Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 187–194

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Agile public relations planning: The Reflective

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper a new, agile, method will be introduced for public relations planning. Existing
Received 29 July 2014 planning methods all suggest that research and analysis should be the first phase, fol-
Received in revised form lowed by strategy, smart goals and a detailed action plan, and ending with an evaluation
14 November 2014
of the results. These models provide an undesirable illusion of control. That is why this
Accepted 17 November 2014
approach is no longer suitable in a digitalized society in which organizations must function
in a public arena of ongoing constructions of meanings done by (self-invented) stakehol-
Keywords:
ders. Consequently, the context of modern public relations is much more complex than
Public relations planning
the rusted notion of two-way communication with relevant publics implicates. That is why
Evaluation
Scrum preference should be given to the view that communication is not so much communication
Dialog between two or more actors but is a multi-way diachronic process of ongoing constructions
Meaning construction of meanings in which one cannot foresee who is – or will be – involved, in what way, and
Communication theory what the results will be. To be successful, a more flexible planning method is needed in
which change is a defining part during the process. Scrum is such a method. To make it
applicable in public relations, this agile method, well-known in IT, needed to be expanded
by supplementing theory on communication, change and reflectivity, and by enrichment
of the common notion of evaluation.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the stream of research in public relations concerned with dialog (see, e.g., Grunig,
Grunig, & Dozier, 2002; Pieczka, 2011; Kent, 2013) and with digitalization (see for an overview Phillips & Young, 2009)
by presenting an alternative, more flexible method for public relations planning in which change is a natural part. Public
relations research enhances the concept of dialog because it delivers an ethical orientation for positive organizations – public
relationships (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Pieczka & Wood, 2013) and because it helps organizations activate a process of mutual
understanding (Golob & Podnar, 2011; Grunig et al., 2002). Dialog is a sine qua non in the digital age, and dialog can be seen as
a means to cope with the “battlefield of constructions of meanings” our organizations are living in today. Yet, caused by the
digitalization of our society, in which the public sphere is enlarged to an almost un-endless space in which many spread their
conversations, we need to go back to the original meaning of the concept of dialog, by defining it as dia-logos, which means
“the flow of words and its meanings”. Following this reasoning, we can no longer see communication as communication
between two or more actors but should define it as a multi-way diachronic process of ongoing constructions of meanings
in which one cannot foresee who is involved, in what way, and what the results will be. That is why I propose to replace the

∗ Corresponding author at: Hagenduin 20, 2104 AT Heemstede, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 23 5476912/6 5393 1597.
E-mail address: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.008
0363-8111/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
188 B. van Ruler / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 187–194

classical models of public relations planning with an alternative model of iterative and more interactive planning, called the
Reflective Communication Scrum.

