Listening to the Opus Dei Information Office in Navarra and the Basque Country: Good communication practices at the service of the governance of an institution

Abstract

Communication is essential for organisations. The interaction of institutions with their publics and their reputation management depend on it. ‘An organisation that does not listen, or listens badly to its stakeholders and publics, will fail in its public communication,’ as Jim Macnamara says. This article deals with the listening work of the Opus Dei Information Office of the Basque Country and Navarra carried out in different phases: initiation, identification of interest groups, open listening, analysis of the findings, conclusions and transmission. It is offered as a good communication practice at the service of government that could be applied, with the necessary adjustments, to other institutions, especially Church communication offices. The text is divided into two parts: in the first, we review some concepts on institutional communication, governance, intangibles, reputation and listening, which serve as a framework; in the second, we summarise the case study, relying on interviews with people who were directly involved in the unfolding of events – Juan Carlos Mújika, the then director of the Office; Jesús Juan, who worked in the Prelature’s delegation; and Juan Manuel Mora, Vice Rector for Communication at the University of Navarra.

Keywords:

• Listening
• perceptions
• reputation
• church communication offices
• identity
• best practices

1. Communication and listening

Numerous authors have reflected on corporate reputation. We find both common elements and different approaches among them. For example, for Van Riel and Fombrun, reputation is ‘the overall assessment of the organisation by its stakeholders. This assessment is obtained by aggregating stakeholders’ perceptions of the organisation’s ability to meet their expectations’ (Van Riel and Fombrun 2007, 43–44). Roberts and Dowling define it as ‘the perception of a company’s past actions and future prospects that describe the overall attractiveness to all its stakeholders when compared to others’ (Roberts and Dowling 2002). Villafañe qualifies that ‘corporate reputation is the recognition that an organisation’s stakeholders make of its corporate behaviour maintained over time based on the degree of compliance with its commitments to its customers, employees, shareholders and the community in general’ (Villafañe 2004).

Synthesising the above references, we could say that corporate reputation is a combination of the image projected by the institution and the perception of its stakeholders (both internal and external), based on its actions and relationships. Perceptions belong to the public, are formed by the effect of multiple factors and are not always directly controllable by the institutions.

Well-exercised institutional communication would be that which makes identity and image coincide. Dolphin defines it as ‘the process of translating identity into image’ (Dolphin 2000). It is not, therefore, a matter of adapting or creating an image that is disconnected from the identity, but of creating a reputation based on facts. An institution is worthy of such a reputation to the extent that the image it projects accurately reflects its reality.

This process requires first of all that the members of the organisation – managers, those responsible for communication, everyone – know their own identity, so that they are in a position to answer the question: who am I and how do I make myself understood? Knowing one’s identity implies taking charge of the set of features that make up an institution and distinguish it from others: its origin, its history, its mission, its characteristics; it involves self-knowledge, reflection and internalisation.

From a communication professional’s point of view, the identity of an organisation is something that is given, something that is not invented but rather expressed during the communication process.

Ordinarily, the identity of an institution is usually set out in statutes or in a mission statement. But this alone is not enough, even in the case of church institutions. As John Paul II pointed out in 1982, in the Decree establishing the Pontifical Council for Culture: ‘a faith that does not become culture is a faith that is not fully accepted, not fully thought out, not faithfully lived’ (John Paul II 1982). Institutional identity, in addition to being known, must be incarnated in culture, it must permeate and be reflected in actions, in life, in work, in the way of organising and relating to others. It has to permeate everything.

Finally, the institutional identity has to be translated into words appropriate to each of its audiences. From identity to action, and from action to storytelling. First you have to know yourself, then act in accordance with who you are, and then express your identity and culture in words and arguments that are clear to others. Taking a step further along the lines of the above quotation from John Paul II, Juan Manuel Mora points out: ‘a faith that does not become culture is a faith that cannot be communicated’ (Mora 2006).

It is therefore essential that there is harmony and coherence between what an institution is, what it thinks of itself, what it does and what it says. Coherence forms, in a way, the ‘truth’ of an institution. This harmony breaks down when there are differences between the institution’s DNA – i.e. its identity – and its words or actions.

Thus, the truth of an institution is reflected in its image. When the public forms an image that does not correspond faithfully to the identity of the institution, there is a danger of attributing this mismatch to the public, to its lack of knowledge or judgement. Such a diagnosis would lead to inaction: for the image to improve, the public would have to change. We believe it would be more accurate to ask how the organisation can project an image that matches its identity: to show itself as it really is.

‘Institutions, aware of their identity, masters of their actions, can also be “shapers” of their image,’ says Mora. ‘If the image does not respond to the identity, nothing can be achieved by blaming third parties. It has already been said that communication does not invent identity, that it has been received. But this conviction does not invite passivity, but initiative. The way of expressing identity has to be both faithful and creative, realistic and attractive at the same time’ (Mora 2006).

