n = 255 n = 128 n = 177 n = 213 n = 255 n = 128 n = 177 n = 213
Frequency of 4.16 4.43 4.24 4.58 1.19 .81 .98 .65
Communication with n = 254 n = 129 n = 177 n = 213 n = 254 n = 129 n = 177 n = 213
Publics∗
Political Pressure∗ 14.56 13.24 13.44 13.62 3.68 4.43 4.33 4.12
n = 255 n = 128 n = 178 n = 212 n = 255 n = 128 n = 178 n = 212
Management Support∗ 3.33 3.80 3.92 3.74 1.38 .85 1.12 1.19
n = 254 n = 127 n = 178 n = 213 n = 254 n = 127 n = 178 n = 213
Professional Development 17.85 19.02 20.18 20.31 6.64 4.67 5.94 5.16
Opportunities∗ n = 251 n = 127 n = 176 n = 210 n = 251 n = 127 n = 176 n = 210
Legal Frameworks 3.92 4.16 3.85 3.73 1.15 .69 1.03 .95
n = 224 n = 117 n = 152 n = 41 n = 224 n = 117 n = 152 n = 41

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

Evaluation of Media 10.23 10.74 10.44 10.22 2.22 1.69 2.31 2.16
Coverage n = 249 n = 129 n = 175 n = 212 n = 249 n = 129 n = 175 n = 212
Leadership Opportunities∗ 3.33 3.50 3.63 3.60 1.26 1.18 1.18 1.14
n = 255 n = 128 n = 178 n = 211 n = 255 n = 128 n = 178 n = 211
∗ Significant difference at the .05 level.
Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

283
Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

Conclusions
The effects sizes for the MANOVA and ANOVA calculations were relatively small
(partial eta squared <.08, η2 < .03), reinforcing the government communication
decision wheel’s primary premise that government communicators face similar
constraints and opportunities. This finding, however, also suggests slight differences
exist within the sector. Thus, the public sector environment is analogous to a family
in that each member has the same familial roots, but slightly different genetic make-
up. Depending on its position in the family tree, or in this case, bureaucracy, one
organization may operate in the environment differently than another. Given that
we did find significant differences in how communication is practiced among the
four levels of U.S. government, we now discuss how we revised the government
communication decision wheel. When academics and government communicators
apply the model to research and practice, however, they should remember that the
relatively moderate effect sizes identified in this study indicate that these differences
likely are not difficult to overcome.

Modeling differences in influences on daily communication activities

The survey results illuminate six differences in the environmental attributes among the
four levels of government: federalism, public interaction, political pressure, manage-
ment support, leadership opportunities, and professional development opportunities.
These differences and the government level they impact are discussed below and
noted on the revised model (see Figure 2).

Federalism
State communicators indicated a higher level of interaction with other groups, indi-
cating that their communication activities are influenced by the system of federalism
more than the other three groups. This finding indicates that communicators would
especially need to consider how federalism affects communication at the state level
if they were to partner with communicators from state organizations. For example,
state communicators would follow policies and procedures established by a federal
initiative to raise the age for state driver’s licenses, but partners at the city and
county levels who supported the public information campaign would rely on the
state communicators to keep the communication in compliance.

Public interaction
County communicators report less public pressure for information than do city
communicators, while city respondents report communicating more frequently with
their primary publics than do federal and county respondents. Federal communicators
report more public pressure for information than do county communicators, but less
than city communicators. Finally, state communicators report more public pressure
for information than do county communicators. Understanding publics’ expectations
can assist communicators using the government communication decision wheel to
plan their communication activities. For example, a communicator from a county

284 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

Communication Partner(s)
Ring
Government Communicator
Ring

e Federal Co
at un
St ty

Intergovernmental
M
ed

ct
ia

re
te

Di
d

Intra-

State
City

governmental Multi-level
l
Federa

M
ct ed

City
ire ia
te
D d
External

County
Non-Governmental

Federal State City

Unique activities: Reported Unique activities: None Unique activities:
more strategic planning; fewer identified. Reported more work
media relations activities; greater Unique attributes: Reported on Web sites.
value on external communication. more impact from federalism. Unique attributes:
Unique attributes: Reported Reported greater
greater political pressure; fewer County public communication
professional development Unique activities: None frequency and
opportunities; fewer leadership identified. pressure for public
opportunities; lack of Unique attributes: None information.
management support. identified.

