Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel

with Four Levels of Government

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

of articles in Communication Theory, Journal of Communication, Journal of Public Relations

Research, and Public Relations Review revealed only one article that specifically addresses

government communication/public affairs theory as a subfield of communication research (Liu

& Horsley, 2007). More research is needed to develop theory that explains and predicts

communication practices and decision making in government and its ultimate impact on publics.

On the applied side, recent government communication research does not explore the

nuances among bureaucratic layers of government outside of the United States, but rather

explores trends and initiatives in government communication in other countries (i.e., Glenny,

2008; Gregory, 2006; Vos, 2006; Vos & Westerhoudt, 2008). In addition, communication

scholars have not fully examined differences among the four primary levels of U.S. government:

city, county, state, and federal. Liu and Horsley (2007)(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

comparisons of communication practices and professional development opportunities through a

survey of 781 government communication practitioners. This model creates a new theoretical

foundation for the study of government communication within its unique environmental context

free from the bias of corporate-centric research assumptions.

The Government Communication Decision Wheel

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

describe the public environment in terms of influences on daily communication activities

(complex system of federalism; intense media scrutiny; precarious relationships with publics;

legal constraints; the weight of politics; a devaluation of communication by management; and

the goal of public good) and professional advancement for communicators (few leadership

opportunities and lacking professional development) (Liu et al., 2009). Table 1 summarizes the

public sector attributes and their impact on government communication.

[Insert Table 1: Public Sector Attributes and Their Impact]

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 3

Because of the inherent differences between the public and private sectors’ operating

environments, the prevailing communication models (e.g., government communication process

model, synthesis model of government crisis communication, and public relations process

model) and theories (e.g., excellence theory and contingency theory) do not account adequately

for the public sector environment’s influence on communication practices.1

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

microenvironments. In the intragovernmental microenvironment, all communication decisions

are made within a single organization. In the intergovernmental microenvironment, two or more

communicators from the same level of government (i.e., city, county, state, or federal) 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.

Finally, in the external microenvironment, one or more government communicators work in

cooperation with at least one private sector, nonprofit, or international organization to

communicate on an issue.

[Insert Figure 1: The Government Communication Decision Wheel]

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

underlying assumptions of the government communication decision wheel by confirming six

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

microenvironments (Liu & Levenshus, 2008).

Literature Review, Research Questions, and Hypotheses

There is little research available from which to draw conclusions as to whether the

practice of communication varies among the levels of U.S. government. Liu and Levenshus

(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

Factors that influence government communicators’ daily activities

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

authority (Rainey, 2003).

The uncertainty of the influence of federalism on communication among the levels of

government leads us to our first question:

RQ1: Is there a difference in the impact of federalism on the daily activities of city,
county, state, and federal government communicators?

Media 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

likely than corporate communicators to negatively evaluate media coverage of their

organizations (Liu et al., 2009). This intense media scrutiny can be viewed as a benefit as well as

a burden for government organizations. For example, interviews with 49 government

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

four levels of government, we ask:

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

communicating with citizens. Therefore, we propose:

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

primary publics, we ask:

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

communication in government settings than in corporate settings, according to a survey of 976

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

federal government communications. In interviews, 18 federal communicators indicated that

political agendas can constrain the release of information, but that this is more evident when the

communicator is a political appointee rather than a career bureaucrat (Fairbanks, Plowman, &

Rawlins, 2007). However, Fitch (2004) suggested that most communication is actually apolitical

and that the day-to-day communication may require more reviews prior to public release. To

determine the influence of politics on government communication, we ask:

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

release (Fairbanks et al., 2007; Fitch, 2004), we predict:

H3: Federal communicators report a greater influence of politics on their daily activities
than do city, county, and state communicators.

Devaluation of communication. Research has produced mixed results regarding the value

that government leadership places on the communication function. 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

communicators are part of management decision making, communicators do a better job of

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 9

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

communication by management. A survey of 976 communicators found no significant difference

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

levels of government, we ask:

RQ6: Is there a difference in management support for communicators within the city,
county, state, and federal levels of government?

