Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Communication takes place in every aspect of government in the United States, including
the city, county, state, and national levels. American government communication 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, 2009). Because of its prevalence and impact on society, government communication
is a vital research field worthy of deeper exploration. To date, however, there is minimal theory-
driven research on this topic, as the prevailing research in communication 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
Research, and Public Relations Review revealed only one article that specifically addresses
& 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)(2007) proposed a new model of
government communication that differentiates the public sector from the private sector based on
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 2
the operating environment. This research advances that model by creating intergovernmental
survey of 781 government communication practitioners. This model creates a new theoretical
foundation for the study of government communication within its unique environmental context
The government communication decision wheel 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 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
(complex system of federalism; intense media scrutiny; precarious relationships with publics;
the goal of public good) and professional advancement for communicators (few leadership
opportunities and lacking professional development) (Liu et al., 2009). Table 1 summarizes the
Because of the inherent differences between the public and private sectors’ operating
model, synthesis model of government crisis communication, and public relations process
model) and theories (e.g., excellence theory and contingency theory) do not account adequately
Within the government communication decision wheel, the public sector environment is
divided into four microenvironments in which communication decision making takes place:
intragovernmental, intergovernmental, multi-level, and external (see Figure 1). At any time,
communicators from any level of government may find themselves operating in one of these
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) would
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.
communicate on an issue.
The decision wheel visually depicts the decision making that communicators must
consider in all four microenvironments. The nine organizational attributes outlined in Table 1
comprise the operating environment of the public sector. Decisions must be made regarding who
1
For a full explanation of how the model was developed from dominant communication models and theories, refer
to the original article proposing the government communication decision wheel (Liu & Horsley, 2007).
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 4
is involved in the communication activity and whether to employ direct or mediated means of
communication. The dotted lines dividing the microenvironments depict the permeability among
the sectors, suggesting the possibility of increased complexity in the decision-making process.
Mounting empirical evidence supports the fundamental concept that differences 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 communication is practiced within the U.S. public
sector. For example, a survey of 976 corporate and government communicators supported the
significant environmental differences between the two sectors: legal frameworks, politics,
federalism, media coverage frequency, and publics’ information needs (Liu et al., 2009). In
addition, interviews with 49 government communicators supported the concept of the four
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
(2008) interviewed 49 communicators from local, state, and federal agencies and concluded that
the participants’ experiences were dissimilar and worthy of additional study. More specifically,
of those who felt the public did not trust government communication (n = 15), most respondents
(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
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 5
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
Federalism. Federalism can create tensions among local, state, and federal agencies as
they coordinate with each other and with nongovernmental organizations on communication
efforts. Public administration scholars indicated that federalism causes state and local
governments to experience both cooperation and opposition from federal agencies that dictate
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 local
governments, and agencies at all levels can find themselves competing for resources and
RQ1: Is there a difference in the impact of federalism on the daily activities of city,
county, state, and federal government communicators?
Media scrutiny. Public administration and public relations scholars generally agree that
the media exhibit a negative bias when reporting government news (Graber, 2003; Lee, 2008). A
2
One of the attributes, public good, was not tested in this study as it was confirmed previously by Liu and
Levenshus (2008) and Liu, Horsley and Levenshus (2009) as a given characteristic of government organizations.
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 6
survey of 976 communicators supported this consensus: Government communicators were more
organizations (Liu et al., 2009). This intense media scrutiny can be viewed as a benefit as well as
communicators revealed that nearly one-fourth believed media watchdogs are good for the
government, creating opportunities for more publicity. However, studies have not empirically
examined whether the tone and substance of media coverage differs among the levels of
government. To clarify the perception of media coverage among communicators working at the
RQ2: Is there a difference in how federal, state, county, and city communicators evaluate
media coverage of their organizations?
At the city and county levels, the importance of external communication is underscored by a
closer relationship with citizens (Liu & Levenshus, 2008) and pressure to be accountable to
citizens (Sanger, 2008). In fact, Sanger stated that cities and counties do a better job
H1: City and county government communicators report more positive media coverage of
their organizations than do state and federal government communicators.
Relationships with primary publics. Liu and Levenshus’ (2008) interviews with 49
government communicators suggested that publics may have greater trust in government
communication from the local level than from the state and federal levels. At the local level,
research indicates that cities and 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 determine
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 7
whether communicators at the four levels of government have different relationships with their
RQ3a: Is there a difference in the amount of pressure for information that city, county,
state, and federal government communicators receive from their primary publics?
