International Journal of Strategic Communication

ISSN: 1553-118X (Print) 1553-1198 (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

Strategic Communication: An Institutional

Perspective

Swaran Sandhu

To cite this article: Swaran Sandhu (2009) Strategic Communication: An Institutional Perspective,
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3:2, 72-92, DOI: 10.1080/15531180902805429

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 10 Apr 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2735

View related articles

Citing articles: 75 View citing articles

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

[Link]
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3: 72–92, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1553-118X print / 1553-1198 online
DOI: 10.1080/15531180902805429

1553-1198 Journal of Strategic Communication

1553-118X
HSTC
International Communication, Vol. 3, No. 2, March 2009: pp. 1–55

ARTICLES

Strategic Communication: An Institutional Perspective

Swaran Sandhu
Strategic Communication: An Institutional Perspective
Sandhu

University of Lucerne, Switzerland

Institutional theory and institutionalization improve our understanding of strategic communication,

but are largely neglected in communication research. This article discusses the varying perspectives
of institutional theory and their benefits for broadening the theoretical foundation of communication
management. Institutional theory is no monolithic concept but covers different schools and camps.
Three main branches of institutional theory—new institutional economics, historical and political
institutionalism and organizational institutionalism—are discussed with a specific focus on the latter.
Organizational field and institutional logics can be applied to strategic communication. By using a
three pillar model of institutions the explanatory power of each strand of institutional theory leads to
new insights and future research for strategic communication.

INTRODUCTION

Research in communication science in general and communication management in particular

has mostly neglected the influential tradition of institutional thought in social sciences. Other
disciplines have integrated new institutionalism more readily and thereby expanded their knowl-
edge base rapidly. Being a rather young and nascent discipline (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Van
Ruler, Vercic, & Sriramesh 2007, p. 28), strategic communication management still struggles
with its own identity. Young disciplines tend to be open to explanatory models adapted from
neighboring disciplines while working on their distinctive theoretical paradigm.
The integration of institutional thought in communication management theory offers a possi-
bility to understand its core function better. Within the last 25 years practice and theory of com-
munication between organizations and their publics grew exponentially. This led to different
strands of theoretical positioning within the field (Trujillo & Toth, 1987; Wehmeier, 2008;
Zerfass, 2008), one of them being strategic communication management. Postulating that the
core research agenda of strategic communication is the analysis and explanation of intentional

Correspondence should be sent to Swaran Sandhu, University of Lucerne, Department of Sociology, Bruchstrasse
9a, CH-6003 Lucerne, Switzerland. E-mail: [Link]@[Link]
 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 73

and purposeful communicative relationships between organizations and publics (Hallahan et al.,
2007, p. 3), the introduction of institutional theory to strategic communication management
offers a detour from a rational-choice or managerial perspective and stresses the influence of
institutional frameworks on organizations.
This article is divided into four parts. In the first section, I will discuss the relevance of insti-
tutions for strategic communication and give a short overview over existing research based upon
institutional ideas. In order to understand institutional theory, it is relevant to take a step back
und discuss briefly its epistemological and ontological premises and origins. Most concepts used
in communication research can be traced back to their ontological assumptions. They are either
actor-centric and stress the action of individuals whereas structuralist or systemic approaches are
more interested in structural explanations of organizational behavior. Institutional theory offers the
potential to bridge both perspectives since its intellectual tradition is closely related to integrative
concepts like structuration theory. New institutional theory (NIT) can be distinguished into three
different branches or camps: (1) new institutional economics (NIE), (2) historical and political
institutionalism or rational-choice institutionalism and (3) organizational or sociological institu-
tionalism (OI). All three perspectives are rarely used in strategic communication theory. Due to
the breadth of the field, I briefly sketch the main points of the historical and economic perspective
and then focus primarily on organizational institutionalism.
The second section introduces key concepts of organizational institutionalism. After providing
the definitional basis of institutions and institutionalization as a process and outcome, the three
pillars model of institutions is used as theoretical framework to highlight applications in strategic
communication. The third part discusses the varying levels of analysis. By focusing on the
organizational level, institutional theory offers linkages towards micro and macro levels of
explanations. The fourth and final section of the article explains how institutions influence the
theoretical conception and practice of strategic communication. An important model to explain
these influences is the concept of institutional logics. The term media logic was used to describe
the inherent logic of the media system and its influence on political decision making. However,
if seen as institutional logic, different institutional settings exert influence on strategic commu-
nication. The paper closes with an outlook and suggestions for further research.

THE RATIONALIST-MODERNIST HERITAGE OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

Strategic communication is a multidisciplinary endeavour. It has its roots in diverse strands of

social sciences (Hallahan et al., 2007, pp. 18–19). Most approaches, especially those oriented at
the Excellence study incorporated primarily rationalist models of strategic management (J. E.
Grunig & Repper, 1992; Vercic & J. E. Grunig, 2000; for a critique see McKie, 2000) to
advance communication as a key management function. Sociological-interpretative (Ihlen &
van Ruler, 2007), critical (L’Etang, 2008; Tyma, 2008) or rhetorical perspectives (Hartelius &
Browning, 2008; Heath & Frandsen, 2008) exist in various niches and offer counterweights
towards the functional efficiency-oriented perspective.
The functional-managerial outlook was buttressed by the import of various models based
largely on rationalistic strategic management literature like strategic planning (Smith, 2002),
issues management (Ansoff, 1980; Lauzen, 1997), scenario planning (Sung, 2007) or evaluation
methods (Raupp, 2008). This managerialization of communication as a strategic function was
74 SANDHU

increased by the proposition of sophisticated measurement systems (Fleisher & Burton, 1995).
The strong push towards accountability (Powers, 1997) led to a “myth of rationality” (Wehmeier,
2006) in communication management. Most concepts introduced were functionalistic and
instrumental and within the modernist paradigm of communication management. New instru-
ments, tools or technologies shaped the practice of strategic communication in order to increase
organizational effectiveness, but offered little explanation of strategic communication as an
organizational function.
To explain strategic communication as an organizational function we need a different theo-
retical toolbox. We need a set of theoretical propositions with a higher level of abstraction and
the potential to integrate various levels of analysis. Institutional theory offers such a wider lens
(Scott & Christensen, 1995) by focusing on the influence of the environment on the organization
(Scott, 2005).
Although comparative data on the development and role of communication management is quite
scarce (Swerling & Sen, 2009; Tench, Verhoeven, & Zerfass 2009; Van Ruler & Vercic, 2008;
Zerfass, Moreno, Tench, Vercic, & Verhoeven, 2008), we can heuristically assume (and observe)
that within western capitalist countries most corporations, government agencies, associations or
nonprofit organizations employ some form of external communication. This observation cuts across
most industry sectors and societal realms. Intervening factors like size of the organization do affect
the practice and resources available to the organization. As a heuristic it will be difficult to find an
organization of any type that does not claim to communicate intentionally with its publics.
The resources committed towards strategic communication did increase significantly during
the last two decades. The reasons for this large-scale expansion of strategic communication—some
would call it institutionalization—are largely unexplored (recent exceptions include Lammers &
Barbour, 2006; Wakefield, 2008). The large body of literature on professionalization (Pieczka,
2008) is inconclusive and does not explain this significant increase and acceptance of communi-
cation functions in organizations. Despite its rapid growth the public image of communication
manager is low (Bentele & Seidenglanz, 2005; Larsson, 2007).
The professionalization of communication management can be pinpointed to the time after
the Second World War with the establishment and rise of large professional association in the
U.S. and Western Europe and the establishment of the first full-service communication agencies,
which today still dominate the field with agency networks. Some explain the rise of communica-
tion management over marketing and advertising (Ries & Ries, 2003) with the evolutionary
dynamics of society (Holmström, 2005), others by the need to align organizations with the
demands of the environment (J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 2008).
Institutional theory does not look at a single organization but instead at a specific field of
organizations created by social and communicative mechanisms leading to the establishment of
new practices. A core argument of early institutional theory is based on the idea of rational
myths: the organization has no choice other than mirroring the expectations of its environment
in order to appear legitimate and rational to its constituents (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). With the
expansion of the media system into a communication ecology (Altheide, 1994) organizations are
clearly under permanent external scrutiny, especially in a crisis.
From a discourse-oriented perspective (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989) each decade involves
neuralgic condensation meta-narratives influencing the shared meaning system and the public
agenda, e.g., environmental issues in the 1980s (Chernobyl, Bhopal, and the Cold War), global-
ization problems in the 1990s (Brent Spar, Shell and Greenpeace, No Logo and Indymedia), and
 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 75

