James E.

Grunig and Jon White, The Effect of Worldviews On Public Relations

Theory and Practice, in James E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations
and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.,
1992
Symmetry and Asymmetry in Organizations
Public relations units do not exist in isolation in organizations, however, and the
presuppositions guiding their activities are a part of the social structure and culture
that integrates the organization (see chapter 17 on organizational structure and chapter
21 on organizational culture). No one public relations practitioner or even a single
public relations department is accountable for the approach that an organization takes
to communication. In the words of the prominent sociologist and management
theorist, Rosabeth Moss Kanter ( 1981), "Insuring that organizations conform to
societal purposes requires that the desired perspectives are implanted into the core
decision processes of the organization. It requires becoming involved with the
formulation of the patterns themselves, rather than holding accountable individuals
whose acts have largely been shaped by those patterns" (p. 87).
Thus, to develop excellence in public relations, one must look at the cultural
presuppositions of the organization as well as the presuppositions of public relations.
In his book, World View, Kearney ( 1984) isolated what he considered to be
"universals" in the worldviews of all cultures. As we see, scholars both of public
relations and of organizations have identified similar characteristics in the cultures of
organizations.
Of these universals the most important for our purpose is the relationship between
"Self and Other." According to Kearney ( 1984), people see themselves as distinct
from the environment. Some cultures see the relationship
-42as one of interdependence and harmony and others as one of subordinance and
dominance. In the first worldview, people see an "ecological relationship," in which
they "see themselves as intimately connected with the Other . . . and see their wellbeing as dependent on its well-being" (p. 74). Other cultures, in contrast, see the
relationship as one of individualism or "as a struggle for existence in which the fittest
survive" (p. 76). J. Grunig ( 1989b) spelled out several presuppositions that he
believes explain the asymmetrical and symmetrical worldviews, worldviews that
characterize this same difference in assumptions about the relationship between self
and other. The asymmetrical worldview, he said, is characterized by the following
(pp. 32-33):
Internal Orientation. Members of the organization look out from the organization and
do not see the organization as outsiders see it.
Closed System . Information flows out from the organization and not into it.
Efficiency . Efficiency and control of costs are more important than innovation.
Elitism. Leaders of the organization know best. They have more knowledge than
members of publics. Wisdom is not the product of a "free marketplace of ideas."

Conservatism. Change is undesirable. Outside efforts to change the organization

should be resisted; pressure for change should be considered subversive.
Tradition. Tradition provides an organization with stability and helps it to maintain its
culture.
Central Authority. Power should be concentrated in the hands of a few top managers.
Employees should have little autonomy. Organizations should be managed as
autocracies.
In contrast to these asymmetrical presuppositions, J. Grunig ( 1989b) said that
organizations with a symmetrical worldview typically have the following
presuppositions in their culture (pp. 38-39):
Interdependence. Organizations cannot isolate themselves from their environment.
Although organizations have boundaries that separate them from their environment,
publics and other organizations in that environment "interpenetrate" the organization.
Open System. The organization is open to interpenetrating systems and freely
exchanges information with those systems.
Moving Equilibrium. Organizations as systems strive toward an equilibrium with
other systems, an equilibrium state that constantly moves as the
-43environment changes. Systems may attempt to establish equilibrium by controlling
other systems; by adapting themselves to other systems; or by making mutual,
cooperative adjustments. The symmetrical worldview prefers cooperative and mutual
adjustment to control and adaptation.
Equity. People should be given equal opportunity and be respected as fellow human
beings. Anyone, regardless of education or background may provide valuable input
into an organization.5
Autonomy. People are more innovative, constructive, and self-fulfilled when they
have the autonomy to influence their own behavior, rather than having it controlled by
others. Autonomy maximizes employee satisfaction inside the organization and
cooperation outside the organization.
Innovation. New ideas and flexible thinking rather than tradition and efficiency
should be stressed.
Decentralization of Management. Management should be collective; managers should
coordinate rather than dictate. Decentralization increases autonomy, employee
satisfaction, and innovation.
Responsibility. People and organizations must be concerned with the consequences of
their behaviors on others and attempt to eliminate adverse consequences.
Conflict Resolution. Conflict should be resolved through negotiation, communication,
and compromise and not through force, manipulation, coercion, or violence.

Interest-Group Liberalism. Classical liberalism, which typically champions big

government, can be as closed-minded as classical conservatism, which typically
champions big business. Interest-group liberalism, however, views the political
system as a mechanism for open negotiation among interest or issue groups ( J.
Grunig, 1989a; Lowi, 1979). Interest-group liberalism looks to citizen groups to
"champion interests of ordinary people against unresponsive government and
corporate structures" ( Boyte, 1980, p. 7).
Pauchant and Mitroff ( 1988) isolated a similar set of presuppositions embedded in
the cultures of organizations that respond to crises in what they considered a healthy
manner and in those that respond in an unhealthy manner. They called the unhealthy
organizations "self-inflated corporations" (p. 56). They are "essentially narcissistic . . .
They care only or mainly about themselves. A crisis is something which happens
mainly only to them and not to their customers or their environment" (p. 56).
____________________
5 J. Grunig ( 1989b) called this presupposition "equality" rather than "equity." We now see
equity as a more appropriate term. People should be treated equitably even though equality
seldom results. The change from equality to equity comes from reading Gilligan ( 1982),
which is discussed later in the section on gender.

-44The healthy organizations, which they call "positive self-regard organizations," have
"exactly the opposite characteristics" (p. 56).
Pauchant and Mitroff ( 1988) compared the two kinds of organizations on five
presuppositions and found differences that nearly mirror those described by J. Grunig
( 1989b):
Humanity's Relationship to Nature. Unhealthy organizations see their relationship to
the environment as one of dominance or subjugation. Healthy organizations treat the
stakeholders in the environment as "fellow human beings" and try to alleviate the
impact of a crisis on them as well as on the organization (p. 57).
The Nature of Reality and Truth. Unhealthy organizations use many defense
mechanisms to avoid responsibility "when the reality of crises confronts their selfinflated fantasies" (p. 57). Healthy organizations more often assume responsibility.
The Nature of Human Nature. Unhealthy organizations divide stakeholders into "them
and us," "good guys and bad guys." They especially are likely to perceive the mass
media as "evil" when they focus the attention of outsiders on "the lack of perfection of
the particular corporations under crisis" (p. 58). Healthy companies, in contrast, know
their "strengths and competencies" but also "point out their deficiencies and need for
improvement" (p. 59).
The Nature of Human Activities. Unhealthy organizations are passive and fatalistic.
They do something "for the sake of doing something" or because they are used to
doing it. The healthy organizations "believe in strategic action. They accept the guilt
and anxiety induced by crises in order to be in a position to act against them" (pp. 5960).

The Nature of Human Relationship . Unhealthy organizations see their relationships

with other groups of people as competitive and individualistic. Healthy organizations
more often view the relationship as cooperative, although, paradoxically, most look
upon the relationship as both competitive and cooperative.
Pauchant and Mitroff ( 1988) discovery that organizations can mix competition and
cooperation suggests that a symmetrical worldview of public relations does not force
practitioners to divorce themselves from the self-interest of their clients. In fact, most
practitioners will have mixed motives and excellent public relations, as we see next,
can blend self-interest with public interest.