RQ3b: 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: Local (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. 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., 2009). Pandey and Garnett (2006) reported that internal communication in state
agencies is influenced positively by goal clarity and organizational culture, but that information
systems red tape and communication red tape had a negative impact on internal communication.
Also, external communication in state agencies was less influenced by organizational culture and
goal clarity, but external communication was not as susceptible to barriers created by red tape.
This suggests that state agencies have fewer barriers to external communication efforts. The
different outcomes of these two studies may stem from the specific state agency studied
(transportation versus health and human services agencies), or may indicate that there are other
variables that predict internal and 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:
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 8
RQ4: 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
communicators (Liu et al., 2009). However, these results were not broken down by government
level. Liu and Levenshus’ (2008) study of 49 government communicators found that most of the
interviewees who stated politics had a strong impact on their communications activities were
federal employees. Other researchers disagreed as to the level of influence that politics has on
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. To
RQ5: Is there a difference in the influence of politics on the daily activities of city,
county, state, and federal government communicators?
Because public messages from federal agencies appear to require more political scrutiny prior to
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. Fairbanks, Plowman, and
Rawlins (2007) conducted 18 interviews and found that agency leaders who are not comfortable
dealing with the media may inhibit the release of information. But in agencies in which
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 communicators from effectively and accurately communicating
with the media and other publics. The authors 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
in management support for communication in the public and private sectors (Liu et al., 2009),
and interviews with 49 government communicators revealed that 86% believed they had strong
support from management (Liu & Levenshus, 2008). However, neither study examined the issue
by level of government.
To determine the extent of the devaluation of the communication function among the
RQ6: Is there a difference in management support for communicators within the city,
county, state, and federal levels of government?
leadership opportunities offers contradictory insights. Liu and Levenshus’ (2008) interviews with
49 government communicators revealed that 61% stated they did not have good opportunities to
Government Communicators’ survey found that a majority (59%) reported they play a part in
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 10
important management decisions, and 53% have supervisory responsibilities (2008). To clarify
RQ7: Is there a difference in leadership opportunities for city, county, state, and federal
communicators?
communicators overcome negative media and public perception (Sieb & Fitzpatrick, 1995). The
Public Relations Society of America (2007) defined professional development as anything that
gives a practitioner the ability to be more effective as well as any experience or knowledge that
improves the practitioner’s capabilities. This includes seminars, conferences, access to research,
and continued education. A survey of job satisfaction among government employees, while not
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. In general, the authors
found that job satisfaction was better than the public perception reported in the media.
Elaborating on these findings, Liu and Levenshus (2008) discovered that federal
respondents who worked for an elected official rather than a bureaucrat reported they had no
opportunities for career development. However, Liu and Levenshus also found that government
communicators generally were satisfied with their professional development despite limited
government communicators discovered that most respondents (70%) were satisfied with the job
training they received, and 80% indicated their agencies had budgets for training (National
Association of Government Communicators, 2008). These results were not reported by the level
development, we ask:
RQ8: Is there a difference in the professional development opportunities for city, county,
state, and federal government communicators?
Survey sample
federal level whose primary responsibilities are communicating internally and/or externally to
the Federal Communicators Network (FCN), the National Association of County Information
Survey administration
We disseminated the survey 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 emailed a brief pre-notice letter; (b) we emailed a detailed cover letter with a link to the
developed the survey questions from the 49 in-depth interviews of government communicators
conducted by Liu & Levenshus (2008) and from theoretical propositions regarding government
communication posed by Liu and Horsley (2007). The survey consisted of 68 questions
pertaining to daily public affairs activities, relationships with primary publics and the media, the
opportunities, and respondent demographics. Prior to disseminating the survey, we pre-tested the
Response rate
The survey response rate was 48% with 781 government communicators responding to
the survey. 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,
mail, and phone 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 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.
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 13
Respondents’ demographics
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. Federal employees earned the
highest salaries, with a tie of 31% in both the $80,001-$100,000 range and above $100,001.
The top communication daily activities differed slightly among the four government
groups (see Table 2). Responding to media inquiries, working on or editing the Web site, writing
news releases, and tracking media clips appeared among the top five (in various orders) for city,
county, and state respondents. Federal respondents listed responses to media inquiries, working
on or editing the Web site, tracking media clips, networking, and developing strategic plans as
their top five activities. 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].