terrorism and accountability in the 2000s (9/11, Enron, and the War on Terror). Organizations as
open-systems should have developed a fine-tuned sensory pick-up these vibrations in their envi-
ronment, before they become an explosive issue for the organization. The better the organization
is tuned to its environment (using boundary-spanners as bridgeheads), the more legitimate its
practices might appear. Nowadays constituents expect organizations not only to communicate
the mere legal requirements but also to testify their concern for the environment, human rights
and nondiscriminating business practices and so on.
In short: organizations act upon institutional pressures to implement new roles, procedures
and programs such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Bartlett, Tywoniak, & Hatcher,
2007; Clarke & Gibson-Sweet, 1999; Hiß, 2004; Roberts, 2003). A good example for such a
kind of institutionalization is the rise of Investor Relations as a specific communication function
in Fortune 500 companies in the United States. This can be traced back to changes in regulatory
statements in reporting (regulative pressure), the rise of shareholder activism as a social movement
(normative pressure) and copying others (mimetic pressure) (Rao & Sivakumar, 1999). This expla-
nation debunks the widespread assumed rationality of individual organizational decision-making
and stresses the core argument of institutional theory: organizations are embedded in and influenced
by their environment(s) (Meyer & Scott, 1983).

The Relevance of Institutions for Strategic Communication

Strategic communication—like every discipline—did not emerge in a void but instead is dependent
on institutions. Strategic communication implies intentional communication of an organization
and therefore theoretically requires a purposeful actor, rational and deliberate decision-making,
and the implementation and evaluation of a strategic communication program (Hallahan et al.,
2007, p. 12). What sounds rather easy and straightforward is one of the key problems of strategic
communication and management. More and more scholars in strategic management question the
ability of actors to act rationally in a contingent environment (Balogun, 2006; Holtzhausen,
2002; Jenkins, Ambrosini, & Collier, 2007; Pettigrew, Thomas, & Whittington, 2002; Powell,
2002; Pozzebon, 2004).
One of the central misconceptions is the surrogate usage of strategic management as strategic
planning (Mintzberg, 1994). The idea to achieve strategic goals by careful planning is deeply
ingrained in strategic communication literature (Botan, 2006; Steyn, 2003) with few exceptions
stressing postmodernist approaches (Holtzhausen, 2002; Ströh, 2007) or complexity theory
(Murphy 2006; Nothhaft & Wehmeier, 2007). This strong focus partly neglects the contingency
and changing environment organizations are exposed to (Seidl, 2007).
Instead, strategic management is a multi-perspective discipline (Jenkins et al., 2007) with
divergent viewpoints (Cummings & Wilson, 2003): the rationalist perspective being only one.
Institutional theory in general defocalizes the intentional behavior of actors and stresses inter-
vening variables of the environment. Institutional theory is built upon several basic premises
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991a, p. 8; Johnson & Greenwood, 2002, p. 40; Meyer, 2008; Scott,
1991; Scott & Meyer, 1994):
1. Organizations are embedded in a social web of rules, norms and cognitive assumptions,
which form expectations for the organizations that enable, shape or constrain strategic
communication.
76 SANDHU

2. These expectations are transmitted by agencies like the state, professional institutions or
other organizations and carriers that assign the organization the appropriate forms of
communication conduct. Especially the media system exerts specific pressures on the
establishment of strategic communication.
3. Organizations in similar fields are experiencing the same kind of societal expectations.
Therefore they tend to adopt similar strategies to cope with external demands. This in
turn leads to isomorphism of practices and structures in the field.
Institutions therefore constrain and enable strategic communication at the same time and are
a cornerstone for the analysis of strategic communication. Next, I will give a short overview of
diverging institutional camps.

A Brief History of Institutional Thought

Researchers in institutional theory are confronted with a wide variety of different concepts of institu-
tions. Therefore it is important to distinguish between the various strands of institutional theory.
Since the late 1980s institutional thought was met with a renewed interest in different academic fields
(so called institutional turn) and is therefore labeled as new institutionalism as opposed to the early
institutionalism thought in the early 20th century (Rutherford, 1995; Stinchcome, 1997). Most nota-
bly are the variants of new institutionalisms in economics (North, 1990; Williamson, 1975), history
(Thelen, 1999; Thelen & Steinmo, 1992), political science (March & Olsen, 1984) as well as sociol-
ogy (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991b). Several authors tried to align the divergent paths of institutional
theory into one coherent matrix (Campbell, 2004, p. 11; Campbell & Pedersen, 2001, p. 10; Scott,
2008, p. 89). This matrix offers a quick comparison over the different strands of institutional theory.
The matrix in Table 1 illustrates the main differences and potential for strategic communi-
cation from an institutional perspective. The main focus, however, will be on organizational
institutionalism (OI), which has developed into “one of the most important and intellectually
rich research paradigms” (Mohr, 2000, p. 63). It holds the most promise for further investiga-
tion, because both OI and strategic communication both focus on the organization and its
environment.

Historical and Political Institutionalism

This variation usually employs a macro perspective and analyzes how political and economic
decision making is affected by institutional arrangements (Campbell, 2004, p. 23). These arrange-
ments are plentiful and include the analysis of governance structures like the political and eco-
nomical system, the role of labor unions and trade associations, laws and regulations. Most
studies encompass a rather long time frame. Important concepts include path-dependence, which
basically suggests that decisions or programs in specific environments lead to similar results. A
deviance from the path is virtually impossible because of institutional constraints (David, 1985).
Typically, institutional environments are most relevant for the implementation of strategic
communication. In some respect, however, historical and political analysis might shed a light on
the macro-issues involved in strategic communication management, e.g. the relevance of a
liberal or capitalistic market system or the influence of the political system. One of the first
attempts to describe the institutional impact on communication practice was the discussion of the
 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 77

TABLE 1
Schools of Institutional Thought

Rational Choice New Sociological

Historical Institutionalism/New Institutionalism/
institutionalism Institutional Economics Organizational Institutionalism