Common Attributes
Legal frameworks; media coverage evaluation; goal of the public good.

Figure 2 The expanded government communication decision wheel.

organization would need to consider that peers in city government have a greater
expectation from their publics for information. Therefore, in a joint communication
effort on changes in municipal garbage and recycling collection, those expectations
would need to be addressed so that all target publics’ needs are met.

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 285

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

Political pressure
Federal communicators are more likely to report greater external political pressure
on their work than county respondents. Federal communicators also were more
likely to experience internal political pressure than state respondents. Government
communicators who partner with peers in the multi-level microenvironment could
use these findings to help them identify communication obstacles (e.g., federal
political priorities that may delay or inhibit communication related to healthcare
reform) and opportunities (e.g., state political priorities that may encourage and
expedite communication related to healthcare reform) that can be negotiated during
the development of communication strategies and tactics.

Management support
Federal communicators are more likely to report a lack of management support
for communication compared to the other three government groups. When com-
municators from other government levels partner with a federal communicator,
they should keep in mind that this lack of support from upper management may
interfere with the federal communicator’s ability to gain approval from leadership
for message creation and dissemination, especially if the matter is a top priority for a
partner’s organization but not for the federal organization. This knowledge may help
partners find ways to negotiate this obstacle before it infringes on the success of the
communication efforts.

Leadership opportunities
Federal communicators rate their leadership opportunities lower than the city and
county groups. This finding clarifies previously contradictory findings by Liu and Lev-
enshus (2010), who found most government communicators had no opportunities
for leadership roles, and the NAGC (2008), which found most did have a leadership
role. As neither study examined responses based on level of government employer,
this significant finding suggests the contradiction emanated from subgroups with
differing leadership opportunities within the study samples. In terms of commu-
nication practice, understanding the leadership disparity may help communicators
who are partnering with federal, city, and county groups to factor this into their
strategic planning. Federal communicators who may not have sufficient leadership
power may find that partnering with communicators who do will bring more power
to the partnership and enhance the objectives of their communication efforts.

Professional development opportunities

Overall, federal communicators report fewer professional development opportunities
than their peers at the county and city levels, which supports previous research (Liu
& Levenshus, 2010). These findings indicate that minimal professional development
opportunities can have an impact on the ease and ability of communicators to
research, develop, and distribute their messages. This can become a factor in any
of the four microenvironments if communication efforts are impeded by federal
communicators’ lack of access to training and/or education. For example, state

286 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

communicators who are up-to-date on social media tactics may be frustrated by their
partners at the federal level who have not developed these skill sets.

Modeling similarities in influences on daily communication activities

While the results highlight six differences among the four levels of government, they
also reveal two similar environmental attributes: legal constraints and evaluation of
media coverage. These attributes solidify the similarities found in the government
sector environment as established characteristics of all four levels.

Legal frameworks
All four groups of communicators report that external legal constraints have an impact
on their daily activities, reinforcing a study in which government communicators
reported a greater impact of external legal frameworks on their daily activities than
their corporate counterparts (Liu et al., 2010). These findings suggest a common
ground for all government communicators and a key consideration when using the
government communication decision wheel to determine obstacles and opportunities
in the public sector environment for communicators at all levels of government.

Evaluation of media coverage

Communicators from all four levels similarly assess media coverage of their orga-
nizations as positive. In comparison, previous research found that government
communicators reported more frequent and more negative media coverage than
corporate communicators did (Liu et al., 2010). The fact that the government
respondents in this study rated their media coverage overall as positive suggests that
this attribute is not as much of an obstacle to communication practices as it is an
opportunity, supporting previous findings (Liu & Levenshus, 2010). The frequency
and critical nature found in previous studies may suggest that journalists have a
greater interest in government news as the watchdogs of democracy, clearing the way
for communicators to pitch new stories.