Messages, to be understood and accepted, have to be credible. And this credibility is achieved through actions; in other words, it is not enough for an institution to affirm its qualities, it must act well and others must see this. It must show itself capable of contributing to the common good through its actions.

In addition to being credible, institutions aspire to gain relevance, taking into account the convictions and emotions of the public, since communication involves relationships between people.

In short: messages have to be clear, credible, meaningful and capable of inducing empathy in the stakeholders or audiences in the environment. Credibility, relevance and empathy build trust. When an institution deserves the trust of its interlocutors, communication develops smoothly and the perceived image reflects the identity, without distortions.

Thus, we can say that institutional communication is the process of dialogue between an institution and its publics. ‘It involves the exchange of information, i.e. listening to others and considering what they have to say’ (Macnamara 2022, 3). Listening is therefore essential; without listening, dialogue is not possible, and without dialogue, the institution is closed in on itself.

As Macnamara (2022, 4) explains, effective listening can generate many benefits for institutions and companies, including: greater trust, improved relationships and reputation, better decision-making based on evidence-based data (qualitative data and statistics), greater commitment of their members, greater satisfaction of their audiences, etc.

Furthermore, as Carreras, Alloza and Carreras explain, ‘reputation management establishes a dynamic through which the organisation equips itself with research and listening tools to learn about the perceptions, opinions and evaluations that stakeholders make of it’ (Carreras, Alloza, and Carreras 2013, 7). Knowing these perceptions is the first step in the dialogue.

‘Listening is an essential part of human communication. Those who do not listen to us in interpersonal communication rarely become our friends or even colleagues with whom we seek to relate. By not listening to us, they do not understand us, they show that they do not care about us and cannot represent us. In fact, they are likely to misunderstand and misrepresent us, if not intentionally, then out of ignorance’ (Macnamara 2022, 1).

Communication understood in this way acquires a performative value, as Austin (1962) explains, ‘it does not merely describe a fact, but by the very fact of being expressed it performs the fact.’ It helps institutions to be faithful and coherent with their values, to preserve and polish their identity and not to distort it over time. The purpose of corporate communication is none other than to project the identity of the institution and ensure that the public perceives it appropriately.

In summary, attention to listening in institutional communication has been a relevant topic in academia for several decades, but has gained more importance as communication has become more bidirectional with the rise of social media. The importance of active listening is increasingly recognized as fundamental to understanding stakeholders’ needs and expectations, and as an essential part of enjoying and maintaining a good reputation and projecting an image as consistent as possible with one’s own identity.

In this article we present and analyse the listening process carried out by Opus Dei through its Information Office in Navarra and the Basque Country in the years 2007–2012, as well as some of the consequences between 2013 and 2020, in order to learn and check to what extent listening plays an essential role in institutional communication. The study also highlights the fact that an institution belonging to the ecclesiastical sphere in 2007 put into practice one of the communication theories and trends that would not reach its apogee until years later.

2. Listening to the Opus Dei Information Office in Navarra and the Basque Country (2007–2012) and some of its consequences between 2013 and 2020

After a brief review of some basic concepts of institutional communication, such as intangibles, reputation and listening, which set the framework for this article, we move on to the case study. In the study, the reports and working notes taken by the director of the Information Office during those years were analysed. This has made it possible to trace the chronology of events and facilitate the study and analysis of the perceptions of Opus Dei in Navarra and the Basque Country carried out in the listening process during 2007–2012 and some of its consequences between 2013 and 2020. Subsequently, it has been contrasted and enriched by means of personal interviews conducted in depth with Juan Carlos Mújika, Juan Manuel Mora and Jesús Juan, between December 2022 and the beginning of March 2023. Therefore, this article was mainly written using the qualitative study method.

2.1. Beginnings of the Information Office

In 2006 the Opus Dei Delegation of Pamplona decided to open an Information Office in the Autonomous Community of Euskadi and the Foral Community of Navarra, the territories covered by the Delegation. There are similar offices in Rome, Madrid and various capitals around the world where the Prelature carries out its activities.¹ These offices deal with various tasks related to institutional communication. In particular, they deal with relations with journalists and the media, as well as other institutional relations.²

The management of the Prelature proposed Juan Carlos Mújika, who had previously held various public posts in the Provincial Council of Alava, as Director General of Culture and the Basque Language, and later in the Basque Government, as Director of Services in the Department of the Environment, to lead this project.

The directors of the Prelature’s delegation had a general idea of the importance of communication and of the need to establish stable relations with journalists and opinion makers, which would facilitate understanding of the work carried out by Opus Dei. However, at that time they did not provide Mújika with concrete guidelines on how to carry out his task, giving him a great deal of freedom to develop the work as he saw fit.

Taking this initial context into account, Mújika accepted the proposal and suggested starting up the Information Office by carrying out a pioneering and novel task: a process of listening and subsequent analysis of perceptions about Opus Dei in Navarra and the Basque Country.