Origin Marxist and Weberian Neoclassical economics Phenomenology,

political economy ethnomethodology, sociology of
knowledge, cognitive psychology
Definition of Formal and informal Formal and informal rules and Formal rules and taken-for-granted
institutions rules and procedures compliance procedures frameworks; cognitive schema
and routinized processes of
reproduction
Level of analysis Macro-analytical Micro-analytical exchanges Organizational fields and
national political populations
economies
Relevance of Institutions shape actions Institutions are an intervening Institutions are dependent on larger
institution to of individuals but are variable, affecting an “macro” variables like culture or
action affected by collective individual’s choices but society; individual action is
and individual choices not determining them neglectable
Relevance for Only for ex-post analysis Application on the individual Applications on the organizational
communication on the macro-level and organizational level level

Source: adapted and expanded from Campbell (2004, p. 11) and Koelble (1995).

ideal-type four models of public relations developed by J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984, pp. 21–43).
The adoption of strategic communication as practiced in western democratic and market-liberal
societies led to specific adoptions of communication management e.g. in transformation coun-
tries in Eastern Europe (Hiebert, 1994). The same applies to change processes in South Africa
(Holtzhausen, 2005). The impact of the macro-institutional environment clearly affects the prac-
tice of communication management. But the analysis of the long-term historical development
of the field is neglected (Ewen, 1997; Nessmann, 2000). Research opportunities lie in the
analysis of historiographic analysis of PR textbooks (Hoy, Raaz, & Wehmeier, 2007) and
personal diaries of communication executives (Martinelli & Mucciarone, 2007) or historical
case studies (e.g., Lee, 2003).
Most research lacks the macroperspective of historical institutionalism and is limited to specific
historical case studies, often based upon a single case. More comparative research within organiza-
tional fields and a stronger methodological rigor increases the contributions of historical research to
communication management. Research on the reflective paradigm of communication management
(see Holmström, 2008, for an overview) might be the closest to an institutional analysis of societal
change and its influence on the development of strategic communication established so far.

New Institutional Economics

This branch of institutional theory was developed as a reaction to neoclassical economics, which
were based upon the ideal of the homo oeconomicus, the hyper-rational opportunistic maximizer
of individual benefits in perfect market situations. Mathematical models and econometrics tried
78 SANDHU

to calculate human behavior into market equations. The (in)famous invisible hand of the market
was deemed to magically deliver the best outcome in markets and therefore paved the way for
the deregulation of markets in the 1980s.
Starting with the concept of bounded rationality (Simon, 1961, p. XXIV) the mechanistic
rationalist assumption was discarded and modified. For NIE markets are based upon institutions,
which are “humanly devised constraints that shape human interactions” (North, 1990, p. 3).
They define the rules of the game played (ibid., p. 4). However, NIE did not take a full detour of
neoclassical economics but instead modifies and extends it.
The theoretical foundation of NIE incorporates four generic levels (Williamson, 2000, p. 597):
At a very basic level all economic action is embedded in society, identifiable by customs, tradi-
tions and norms that were developed over centuries. The institutional environment consists of
the development and formation of formal rules of the game, like laws, constitutions and property
rights. Within this framework, governance defines how the game is played: transactions are taking
place between the players, which require exact contracts between parties. Finally, the most
precise level of analysis applies mathematical models on pricing, incentives and markets. Here
we come full circle back to neoclassical models. It is important to note that the first two levels
are rather difficult to change and evolve largely unplanned. Therefore varieties of capitalism
(Hall & Soskice, 2001) exist; the same applies to cultural variations of strategic communication
(Kent & Taylor, 2007; Sriramesh, 2008).
Applying NIE in strategic communication offers new and unusual perspectives: Fischer
(2006, pp. 136–147) explains why weblogs reduce costs and increase efficiency of communica-
tion departments by using transaction cost and property rights theory. NIE, especially principal-
agent theory, is helpful to illuminate the relationships between journalists and communication
professionals. Both are dependent upon each other but their relationship is characterized by
information asymmetries (Akerlof, 1985). The employment of professional communication con-
sultancies is such a problem, because usually the principal (the organization) cannot control the
services delivered or hours billed by the agent (agency/consultancy). The language of economics
might deliver new insights for communication science and strategic communication (Fengler &
Ruß-Mohl, 2007; Ruß-Mohl, 2004).

Organizational Institutionalism

New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991b), also known as
New Sociological Institutionalism or for short Organizational Institutionalism (Greenwood,
Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2008b) is the perspective most promising for a theoretical discussion
of strategic communication. Organizational institutionalism is generally more phenomenological
oriented than the realist accounts of historical and economic institutionalisms (Meyer, 2008). It ties
into the concepts of Max Weber‘s rationalization process of the western world and the relevance
of the cultural setting for any social action (Weber, 1922) as well as the social construction of
reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1967) and ethnomethological studies (Goffman, 1967).
Early organizational institutionalists like John Meyer (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) brought back
the relevance of culture, symbols and society (Friedland & Alford, 1991) by rejecting the
rational-choice dominated organizational research field. The turn towards cognitive and cultural
explanations for organizational actions also decenters the individual actor and organization as
explanatory variable (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991a, p. 8).
 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 79

The explanation for organizational behavior—including strategic communication—depends

first and foremost not on individual actors or organizational units, but instead is interpreted as a
result of institutional processes that affect each actor or field. Similar to research in strategic
communication, new sociological institutionalism (NSI) has a strong interest in describing and
analyzing the relationship between an organization and its environment.
Although the original starting point of NSI in the late 1970s is not explicitly linked to com-
munication research, many concepts and ideas are worthy to be discussed for strategic commu-
nication. This includes e.g., the concept of organizational decoupling (Meyer & Rowan, 1977,
p. 357; see also Brunsson, 2002), ceremonial management (Meyer & Rowan, 1977, p. 358) or
rational myths (ibid., p. 345). During the last 30 years the theoretical outlook of organizational
institutional analysis moved from “adolescence” (Scott, 1987) toward “maturation“ (Scott,
2008, p. 215) and is widely recognized as one of the most innovative and important organiza-
tional schools of thought (Palmer, Biggart, & Dick, 2008, p. 740). The key contributions
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) see a steady increase in citations
(Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2008a, p. 2; Greenwood & Meyer 2008), dominating
submissions in journals and at conferences (Haveman & David, 2008, p. 583). Recently, institu-
tional thought received increasing attention of organizational communication (Lammers &
Barbour, 2006; Theis-Berglmair, 2003), political communication (Cook, 2006; Donges, 2008;
Ryfe, 2006; Sparrow, 2006) and communication science (Donges, 2006). Despite its popularity
in other fields, institutional theory has been largely omitted in communication management
research (recent exceptions are Bartlett, Tywoniak and Hatcher 2007; Wæraas, 2007; Wakefield
2008; Wehmeier, 2006). In the next section I briefly discuss some fundamentals of organiza-
tional institutionalism and apply them to strategic communication.

KEY CONCEPTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM

Central to organizational institutionalism is the discussion of institutions and institutionalization.

To explain the varying dimensions of institutional theory, a three-pillar model of institutions is
introduced and various mechanisms discussed.