Factors that influence professional advancement

Few studies have examined government communicators’ opportunities for professional

advancement, especially among the four levels of government.

Leadership opportunities. The little research that exists on government communicators’

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

take on a leadership role in their organizations. However, the National Association of

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

the leadership opportunities for government communicators, we ask:

RQ7: Is there a difference in leadership opportunities for city, county, state, and federal
communicators?

Professional development. Professional development can help government

communicators overcome negative media and public perception (Sieb & Fitzpatrick, 1995). The

Public Relations Society of America (2007) defined professional development as 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

specific to communicators, provided comparisons of employees’ perceptions of their

development opportunities among the levels of government (Durst & DeSantis, 1997). The

researchers found that local government employees had a higher rate of job satisfaction and

greater promotion opportunities than did state and federal employees. 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

opportunities for career advancement. In terms of employer-sponsored training, a survey of

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

of the government employer.

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 11

To clarify the influence of organizational factors on government communicators’ career

development, we ask:

RQ8: Is there a difference in the professional development opportunities for city, county,
state, and federal government communicators?

Testing the Government Communication Decision Wheel

Survey sample

The survey sample was 1,617 government communicators. We define government

communicators as current government employees or consultants at the city, county, state, or

federal level whose primary responsibilities are communicating internally and/or externally to

various publics regarding organizational policies, decisions, or actions and/or guiding

communication strategy. To recruit participants, we worked with four prominent professional

government associations: the City-County Communications and Marketing Association (3CMA),

the Federal Communicators Network (FCN), the National Association of County Information

Officers (NACIO), and the National Association of Government Communicators (NAGC).

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

online survey; (c) we emailed a thank-you/reminder email; (d) we mailed a thank-you/reminder

letter with a replacement questionnaire to non-responders; we mailed a thank-you/reminder letter

to non-responders, and (e) we called and/or emailed a random sample of non-responders. We

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 12

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

influence of politics on public affairs work, satisfaction with professional development

opportunities, and respondent demographics. Prior to disseminating the survey, we pre-tested the

questionnaire with six government public affairs practitioners.

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

The respondents averaged 10 years of experience in government communication (SD =

8.3). On average, the respondents’ organizations employ nine full-time (SD = 27.4) and one part-

time employee (SD = 2.8) in the communication area, and the respondents supervise four

employees (SD = 9.4). Women completed 62% of the surveys. Federal employees earned the

highest salaries, with a tie of 31% in both the $80,001-$100,000 range and above $100,001.

Differences in daily activities

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].

[Insert Table 2: Differences in Daily Activities of Government Communicators]

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

external communication over internal communication. However, the majority of communicators

from state (63%) and county (54%) employers and half of the communicators from city (50%)

employers reported that their organizations value internal and external communication equally.

There is a statistically significant difference in the values that the four government groups place

on internal and external communication [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 =

770) = 51.08, p < .001].

Influences on daily communication activities

To determine whether the government communication decision wheel’s public sector

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

Levenshus (2008) (see Table 3).

[Insert Table 3: Message Dissemination and Professional Development Scales]

Federalism. To determine if there is a difference in the impact of federalism on the daily

activities of government communicators among the four levels of government, we performed a

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

communicators are more influenced by federalism.

Evaluation of Media Coverage. We performed a one-way ANOVA test to determine if

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

county (p = .002) and federal levels (p < .001).

Legal frameworks. We found no statistically significant difference among the four

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

face similar legal constraints and opportunities.

Politics. There is a statistically significant difference in the political pressure reported by

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. We found a significant difference in communicators’ reporting of

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

Influences on professional advancement

Leadership opportunities. We found there was no statistically significant difference in

how respondents rated their satisfaction with their leadership opportunities [F(3, 768) = 2.92; p =

.033, η2 = .01]. In addition, there was no significant difference as to whether respondents

considered themselves part of top management [F(3, 769) = 3.00; p = .030, η2 = .01].