The purpose of the director of the Office was to diagnose and analyse society’s knowledge of Opus Dei, a basic starting point for working on institutional communication. Any project had to start from reality. Only with this premise, communication is effective and responds to the expectations of the recipients. Therefore, it was first necessary to gather the perceptions that people had about Opus Dei, to contrast them with its identity and to redirect what could generate a distorted image.

Mújika asked: ‘What do the words Opus Dei evoke in the people around us? What do people think of the work Opus Dei does? How do they evaluate its work, positively or negatively? Does its work encourage them to approach the institution? Why?’ In short, the key question was: ‘How are we seen from the outside?’ (pers. int. December 18, 2022).

There were two possible ways of carrying out this study. The first was to hire a company to carry out the assignment. The result would undoubtedly have been quick; in a few months the report would have been on the table and the conclusions would probably be correct. The second was to carry out the work personally; the process would be slower, but there was no rush either. The director of the Office opted for the second possibility.

This formula had several advantages. Direct communication always provides more information than indirect communication, which arrives through intermediaries or is provided by mere numerical data. Direct communication is enriched with countless nuances derived from personal contact: gestures, tone of voice, gaze, silences, etc. The nuances of conversations are very relevant, and these details are not recorded in a report, they are only perceived by the conversationalist. The second advantage lies in the fact that this procedure provides the opportunity to establish a personal relationship with the interviewees, a climate of trust that facilitates spontaneity and clarity in their statements. For the interlocutors, this meant ‘free access to the Opus,’ as Mújika heard it expressed on several occasions (pers. int. December 18, 2022). Moreover, the personal and professional relationship would be maintained over time, after the interviews, thus facilitating the continuity of the work of the new Information Office.

The Prelature gave the green light to the proposal and the work of research and analysis of perceptions began. From then on, the director of the Office came once a month to the Delegation’s headquarters where he discussed, informally and in a relaxed atmosphere, the progress of the plan and shared information that was of interest, so that the vicar of the Prelature and his collaborators were aware of the critical points of the study. Once a year he presented them with a summary of the work done.

To carry out the study, Mújika divided the interview sample into two groups. On the one hand, members of the Prelature; on the other, people outside Opus Dei. Within the second group, in turn, he distinguished five categories:

1. Church: clerics, bishops, priests, etc.

2. Media: press, radio, television and digital media.

3. Institutions: universities, associations, forums, etc.

4. Politicians: from all parties.

5. Opinion makers: artists, musicians, chefs, sportsmen and women, etc.

It is essential to identify the people who have the greatest prominence and weight in the institution’s environment.

Mújika saw it as fundamental that the people of Opus Dei should also be listened to and kept abreast of the work being carried out by the Information Office, so that they would know at first hand the messages that were being transmitted and the reactions that were being generated.

One of the objectives when conducting an interview is to create a climate of trust with the interlocutor. This is the only way to establish a real dialogue, to allow for frank answers, to get to the heart of the matter and to obtain relevant information, without getting bogged down in platitudes or superficial remarks.

Eighty percent of the conversations Mujika engaged in lasted more than an hour, some even up to two hours. The interviewer followed a series of guidelines and adopted a style that helped him to carry out this fieldwork.

The usual setting for the invitations prior to the interviews was the many social, cultural, political, etc. events taking place in the different cities (Pamplona, Bilbao, San Sebastián and Vitoria). The invitation was always personal, face to face, with a brief explanation of the work being done and the desire to know the interested party’s impressions of the Work. If the response was positive, an appointment was arranged, with a date and time, at the place indicated by the guest.

From what Mújika later learned, the way in which this first conversation was conducted, on a one-to-one basis, attracted the attention of most of those interviewed, as they expected a different way of acting on the part of the institution.

He always explained that the interview would be informal and would not be recorded. When introducing himself, he would briefly recount the highlights of his personal and professional life, as well as some features of Opus Dei that he considered useful for the interviewee to situate himself and put himself at ease.

He then gave the floor to the interviewee to comment on his opinions, suggestions, criticisms, etc., in any order he wished and without protocol: what he thought and why, what he saw as positive and negative, what points of improvement he suggested. The director of the Office did not become defensive, nor did he try to justify the actions of others, nor did he make excuses, much less engage in polemics on any issue. He would listen, with the attitude of understanding, genuinely interested in knowing the vision of Opus Dei of the person he was talking to and the factors that had generated it. After the conversations, he would take brief notes on the main contributions of the speaker.

He also used his personal Facebook account to be transparent to others and accessible to all.

It was clear to Mújika that it was essential to maintain a certain level of relationship with the people he interviewed. He would meet many of them at the different events he regularly attended: academic year opening ceremonies, presentations, forums, debates, plenary sessions in parliament, celebrations, prize-giving ceremonies, etc. The continuity of these relations was an added value in the field of institutional communication. Somehow, trust is consolidated and it is easier to solve problems that arise over time and to work with agility and transparency. This experience helped him to elaborate a formula that he found valid and that, in his opinion, can be generalised for similar cases: the level of relationship is the result of the sum of the depth of the conversation and the frequency of contacts.