Institutions and Institutionalization

Institutions are the “foundations of social life” (Campbell, 2004, p. 1). Despite this strong state-
ment, even institutional theory lacks a general definition of institutions. This problem hinges on the
theoretical perspective on institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single theory or general definition
of institutions. This question has plagued the founders of modern social sciences (Marx,
Durkheim, Weber) from the early beginnings of their discipline and can be traced as a main line of
thought during the 20th century (for a concise overview of the development see e.g., Scott, 2008,
pp. 1–46). Within the dichotomous struggle of social theory between the action-oriented perspec-
tive on one side and structuralist conceptions on the other side, institutions fall into a middle
ground, because they enable and constrain action at the same time. In this respect there is a close
kinship with structuration theory (Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Dirsmith, Heian, & Covaleski, 1996).
The term institution is a chameleon and leads to a lot of confusion. For this article I will draw a
sharp distinction between the analysis of organizations and the analysis of institutions. Sometimes
80 SANDHU

institutional communication describes the communication efforts of a specific organizational type

like a public body, a trade association or a university. However, this is misleading because insti-
tutional and organizational are used interchangeably. It is “crucial” to draw a distinction
between organizations and institutions (North, 1990, p. 4). Institutions exert an influence on
organizational members and the practice of strategic communication. The organization can be
conceptualized as an institution (micro-institutional or organizations-as-institutions as proposed
by Zucker (1983). In general we are losing too much explanatory power if organizations are
treated as institutions—this would rob institutional theory its macro-perspective and raison d’être.
Since the goal of this article is to apply the explanatory power of institutional theory in the field of
strategic communication, we are more interested in the macro-institutional or environment-as-
institutions perspective.
Most definitions on institutions agree on at least two characteristics (Donges, 2008, p. 106):
First, they are relatively stable and permanent (Hughes, 1936; Zucker, 1977). Second, they
enable and constrain (organizational) behavior by rules (Barley & Tolbert, 1997, pp. 96–97).
The basis of most social-constructionist and phenomenological-oriented institutionalism lies in
the social constructionist approach by Berger & Luckmann, who nicely tie in both distinctions in
their definition: “Institutions [..] imply historicity and control” (1967, p. 72). Following this line
of thought, institutions can be described as “relatively durable structures that shape the practices
and behaviors of actors in a given social system” (Lounsbury, 2003, p. 211). A more ambitious
attempt defines institutions as “more-or-less taken-for-granted repetitive social behavior that is
underpinned by normative systems and cognitive understandings that give meaning to social
exchange and thus enable self-reproducing social order” (Greenwood et al., 2008a, p. 4; for a
general discussion on institutions see Jepperson, 1991).
An attempt to structure the divergent strands of institutional definitions is Richard Scott’s
three-pillar model of institutions (see Table 2). Despite well-rooted critique (Phillips &
Malhotra, 2008, p. 709), it is helpful to integrate different lines of thought into one definition:

TABLE 2
Three Pillars of Institutions and Institutionalization

Scott’s (2008) typology Regulative pillar Normative pillar Cultural-Cognitive pillar

Meyer and Rowan (1977) Force of law Supported by public opinion Taken-for-granted
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) Coercive/Regulative Normative Mimetic
Institutional indicators Rules, laws, sanctions Certification, accreditation, Common beliefs, shared
education logics of action
Mechanism of – Requirement by law – Demands by publics or other – Copying or imitating of
institutionalization or rule; e.g., constituents, e.g., media logic successful organizations
publication of – Diffusion of professional – Influence of agencies or
annual reports knowledge in organizations consultants
Examples for strategic – Rise of financial – Influence of media logic on – Fashion cycles of popular
communication communication communication concepts like social media
(investor relations) – Rules of engagement or evaluation methods
between stakeholders, media – Taken-for-granted methods
and communication or problem-solving, e.g.,
professionals typical communication
management cycle

Source: inspired by Scott (2008, p. 51).

 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 81

“Institutions are comprised of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements that,

together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life”
(Scott, 2008, p. 48). Scott proposes an analytical framework, resting on regulative, normative
and cultural-cognitive dimensions.
The regulative pillar is based on the fact that institutions “constrain and regularize behavior”
(Scott, 2008, p. 52). The mechanisms of implementation are coercive. The organization is forced
to obey rules and laws or is otherwise sanctioned. Communication management is affected by
regulative rules like relevant legislation concerning freedom of the press, the rules affecting
mass media ownership or regulations concerning lobbying or advertising.
The normative pillar rests on the assumptions, which organizations need to oblige, this means
certain binding expectations in order to gain (public) appropriateness. When not complying with
normative rules, organizations are morally sanctioned. One important carrier of normative rules
is the recruitment of a professional workforce. Professionalization includes the establishment of
a common worldview and a shared value system during the education. With a high degree of
professionalization, employees solve similar problems with the same knowledge and thus lead-
ing to organizational isomorphism. Especially highly structured educational backgrounds like
MBA courses provide the same mental toolkits and thus leading to mimetic decision making.
The field of communication management still struggles with the aspect of professionalization,
but the number of B.A. and M.A. graduates is increasing steadily. High-profile accreditation by
national associations constitutes a professional community and thus creates a common outlook
on problems.
Finally, the cultural-cognitive dimension is a specific ingredient of Organizational Institution-
alism. Shared systems of meaning and understanding form the basis for common beliefs and
conceptions on how things ought to be. A digression is virtually impossible, because it is
unthinkable. Many aspects of the cultural-cognitive dimension can only be observed implicitly.
Communication management has a dual role. It can be a powerful function in order to create
shared understandings, e.g., in internal communications. However, strategic communication is also
affected by taken-for-granted assumptions. The rise of communication management as an organi-
zational function is largely the result of a taken-for-granted assumption that organizations ought to
have some relationship with its publics. For example, most universities employ public relations
staff and this function is usually not questioned. In order to be legitimate as a modern organization,
the university must employ external relations, regardless of its outcome. This does not mean, how-
ever, that communication function does not fulfill its role and goals within the organization, but
stresses the importance of unspoken assumptions that also affect strategic communication.
Furthermore it is important to differentiate between an institution and institutionalization.
The former (institution) describes “a social order or pattern that has attained a certain state or
property” (Jepperson, 1991, p. 145), while the latter (institutionalization) “denotes the process of
such attainment” (ibid.). Similar to the broad definition of institution also the term institutional-
ization has multiple meanings (Colyvas & Powell, 2006; Jepperson, 1991). In everyday usage,
institutionalization describes a permanent establishment of a certain rule or social fact which is
not questioned continuously. But institutionalization has an inbuilt dichotomy: it can be ana-
lyzed as a process and as an outcome.
As a process it describes the attainment and establishment of norms and routines in or
between organizations. From a social constructionist point of view “institutionalization occurs
whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors” (Berger &
82 SANDHU

Luckmann, 1967, p. 72; for a general application see Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Certain rules and
behaviors are transmitted from one generation to the next. The process of institutionalization takes
on different formats and usually includes a form of internalization of practices, ideas or routines,
which are not questioned, but instead taken-for-granted (Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000).
As an outcome something is described as institutionalized as long as it is not questioned or if
it is taken-for-granted. This includes certain behavioural routines or organizational practices,
like the yearly trade-fair or the quarterly analyst conference but also the departmental structure
or organizational position of the communication manager. From a theoretical point of view it is
challenging to differentiate the process and outcome perspective, because the analysis of institu-
tionalization depends on the level of analysis and the observed timeframe. Next, I discuss the
different levels of analysis in institutional theory to provide an analytical framework.