Post hoc tests on the daily activities 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),
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 14
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 communication efforts
among the four groups. Most federal respondents (51%) indicated that their organizations value
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 [χ2(6, N = 773) = 45.79, p < .001]. In terms of practice,
all groups indicated that they primarily focus on external communication in their work (federal =
54%, state = 69%, county = 71%, and city = 73%). These results also are significant [χ2(6, N =
attributes differentially affect communication practices among the four levels of government, we
tested six factors: federalism, evaluation of media coverage, interaction with publics, legal
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 15
frameworks, politics, and management support. For three of these factors, federalism, media
coverage, and politics, we employed the measurement scales developed by Liu, Horsley, and
one-way ANOVA test. After controlling for family-wise error rate using Bonferroni’s correction
(α = .005), the test revealed significant differences in the direction predicted for the factors [F(3,
777) = 5.61; p = .001, η2 = .02]. Post hoc tests using Tukey’s HSD found a statistically
significant difference between federal and state respondents (p = .001), indicating state
there is a difference in how communicators evaluate media coverage of their organizations, and
the results were not significant [F(3, 761) = 2.06; p = .104, η2 = .01]. Therefore, our first
hypothesis was not supported: City and county government communicators do not report more
positive media coverage of their organizations than do their peers at the state and federal levels.
Interaction with publics. We found statistically significant differences among the four
groups for public pressure for information [F(3, 769) = 10.47; p < .001, η2 = .04] and frequency
of communication with publics [F(3, 769) = 8.69; p < .001, η2 = .03]. However, our second
hypothesis was not supported: City and county government communicators do not report greater
pressure from their primary publics to meet their information needs than do communicators from
state and federal government. Tukey’s HSD revealed a significant negative difference for county
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 16
respondents over city respondents (p < .001) for public pressure for information, suggesting there
is less pressure for information at the county level. However, there was a significant difference in
the frequency of public communication, as the city level was higher when compared to the
government groups for the impact of external legal frameworks on their daily communication
activities [F(3, 530) = 2.87; p = .036, η2 = .02]. This suggests that all government communicators
the four groups [F(3, 769) = 4.34; p = .005, η2 = .02]. Tukey’s HSD provided partial support for
our third hypothesis: Federal communicators experience a greater influence of politics on their
daily activities than their peers within the three other government levels. The post hoc test
revealed a significant difference in the total political pressure scale between the federal group
and the state and county groups, but not the city group. Broken down by individual factor, the
federal group was more likely to experience external political pressure than the county group (p
< .001) and more likely to experience internal political pressure than the state group (p < .001).
management support among the four levels of government [F(3, 768) = 9.99; p < .001, η2 = .04].
Analysis revealed that the federal group was more likely to report a lack of support by
management than the others. Tukey’s HSD revealed a statistically significant difference between
the federal group and the city (p = .001), county (p < .001), and state groups (p = .002).
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 17
how respondents rated their satisfaction with their leadership opportunities [F(3, 768) = 2.92; p =
considered themselves part of top management [F(3, 769) = 3.00; p = .030, η2 = .01].
among the four government groups, we replicated the scale used by Liu, Horsley, and Levenshus
(2009), which includes five factors that influence professional development (α = .75) (see Table
4) and found a statistically significant difference [F(3, 759) = 8.75; p < .001, η2 = .03] when
controlling for family-wise error (α = .005). Tukey’s HSD revealed negative directions in the
means for federal group responses and the county (p < .001) and city responses (p < .001),
indicating that the federal communicators reported they had fewer professional development
Conclusions
The effects sizes for all of the ANOVA calculations were relatively small (d < .40),
suggesting that the differences identified in the operating environments of the four government
groups also are relatively small. This finding reinforces the government communication decision
wheel’s primary premise that government communicators face similar constraints and
opportunities. However, 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
differences among the four levels of government influence the daily activities of government
communicators. The survey results illuminate five differences in the environmental attributes
among the four levels of government: federalism, public interaction, political pressure,
management support, and professional development opportunities. These differences and the
government level they impact are noted on the revised model (see Figure 2).
groups, indicating that their communication activities are influenced by the system of federalism
more than the other three groups. This finding indicates that government communicators would
especially need to consider how federalism affects communication at the state level if they were
their primary publics. 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. There was no significant difference in
the state responses compared to the other government levels’ responses. Understanding publics’
expectations can assist communicators using the government communication decision wheel to
plan their communication activities. For example, a communicator from a county organization
would need to consider that peers in city government have a greater expectation from their
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 19
publics for information; therefore, in a joint communication effort, those expectations would
Political pressure. Federal communicators are more likely to report greater external
political pressure on their work than county respondents. Federal communicators also were more
communicators who partner with peers in the multi-level microenvironment could use these
findings to help them identify communication obstacles (e.g., political priorities that may delay
or inhibit communication related to particular policies) and opportunities (e.g., political priorities
that may encourage and expedite communication related to particular policies) that can be
management support for communication compared to the other three government groups. When
communicators 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.