If we group the interviews carried out by Mújika with people outside Opus Dei according to categories and provinces, we would have the following distribution:

Table

Groups	Number of interviews	Gipuzkoa	Bizkaia	Álava	Navarra
Church	106	37	50	11	11
Media	133	47	50	15	24
Institutions	144	36	49	32	25
Politicians	149	30	49	25	44
Opinion formers	169	48	70	18	30
	701	198	268	101	134
		28%	38%	14%	19%

Between 2007 and 2020, Mújika interviewed a total of 701 people outside Opus Dei. In addition, he was able to talk at length with the 102 faithful of the Prelature.

2.2. Interview results

During the first phase, between 2007 and 2012, Mújika conducted 440 interviews. With the information gathered, he produced a report summarising the main data and some conclusions. The study contained the typology of people interviewed, collected and analysed perceptions, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses that emerged from the interviews.

Mújika was thus able to draw a ‘map of perceptions’ of Opus Dei and apostolic work, including the most widespread stereotypes, and trying to arrive at the reasons why they had been formed. As a conclusion, he included a series of suggestions for possible actions that emerged from the data of the study.

From the conversations as a whole, strengths and weaknesses emerge regarding the image of Opus Dei. As is often the case in this type of study, the results are not linear, and are sometimes even contradictory: conflicting opinions emerge on the same issues. This reflects the diversity of people interviewed and the variety of issues discussed. As this is a study in which people and relationships are important, Mújika collected all the perceptions as useful information and as a starting point for his work.

Very briefly, the findings could be expressed in three strengths and three weaknesses.

Strengths

1. It is worth highlighting the professionalism, the good training provided and the prestige acquired by the corporate works and personal work that Opus Dei members have promoted in different areas such as the University of Navarra, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, CIMA, School of Engineering, Colleges, etc.

2. This prestige generates security and confidence in the people who go to these institutions. Regardless of their ideas and convictions, many people participate in the activities of these centres because they consider them to be a guarantee of good service.

3. Professional prestige is also valued on a personal level. People in Opus Dei are seen as good professionals who strive to do the job well. Their honesty, spirit of service, hard work and integrity are recognized.

Weaknesses

1. The image emerges of a rather closed organisation, working according to its own objectives, which are often not well known. This creates the impression of a lack of transparency and causes mistrust of the organization. The perception of a closed organisation also arises from the fact that there is a scarce presence of Opus Dei members and representatives of institutions related to the Prelature in some areas of civic life, those of a more popular nature. Although there are members of Opus Dei collaborating in catechesis and in pastoral activities carried out in parishes, the more generalised image is also one of low presence.

2. Although pluralism is one of the defining features of Opus Dei’s identity, the interviewees note that it is not perceived in a sociological, effective way, since they link its members to conservative and right-wing political currents. Most people are aware of the freedom that members of the Work, like Catholics in general, have in matters of political opinion, but say that they seem to be aligned only around a specific profile. In the case of the Basque Autonomous Community, this factor also has a linguistic dimension, and it coincides with the fact that all schools promoted by Opus Dei members have chosen only a certain type of linguistic model, which represents only one sector of society, the minority.

3. Finally, the Work is perceived as an elitist institution, since the services provided in the corporate works (the university, clinic, colleges, schools, etc.) are directed, in most cases, to people of a high economic level. It is also influenced by the fact that the Prelature’s centres are often located in areas where people with high purchasing power live; on the other hand, little sensitivity is observed and the presence of Opus Dei members in humble environments is missed, both in public and private social initiatives, as well as in civil and ecclesiastical ones.

As Yago de la Cierva points out in his book Iglesia, casa de cristal, it is clear that ‘institutions are increasingly vulnerable to a negative social perception’ (de la Cierva 2014, 16). In short, the general conclusion reached after analysing the map of perceptions is that Opus Dei in Navarra and the Basque Country is an institution respected for the professional work of its faithful and for the initiatives they develop. However, its members are seen as somewhat distant people, who do not participate fully in the challenges facing citizens, despite the fact that this should not be the case according to its identity and mission. To the extent that perceptions have both a rational and an emotional dimension, it could be said that there is more recognition than affection.

So much for the content of the report presented by Mújika in October 2012, as a result of interviews conducted over a five-year time span.

2.3. Analysis of interview results

The data from the interviews merited a detailed study, in which both the Information Office and the territorial directors of the Prelature took part. For the previous sections we have relied on the information and work summaries provided by Juan Carlos Mújika. For this section we used another source: Jesús Juan, who at the time worked in the Prelature’s delegation in Navarra and the Basque Country.