Expanding the government communication decision wheel

While previous studies have defined the differences between government and corpo-
rate communicators in both communication practices and environmental constraints
(Liu et al., 2010; Liu & Levenshus, 2010), the results of this study suggest that govern-
ment communicators are not a truly homogenous group. Therefore, we expand the
government communication decision wheel to reflect the differences and similarities
in the communication practices and organizational attributes found in the four levels
of government (see Figure 2). First, we added two rings around the microenviron-
ments. The inner ring represents the government communicator using the wheel and
can be moved to the corresponding microenvironment in which that communica-
tion decision is being made. For example, a state government communicator who
is working with another state government communicator would move the ‘‘state’’
portion of the inner ring to the intergovernmental microenvironment. The second,

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 287

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

or outer, ring represents a partnering government communicator and is used when

there is at least one partner. Metaphorically, more rings could be added to the
model to represent multiple communication partners. In the last example, the outer
ring would turn to line up ‘‘state’’ with intergovernmental. The model would then
depict the overlapping attributes and activities present when two state communi-
cators work together. We added each government level’s particular environmental
attributes to the model to reinforce that these characteristics should be considered
when developing a communication plan for any of the four microenvironments.
We also adjusted the government communication decision wheel to include the
channel of communication used (direct, mediated, or a combination). While online
channels offer the potential for two-way communication between a government
entity and a key public, mediated information creates a two-step flow of filtered
information from the government entity to the target public. In the multi-level
microenvironment, in which communicators work with other communicators at
different levels of government, understanding a communication partner’s use of
channels can help them strike a strategic balance and establish reasonable objectives.
Besides understanding their partners’ different communication strategies and
tactics, it is important for government communicators to understand their partners’
communication values. Conflicting values may make it more difficult for government
communicators to achieve strategic objectives in a public affairs plan. Federal respon-
dents are more likely to report that their organizations value external over internal
communication, while most city, county, and state respondents report that their
organizations equally value internal and external communication. Using the decision
wheel, the lead communicator would understand each partner’s communication
priorities to ensure a productive and symbiotic relationship.
Communicators may use the expanded model to determine: (a) the environ-
mental attributes for themselves and their partners in the communication effort;
(b) the microenvironment in which the communication decisions are made; (c) the
mix of direct and mediated channels of communication necessary for a particu-
lar communication effort; and (d) the communication priorities of all partnering
organizations.

Limitations and future research

This study is limited in that the findings only apply to the U.S. government, limiting
the generalizability of the research. In addition, the revised model may still be too
simplistic due to its focus on government-to-government partnerships. It does not
identify unique environmental opportunities and obstacles for the nongovernmental
sectors (i.e., corporate and not-for-profit). However, nongovernmental organizations
may use the model to inform their collaborations with government communicators.
Future research may explore differences between communicators working for
bureaucrats versus elected government officials, those working in organizational
headquarters versus field offices, and those working for government organizations
with similar missions or tasks (e.g., public safety, legislative, or health organizations).

288 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

Comparative studies of government organizations of different sizes, missions, and

geographical locations would also enhance this research stream. Going beyond the
national borders, researchers could test the government communication decision
wheel for similarities and differences between U.S. and international government
communicators. The model also would be further enhanced with research regarding
gender differences or career choices among government communicators.
Despite these limitations and future research needs, this study contributes a
comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the four levels of U.S. government
communicators and their decision making. To date, this is the only theory-based
model offered to guide effective government communication practices.

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 289

 290
Appendix A Public Sector Attributes and Their Impact∗
Environmental Attribute Explanation
Influences on Communicators’ Daily Activities
Federalism Overlapping, yet independent, system of constitutional
authority.
Media Scrutiny Media act as government watchdogs, scrutinize
government activities, and push for transparency
(Fitch, 2004; Lee, 2008). Government media coverage
declining and increasingly negative.
Relationships with Even though most government communication is
Primary Publics truthful, the public and media tend to have negative
perceptions about government communication.
Legal Frameworks Federal laws ban propaganda and restrict government
use of public funds for publicity (Lee, 2008). Federal,
state, and local access-to-information laws vary (e.g.,
federal Freedom of Information Act).
Politics While all organizations experience the influence of
politics, external politics define government bodies.
Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association
Public Sector Impact
Decentralized communication approach may
cause government bodies to speak with
multiple, contradictory voices.
Makes government communicators more
conservative in communication to avoid
negative coverage. Some government
communicators see media scrutiny as positive.
May limit acceptance and effectiveness of
government communication. Public cynicism
seen as greatest obstacle to effective
Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices
communication.
Misinterpretation of laws may unnecessarily limit
communication activities at all government
levels and hurt ability to share information with
the public and media. May expand or hamper
communicators’ efforts.
Influences strategy selection. May hinder message
distribution and creativity, increase outside
interest groups’ influence. Determines the level
and means of information sharing.
J. S. Horsley et al.
 J. S. Horsley et al.