2. Public relations1 in the digital age

Phillips and Young (2009: 6) observe that “anyone with access to a computer, an internet connection and basic literacy
can make his or her voice heard to a global audience (. . .). There is no defense mechanism behind which an organization
can protect itself from the influence of the internet”. That is why many practitioner authors claim that public relations are
changing (or should change) from influencing stakeholders into conversations with stakeholders (e.g., Gray & Van der Wal,
2012). The European Communication Monitor (Zerfass, Verčič, Verhoeven, Moreno, & Tench, 2013: 17) draws the same
conclusion, although more moderately formulated: “The results show that social media seem to work in two directions:
inside-out and outside-in”, as a two-way street.
The idea that public relations should be seen as a two-way street is far from new. Grunig (2009) describes how Cutlip –
in the 1950s – showed to his students that public relations should help organizations interact with the environment, and
therefore, public relations must be two-way communication. Grunig (1975,1976) constructed the theoretical foundations for
this concept of public relations by introducing his multi-systems theory of organizational communication, by theorizing that
organizational communication is part of organizational behavior and, as such, relates to the organizational theory-in-use and
the style of decision making. The organizational communication style can be seen as an outcome of the decision-making style
and the concept of organization and management itself. According to Grunig (1976), only a certain style of decision making
(interactive) and a certain concept of organization and management (open) delivers good organizational communication.
Grunig used this type of reasoning as the basis for his symmetrical model of public relations and constructed his excellence
theory of public relations on this fundamental theoretical approach (e.g., Grunig, 1989, 1992). It has become paradigmatic
for public relations research ever since, although it evolved into a mixed-motive approach of asymmetrical and symmetrical
public relations, being “as symmetrical as possible” (Grunig et al., 2002) and became based on the concept of dialog (e.g.,
Kent & Taylor, 1998,2002).
Additionally, Zerfass argues repeatedly that public relations are, at least, double sided. On the one hand, it is concerned
with initiating communication processes with the aim of conveying the company’s point of view and influencing stakeholders
(for an overview, see Dühring, 2012). On the other hand, public relations monitors relevant stakeholders and communication
processes within the organization and in the organizational environment (Zerfass, 2010). Nevertheless, as Heath (2000: 2)
concludes in the first edition of his seminal SAGE Handbook of Public Relations, an evening at a banquet of public relations
professionals shows that they are more interested in the first concern than in the latter. The European Communication
Monitor and numerous other research projects indeed show that professionals in public relations are often more concerned
with influencing stakeholders than with bringing their perspectives into decision making. Thus, we have to conclude that
public relations is often more (controlled) one-way communication than real two-way communication.
It could very well be that this unbalance has to do with first a shortcoming in the concept of two-way communication-
in-use and second, a shortcoming in the public relations planning models-in-use. This can be seen as unacceptable because
the theory prescribes a certain approach to two-way communication as a more ethical behavior, but it is also unacceptable
because of the changes in the communicative environment of our organizations, and that is caused by the digitalization of our
societies and the behaviors of the digital publics. Organizations can no longer try to shield themselves from influences from
outside; they have to cope with it whether they like it or not. Digitalization has largely changed the power relations. That
is why Phillips and Young (2009: 1) claim that “the internet has totally revolutionized the practice of public relations. This
revolution has not only affected the way PR professionals communicate but has changed the nature of communication itself.”
This sounds convincing although it might be better to call it an evolution, as Macnamara (2010) does. The character of the
digitalized public sphere urges to expand the concept of communication as a two-way street into a concept of communication
as a multi-way diachronic and ongoing development of meaning constructions, a diachronic process.

3. Communication as a diachronic process

In 1996, Castells labeled the 21st century “the information age” (Castells, 1996; see also Castells, 2010). Time or space
no longer limits information, and it is hard to know who possesses certain information and who does not. Moreover, while
internet use is increasing dramatically, it is quite impossible to know what information people have and who is submitting
what information to whom, let alone the idea that organizations could even try to know what others are doing with that
information, how they construct their meanings and convey these to whom. This is not new, but what is new is the expansion
of the possibility of entering the public sphere, in the definition of “what is potentially available to all” (Raupp, 2004: 310).
Thanks to the internet, the public sphere is exploding vigorously.

1
Although communication management or corporate communication seems to be a common denominator for the field in Europe, I use the term public
relations in this article to define the field of practice in which public relations, corporate communication, communication or information tasks are being
done.
 B. van Ruler / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 187–194 189