Professional development. To determine if professional development opportunities vary

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

opportunities than those reported by the county and city communicators.

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

government communication decision wheel.

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 18

Modeling differences in influences on daily communication activities

The government communication decision wheels helps to explain how environmental

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).

[Insert Figure 2: Expanded Government Communication Decision Wheel]

Federalism. State communicators indicated a higher level of interaction with other

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

to partner with communicators from state organizations.

Public interaction. Government communicators also have different relationships with

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

need to be addressed so that all target publics’ needs are met.

Political pressure. Federal communicators are more likely to report greater external

political pressure on their work than county respondents. Federal communicators also were more

likely to experience internal political pressure than state respondents. Government

communicators who partner with peers in the multi-level microenvironment could use these

findings to help them identify communication obstacles (e.g., 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

negotiated during the development of communication strategies and tactics.

Management support. Federal communicators are more likely to report a lack of

management support for communication compared to the other three government groups. When

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

success of the communication efforts.

Professional development opportunities. Overall, federal communicators report fewer

professional development opportunities than their peers at the county and city levels, which

supports previous research (Liu & Levenshus, 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

any of the four microenvironments if communication efforts are impeded by federal

communicators’ lack of access to training and/or education.

Modeling similarities in influences on daily communication activities

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

government sector environment as established characteristics of all four levels.

Legal frameworks. All four groups of communicators report that external legal

constraints have an impact on their daily activities. 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

an obstacle to communication practices as it is an opportunity, supporting previous findings (Liu

& Levenshus, 2008).

Leadership opportunities. There are no significant differences in leadership opportunities

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

government communicators may be on equal ground in terms of their ability to lead

communication efforts when they partner with other government communicators.

Expanding the government communication decision wheel

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

intergovernmental microenvironment. The second, or outer, ring represents a partnering

government communicator and is used when there is at least one partner. Metaphorically, more

rings could be added to the model to represent multiple communication partners. In the last

example, the outer ring would turn to line up “state” with intergovernmental. The model would

then depict the overlapping attributes and activities present when two state 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

for any of the four microenvironments.

We also adjusted the government communication decision wheel to allow government

communicators to take into account the distinctions of their level of government (city, county,

state, or federal), the microenvironment in which the communication takes place

(intragovernmental, intergovernmental, multi-level, or external) and the channel of

communication used (direct, mediated, or a combination).

The government communication decision wheel depicts communicators using the direct

and mediated channels of communication to strike a balance in their public communication

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

microenvironment, in which communicators work with other communicators at different levels

of government, understanding a communication partner’s use of channels can help them better

distribute the workload and establish reasonable expectations for the partnership.

Besides understanding their partners’ different communication strategies and tactics, it is

important for government communicators to understand their partners’ communication values.

Conflicting values may make it more difficult for government communicators to achieve

strategic objectives in a public affairs plan. Federal 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

mediated channels of communication necessary for a particular communication effort with

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

communication tactics to achieve the objective.

Limitations and future research

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

inform their collaborations with government communicators.

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 24

Future research could explore differences between government communicators working

for bureaucrats versus elected government officials or working in organizational headquarters

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

career choices made by communicators working at various levels of government.

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

government communication practices.

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 25

References

Baker, B. (1997). Public relations in government. In C. L. Caywood (Ed.), The handbook of

strategic public relations & integrated communications (pp. 453-479). Boston: McGraw-

Hill.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Durst, S. L., & DeSantis, V. S. (1997). The determinants of job satisfaction among federal, state,

and local government employees. State and Local Government Review, 29(1), 7-16.

Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K. D., & Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Transparency in government

communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 23-37.

Fitch, B. (2004). Media relations handbook for agencies, associations, nonprofits, and Congress.

Alexandria, VA: TheCapitol.Net.

Glenny, L. (2008). Perspectives on communication in the Australian public sector. Journal of

Communication Management, 12(2), 152-168.

Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public

organizations. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

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

Communication Management, 10(2), 197-210.