LEVELS OF ANALYSIS IN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

Institutional theory is operating on different levels. By introducing the meso-level as linkage

between micro-level and macro-level institutional theory offers new potential for strategic
communication.
The perspective of new institutionalism is promising to fill in certain black holes in the theory
of strategic communication, especially between the micro- and macro-level of analysis. While
micro-level analysis is mostly concerned with individual or group actions manifested in con-
cepts like roles, macro-level research tries to explain how societal systems interact and evolve.
The meso-level, however, is above the individual unit and below a general systems logic and
most commonly associated with organizations. Another widely popular perspective that tries to
find an alignment between action and structure is structuration theory (Giddens, 1984).
Although beneficial for coherent concepts and theory building in communication management
(Zerfass, 2008; Falkheimer, 2007; Jarren & Röttger, 2004), the meso-level approach takes a
broader stance than other theoretical concepts. Therefore it is more of a perspective, a certain
vantage point to understand and analyze organizations (Donges, 2008, p. 69; see Table 3).
The macro-meso perspective analyses the relation of organizations towards society as a
whole or specific societal subsystems like the political or economic system. Some of those
systems require a specific repertoire of actions on behalf of the organization, e.g., the political

TABLE 3
Levels of Analysis

Level of Role of
analysis Units of analysis Relationship of levels organization Strategic communication

Macro Society and its Macro-Meso Actor Macro-environment influences

subsystems organizations in society communication
Meso Organization Meso-Meso relations Duality of Actor Typical realm of strategic
between organizations and Structure communication
Micro Social action of Micro-Meso individuals and Structure Organizational structure influences
individuals groups in organization practice of communication

Source: adapted from Donges (2008, p. 69).

 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 83

system requires certain types of organizations, like parties or social movements to perform.
Within this perspective, organizations can be analyzed as actors within specific institutional
settings. This level of analysis is most strongly aligned with the environment-as-institution
(Zucker, 1987, p. 444) or macro-institutional perspective. The environment outside of organiza-
tions is the primary source of institutional pressure, which in turn forces the organization to
adopt certain strategies like decoupling or ceremonial conformity with external demands, in
order to retain legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The key function of communication man-
agement is to build and maintain organizational legitimacy.
At the meso-meso level we are interested in the relations between organizations, especially
when organizations are structural or functional interdependent. The focus lies on the mutual
observation and interaction of organizations. Several institutional effects like mimetic isomor-
phism in organizational fields (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) can be theorized as a result of mutual
co-orientation of organizations. On both—macro-meso and meso-meso-levels—organizations
can be regarded as actors. Within organizational fields, strategic communication is in a double
bind. On the one hand organizations are confronted with similar challenges and thus tend to use
similar strategies. On the other hand, communication needs to differentiate the unique organiza-
tional values towards competitors and constituents.
Finally, the micro-meso level turns the perspective upside-down. Instead of viewing the orga-
nization as an actor, the organization is regarded as structure for individual actors within and
outside the organization. If we regard the organization as structure, we provide a micro-foundation
of institutional theory that as been coined organization-as-institution (Zucker, 1987, p. 446) or
micro-institutional perspective. Small groups within the organization itself generate institutions,
which in turn lead to organizational stability. Communication processes within organizations
depend on structural frameworks that affect the practice of organizational functions, like the
organization form but also on softer determinants like organizational culture.
By introducing these three levels of analysis for the meso-perspective, Donges (2008, pp. 69)
provides a perspective for a better understanding of institutional and communicative processes
of organizations. More specifically, it allows us to focus on the duality of organizations, being
actors and structures at the same time—again, this thought is reminiscent of Giddens’ structura-
tion theory. Organizations as structure provide a framework consisting of rules and resources
for individual actors (micro-meso perspective). Organizations as actors refer to the collective
actions of organizations within a broader frame of reference, e.g., between organizations or
within a societal subsystem (meso-meso and meso-macro perspective). The organization is per-
ceived as supra-individual entity, well beyond the actions of the individual. Finally, Donges
claims that additionally organizations can be modeled as purposeful systems of action. This tra-
dition of thought resonates in resource-dependency approaches: “The organization is the total
set of interstructured activities in which it is engaged at any one time and over which it has dis-
cretion to initiate, maintain or end behaviors.” (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, p. 32).
One of the most beneficial aspects of the meso-perspective is its analytical flexibility. Large
organizations exhibit different traits, depending on the chosen perspective. They can be a (collec-
tive) actor while lobbying for a specific legislation and provide a certain internal structure for orga-
nizing the lobbying process internally at the same time. This duality is important to understand the
institutionalization process and to analyze the role of strategic communication in detail. It marks a
detour from typical communication research focus, which is often either focused on the micro-
level (research on roles, skills and education of the individual) or on the societal macro-level.
84 SANDHU

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

AND INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS

After the introduction of the central premises of institutional theory this section provides a
framework for strategic communication to discuss both the external and internal dimensions
of institutionalization. Finally, the concept of institutional logics is introduced to strategic
communication.

External Dimensions of Institutionalization

Strategic communication as a specific organizational function can be found in many organiza-

tions across all sectors. This rise of an organizational function needs to be explained. By using
the aspects of institutionalization discussed earlier, three major fields for the institutionalization
of strategic communication in organization are relevant (see Table 3).
Coercive or regulative requirements are demands by law or rules that the organization needs
to adhere in order to appear legitimate. Strategic communication as a specific function is mostly not
required by law, such as the implementation of accounting standards. However, communication
seems to encroach upon specific functions, for instance financial reporting. All publicly listed
organizations need to meet the rules for financial reporting as required by country-specific legis-
lation, like the publication of an annual report. However, the implementation of reporting differs
between organizations. As a hypothesis we assume that large organizations in the public eye
tend to invest more into the reporting than smaller or specific listed organizations. As a result
rules and regulations affect the practice of strategic communication, although there seems to be
quite a leeway in the actual implementation of financial communication across industries.
Second, institutionalization can occur when normative assumptions are supported by public
opinion. The demands of external publics towards organizations are often theorized as one of the
key issues leading towards the introduction of strategic communication. For instance, social
movements like the environmentalist movement during the 1970s and 1980s held corporations
accountable for polluting the environment (Hoffman, 1999). As a result of this public pressure,
the chemical industry introduced large-scale communication efforts in order to meet the
demands of the public.
Finally, the mimetic dimension of institutionalization could be a powerful explanatory factor.
Since organizations tend to observe each other, the actions of early adopters might be copied by
other organizations, especially if they are confronted by uncertainty. This also applies for new
methods and practices. For strategic communication the role of agencies and consultancies
might offer another explanation. Consultancies or academics are important carriers of specific
knowledge (Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall, 2002). New methods and practices can find diffusion
and acceptance in a field. For example, many communication professionals are aware of social
software like weblogs and use them for information and research (Porter, Sweetser Trammell,
Chung, & Kim, 2007). But there is a lot of uncertainty on how to use the new technologies in
daily business (Argenti, 2006; Zerfass et al., 2008). Agencies, consultants and academics are
important carriers to provide recipes and solutions, which gradually find diffusion in the field
and finally are institutionalized, e.g., online press releases (Callison, 2003). Further research in
the agency-organization relationship is needed to better understand the diffusion processes and
institutionalization of practices in the field.
 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 85

Internal Institutionalization of Strategic Communication

In contrast to the external factors the internal factors might appear more hypothetical. Three
dimensions seem to be relevant to understand institutionalized practices better: They are power,
independence, specialization and routinization (Ihlen, 2007, p. 271).
Power describes the possibility to gain resources and to execute decisions also against the
will of others (Weber, 1922). In many organizations, power is concentrated in decision-making
circles, e.g., the board of directors. The access to the top-ranking decision-making platform
might be seen as an indicator to describe the institutionalization of strategic communication
within an organization.
Independence describes the autonomy of an organizational function in comparison with other
functions. This comparison depends on the size of the organization. Smaller organizations tend
to integrate various function and roles while larger organizations or specialized organizations
tend to differentiate specific functions further. Many organizations have overt or hidden turf
wars between various communication functions. Typically, this struggle involved the relationship
of the public relations function with other communication functions like marketing (Bruhn &
Ahlers, 2004). The PR function can be a subsidiary of the marketing department, on the same
level or above the marketing department. The higher the independence of an organizational
function, the higher is its institutionalization within the organization.
Closely connected with the dimensions already mentioned are specialization and routinization
of organizational functions. Strategic communication can be organized as a general function or
into specialized subdivisions with specific tasks. The higher the level of specialization, the more
institutionalization can be expected. This hypothesis is grounded in the fact that a higher level of
specialization requires more resources and a higher degree of coordination.