Early (mass) communication theories used to focus on communication as a one-way process in which a sender influences
a receiver. During the 1960s, Bauer (1964: 319) concluded that there are two different views regarding the idea of these
effects. The first of these, which he describes as the social model, “is (. . .) one of the exploitation of man by man. It is a model of
one-way influence: the communication does something to the audience, while to the communicator is generally attributed
considerable latitude and power to do what he pleases to the audience”. Bauer called his second model “the scientific model
of communication as a transactional process in which parties each expect to give and take from the exchange approximately
equitable values”. Although this scientific model allows for influence, it does not follow a linear causal model. Bauer stated
that, while research shows that the scientific model is by far the more adequate of the two, it is the social model that is
dominant in practice. Bauer’s social model of one-way influence is equivalent to J. Grunig’s asymmetrical models, including
the two-way asymmetrical one (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). However, Bauer talks about one-way because of the presumed linear
causality. Indeed, it is questionable whether the concept of “two-way” is adequate to describe the social model, as the receiver
is seen as the object who is only able to receive or, in the case of some feedback systems, to answer the sender’s questions.
The receiver is not seen as a full participant in the two-way process, and the same is true of Grunig’s two-way asymmetrical
model. That is why I prefer to describe Grunig’s two-way asymmetrical model as “controlled one-way” communication.
Thayer used to call this a synchronic view of communication because the sender tries to synchronize the psychological
state (the meaning) of the receiver with his or her own (Thayer, 1968: 129–130). He believes that a better approach to
communication is to see it from a diachronic view, in the meaning of “changing over time”. Looking at communication from
a diachronic view, the outcome is unpredictable. Grunig favored this Thayerian view of communication in his 1975 article
but replaced it in later publications with the concept of symmetry because he preferred to emphasize the (a)symmetry of
the organization and its stakeholders above the concept of diachronicity (personal conversation with James Grunig). Yet,
this emphasis neglects the dynamic nature of the communication process itself.
Many recent approaches to the concept of communication view it as a fundamental two-way process that is interactive and
participatory at all levels. This involves the paradigmatic change of a sender/receiver-orientation into an actor-orientation
(e.g., a process in which all actors can be active and take initiatives) (Bentele, Steinmann, & Zerfass, 1996; Putnam &
Pacanowsky, 1983; Thayer, 1987). That is why the emphasis in communication theory is currently often on communi-
cation as a process in which meanings are created and exchanged (Craig & Muller, 2007; Littlejohn & Foss, 2011; Rosengren,
2000). The key word in this approach is dialog, which literally means “a free flow of words and their interpretations” (Matson
& Montagu, 1967). In linguistic terms, dialog is not the same as discussion. Trying to convince each other of the “best idea”
and thus creating a shared meaning is often defined as a discussion; putting your idea before others and stimulating them to
bring in ideas in the hope of improving on the first idea is dialog (Van Ruler, 1997). This concept of dialog fits the diachronic
view of communication, as Thayer (1968, 1987) holds, stipulating that communication is an ongoing process of learning
in which meanings develop through developing cognitions and feelings. That is interactive by nature but not necessarily
leading to one shared meaning; in a diachronic view of communication, meaning construction is a dynamic and ongoing
process. As Thayer favored his diachronic view on communication, Dance (1970) proposed his helical model in the same
decade, to reflect the fact that communication is an essentially dynamic and exponential process that changes participants,
contexts, and the future probabilities of communication, as a result of its own operation. Although designed a long time ago,
this model fits the modern network idea of organizations as players in an arena (or even a battlefield) of meaning construc-
tions, as we can learn from the constructivist actor-network theory of Latour (for an explanation of ANT in public relations,
see Verhoeven, 2009), the concept of “organizations as arenas of social worlds that give a lens to understand agency and
collective learning in organizations” (Huysman & Elkjaer, 2006), and the German approach to public sphere, divided into
different arenas (Raupp, 2004: 311).
Looking at organizations as players in arenas of meaning constructions, the context of modern public relations is much
more complex than what a notion of two-way communication with relevant publics implies. Public relations works for
publics and with publics, but also in public, meant as “public sphere”. It is in this public sphere that public opinions and
public moods develop. By communicating, (people in) organizations construct and reconstruct public opinion and mood,
themselves being one of the actors who communicate in public. That is why the public sphere could also be called the
“communication playing field” of organizations. However, these organizational actors have, at best, a supporting role and
are often only acting as extras; they are only one of many (for further discussion, see Van Ruler & Verčič, 2005). Even more
complicating is the fact that this playing field changes over time and with issues, as do the players on the field. As Grunig and
Repper already stated, stakeholders are senders as well. However, stakeholders change over time, are hardly ever found as
groups in a sociological sense, tend to respond more to others than to the organization itself, and are predominantly bound
by issue-related values (Grunig & Repper, 1992: 128).
Organizations (and their public relations professionals) have to address these ongoing meaning constructions. This is
why we need flexible and iterative planning methods in which coping with change is a natural part. This is all the more
necessary because, as Ihlen and Verhoeven (2012) stated: “Some of the most profound social changes [in our societies, BvR]
are related to the downfall of social authorities. Decisions have to be legitimized on a continuous basis. From this, we argue,
stems the idea that trust, legitimacy, understanding, and reflection are crucial concepts for public relations” (p. 164). For
many authors, a permanent reflection on societal legitimacy is conditional for the survival of an organization (Holmström,
2008; Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2012; Van Ruler & Verčič, 2005). This is not new. Such a public perspective was also the basis for
Olasky’s alternative exposition of U.S. public relations history, especially in his differentiation between “public” and “private”
relations. This urges to make our public relations planning models more flexible.
190 B. van Ruler / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 187–194