The analysis of the interviews started from one premise: the strengths that emerged from the conversations responded to aspects of Opus Dei’s message that were present in the behaviour of its members and were easily perceptible: the sanctification of work, in its different dimensions; the aspiration to serve others through one’s professional work; honesty in the performance of one’s profession. On the other hand, the negative impressions were in fact unfulfilled expectations: among the features of the spirit of Opus Dei are also freedom and pluralism, civic participation and social sensitivity. But these traits were not sufficiently evident in people’s behaviour and were less perceptible. They are, so to speak, an unfulfilled promise. Hence the negative image.

Obviously, this phenomenon is not unique to the case we are presenting, nor is it exclusive to Opus Dei. It is a broader phenomenon. Positive perceptions can respond to an expectation that is confirmed, but also to something that stakeholders do not expect and that surprises them favourably. Negative perceptions, on the other hand, often respond to something that is expected and does not come. This brings us back to the importance of consistency between what you are, what you do and what you say; what you promise and what you deliver; what you offer and what you provide.

Consequently, looking at a map of perceptions is not about thinking about how to change perceptions, because – as mentioned above – it is not possible to act directly on perceptions. It is rather a matter of facilitating that people’s behaviour reflects more clearly the identity of the institution in the aspects identified by the negative perceptions. To the extent that behaviours reflect them better, people will better grasp these traits and consequently perceptions will also change for the better. It is so to speak an indirect action, with a focus on causes rather than effects.

In this sense, the work of Mújika and the directors of the delegation focused on identifying those essential aspects that it was important to live and express in a more tangible and clear way in the behaviour of the people who participate in the formation activities of the Prelature’s centres. Four essential traits of Christian life were thus defined, which are very much present in the teachings of St. Josemaría:

Yeast, leaven in the dough³

From this synthetic phrase, with evangelical roots, expressed by the founder of Opus Dei in different places, many consequences can be derived: sincere and practical interest in the needs of one’s own environment, overcoming the dangers of otherness or turning in on oneself, respect for people, participation in local projects in all sectors (public and private, culture, folklore, leisure, sport, gastronomy, etc.); being present in all environments; cultivation of stable, lasting, solid and lifelong relationships.

Fan-shaped openings⁴

This expression frequently used by St. Josemaría reflects a characteristic feature of the Catholic Church, of which Opus Dei is a part: the universality – not only geographical – of its message, from which no one is excluded. Everyone has the right to know Jesus Christ. This means that the Christian message – and therefore the spirit of Opus Dei – cannot be confined to a single option, whether political, economic, cultural, etc.

Make yourself known by serving⁵

Echoing the Gospel mandate, Saint Josemaría, throughout his life, encouraged many people to promote social initiatives that responded to the needs of each place. Some of these initiatives have been born in Navarra and the Basque Country. They are often personal projects of the Prelature’s faithful, in full autonomy. For this reason they are not usually linked to the name or image of Opus Dei. In any case, it is a fundamental feature of Christian life and of the vocation to Opus Dei, which leads to fostering social sensitivity and working side by side with other Catholics and with many citizens who share the same ideals, perhaps without religious motivation.

Strengthening the bonds of communion (cf. Rodríguez, Ocáriz, and Illanes 1993, 2)

The founder saw Opus Dei as a ‘little part’ of the Church, relatively small in size, but united by strong bonds with other Catholics. The spirit of communion is expressed in many ways, also in the daily life of the faithful of Opus Dei, in their participation in their respective dioceses and parishes, in their personal and cordial – fraternal – relationships with priests, religious, lay people of different sensibilities and associations.

In short, the study of the information gathered in the interviews led to the conclusion that the aforementioned aspects, which in reality belong to the same Christian identity and therefore form an essential part of the message of Opus Dei, must more deeply inspire the conduct and behaviour of all those who participate in the means of formation of the Work. If each and every one strives to live these virtues consistently, they will be more easily perceived by others.

2.4. Communication of results

With the basis outlined in the previous section, the next phase of the work can be tackled. To begin with, as Jesús Juan explains, ‘it was necessary to share these reflections with the members of Opus Dei and other people close to us’. We also thought it would be useful to bring them to the attention of the teams that professionally lead the Prelature’s apostolic initiatives, since they have a great capacity for illumination (pers. int. February 20, 2023).

The content of the conversations and sessions was very similar in all cases: the data collected by the Information Office were summarised; the outline of strengths and weaknesses was presented; then the features of Opus Dei’s Christian message that deserved deeper reflection and better practical expression were identified. As Jesús Juan emphasises, ‘it was not a question of giving guidelines on how to act, but of transmitting perceptions and encouraging reflection, so that everyone could see how they could better live and incarnate those aspects of the spirit of Opus Dei that were not so evident and recognizable to the people around us’ (pers. int. February 20, 2023).

The scope of the actions was very broad. A good number of personal conversations were held; ordinary activities (get-togethers, training courses, etc.) were used to present these ideas; and meetings were held with for the leadership of specific initiatives, such as the University of Navarra, the Clinic, and various schools, university residences, cultural centres, foundations, etc.