Organization Fields and Institutional Logic

The foundation of organizational institutionalism (OI) in the late 1970s is a backlash against the
rational choice school of thought in organization research. The environment of the organization
was outside the scope of the analysis. The core idea of organizational institutionalism stated that
“organizations are influenced by their institutional context, i.e., by widespread social under-
standings (rationalized myths) that define what it means to be rational” (Greenwood et al.,
2008a, p. 8). All organizations are subject to institutional environments, but the level of influence
of these environments differs, depending on the type of environment. Scott & Meyer (1983, p. 140)
differentiate between institutional and technical environments. Institutional environments “are
characterized by the elaboration of rules and requirements to which individual organizations
must conform if they are to receive support and legitimacy from the environment” (ibid.). This
applies often to publicly financed organizations like schools or universities, but also to nonprofit
organizations or highly regulated fields like arms manufacturing. Technical environments equal
mostly market-like arrangements, which depend on exchange logic, because “a product or ser-
vice is exchanged in a market such that organizations are rewarded for effective and efficient
control of the work process” (ibid.).
The relevance of the organizational environment also directly affects communication man-
agement. In order to gain a better understanding of communication management processes it
makes sense to intensively study strategic communication of organizations in a similar field.
86 SANDHU

Much empirical research aims at the largest corporations (often the indicators are connected to
stock market indices like turnover or market capitalization) to gain empirical insight. However,
these comparisons are flawed because some companies might work in a highly regulated field
(e.g., utilities) while others cater towards a niche market (e.g., business application software).
One twist of institutional theory is to look beyond the single organization and instead concen-
trate on the so-called organizational field (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 148; for a review see
Wooten & Hoffman, 2008), which consists of an aggregate of organizations that “constitute a
recognized area of institutional life” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 148) and have a common
meaning system.
At first glance the concept of the field shows parallels to various models of publics and stake-
holder analysis models used in communication management (Rawlins, 2006) and is closely
related to the field concept developed by Bourdieu (Ihlen, 2007, p. 274). Instead of using an
inside-out perspective of a singular organization to dissect its environment into different vari-
ables or indicators, the interest in analyzing the organizational field lies in the specific dynamics
of a field, its shared meaning systems, institutional logics and rules of the game that influence
the organizations within the field.
One could also describe this perspective as a more holistic or networked view of linkages
between organizations as a web of mutual relationships. There is no fixed rule how to define
an organizational field. Recent developments are pointing towards the usage of “issues” as
relational proxies that define a field, because “a field is formed around the issues that
become important to the interest and objectives of a specific collective of organizations”
(Hoffman, 1999, p. 352). Especially the latter concept might prove useful for the study of
strategic communication. We can analyze discursive fields (Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006,
p. 103) by using quantitative content analysis of media reports to unearth the specific institu-
tional logics inherent in a field. Institutional logics (for a review see Thornton & Ocasio,
2008) combine the structural (coercive), normative, and symbolic (cognitive) dimensions of
institutional theory (ibid., p. 101). The concept is built upon the approach by Friedland and
Alford (1991), who claim that each institutional order has central logic, which constrains and
enables action in a certain field. Institutional logics provide certain models and rationalities
for societal sectors. In a parallel theoretical strand, Altheide and Snow (1979) described the
concept of media logic (see also the concept of “media space”; Castells 1997, p. 312), which
described the specific framing of decisions by the influence of media. Not only political
actors (Benson, 2004), but all types of organizations are affected by the media. Especially
strategic communication needs to understand the specific institutional setting and logic the
media system is operating in. This requires a detailed understanding of the media industry,
its key drivers and logics.

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

The aim of the paper was to discuss institutions and institutionalization of communication man-
agement from the perspective of institutional theory. Institutional theory has many faces. While
historical institutionalism is focused on change processes over a long time at a very abstract
level, new institutional economics offer various explanatory models relevant for strategic com-
munication. The use of transaction cost theory or principal-agent concepts are promising to shed
 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 87

new light on the relationship between organizations and their environment. For example, by
using transaction cost theory it is possible to come up with heuristic decision models for the
employment of an external agency. Furthermore, the relationship between journalists and orga-
nizational spokespersons can be analyzed. Organizational institutionalism provides plenty of
theoretical goldmines with lost nuggets waiting to be unearthed by strategic communication
research. In general, the cornerstone texts (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977)
provide enough hypotheses to be transferred and considered in strategic communication. As a
theoretical backdrop, the meso-perspective was introduced, which allows a certain theoretical
flexibility, because organizations can be described as actors on a macro- and meso-level and as
structure on the micro-level. The discussion of institutions and institutionalization made it very
clear that institutional theory is no coherent, integrated concept.
Where do we go from here? First of all, institutional theory frees communication manage-
ment research from the iron cage of the excellence study. It invites scholars to expand the scope
of analysis beyond the single corporation and stresses the importance of cultural and social
embeddedness of all organizations. Both institutional theory and organizational communication
share an interest in the relationships between an organization and its environment. Second, the
communicative foundation of the organization needs to be analyzed more precisely (Kuhn,
2008). This also applies to strategy and our concepts of strategic action. As a third and final
point, institutional theory—like structuration theory—offers a linkage between micro and macro
level perspectives. A more systematic outline of the various linkages of strategic communication
will be helpful.
Institutional theory offers a lot of connection points towards other theoretical models suc-
cessfully employed, e.g., framing (Benford & Snow, 2000) or discourse analysis (Schmidt,
2008). This outline has barely scratched the surface of a very dynamic and broad research tradition
and had to neglect a lot of interesting potential theoretical sidelines. The papers in this special issue
illustrate the application of institutional theory in strategic communication research and motivate
for future research endeavors and increased interdisciplinary efforts.