4. The illusion of control

In the editions of his well-known book Strategic Planning for Public Relations, Smith suggests that the planning process of
public relations consists of four phases with nine steps in total (for the latest edition, see Smith, 2013). The first phase is the
research and analysis of the situation, the organization and the public. The second phase is strategy, consisting of establishing
goals and objectives, formulating action and response strategies and developing the message strategy. The third phase is
tactics, which means first selecting communication tactics and then implementing the strategic plan. The fourth and final
phase is the evaluation of the plan.
Sometimes acronyms such as the widely used acronym RACE of John Maston (Research, Action planning, Communication,
Evaluation) or Jerry Hendrix’s ROPE (Research, Objectives, Programming, Evaluation) are used to describe the planning
process. Some models consist of more steps than others, but to my knowledge, all publicly available models start with doing
research, developing objectives and a strategy, implementing the chosen means, and concluding with evaluation. Objectives
have to be formulated smartly, so that they can be evaluated in the final phase in a precise way. In theoretical discussions
on what public relations is or should be, flexibility is often considered, especially when discussing social constructivism as a
foundation for public relations. But our planning models are linear effect oriented. The requirement of smart goals includes
a premise that a certain chosen strategy will provide predictable outcomes and the need to formulate in advance what the
best actions will be assumes predictability of best practices in advance. That is why we can call these models linear effect
models, based on Bauer’s social model or Thayer’s idea of synchronization and, as such, are models of controlled one-way
communication.
Smith (2013) positions evaluation as the final phase of the process, oriented at the results after implementation. There
is no measurement foreseen during the implementation process, at least not as a formal phase in the model. Thus, all
evaluation is primarily seen as a summative exercise, done afterwards to control whether the predicted outcome has been
reached. Also in PR News’ PR Measurement Guidebook Vol. 6 (PR News, 2013) measurement in public relations programs
is seen as evaluating outputs, outtakes and outcomes, without concern about in-between modification of the program. The
Barcelona Principles (http://amecorg.com/2012/06/barcelona-declaration-of-measurement-principles) are also oriented at
evaluation as a summative exercise to check whether the actions did what they should do, as a control on the outcomes. The
consequence of this view for measurement is that accommodating change is not part of the public relations planning model;
rather, change is seen as a negative attack on continuity. Although the attention to formative evaluation per se is obvious
(see, e.g., Watson & Noble, 2005), formative evaluation does not seem to be a formal part of public relations planning models
and stays, consequently, lip service.
Altogether, existing planning models provide an illusion of control. “Most important”, Grunig (2009: 4) says, “is that we
abandon the illusion of control”. It is, as Grunig also says, disputable whether this control has ever been realistic. However,
apart from that discussion, it is not at all realistic in a period in which every (self-claimed) stakeholder can and does provide
knowledge and opinions in the public sphere about whatever they believe is important, as Phillips and Young (2009) describe
in their book. Therefore, McNamara (2014) challenged the Barcelona Principles at the AMEC 2014 conference by stating that
we should not only see evaluation as a control of our outcomes but also as input for insights for decision making. If we
want to take this seriously, we need a planning model in which the input for insights for decision making is a defined and
legitimate part.

5. Agility and iterative planning in organizational theory

PWC (2012, 2013) claims that businesses as well as other organizations need to re-think the way they operate and they
favor the so-called agile organization. The agile organization strives to make change a routine part of organizational life
to reduce or eliminate the organizational trauma that paralyzes many businesses attempting to adapt to new markets and
environments. Because change is perpetual, they claim, the agile enterprise is able to nimbly adjust to and take advantage
of emerging opportunities. The agile enterprise views itself as an integral component of a larger system, whose activities
produce a ripple effect of change both within the enterprise itself and the broader system. “In doing so, they need to look
to reduce organizational complexity and to create more flexibility, scalable operating models that are capable of quickly
responding to new market opportunities and/or operate at lower cost. In short, to maintain competitive advantage and to
be successful in the future, businesses need to become more ‘agile”’, PWC concludes (2012: 14). “In the business world, to be
‘agile’ is to master change and uncertainty, and to integrate the business’ employees and information tools in all aspects of
production”, Gunasekaran (1998: 1224) claims. “The goal of an agile manufacturer is to present a solution to its customers’
needs and not just a product. A producer does this by learning what a consumer needs now and will need in the future.
For businesses, agility translates into co-operation that enhances competitiveness. An agile partnership crosses company
borders and works together.”
Agility can be placed in more fundamental approaches to strategy development, e.g., the difference between strategy
as a plan and strategy as a pattern, or the difference between deliberate and emergent strategy (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, &
Lampel, 1987; 1995). Second, it also fits more fundamental approaches to organization. In this respect Weick (1987) should
be mentioned, who was one of the first to introduce interpretivism in organizational communication studies. He came up
with the notion of enactment and noted that organizational life is to be seen as a product of ongoing enactment (see also
Heath, 2000; Taylor & Van Every, 2000). Although not called “agile”, Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) paint the outlines of an
 B. van Ruler / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 187–194 191