This knowledge may help partners find ways to negotiate this obstacle before it infringes on the
professional development opportunities than their peers at the county and city levels, which
supports previous research (Liu & Levenshus, 2008). 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
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 20
While the results highlight five differences among the four levels of government, they
also reveal three similar environmental attributes: legal constraints, evaluation of media
coverage, and leadership opportunities. These attributes solidify the similarities found in the
Legal frameworks. All four groups of communicators report that external legal
constraints have an impact on their daily activities. Likewise, government communicators report
a greater impact of external legal frameworks on their daily activities than their corporate
counterparts (Liu et al., 2009). These findings suggest a common ground for all government
communicators and a key consideration when using the government communication decision
wheel to determine communication obstacles and opportunities in the public sector environment.
Evaluation of media coverage: Communicators from all four levels similarly assess
media coverage of their organizations 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., 2009). 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
as the four groups report they are somewhat satisfied with opportunities at their organizations.
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 21
These findings contradict Liu and Levenshus’ (2008) interview results in which 61% of
participants negatively evaluated their leadership opportunities. This finding indicates that
While previous studies have defined the differences between government and corporate
communicators in both communication practices and environmental constraints (Liu et al., 2009;
Liu & Levenshus, 2008), the results of this study suggest that government 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 microenvironments. The inner ring represents the government communicator using the wheel
and can be moved to the corresponding microenvironment in which that communication 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
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 communicators work
together. We added each government level’s particular environmental attributes to the model to
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 22
reinforce that these characteristics should be considered when developing a communication plan
communicators to take into account the distinctions of their level of government (city, county,
The government communication decision wheel depicts communicators using the direct
efforts. 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
of government, understanding a communication partner’s use of channels can help them better
distribute the workload and establish reasonable expectations for the partnership.
Conflicting values may make it more difficult for government communicators to achieve
strategic objectives in a public affairs plan. Federal respondents 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. However, in practice, all groups agree that their day-to-day focus is on external
audiences. Therefore, using the decision wheel, the lead communicator would need to understand
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 23
each of his or her partners’ communication priorities to ensure a productive and symbiotic
relationship as well as have a full understanding of the current communication objective and how
that would impact the balance between internal and external communication strategies.
Communicators can use the expanded model to determine: (a) the environmental
attributes for themselves and their partners in the communication effort; (b) the
microenvironment in which the communication decisions are made; and (c) the mix of direct and
particular communication partners. The outer ring, labelled Communication Partner(s), can be
turned to align the government level with the appropriate organization type. The communicator
would then consider the environmental obstacles and opportunities particular to the partner(s),
the attributes of the chosen microenvironment in which the communication effort takes place,
and then make informed decisions about how to balance mediated and unmediated
This study provides valuable insights for practitioners, scholars, and students. However,
like all research, it is limited. Most significantly, the findings only apply to the U.S. government,
limiting the generalizability of the research. In addition, the proposed 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 non-governmental sectors (i.e.,
corporate and not-for-profit). However, non-governmental organizations can use the wheel to
versus field offices, as well as those working for government organizations with similar missions
or tasks (i.e., agricultural, human services, legislative, or health organizations). Researchers also
could test the decision wheel for similarities and differences between U.S. and international
government communicators. The model also would be further enhanced with research regarding
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 conceptual model offered to guide effective
References
strategic public relations & integrated communications (pp. 453-479). Boston: McGraw-
Hill.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John
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.
Fitch, B. (2004). Media relations handbook for agencies, associations, nonprofits, and Congress.
Heffron, F. (1989). Organization theory and public organizations: The political connection.
Lee, M. (2008). Public relations in public administration. In M. Lee (Ed.), Government public
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. (2009). Corporate and government public relations
Liu, B. F., & Levenshus, A. (2008, May). Testing the government communication decision
wheel: Toward a new theory of government public relations. Paper presented at the
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
Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and
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
Sieb, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. New York: Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 27
Thompson, F. J. (2008). State and local governance fifteen years later: Enduring and new
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
Vos, M., & Westerhoudt, E. (2008). Trends in government communication in the Netherlands.
1
All questions measured on an anchored five-point scale
2
These questions had a N/A option for those who did not have the programs or benefits at their
work place.
Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 32