REFERENCES

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. London: Sage.
Altheide, D. L. (1994). An ecology of communication: toward a mapping of the effective environment. The Sociological
Quarterly, 35(4), 665–683.
Ansoff, I. H. (1980). Strategic issues management. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 131–148.
Argenti, P. A. (2006). How technology has influenced the field of corporate communication. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 20(3), 357–370.
Balogun, J. (2006). Managing change: Steering a course between intended strategies and unanticipated outcomes. Long
Range Planning, 39(1), 29–49.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and
institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.
Bartlett, J., Tywoniak, S., & Hatcher, C. (2007). Public relations professional practice and the institutionalisation of
CSR. Journal of Communication Management, 11(4), 281–299.
Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. (2000): Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual
Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Benson, R. (2004). Bringing the sociology of media back in. Political Communication, 21(3), 275–292.
88 SANDHU

Bentele, G., & Seidenglanz, R. (2005). Das Image der Image-(Re-)Konstrukteure: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen
Studie zum Image der Public Relations in der deutschen Bevölkerung und einer Journalistenbefragung. In
E. Wienand, J. Westerbarkey, & A. Scholl (Eds.), Kommunikation über Kommunikation (pp. 200–222). Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. A treatise on the sociology of knowledge.
London: Penguin Books.
Botan, C. (2006). Grand strategy, strategy and tactics in public relations. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public
Relations Theory II (pp. 223–247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruhn, M., & Ahlers, G. M. (2004). Der Streit um die Vormachtstellung von Marketing und Public Relations in der
Unternehmenskommunikation – Eine unendliche Geschichte? Marketing ZFP, 26(1), 71–80.
Brunsson, N. (2002). The organization of hypocrisy. Talk, decision and action in organization (2nd ed.). Oslo: Abstrakt
forlag.
Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: how Fortune 500 company web sites assist journalists in news
gathering. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 29–41.
Campbell, J. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. (2001). Introduction: The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis. In J. L.
Campbell & O. K. Pedersen (Eds.), The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis (pp. 1–23). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Volume II: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
Clarke, J., & Gibson-Sweet, M. (1999). The use of corporate social disclosures in the management of reputation and
legitimacy: a cross-sectoral analysis of UK Top 100 companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1), 5–13.
Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006): Roads to institutionalization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305–353.
Cook, T. E. (2006). The news media as a political institution: looking backward and looking forward. Political Commu-
nication, 23(3), 159–171.
Cummings, S., & Wilson, D. (2003). Images of strategy. In S. Cummings & D. Wilson (Eds.), Images of Strategy
(pp. 1–40). Oxford: Blackwell.
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review 75(2), 332–337.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991a). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism
in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.) (1991b). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Dirsmith, M. W., Heian, J. B., & Covaleski, M. A. (1996). Structure and agency in an institutionalized setting: the application
and social transformation of control in the big six. Accounting, Organization and Society, 22(1), 1–27.
Donges, P. (2006). Medien als Institutionen und ihre Auswirkungen auf Organisationen. Medien & Kommunikationswis-
senschaft, 54(4), 563–578.
Donges, P. (2008). Medialisierung politischer Organisationen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Ewen, S. (1997). PR! A social history of spin. New York: Basic Books.
Falkheimer, J. (2007). Anthony Giddens and public relations: A third way perspective. Public Relations Review, 33(3),
287–293.
Fengler, S., & Ruß-Mohl, S. (2007). Unternehmenskommunikation und Journalismus - ökonomische Analyse einer
ungleichen Partnerschaft. In M. Piwinger & A. Zerfaß (Eds.), Handbuch Unternehmenskommunikation (pp. 777–
795). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Fischer, T. E. (2006). Unternehmenskommunikation und Neue Medien. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Fleisher, C. S., & Burton, S. (1995). Taking stock of corporate benchmarking practices: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Public
Relations Review, 21(1), 1–20.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In
P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist
approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 89

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008a). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, &
R. Suddaby (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London: Sage.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.) (2008b). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism.
London: Sage.
Greenwood, R., & Meyer, R. E. (2008): Influencing ideas: a celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Journal of
Management Inquiry, 17(4), 258–264.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984): Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in
public relations and communication management (pp. 117–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2008): Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present and future. In A. Zerfass,
B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research (pp. 327–347). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Hall, R. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of competitive advantage.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., Van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication.
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35.
Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory in mangerial research. A literature
review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 13–39.
Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. (2000). The project of rationalization: a critique and reappraisal of neo-institutionalism
in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21(4), 697–720.
Haveman, H. A., & David, R. J. (2008). Ecologists and institutionalists: friends or foes? In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver,
K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 573–595). London: Sage.
Heath, R. L., & Frandsen, F. (2008). Rhetorical perspective and public relations: Meaning Matters. In A. Zerfass,
B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations Research (pp. 349–364). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Hiebert, R. E. (1994). Advertising and public relations in transition from communism: The case of Hungary, 1989–1994.
Public Relations Review, 20(4), 357–369.
Hiß, S. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: a myth? The example of the “Round Table Codes of Conduct” in
Germany. CSGR Working Paper N 140/04. University of Warwick: CSGR.
Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. The Academy
of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.
Holmström, S. (2005). Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organizational legitimization.
Public Relations Review, 31(4), 497–504.
Holmström, S. (2008). Reflection: Legitimising late modernity. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.),
Public Relations Research (pp. 235–249). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Holtzhausen, D. (2002). Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(3),
251–264.
Holtzhausen, D. (2005). Public relations practice and political change in South Africa. Public Relations Review, 31(3),
407–416.
Hoy, P., Raaz, O., & Wehmeier, S. (2007). From facts to stories or from stories to facts? Analyzing public relations
history in public relations textbooks. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 191–200.
Hughes, H. C. (1936). The ecological aspect of institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 1, 180–189.
Ihlen, Ø. (2007). Building on Bourdieu: A sociological grasp of public relations. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 269–274.
Ihlen, Ø., & Van Ruler, B. (2007). How public relations works: theoretical roots and public relations perspectives. Public
Relations Review, 33(2), 243–248.
Jarren, O., & Röttger, U. (2004). Steuerung, Reflexion und Interpretationen: Kernelemente einer strukturationstheoretisch
begründeten PR-Theorie. In U. Röttger (Ed.), Theorien der Public Relations (pp. 25–45). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Jenkins, M., Ambrosini, V., & Collier, N. (2007). Advanced Strategic Management (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave.
Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects and institutionalism. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.),
The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, G., & Greenwood, R. (2002). Institutional theory perspective. In M. Jenkins & V. Ambrosini (Eds.), Strategic
Management. A Multi-Perspective Approach (pp. 39–61). New York: Palgrave.
90 SANDHU

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2007). Beyond excellence: Extending the generic approach to international public relations:
The case of Bosnia. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 10–20.
Koelble, T. A. (1995). Review: The new institutionalism in political science and sociology. Comparative Politics, 27(2),
231–243.
Kuhn, T. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational
power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29(8/9), 1227–1254.
L’Etang, J. (2008). Public relations, persuasion and propaganda: Truth, knowledge, spirituality and mystique. In
A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations Research (pp. 251–269). Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory,
16(3), 356–377.
Larsson, L. (2007). Public trust in the PR industry and its actors. Journal of Communication Management, 11(3), 222–234.
Lauzen, M. M. (1997). Understanding the relation between public relations and issues management. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 9(1), 65–82.
Lee, M. (2003). The first federal public information service, 1920–1933: at the US Bureau of Efficiency! Public
Relations Review, 29(4), 415–425.
Lounsbury, M. (2003). The problem of order revisited: Towards a more critical institutional perspective. In R. Westwood &
S. R. Clegg (Eds.), Debating organization. Point-counterpoint in organization studies (pp. 210–219). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. The American Political
Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.
Martinelli, D. K., & Mucciarone, J. (2007). New deal public relations: A glimpse into FDR press secretary Stephen
Early’s work. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 49–57.
McKie, D. (2000). Updating public relations: ‘new science’, research paradigms, and uneven developments, In. R. L. Heath
(Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 75–91), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. W. (2008). Reflections on Institutional Theories of Organizations. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, &
R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 790–811). London: Sage.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American
Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Meyer, R., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Public management reform: an identity project. Public Policy and Administration,
21(1), 99–115.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.
Mohr, J. W. (2000). Structures, institutions and cultural analysis. Poetics, 27, 57–68.
Murphy, P. (2006): Coping with an uncertain world: The relationship between excellence and complexity theories.
In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 119–134).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nessmann, K. (2000). The origins and development of public relations in Germany and Austria. In D. Moss, D. Vercic,
& G. Warnaby (Eds.), Perspectives on Public Relations Research (pp. 211–225). London, New York: Routledge.
North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nothhaft, H., & Wehmeier, S. (2007). Coping with complexity: Sociocybernetics as a framework for communication
management. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(3), 151–168.
Palmer, D., Biggart, N., & Dick, B. (2008). Is the new institutionalism a theory? In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin,
& R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 739–767). London: Sage.
Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H., & Whittington, R. (2002). Strategic management: the strengths and limitations of a field. In
A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 3–30). London: Sage.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organzations. New York: Harper & Row.
Phillips, D., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Taking social construction seriously: Extending the discursive approach in institu-
tional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational
institutionalism (pp. 702–720). London: Sage.
Pieczka, M. (2008). Professionalization of public relations. In Donsbach, W. (Ed). The International Encyclopedia of
Communication (Vol. IX, pp. 3912–3914). Oxford: Wiley & Sons.
Porter, L. V., Sweetser Trammell, K. D., Chung, D., & Kim, E. (2007). Blog power: Examining the effects of practitioner
blog use on power in public relations. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 92–95.
Powell, T. C. (2002). The philosophy of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 873–880.
 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 91