Formative evaluation

To improve To be surprised

Goal-based Goal-free

To look back To refresh

Summative evaluation

Fig. 1. Aspects of evaluation.

agile organization in their premise that “expectations can get you into trouble, unless you create a mindful infrastructure
that continually does all of the following: track small failures; resists oversimplification; remain sensitive to operations;
maintain capabilities for resilience; and take advantage of shifting locations of expertise” (p. 2). “Good management is
mindful management”, they claim, meaning “that they organize themselves in such a way that they are better able to notice
the unexpected in the making and halt its development” (p. 18).
This brings us to a further analysis of evaluation theory. Scriven suggested differentiating between goal-based and goal-
free evaluation (Scriven, 1974, 1991). Goal-based evaluation is making sure that you are working toward hitting your goals
or not (formative) or having reached your goals (summative). Goal-free evaluation is meant to obtain all kinds of insights
for decision making (formative) or to review and renew the planning process itself (summative). Goal-free evaluation is
to uncover unanticipated effects and monitor what is going on (see Fig. 1). Goal-free evaluation prevents tunnel vision
(Scriven, 1974) and is a good means to manage the unexpected, as Weick and Sutcliffe state (2007: 8). Well selling public
relations planning books (f.e. Potter, 1997; Smith, 2013; Szyska & Dürig, 2008) are all rather one-sided, oriented toward
summative goal-based evaluation. That is why there is no planned room for developing insights for change and managing
the unexpected. Agility helps to overcome that, but then we need to expand our idea of evaluation.

6. Scrum as a planning method for public relations

Agility is a way of thinking, a philosophy. One of the methods for acting agile is scrum. In 1984, two Japanese scholars,
Takeuchi and Nonaka, gave a colloquium on productivity and technology at Harvard Business School, published 2 years later
in HBR. They said that in today’s fast-paced, fiercely competitive world of commercial new product development, speed and
flexibility are essential. “Companies are increasingly realizing that the old sequential approach to developing new products
simply won’t get the job done. Instead, companies in Japan and the United States are using a holistic method – as in rugby,
the ball gets passed within the team as it moves as a unit up the field” (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986: 137). This approach has six
characteristics: built-in instability, self-organizing project teams, overlapping development phases, multi-learning, subtle
control, and organizational transfer of learning (p. 138). They christened this approach ‘Scrum’.
It took until the turn of the century before Scrum became popular. IT was the first to adopt it. In IT, Scrum is defined as a
framework within which people can address complex adaptive problems while also productively and creatively delivering
products of the highest possible value in the shortest possible time (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2013). Scrum can currently also
be found in marketing, organizational change, sales, and finance, for example (Van Solingen & Van Lanen, 2014).
The basis of Scrum is iterative planning. This is well known within crisis communication (Coombs, 2011), is also suggested
for press relations (Watson & Noble, 2005) and seems to work well in these areas. When using agile methods such as Scrum,
accommodating change is more important than following a strict plan, Jongerius, Offermans, Vanhoucke, Sanwikarja and
Van Geel (2013) claim. They, too, suggest that Scrum is not only suitable for software development but also “extremely
suitable for improving the entire process of concept, design and development” (p. 18). “Scrum is about being relevant for
end-users, about freedom in exchange for commitment, about eliminating waste, about self-propelled teams, about time
boxing, and about results” (p. 19–20) and as such is of interest for any project (see also Schwaber, 2014). The Godfather of
IT scrum, Jeff Sutherland, recently published a book on scrum for businesses outside the world of technology (Sutherland,
2014). “The type of project or problem doesn’t matter”, he claims (p. 231), “Scrum can be used in any endeavor to improve
performance and results”.
These are all good reasons to think about introducing Scrum into public relations planning. Following the original
characteristics of Scrum in IT (see Schwaber & Sutherland, 2013 and http://www.scrum.org), I propose a model that is
an expansion of the original Scrum model with some other aspects of agile philosophy in order to make it suitable for
the turbulent character of public relations in the digital age, and substantiate with a diachronic view on communication
and goal-free formative evaluation. I call this model the Reflective Communication Scrum (RCS) in which reflective com-
munication refers to reflectivity as a property in public relations (Van Ruler & Verčič, 2005) and as a concept in agile
192 B. van Ruler / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 187–194