Appendix A Continued

Environmental Attribute Explanation Public Sector Impact

Devaluation of Historic avoidance of public communication Obstacles created by management who do not value
Communication by strategies may be changing. strategic communication may reduce the
Management effectiveness of communication strategies and
tactics.
Public Good Unlike the private sector, the government’s goal is Government bodies are not typically influenced by
public service rather than profits. market pressures when making strategic decisions.

Influences on Communicators’ Professional Advancement

Few Leadership Government communicators are historically
Opportunities relegated to a technical role, but data are mixed on
their inclusion in management decision making
and promotions.
Lacking Professional Government communicators lag behind their
Development corporate counterparts in terms of professional
A weaker voice in management decision making may
impede strategic communication planning and
execution.
The lack of skill and management development may
impact the effectiveness of communication efforts

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

Opportunities associations and standards. and partnerships.
∗
Adapted from Liu, Horsley, and Levenshus (2010).
Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

291
 292
Appendix B Summary of Communication Theories and Models∗
Theory/Model
Model of the Government
Communication Process
(Hiebert, 1981)
Synthesis Model of Public
Sector Crisis
Communication
(Horsley & Barker, 2002)
Public Relations Process
Model (Hazelton &
Long, 1988)
Two-Way Symmetrical
Model (L. A. Grunig,
J. E. Grunig, & Dozier,
2002)
Contingency Theory
(Cancel, Cameron, Sallot,
& Mitrook, 1997)
∗ Adapted from Liu and Levenshus (2010).
Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association
Strengths
Includes public sector attributes;
identifies when to select tactics
for government
communication.
Addresses wide variety of public
sector attributes.
Explains how organizations
interact with the environment
and change.
Explains how organizations
effectively meet organizations’
and publics’ needs.
Explains how practice of public
relations is contingent on
factors that vary across time,
environment, situation, and
publics.
Weaknesses
Only allows for one-way
asymmetrical communication;
typology rather than theory.
Only applies to crisis
communication; only allows for
one-way asymmetrical
communication.
Biased toward corporate sector;
needs more detail on subsystem
dimensions.
Does not allow for one-way
communication; does not
account for public sector
attributes.
Only applied to conflict
resolution; 86 factors
predominately focus on private
sector considerations.
Elements Applied to Government
Communication Decision Wheel
Inclusion of public sector
attributes; Concept of adapting
communication strategy based
on environmental attributes.
Inclusion of public sector
attributes.
Concept of supersystem and
subsystems.
Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices
Concept of organizations adapting
strategies to effectively meet
publics’ needs.
Concept that there is no
one-size-fits-all approach to the
practice of public relations.
J. S. Horsley et al.
J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Plank Center for Leadership in Public Relations at the
University of Alabama for generously supporting this research.

Notes
1 We chose to test the federal, state, county, and city levels of government based upon other
comparative studies of public sector organizations (i.e., Sanger, 2008; Wright, 1990) and
to limit the categories to help maintain the model’s parsimony.
2 One of the attributes, public good, was not tested in this study as it was confirmed
previously by Liu and Levenshus (2010) and Liu et al. (2010) as a given characteristic of
government organizations.
3 When the survey was launched via mail and online, the question related to external legal
frameworks was not included. This question was included in a separate online survey sent
to the same sample.

References
Allison, G. T. (2004). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all
unimportant aspects? In J. M. Shafritz, A. C. Hyde, & S. J. Parkes (Eds.),Classics of public
administration (pp. 396–413). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baker, B. (1997). Public relations in government. In C. L. Caywood (Ed.), The handbook of
strategic public relations & integrated communications (pp. 453–479). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Beckett, R. (2000). The ‘‘government should run like a business’’ mantra. American Review of
Public Administration, 30(2), 185–204.
Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A
contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 9, 31–63.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Durst, S. L., & DeSantis, V. S. (1997). The determinants of job satisfaction among federal,
state, and local government employees. State and Local Government Review, 29(1), 7–16.
Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K. D., & Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Transparency in government
communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 23–37.
Fitch, B. (2004). Media relations handbook for agencies, associations, nonprofits, and Congress.
Alexandria, VA: TheCapitol.Net.
Gelders, D., Bouckaert, G., & van Ruler, B. (2007). Communication management in the
public sector: Consequences for public communication about policy intentions.
Government Information Quarterly, 24, 326–337.
Glenny, L. (2008). Perspectives on communication in the Australian public sector. Journal of
Communication Management, 12(2), 152–168.
Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public
organizations. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 293

Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.

