Government Relations

Government relations is a function of public relations that organizations—both for-profit and nonprofit—use to strategically influence the public policy aspects of their environments. Corporate par-ticipation in shaping public policy can be traced to the business barons of the early 1900s. Since that time, business organizations have struggled with appropriate ethical and strategic responses to unprecedented changes, constraints, and challenges in their environment brought on by government policy decisions.

Scholars from such fields as political science, futurism, business management, public policy, communication, public relations, strategic plan-ning, management information systems, and busi-ness ethics have advanced the field's understanding of the function of government relations. Communi-cation efforts to government officials have a histor-ical place in the public relations literature. When undergraduate texts narrate public relations' history, they often show how organization-to-government communication efforts shaped the early years of the field. The recognition of the value of the relationship between organizations and governments began more than 50 years ago. J. A. R. Primlott first linked public relations, government relations, and democracy together. Later, Ron Pearson examined the relationship between democracy and public relations.

Why are the offices of government an important public for organizations? Richard E. Crable and Steven L. Vibbert (1985) argued that organizations do not have authority in public policy. Rather, orga-nizations have the ability to influence public policy. That is, organizations, whether profit seeking or not for profit, need to participate in the multiple state and federal arenas where “public policy is being decided” (Ewing, 1990, p. 24).

The importance of government as an organi-zational public has also been addressed in the management literature. Henry Mintzberg viewed government as one of the most important external publics with which an organization must communi-cate. Mintzberg argued that organizations must always give special consideration to government officials because “they represent the ultimate legislative authority of the society… [and] estab-lish the rules—the laws and regulations—within which every organization must function” (1983, p. 44). The management literature identifies gov-ernment as a public to be researched, monitored, and regularly engaged through communication.

Barrie L. Jones and W. Howard Chase are cred-ited with the systematic approach that explained how organizations can legitimize and validate orga-nizational positions on relevant public policy issues. Government officials were considered one of the three major targets (business, citizens, gov-ernment) of communication for strategic manage-ment (Jones & Chase, 1979, pp. 4–5). The authors encouraged organizations to “increase efforts to anticipate social change and respond to reasonable public expectations” rather than wait for others to set the public agenda (Jones & Chase, 1979, p. 11).

In Jones and Chase's initial conceptualization of issues management, issues precede government policies and organizations should “react” to events and be ready to proactively guide issues in the direction of favorable outcomes. Crable and Vibbert later admitted that business, citizens, and govern-ment are not coequal publics for organizations; rather, “public policy rests where it has for more than two hundred years—in the halls of govern-ment” (1985, p. 4). Indeed, the authors concede that even in the lower levels of state and local govern-ment, the need for government support for organi-zational decisions is clear. Robert L. Heath and K. R. Cousino acknowledged that organizations must communicate with government officials as key stakeholders in order to influence and benefit from favorable public policy decisions. Their advice for issue managers is clear—organizations need to know the relevant “persons who create law or ordinance that prescribes which actions are rewardable or punishable” (1990, p. 28).

...