Fig. 2. The Reflective Communication Scrum.

organizing (see also Fig. 2, and Van Ruler, 2014). After a year of experiments with scrum in public relations and many eval-
uations of the model with public relations professionals, 5 elements seems essential for inclusion in public relations scrum
planning

6.1. Permanent monitoring of change

One of the most interesting aspects of Scrum is the prominence of formative evaluation. This is partly because Scrum is
very results-oriented and monitors its results on an iterative basis (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2013) but also because ongoing
reflecting and monitoring for its decision making can easily be included. Coping with change is more important than following
one’s plan, the Agile Manifesto teaches (http://agilemanifesto.org/). Scrum starts with what we can call “generalized ends”
(cf. Watson & Noble, 2005: 160), sometimes also called “qualitative objectives” (Van Eck, Leenhouts, & Tielen, 2013). The
more specific objectives are settled during the process, at the start of each iterative time-boxed sprint, depending on the
permanent monitoring of change.

6.2. Programming of interventions in time-boxed sprints

Scrum works with cycles of a fixed length, called a “sprint” or an “iteration”. A sprint is a portion of a project, meant
to program the most important and doable things with which to start. Sprints last from one to four weeks, depending at
the expended dynamic of the subject and the character of the project (Sutherland, Van Solingen, & Rustenburg, 2011: 28).
However, sprints of a day are also possible, depending on the length of the project. At the end of a sprint, the team delivers
the work they had chosen at the beginning of the sprint. Also at the end of the sprint, the results are validated in a meeting
of the team with relevant stakeholders and the team process is reviewed for better results in the next sprint.

6.3. Daily team reflections in standup meetings

The daily standup is best seen as the day’s kickoff (Jongerius et al., 2013: 95). In our experiments with Scrum in the
public relations practice, most teams prefer to have a standup every other day. The most important reasoning behind these
standups (also called the daily scrum) is that the team discusses its progress on a daily basis. A standup should not last
over 15 min. In our experiments, the team discusses four questions: what have we done; what does our monitor system tell
us about our environment; what are we going to do; and has anyone encountered any obstacles or problems for the team
and/or the scrum master to solve?

6.4. Adaptation of new interventions in every new sprint

Agility teaches us that what works is more important than what was agreed upon in advance. Changes are based on new
insights. Scrum experts believe that it makes no sense to change the work every hour. That is why they claim that during a
sprint, the work should not be changed. If change is needed, the scrum team should break off their sprint and start all over
again in a new sprint. Scrum teams work with a so-called “backlog”, which is a list of requirements and issues to be handled.
This list is not a fixed one, as the team can add to it (or discard) during the process, based on new insights into what works
and what does not, as well as what is going on out there.
 B. van Ruler / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 187–194 193

6.5. Self-steering teams with team responsibility, coached by a scrum master

In a Scrum project, there are four different roles to be fulfilled. First is the scrum master or team leader, whose role is to
facilitate the Scrum process and the Scrum team. The second role is the project owner, whose role is to represent the client
of (the budget and the targets of) the project. The project owner decides on the priorities, advised by the Scrum team and is
“owns” the backlog. The third role is the developers of the interventions, called the Scrum team. Last, but not least, are the
stakeholders who have an interest in the project. One of the outcomes of the experiments in the Netherlands is that it might
be interesting to include one (or more) of the stakeholders as a working member of the team. Scrum is about improvising,
prioritizing, and making choices. The team is self-steering and, as a team, is responsible for the quality of the work and the
team building. Acting together is more important than contracting out, as the widely available Scrum literature teaches us.
Teams are as multi-disciplinary as is required by the project targets. Competences are more important than functions and
hierarchy.