Heffron, F. (1989). Organization theory and public organizations: The political connection.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Lee, M. (2008). Public relations in public administration. In M. Lee (Ed.), Government public

relations: A reader (pp. 3-20). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 26

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

practitioners: Peas in a pod or polar opposites?, Paper presented at the International

Communication Association International Conference, May 2009. Chicago.

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

International Communication Association Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

National Association of Government Communicators. (2008). Trends and Salary Survey.

Available at http://www.nagc.com/AboutNAGC/OrderSurvey.asp.

Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance:

Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37-51.

Public Relations Society of America. (2007). Handbook for chapter professional development

chairs. New York: Author.

Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and

individual roles. Administration and Society, 15(2), 207-242.

Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sanger, M. B. (2008). From measurement to management: Breaking through the barriers to state

and local performance. Public Administration Review, 68(6), S70-S85.

Sieb, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. New York: Harcourt Brace College

Publishers.
 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 27

Thompson, F. J. (2008). State and local governance fifteen years later: Enduring and new

challenges. Public Administration Review, 68(6), S8-S19.

Viteritti, J. P. (2008). The environmental context of communication: Public sector organizations.

In M. Lee (Ed.), Government public relations: A reader (pp. 319-341). Boca Raton, FL:

CRC Press.

Vos, M. (2006). Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Journal of

Communication Management, 10(3), 250-258.

Vos, M., & Westerhoudt, E. (2008). Trends in government communication in the Netherlands.

Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 18-29.

Wright, D. S. (1990). Federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental

management: Historical reflections and conceptual comparisons. Public Administration

Review, 50(2), 168-178.

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 28
Table 1 Public Sector Attributes and Their Impact*
Environmental Attribute Explanation
Influences on Communicators’ Daily Activities
Federalism Overlapping, yet independent,
system of constitutional authority
Media Scrutiny Media act as government
watchdogs, scrutinize government
activities, and push for
transparency (Fitch, 2004; Lee,
2008). Government media
coverage declining and
increasingly negative.
Relationships with Primary Even though most government
Publics communication is truthful, the
public and media tend to have
negative perceptions about
government communication.
Legal Frameworks Federal laws ban propaganda and
restrict government use of public
funds for publicity (Lee, 2006).
Federal, state and local access-to-
information laws vary) (e.g.,
federal Freedom of Information
Act).
Politics While all organizations experience
the influence of politics, external
politics define government bodies.
Devaluation of Historic avoidance of public
Communication by relations strategies may be
Management changing.
Public Good Unlike the private sector, the
government’s goal is public service
versus profits.
Influences on Communicators’ Professional Advancement
Few Leadership Government communicators are
Opportunities historically relegated to a technical
role, but data is mixed on their
inclusion in management decision
making and promotions.
Lacking Professional Government communicators lag
Development Opportunities behind their corporate counterparts
in terms of professional
associations and standards.
* Adapted from Liu, Horsley & Levenshus (2009).
Public Sector Impact
Decentralized communication approach
can cause government bodies to speak
with multiple, even contradictory
voices on issues
Makes government communicators
more conservative in communication to
avoid negative coverage. Some
government communicators see media
scrutiny as positive.
Can limit acceptance and effectiveness
of government communication. Public
cynicism seen as greatest obstacle to
effective communication.
Misinterpretation of laws can
unnecessarily limit public relations
activities at all government levels. Can
hurt ability to share information with
the public and media. Can expand or
hamper government communicators’
efforts.
Influences strategy selection. Can
hinder message distribution and
creativity, increase outside interest
groups’ influence. Determines the level
and means of information sharing.
Obstacles created by management who
do not value public relations can reduce
the effectiveness of communication
strategies and tactics.
Government bodies are not typically
influenced by market pressures when
making strategic decisions.
A weaker voice in management
decision making may impede strategic
communication planning and execution.
The lack of skill and management
development may impact the
effectiveness of communication efforts
and partnerships.
 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 29

Figure 1 The Government Communication Decision Wheel*

* Liu & Horsley (2007)