The transmission of ideas was spread over a long period of time: between November 2012 and September 2014, when the communication phase was completed. ‘Integrating this transmission work as part of the ordinary and priority tasks of our work meant a great effort and dedication’ explains Jesús Juan (pers. int. February 20, 2023), describing what this phase of the process was like.

The experience of this communication work was positive: in general, the information transmitted coincided with the impressions, intuitions and experiences of most of the people spoken to; and the proposals for improvement in the aspects mentioned actually responded to the aspirations previously assumed by all.

The next stage was the practical implementation of the above recommendations. Each person in his or her circumstances, and each apostolic initiative would reflect on these contents, on their particular environment, on the opportunities for action that lay before them. Each person and each initiative would define and undertake its own plans. As Jesús Juan underlines, ‘it was not about designing a centralised and directed plan, but about sharing some reflections, and letting each one come to his or her own conclusions. That’s why it was important that all points of view are heard’ (pers. int. February 20, 2023). With this premise, it is worth mentioning, by way of example, some of the initiatives that emerged.

2.5. Some subsequent actions

It is difficult to establish cause-effect connections when talking about people, relationships, attitudes and intangibles. With that caveat, it is possible to mention some projects that were born in those months. Others could be mentioned, but here we are going to refer in particular to the University of Navarra, taking as our source the information provided by Juan Manuel Mora, then Vice Rector for Communication at the university.

In the years 2012–2013 there were some relevant circumstances in the context of the University of Navarra. Two of them are worth mentioning. The first refers to the negative consequences of the global economic crisis, which broke out in 2008. On the other hand, an important political change took place in Navarra in those years, when a coalition of nationalist and left-wing forces came to the head of the regional government. In addition to these contextual elements, there were other factors internal to the University. This is the framework in which four initiatives can be framed.

2.5.1. Birth of tantaka initiative⁶

One of the consequences of the 2008 economic crisis was that situations of poverty and need spread, both in Navarra and in the Basque Country. In addition, the solidarity associations, of which there are more than a hundred in Navarra, encountered funding difficulties. They needed more human resources. In these circumstances, Benedict XVI called for 2012 to be the Year of Faith: ‘faith without charity bears no fruit,’ he had said in the Apostolic Letter in the form of the Motu Proprio Porta Fidei with which he called for it (Benedict XVI 2011). At the University they thought about what to do and how to celebrate that year. It was suggested that, for a person of faith, the social context was a call to solidarity. Quoting the title of the famous book of the Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar: Only love is worthy of faith, he expressed the context in which the reflections shared by the directors of the delegation came to the University. Everything helped in taking a step forward in the task of service to the community. Since the 1960s, the University had been running numerous volunteer initiatives, mobilising hundreds of students. It was a good time to go further: to put the time of university students (students, professors and other professionals) at the disposal of the hundreds of solidarity associations (ecclesiastical and civil, Christian-inspired or mobilising citizens). Helping those who help. ‘In this way’, says Juan Manuel Mora, ‘with the enthusiastic leadership of Sofía Collantes, in the following years agreements were reached with many associations, which were the channel for the voluntary work of several thousand people. A way of making ourselves known by serving, as the founder of the University encouraged us to do’ (pers. int. March 4, 2023).

2.5.2. Chair of Basque Language and culture⁷

This Chair came into being in the 1960s, with the support of Saint Josemaría, who signed the founding document. After the changes brought about by the Bologna process, its redefinition was considered. ‘It was precisely in the years 2012–2013 that the question had to be studied. Taking into account its history, its intrinsic value, its symbolism in a culturally relevant subject and therefore its impact on perceptions, the University took the decision to promote it again, under the direction of Professor María del Mar Larraza,’ explains Juan Manuel Mora. ‘Thus, it continued to promote activities of a university nature which, outside the political dynamics, showed respect for cultural and linguistic pluralism’ (pers. int. March 4, 2023).

2.5.3. Collaboration with the public sector

During the years 2012–2012, opportunities arose to address proposals that involved increasing the University’s and the Clinic’s collaboration with public sector institutions, which already existed, but which could be developed in different ways in the new political context. Thus, for several years, relations of various kinds with the Public University of Navarra and with health and educational institutions increased. These collaborations were highly appreciated in local public opinion circles and helped some perceptions to evolve.

2.5.4. Museum of Contemporary Art of the University of Navarra, MUN⁸

Last but not least, it is worth mentioning the Museum of Contemporary Art that the University of Navarra promoted precisely in those years, and which was inaugurated in January 2015. This centre was from the outset a bridge between the university, the city and the entire Navarra community; it especially facilitated relations with artists and intellectuals, whose participation greatly enriched the life of the campus. Again, as Mora points out, ‘relationships are fundamental for perceptions to evolve’ (pers. int. March 4, 2023).

To sum up, in the words of Juan Manuel Mora, ‘at a time when the Information Office and the Prelature’s delegation were reflecting on the identity and image, the reality and perceptions of Opus Dei in Navarra and the Basque Country, there were also favourable circumstances that allowed us to experience and express, in the University environment, intangible features such as pluralism, solidarity and citizen participation’ (pers. int. March 4, 2023).