7. Discussion

A year of experiments with Scrum for public relations in the Netherlands show that it is not easy to introduce Scrum
in daily practice. First of all it takes quality and experience to incorporate agility and to do so efficiently (Jongerius et al.,
2013: 24), and it takes reflective practitioners who are educated in critical thinking (Schön, 1987). Second, for working
in self-steering and multi-competence teams, it is extremely important that the members of the team are aware of their
professional standards and a clear professional vision on what communication can do, in order to show their professional
accountability to the other team members. Third, some of our applied universities are experimenting with Scrum to educate
their students to cope with change and leave the illusion of control behind. They are aware of the fact that this is not just
another tool but urges for a whole new way of educating, as well as new models on how communication works and what
is the communication practice. Fourth, it is a new approach to measurement and that is not just another technique but
urges for a whole new mindset. At the AMEC Conference 2014, Jim McNamara called for a shift from looking back to looking
forward. He promotes a new model for PR measurement and evaluation, “based on quantitative as well as qualitative data
and contextual information, published research literature, databases, case studies, theories and models, involves intensive
analysis deploying what academics call critical analysis, designed to provide insights” (McNamara, 2014: 8). Agile philosophy
shows us that this is not the first phase of a planning model but needs ongoing attention. This goes further than just critical
thinking; forwarding thinking asks for a broad education and social and political experience. Last but not least, Scrum
works with self-steering teams. That implies that Scrum changes the hierarchy in organizations. That is a challenge in many
practices, too.

References

Bauer, R. A. (1964). The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication. The American Psychologist, 19, 319–328.
Bentele, G., Steinmann, H., & Zerfass, A. (Eds.). (1996). Dialogorientere Unternehmenskommunikation. Grundlagen, Praxiserfahrungen, Perspektiven (Dialogori-
ented corporate communication, basics, praxis, perspectives). Berlin, GER: Vistas.
Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. I: The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Castells, M. (2010). The information age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. I: The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Coombs, T. (2011). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Craig Robert, T., & Muller Heidi, L. (Eds.). (2007). Theorizing communication, readings across traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dance Frank, E. X. (1970). The concept of communication. Journal of Communication, 20, 201–210.
Dühring, L. (2012). Lost in translation? On the disciplinary status of public relations. In D. Verčič, A. T. Verčič, K. Sriramesh, & A. Zerfass (Eds.), Public relations
and communication management: The state of the profession. Ljublana: Pristop d.o.o (proceedings of the 19th BledCom International Public Relations
Research Symposium, retrieved from http://www.bledcom.com)
Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2011). Corporate social responsibility communication and dialogue. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of
communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 231–251). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gray, D., & Van der Wal, T. (2012). The connected company. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.
Grunig, J. E. (1975). A Multi systems theory of organizational communication. Communication Research, 2 (online version retrieved from
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/2/2/99)
Grunig, J. E. (1976). Organizations and public relations: Testing a communication theory. Journalism Monographs, nr. 46.
Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory
(pp. 17–44). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalization. PRism, 6(2). Retrieved from http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism
on-line journ.html
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. 117–158). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations. A study of communication management in three countries.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gunasekaran, A. (1998). Agile manufacturing. Journal of Production Research, 36, 1223–1247.
Heath, R. L. (2000). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization communicating well. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public
relations (pp. 31–50). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Holmström, S. (2008). Reflection: Legitimising late modernity. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research, European and
international perspectives and innovations (pp. 235–250). Wiesbaden, GER: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Huysman, M., & Elkjaer, B. (2006). Organizations as arenas of social worlds; towards an alternative perspective on organizational learning? In Paper presented
at the OLKC 2006 Conference at the University of Warwick, Coventry on 20th–22nd March 2006. Retrieved from the internet.
194 B. van Ruler / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 187–194