Gregory, A. (2006). A development framework for government communicators. Journal of

Communication Management, 10(2), 197–210.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hazelton, V., Jr., & Long, G.W. (1988). Concepts for public relations education, research
and practice: A communication point of view. Central States Speech Journal, 39(2),
78–87.
Heffron, F. (1989). Organization theory and public organizations: The political connection.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hiebert, R. E. (1981). A model of the government communication process. In L. M. Helm,
R. E. Hiebert, M. R. Naver, & K. Rabin (Eds.), Informing the people: A public affairs
handbook (pp. 3–13). New York: Longman.
Horsley, J. S., & Barker, R. T. (2002). Toward a synthesis model for crisis communication in
the public sector: An initial investigation. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 16(4), 406–440.
Lee, M. (2001). Intersectoral differences in public affairs: The duty of public reporting in
public administration. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(2), 33–43.
Lee, M. (2008). Public relations in public administration. In M. Lee (Ed.), Government public
relations: A reader (pp. 3–20). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a
public relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(4),
377–393.
Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Levenshus, A. (2010). Government and corporate communication
practices: Do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(2),
189–213.
Liu, B. F., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Public relations professionals’ perspectives on the
communication challenges and opportunities they face in the Public sector. Prism, 7(1),
article 1.
Macias, W., Springston, J. K., Weaver Lariscy, R. A., & Neustifter, B. (2008). A 13-year
content analysis of survey methodology in communication related journals. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 30(1), 79–94.
National Association of Government Communicators. (2008). Trends and salary survey.
Available at http://www.nagc.com/AboutNAGC/OrderSurvey.asp
Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance:
Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37–51.
Public Relations Society of America. (2007). Handbook for chapter professional development
chairs. New York: Author.
Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and
individual roles. Administration and Society, 15(2), 207–242.
Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sanger, M. B. (2008). From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to
state and local performance. Public Administration Review, 68(6), S70–S85.
Sieb, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. New York: Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.

294 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association

J. S. Horsley et al. Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices

Thompson, F. J. (2008). State and local governance fifteen years later: Enduring and new
challenges. Public Administration Review, 68(6), S8–S19.
Viteritti, J. P. (2008). The environmental context of communication: Public sector
organizations. In M. Lee (Ed.), Government public relations: A reader (pp. 319–341). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Vos, M. (2006). Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Journal of
Communication Management, 10(3), 250–258.
Vos, M., & Westerhoudt, E. (2008). Trends in government communication in the
Netherlands. Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 18–29.
Wright, D. S. (1990). Federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental
management: Historical reflections and conceptual comparisons. Public Administration
Review, 50(2), 168–178.

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 269–295 © 2010 International Communication Association 295

  

比较美国政府的传播实践：扩大政府传播决策的轮盘
J. Suzanne Horsley
Brooke Fisher Liu
Abbey Blake
Levenshus
美国阿拉巴马大学广告与公共关系系

【摘要：】 

政府传播是很普遍的，并且涉及到美国公众生活的方方面面。然而在这个

重要的传播领域却极少有理论驱动的研究。本研究通过对781个政府传播者的调

查，探讨了在美国政府四个层级的传播实践和专业发展的比较。本研究在市、

县、州和联邦层级上，确定了公共部门环境如何影响传播实践的五个重大差别

和三个相似之处。我们将研究结果用于修改政府传播决策轮盘，在没有以组织

为中心的研究假设的偏见的独特环境中，为政府传播研究提供了理论基础。研

究结果将对未被充分研究的公共部门的传播理论发展有所裨益。 
Comparaisons des pratiques de communication du gouvernement américain : pour développer la
roue des décisions communicationnelles du gouvernement

J. Suzanne Horsley, Brooke Fisher Liu, & Abbey Blake Levenshus

La communication gouvernementale est omniprésente et affecte tous les aspects de la vie

publique américaine. Néanmoins, il existe très peu de recherches guidées par la théorie dans ce
domaine critique de la communication. Cette recherche explore des comparaisons dans les
pratiques communicationnelles et le développement professionnel auprès de quatre niveaux
gouvernementaux américains, par une enquête menée auprès de 781 agents de communication du
gouvernement. L'étude identifie cinq différences importantes et trois similarités dans les façons
par lesquelles le milieu du secteur public influence les pratiques de communication aux niveaux
de la municipalité, du comté, de l'État et du pays. Les résultats ont été appliqués de façon à
modifier la roue des décisions communicationnelles du gouvernement, un fondement théorique
pour l'étude de la communication gouvernementale dans son milieu unique, sans les biais des
hypothèses de recherche axées sur le secteur privé. Les résultats contribuent au développement
des théories en communication à propos du secteur public, toujours sous-étudié.
Vergleiche von Kommunikationspraktiken der US‐Regierung: Eine Erweiterung des 
Kommunikationsentscheidungsrads der Regierung  