In addition to these four points, it should be noted that during this period numerous practical applications were also put into practice, especially in the institutional relations of senior schools, youth clubs, etc. ‘With the passage of time, these actions made it possible to show those aspects that, being central to the spirit of Opus Dei, had become blurred or diluted,’ Jesús Juan points out (pers. int. February 20, 2023).

2.6. Was the effort noticeable?

As mentioned above, the first Mújika report was submitted in 2012. Its analysis took a few months. The communication plan lasted almost a year. Subsequently, initiatives emerged in different areas, little by little.

Mújika was able to see the effect of this reaction in the interviews he continued to conduct between 2013 and 2020. As he himself affirms, people were first grateful to be listened to; then that there was a response to the comments they expressed; and, of course, that improvements were noted in practice in the way some aspects of Opus Dei’s message were embodied, which coincided with the expectations of many of them.

‘For many years I heard positive comments in this regard,’ he says (pers. int. December 18, 2022). Mújika’s expectations were fulfilled. Proof of this were the more than 150 messages sent to him following the interview he was given in Diario Noticias on the occasion of his retirement. In these messages they thanked him for his work and commented on the improvements they had seen in people and institutions related to the Work.⁹ Many of these 150 people had been interviewed by him years before.

‘In any case, it should be added that our intention was not to improve the perceptions, the opinion that others have of us. We were driven by a sincere desire for coherence, to live in practice the aspects of Opus Dei’s message that are in our DNA. So I think it was clearly worth the effort’, concludes Mújika (pers. int. December 18, 2022).

It was clear to him that this type of process always takes place from the inside out. ‘To improve the effectiveness of an activity, one must first of all strive to do it better. This is also true of Church communication, an activity that improves in concentric circles, from the inside out, in a process that could be called progressive professional maturation’ (Mora 2006).

Perceptions are formed in two ways: indirectly, through the influence of dominant stereotypes; and directly, through one’s own experience. The proposals that Mújika suggested and subsequently worked on are aimed at ensuring that people have a positive experience of Opus Dei, where the corporate works and activities that are organised have a welcoming atmosphere, open to all, and where charity and freedom, universal mentality and local involvement are experienced.

3. Conclusions

From the above, we could draw some conclusions, which could be extrapolated and generally applicable to other institutions, especially in the ecclesiastical sphere. We will divide them into two sections: the first refers to the characteristics of institutional communication work; the second to its benefits.

3.1. Characteristics of institutional communication work

1. Approach communication work as a listening process: the main communication activity of an institution must be a broad and continuous listening process, previously identifying the relevant people and institutions in order to achieve a representative sample. Moreover, listening must be carried out in an open way, without established presuppositions, respecting different opinions, so that the results obtained are reliable and in line with reality. This implies recognizing the importance of listening.

2. It presupposes a sincere interest in the interlocutors: an open and respectful attitude that must be confirmed by participation in the events organised by the people and institutions in the environment, which are listened to with interest. This shows that the institution is interested in the opinions of others, but above all it is interested in each individual and in everything he or she does.

3. It starts from the need to know the environment: the starting point of the work is the need to situate the institution in its social environment and therefore to collect information on how it is perceived. A positive effect of this collection is that it gives the institution a better understanding of the context in which it operates. It is therefore doubly effective.

4. It is a learning tool, not just an informative one. It involves recognizing the reality of the institution that these perceptions show: that is, what is gathered in interviews and conversations is valued in itself, not used as a starting point for a discussion or even a response. It is used primarily as a learning tool, which involves taking on board the strengths and weaknesses of the institution.

5. It serves to improve: the listening process leads to reflections and proposals on aspects that can be improved, both at a personal and institutional level, so that the identity is better reflected in its actions and does not become distorted over time.

3.2. Positive consequences of institutional communication work starting and developing as a listening process

1. It fosters a general listening attitude. When you listen with attention and empathy, you show others that you value their perspectives and that what they have to say matters. This generates a feeling of trust and openness, also encouraging others’ willingness to listen and consequently to consider other perspectives.

2. Shows transparency and simplicity in relationships, which is first internalised and then positively recognized by others. To the extent that information is shared, including the motivations that lead one to act in one way or another, etc., it is easier to generate understanding and trust, and therefore to reach an understanding, also with people who think differently.

3. Helps to build and maintain relationships through the trust generated during the extended process of interviews and conversations. Better understanding the thoughts, feelings and needs of others improves one’s ability to relate and collaborate effectively. When you feel understood and valued, you are more likely to feel comfortable sharing your own perspectives and needs, which encourages more open and honest communication.

4. It makes it possible to reach out to many people with very different profiles, because it helps one to understand their perspectives and needs, to establish a constructive dialogue with them and to broaden one’s own understanding and perspective on the world. This helps to improve interpersonal relationships and the ability to collaborate effectively with people of different backgrounds.