Ihlen, Ø., & Verhoeven, P. (2012). A public relations identity for the 2010s. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(2), 159–176.
Jongerius, P., Offermans, A., Vanhoucke, A., Sanwikarja, P., & van Geel, J. (2013). Get agile. Amsterdam, NL: BIS Publishers.
Kent Michael, L. (2013). Using social media dialogically: Public relations role in reviving democracy. Public Relations Review, 39, 337–345.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building a dialogic relationship through the WorldWideWeb. Public Relations Review, 24, 321–340.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2011). Theories of human communication (10th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Matson, F. W., & Montagu, A. (Eds.). (1967). The human dialogue, perspectives on communication. New York: The Free Press.
Macnamara, J. (2010). Public communication practices in the Web 2.0–3.0 mediascape: The case for PRevolution. PRism, 7(3). http://www.prismjournal.org
McNamara, J. (2014). Breaking the PR measurement and evaluation deadlock: A new approach and model. In Paper presented at the AMEC Interna-
tional Summit on Measurement “Upping the Game”, Amsterdam, 11–12 June. See http://amecinternationalsummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/
Breaking-the-PR-Measurement-Deadlock-A-New-Approach-and-Model-Jim-Macnamara.pdf
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1987). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Five P’s for strategy. California Management Review, Fall. Reprinted
in Henry Mintzberg, James Brian Quinn, Symantra Ghoshal (1995). The Strategy Process, European Edition (pp. 13–1). London: Prentice Hall.
Phillips, D., & Young, P. (2009). Online public relations: A practical guide to developing an online strategy in the world of social media (2nd ed.). London: Kogan
Page.
Pieczka, M. (2011). Public relations as dialogic expertise? Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 108–124.
Pieczka Magda, & Wood Emma. (2013). Action research and public relations: Dialogue, peer learning, and the issue of alcohol. Public Relations Inquiry, 2,
161–181.
Potter, L. R. (1997). The communication plan; the heart of strategic communication. San Francisco: IABC.
PR News. (2013). PR measurement guidebook, Vol. 6. Rockville: PR News Press.
Putnam, L. L., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (Eds.). (1983). Communication and organizations. An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
PWC. (2012). The agile enterprise,. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com
PWC. (2013). De agile overheid,. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.nl
Raupp, J. (2004). The public sphere as central concept of public relations. In B. van Ruler, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations and communication management
in Europe. A nation-by nation introduction to public relations theory and practice (pp. 309–316). Berlin, GER: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rosengren, K. E. (2000). Communication, an introduction. London: Sage.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schwaber, K. (2014). Agile project management with Scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2013/1991). The scrum guide. Retrieved from http://www.scrum.org
Scriven, M. (1974). Evaluation perspectives and procedures. In W. James Popham (Ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applications (pp. 3–94). Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.
Scriven, M. (1991). Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 12(1), 55–62.
Smith, R. D. (2013). Strategic planning for public relations (4th ed.). New York and London: Routledge.
Sutherland, J., Van Solingen, R., & Rustenburg, E. (2011). The power of scrum. Cambridge, MA: Scrum Inc.
Sutherland, J. (2014). Scrum: The art of doing twice the work in half the time. New York: Crown Business.
Szyska Peter, & Dürig Uta-Micaela (Eds.). (2008). Strategische Kommunikationsplanung (Strategic communications planning). Konstanz (Ger.): UVK Verlags-
gesellschaft.
Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review, 137–146. Retrieved from the internet
https://www.iei.liu.se/fek/frist/723g18/articles and papers/1.107457/TakeuchiNonaka1986HBR.pdf
Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thayer, L. (1968). Communication and communication systems. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Thayer, L. (1987). On communication, essays in understanding. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Van Eck, M., Leenhouts, E., & Tielen, J. (2013). (Business plan on 1A4 page) Business plan op 1A4. Amsterdam: Pearson Benelux.
Van Ruler, B. (1997). Communication: Magical mystery or scientific concept? Professional views of public relations practitioners in the Netherlands. In D.
Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 247–263). London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Van Ruler, B. (2014). The reflective communication scrum. The Hague: Eleven.
Van Ruler, B., & Verčič, D. (2005). Reflective communication management future ways for public relations research. In J. Pamela, & Kalbfleisch (Eds.),
Communication yearbook (29) (pp. 239–274). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Solingen, R., & Van Lanen, R. (2014). (Scrum for managers) Scrum voor Managers. Den Haag: Academic Service.
Verhoeven, Piet. (2009). On latour: Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) and public relations. In O. Ihlen, B. van Ruler, & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public relations and
social theory, key figures and concepts (pp. 166–186). New York: Routledge.
Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2005). Evaluating public relations. A best practice guide to public relations planning. In Research & Evaluation. London: Kogan Page.
Weick, K. E. (1987). Theorizing about organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 97–122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weick Karl, E., & Sutcliffe Kathleen, M. (2007). Managing the unexpected. Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Zerfass, A. (2010). Assuring rationality and transparency in corporate communications: The role of communication controlling from a management point
of view. In Paper presented at the 13th international public relations research conference Miami, FL.
Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2013). European communication monitor 2012: Challenges and competencies for strategic
communication: Results of an empirical survey in 42 countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media.