Powers, M. (1997). From risk society to audit society. Soziale Systeme, 3(1), 3–21.
Pozzebon, M. (2004). The influence of a structurationist view on strategic management research. Journal of Management
Studies, 41(2), 247–272.
Rao, H., & Sivakumar, K. (1999). Institutional sources of boundary-spanning structures: The establishment of investor
relations departments in the Fortune 500 industrials. Organization Science, 10(1), 27–42.
Raupp, J. (2008). Evaluating strategic communication: Theoretical and methodological requirements. In A. Zerfass,
B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations Research (pp. 179–192). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Rawlins, B. L. (2006). Prioritizing stakeholders for public relations. Miami, FL: Institute for Public Relations (available
at: [Link]/uploads/2006_Stakeholders.pdf).
Ries, A., & Ries, L. (2003). The fall of advertising and the rise of PR. New York: Harper.
Roberts, J. (2003). The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: constructing corporate sensibility. Organization,
10(2), 249–265.
Ruß-Mohl, S. (2004). PR und Journalismus in der Aufmerksamkeitsökonomie. In J. Raupp & J. Klewes (Eds.), Quo
vadis Public Relations? (pp. 52–65). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Rutherford, M. (1995). The old and new institutionalism: can bridges be built? Journal of Economic Issues, 24(2), 443–451.
Ryfe, D. M. (2006). Guest Editor’s Introduction: New institutionalism and the news. Political Communication, 23(2),
135–144.
Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Engwall, L. (2002). Carriers, flows, and sources of management knowledge. In K. Sahlin-
Andersson & L. Engwall (Eds.), The expansion of management knowledge (pp. 3–32). Stanford: Stanford Business
Books.
Schmidt, V.A. (2008): Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of
Political Sciences, 11, 303–326.
Scott, R. W. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.
Scott, R. W. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism
in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Scott, R. W. (2008). Institutions and organizations. Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Scott, R. W., & Christensen, S. (1995). Conclusion: Crafting a wider lens. In R. W. Scott & S. Christensen (Eds.), The
institutional construction of organizations (pp. 302–313). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Scott, R. W., & Meyer, J. W. (1983). The organization of societal sectors. In J. W. Meyer & R. W. Scott (Eds.),
Organizational environments. Ritual and rationality (pp. 129–153). London: Sage.
Scott, R. W., & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Developments in institutional theory. In R. W. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional
environments and organizations (pp. 1–8). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Scott, W. (2005). Institutional theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory (pp. 408–414). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Seidl, D. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: a systemic-discursive perspective.
Organization Studies, 28(2), 197–218.
Simon, H. A. (1961). Administrative behavior (2nd [1947] ed.). New York: Free Press.
Smith, R. D. (2002). Strategic planning for public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sparrow, B. H. (2006). A research agenda for an institutional media. Political Communication, 23(3), 145–157.
Sriramesh, K. (2008). Globalization and public relations. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public
Relations Research (pp. 409–425). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Steyn, B. (2003). From “strategy” to “corporate communication strategy”: a conceptualization. Journal of Communication
Management, 8(2), 168–183.
Stinchcome, A. L. (1997). On the virtues of the old institutionalism. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 1–18.
Ströh, U. (2007). An alternative postmodern approach to corporate communication strategy. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future
of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 199–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sung, M. (2007). Toward a model of scenario building from a public relations perspective. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The
Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 173–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Swerling, J., & Sen, C. (2009). The institutionalization of the strategic communication function in the United States.
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(2), in this issue.
Tench, R., Verhoeven, P., & Zerfass, A. (2009): Institutionalizing strategic communication in Europe—An ideal home
or a mad house? Evidence from a survey in 37 Countries. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(2), in
this issue.
92 SANDHU

Theis-Berglmair, A. M. (2003). Organisationskommunikation (2nd ed.), Münster: LIT.

Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404.
Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In K. Thelen & S. Steinmo (Eds.),
Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative politics (pp. 1–32). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.),
The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 99–129). London: Sage.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 175–190). London: Sage.
Trujillo, N., & Toth, E. L. (1987). Organizational perspectives for public relations research and practice. Management
Communication Quarterly, 1(2), 199–234.
Tyma, A. W. (2008). Public Relations through a new lens – Critical praxis via the “Excellence Theory”. International
Journal of Communication, 2, 193–205.
Van Ruler, B., & Vercic, D. (2008). Communication management in Europe—Challenges and opportunities. In
A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations Research (pp. 313–324). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften.
Vercic, D., & Grunig, J. E. (2000). The origins of public relations theory in economics and strategic management.
In D. Moss, D. Vercic, & G. Warnaby (Eds.), Perspectives on Public Relations Research (pp. 9–58). London:
Routledge.
Wakefield, R. I. (2008). Institutionalizing Public Relations: Progress or Pipe Dream? In Yamamura, K. (Ed.): Proceedings
of the 11th International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, March 6–9, 2008 (pp. 767–779). Miami, FL:
Institute for Public Relations (available at: [Link]/files/uploads/IPRRC_11_Proceedings_4.pdf)
Wæraas, A. (2007). The re-enchantment of social institutions: Max Weber and public relations. Public Relations
Review, 33(3), 281–286.
Weber, M. (1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr.
Wehmeier, S. (2006). Dancers in the dark: The myth of rationality in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32(3),
213–220.
Wehmeier, S. (2008). Communication management, organizational communication and public relations: Developments
and future directions from a German Perspective. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations
Research (pp. 219–231). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature,
XXXVIII, 595–613.
Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver,
K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 130–147). London: Sage.
Zerfass, A. (2008). Corporate communication revisited: Integrating business strategy and strategic communication. In A.
Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public Relations Research (pp. 65–96). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Vercic, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2008). European Communication Monitor 2008.
Trends in communication management and public relations – results and implications. Brussels, Leipzig: Euprera/
University of Leipzig (available at: [Link]).
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743.
Zucker, L. G. (1983). Organizations as institutions. Advances in Organizational Theory and Research, 2, 1–43.
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464.