J. Suzanne Horsley, Brooke Fisher Liu, & Abbey Blake Levenshus 

Die Kommunikation der Regierung ist allgegenwärtig und berührt jeden Aspekt des Lebens der 
amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit. Dennoch gibt es wenig theoriebasierte Forschung in diesem zentralen 
Feld der Kommunikation. Diese Studie betrachtet Vergleiche der Kommunikationspraktiken und 
professionellen Entwicklung auf vier Ebenen der US‐Regierung mittels einer Umfrage unter 781 
Regierungskommunikatoren. Die Studie identifiziert fünf signifikante Unterschiede und drei ähnliche 
Aspekte, wie der öffentliche Sektor die Kommunikationspraktiken auf Stadt‐, Landkreis‐, Länder‐ und 
Bundesebene beeinflusst. Die Ergebnisse wurden zur Modifikation des 
Kommunikationsentscheidungsrads der Regierung herangezogen ‐ eine theoretische Basis für die 
Untersuchung von Regierungskommunikation innerhalb ihres einzigartigen Kontextes und frei von 
Befangenheiten unternehmenszentristischer Forschungsannahmen. Die Ergebnisse tragen zur 
Entwicklung von Kommunikationstheorie im bislang unterbeleuchteten öffentlichen Sektor bei.  
미국정부의 커뮤니케이션 실행의 비교들: 정부커뮤니케이션 결정기구의 확장

J. Suzanne Horsley, Brooke Fisher Liu, & Abbey Blake Levenshus

요약

정부커뮤니케이션은 미국인들의 공적 삶 전체에 만연함과 동시에 그들의 삶에 영향을

미친다. 그러나 비판적 커뮤니게이션영역에서 이에 대한 이론에 근거한 연구는 거의 없는
실정이다. 본 연구는 781명의 정부 커뮤니케이터들에 대한 서베이를 통하여 미국 정부의
4가지 수준에서의 커뮤니케이션 실행들과 전문적 발전의 비교를 연구하였다. 본 연구는
어떻게 공적영역환경이 시, 카운티, 주, 그리고 연방정부수준에서의 커뮤니케이션 실행에
영향을 주는가에 있어 다섯가지 주요한 차이점들과 세가지 유사점들을 확인하였다.
발견들은 정부커뮤니케이션결정기구의 수정에 적용되었으며, 발견들은 잘 연구되지 않은
공적영역에 대한 커뮤니케이션이론발전에 기여하였다.
 Las Comparaciones de las Prácticas de Comunicación del Gobierno de los EE.UU.:
Expandiendo la Comunicación de la Rueda de Decisión del Gobierno

J. Suzanne Horsley, Brooke Fisher Liu, & Abbey Blake Levenshus

Advertising and Public Relations, University of Alabama, 255 S Central Campus Dr., Room
2400, Salt Lake City,
UT 84112, USA

Resumen

La comunicación del gobierno es dominante y toca cada aspecto de la vida pública Americana.
No obstante, hay un mínimo de investigación dirigida por la teoría sobre esta área de
comunicación crítica. Esta investigación explora las comparaciones de las prácticas de
comunicación y el desarrollo profesional entre 4 niveles del gobierno de los EE.UU. mediante
una encuesta de 781 comunicadores del gobierno. Este estudio identifica 5 diferencias
significativas y 3 similitudes en cómo el sector público del medio ambiente afecta las prácticas
de comunicación al nivel de la ciudad, el condado, el estado y el estado federal. Estos hallazgos
fueron aplicados a modificación de la comunicación de la rueda de decisión del gobierno, una
fundación teórica para el estudio de la comunicación del gobierno dentro de este contexto único
del medio ambiente libre de las preconcepciones de las asunciones de la investigación centradas
en las corporaciones. Los hallazgos contribuyen al desarrollo de la teoría de la comunicación
para el sector público poco investigado.
.