 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 30

Table 2 Differences in Daily Activities of Government Communicators*1

Activity Scale City County State Federal

(α = .87) n = 215 n = 178 n = 129 n = 259
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Media Relations
Respond to media 4.31 .87 4.14 1.11 4.42 1.03 3.64 1.56
inquiries
Media release 4.22 .90 3.97 1.17 3.91 1.05 3.37 1.55
Pitch stories to media 3.69 .98 3.48 1.20 3.37 1.19 3.08 1.58
Media interviews 3.46 1.15 3.22 1.14 3.60 1.32 3.26 1.52
Train leadership/ 2.92 1.12 2.85 1.23 3.22 1.10 3.12 1.38
experts for interviews
News conference 2.25 .94 2.25 1.08 2.4 1.33 2.27 1.44
Research
Track media clips 3.65 1.41 3.79 1.49 4.01 1.24 3.63 1.58
Primary research 2.67 1.09 2.30 1.15 2.06 1.25 2.54 1.38
Planning
Strategic plans 3.05 1.11 2.97 1.02 2.84 1.27 3.45 1.31
Crisis communication 2.89 1.07 2.81 1.13 2.77 .97 2.91 1.36
plans
Tactics
Contribute/edit Web 4.54 .84 4.11 1.13 4.05 1.35 3.76 1.42
site
Fliers 3.58 1.16 3.41 1.15 3.36 1.09 2.72 1.37
Brochures 3.53 1.12 3.34 1.16 3.46 1.21 2.61 1.29
Network 3.51 1.00 3.21 1.12 3.12 1.03 3.56 1.16
Newsletters 3.25 1.45 2.84 1.20 2.75 1.46 2.57 1.13
Print advertising 3.21 1.19 2.81 1.31 2.33 1.23 1.92 1.17
Community meetings 3.13 1.17 2.54 1.21 2.60 1.21 2.23 1.35
Guides 2.99 1.20 2.82 1.20 3.37 1.21 2.51 1.28
Fact sheet 2.95 1.06 2.80 1.05 3.13 1.28 3.21 1.17
Radio or TV PSAs 2.84 1.18 2.53 1.22 2.10 1.01 2.18 1.25
Broadcast advertising 2.11 1.19 2.11 1.27 1.94 1.07 1.81 1.22
VNRs 1.70 1.04 1.58 .97 1.98 1.18 1.60 1.13
Blog 1.48 .97 1.43 1.03 1.57 1.07 1.98 1.37

* Question: On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is never engage in activity and 5 is engage in activity

daily, how frequently do you engage in the following communication activities?
1
Each group’s top five activities are in bold.
 Expanding the Government Communication Decision Wheel p. 31

Table 3 Message Dissemination and Professional Development Scales1

Scale Items Reliability

Federalism How often do you work with federal government α = .70
agencies/departments outside of your organization?
How often do you work with state government
agencies/departments outside of your organization?
How often do you work with local government
agencies/departments outside of your organization?
How often do you work with industry-regulating
organizations outside of your organization?
How often do you work with nonprofits outside of your
organization?
How often do you work with corporations outside of your
organization?
How often do you work with activists?
Media coverage Considering all the news coverage of your organization in the α = .76
last six months, how would you rate the tone of the coverage?
Considering all the news coverage of your organization in the
past six months, how would you rate the level of accuracy of
the coverage?
Considering all the news coverage of your organization in the
past six months, how would you rate the level of fairness of
the coverage?
Politics How much external political pressure do you feel? α = .84
How much internal political pressure do you feel?
How much of an effect do internal politics have on your job?
How much of an effect do external politics have on your job?
Professional How satisfied are you with your employer’s support to attend α = .75
development professional conferences?2
How satisfied are you with your employer’s support to attend
training seminars? 2
How satisfied are you with your employer’s ability to
reimburse tuition? 2
How satisfied are you with your employer’s mentoring
program? 2
How satisfied are you with advancement opportunities within
your organization?

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

Figure 2 The Expanded Government Communication Decision Wheel