5. It helps to better explain the institution itself and at the same time to better understand the context. It allows for obtaining valuable information from the members of the institution and stakeholders, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and addressing concerns or problems. It also improves the satisfaction and bonding of the members of the institution itself, as well as the interpersonal relationships between them.

To recapitulate the above, as Yago de la Cierva says: ‘communicating does not mean simply talking, but above all entering into a relationship, creating interpersonal links, channelling relations between people and with political, cultural and economic institutions’ (de la Cierva 2014, prologue).

Therefore, we can say that in corporate communication there is no dialogue possible if there is no listening. The architecture of listening focuses on the active reception and understanding of messages; it involves identifying and understanding the opinions and concerns of stakeholders as well as their perceptions of the institution, in order to adapt communication strategies effectively and, above all, to correct any deviations that may arise between the identity of the institution and the image it is projecting of itself. This approach promotes continuous feedback and proactive adaptation to the dynamics of the environment, thus strengthening the relationship between the institution and its audiences.

In summary, this case study confirms the importance of listening as a fundamental part of corporate communication and the relevance of the consequences that derive from its exercise. In the particular situation of Opus Dei’s Information Office in Navarra and the Basque Country, this was the first step in the work. Regardless of the circumstances, we believe that listening is always a first step, which allows the rest of the institutional communication tasks to develop harmoniously.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Inma Juan Pardo

Inma Juan Pardo received a degree in Advertising and Public Relations from the University of Navarra in 2003. She works in the Opus Dei Communications Office in Navarra and the Basque Country. Previously she worked for more than 10 years as an advisor to the government of the Prelature of Opus Dei in the delegation of Navarra and the Basque Country.

Notes

1 https://opusdei.org/en-us/article/information-offices-around-the-world/.

2 Note on the Opus Dei Information Office: “At St. Josemaría’s suggestion, communication departments were set up in Rome, Madrid and other places where Opus Dei was present at the end of the 1950s. From the very beginning, in addition to carrying out other communication tasks, the professionals who worked in these departments paid great attention to the relationship with journalists and the media”, José Luis Illanes, 2013: Diccionario de San Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, in Apostolado de la Opinión Pública, Monte Carmelo.

3 Josemaría Escrivá: The Forge, chapter Fruitfulness, point 973: “You are to be yeast within the great multitudes that make up humanity—remember we are interested in all souls. In this way, with God’s grace and your own correspondence to it, you will act as leaven throughout the world, adding quality, flavour and volume to the bread of Christ so that it can nourish the souls of others.” Cf. https://escriva.org/en/forja/973/.

4 Josemaría Escrivá: Furrow, chapter Fishers of Men, point 193: “Those who have met Christ cannot shut themselves in their own little world: how sad such a limitation would be! They must open out like a fan in order to reach all souls. Each one has to create—and widen—a circle of friends, whom he can influence with his professional prestige, with his behaviour, with his friendship, so that Christ may exercise his influence by means of that professional prestige, that behaviour, that friendship.” Cf. https://escriva.org/en/surco/193/.

5 Josemaría Escrivá: Christ is passing by, chapter Christ the King, number 182 (To Reign by Serving): “If we let Christ reign in our soul, we will not become authoritarian. Rather we will serve everyone. How I like that word: service! To serve my king and, through him, all those who have been redeemed by his blood. I really wish we Christians knew how to serve, for only by serving can we know and love Christ and make him known and loved. And how will we show him to souls? By our example. Through our voluntary service of Jesus Christ, we should be witnesses to him in all our activities, for he is the Lord of our entire lives, the only and ultimate reason for our existence. Then, once we have given this witness of service, we will be able to give instruction by our word. That was how Christ acted. “He began to do and to teach;” he first taught by his action, and then by his divine preaching.

If we are to serve others, for Christ’s sake, we need to be very human. If our life is less than human, God will not build anything on it, for he normally does not build on disorder, selfishness or emptiness. We have to understand everyone; we must live peaceably with everyone; we must forgive everyone. We shall not call injustice justice; we shall not say that an offence against God is not an offence against God, or that evil is good. When confronted by evil we shall not reply with another evil, but rather with sound doctrine and good actions: drowning evil in an abundance of good. That’s how Christ will reign in our souls and in the souls of the people around us.” Cf. https://escriva.org/en/es-cristo-que-pasa/christ-the-king/.

6 https://www.unav.edu/web/tantaka/conocenos.

7 https://www.unav.edu/web/catedra-de-lengua-cultura-vasca/presentacion.

8 https://museo.unav.edu/el-museo.

9 The interview published in the Diario de Noticias on 5 February 2022, two years after the retirement of the director of the Office, (this interview was planned for 2020, the year in which Mújika left the office, but was delayed due to the covid pandemic): https://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/actualidad/2022/02/05/opus-dei-institucion-apreciada-profesionalmente-2096946.html and https://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/actualidad/2022/02/05/opus-interes-buena-posicion-medios-2096852.html.