Developing a Communicative Logic –The Key to Communication Professionalism

ABSTRACT

Communication practitioners still struggle to increase their status and legitimacy, and the value of their work is often questioned. The general perception of the occupation is often related to the idea that communication practitioners manipulate with misleading information and primarily are involved in superficial activities such as image and reputation building. In attempting to defend themselves from criticism and enhance their status, communication practitioners have strived to be regarded as a management function, which comes with pressure to follow a managerial logic. However, the managerial logic works as a double-edged sword – it brings some status in the short run but takes communication practitioners further away from their core competence in communication. In this article, we challenge the one-sided belief in the managerial logic – managerialism – and explore its hidden, negative implications for the practice and professionalization of communications practitioners. The implications are illustrated with interviews with communication practitioners and survey data on communication practitioners’ views and communication processes. Further, we propose that an alternative logic – a professional communicative logic – needs to be further developed and embraced to additionally advance the professional project.

Introduction

The communication industry has long struggled to increase the professional status and legitimacy of communication practitioners – and is still doing so. Communication practitioners have continuously been criticized for acting as spin doctors or as advocators of the interests of various organizations (Grandien, 2017; Gregory, 2020). Along similar lines, Edwards and Pieczka (2013) conclude that research on media presentations of public relations “paints a fairly consistent picture of PR as a somewhat shady practice of manipulation and lies at worst, image and reputation as best” (p. 9). The rather low status of communication practitioners is also a result of being perceived as having a technical role rather than a managerial one (Fieseler et al., 2015; Grunig, 2006). However, this does not mean that the professional project has not made any progress at all. As Dühring (2015, p. 5) points out, there is today a clear transformation from “PR perceived as an art practiced by the ‘gin and tonic brigade’” into communication conceived as an occupation with a strategic function and as an academic discipline part of study programs at university. The communication occupation – being associated with different names such as public relations, communication management, corporate communication, and strategic communication – has clearly been institutionalized in the past few decades (Heath & Johansen, 2018; Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2015; Verhoeven et al., 2011). Nowadays, all kinds of organizations – joint stock companies, governmental organizations, private firms, non-profit organizations, etc. – employ communication practitioners who have developed a collective pattern of practices for internal and external communication activities.

Despite this positive development, the occupation is still struggling to abolish its tainted historical baggage and to gain legitimacy and prove the value of communication (Falkheimer, Heide, Nothhaft, von Platen, Simonsson & Andersson, 2017; Grandien, 2017). In the UK, the professional body for public relations practitioners, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), conducts a yearly survey which shows that respondents find the under-representation of public relations at board level and not being seen as a professional discipline as the two biggest challenges for the profession (CIPR, 2020). Thus, the view of the profession and the value ascribed to it are perceived as the most challenging to the industry. Similar examples of questioning the value of communication practitioners can be found in other countries. One example is Sweden where the number of communication practitioners has increased quite rapidly in recent years – not at least in the public sector (Johansson et al., 2011). In the wake of this, there has been an intense debate in media and among professionals about the value of communication practitioners’ work (e.g., Andén, 2020; Bawar, 2020; Lifvendahl, 2020). The increasing numbers of communication practitioners have been pictured as a threat to democracy and a waste of taxpayers’ money. The critics further claim that the limited public resources should be spent on valuable core business, such as teaching, care of the elderly, nursing, improvement of infrastructure, etc., rather than creating a positive image of it. The debate has also been fueled by researchers, for example, by the well-known professor in organization studies Alvesson (2013, 2017).

In other words, the situation for communication practitioners is still challenging, and to enhance their status they are often advised to take on more managerial roles and to make sure that they gain a seat at the table (Bowen, 2009, 2015; Grunig, 2006; Grunig et al., 2002; Kanihan et al., 2013; White & Dozier, 1992). The key to increased status and professionalism for communication practitioners is thus often portrayed as becoming recognized as a management function. However, turning communication into a management function may also mean pressure to adhere to a managerial logic, which in the long run may be detrimental for the professionalization project. Discussions about the negative implications of managerialism have been remarkably absent in the research field of strategic communication and also in other related research fields such as public relations and corporate communication. While professionals in other occupational fields, for instance, health care (e.g., Bresnen et al., 2015), are presumed to resist managerial ideals in order to keep professional autonomy, it has been taken for granted that communication practitioners should benefit from doing the opposite, i.e., align with the managerial logic.

Against this backdrop, the purpose of this article is to challenge the rather one-sided belief in the managerial logic – managerialism – and explore its hidden, negative implications for the practice and professionalization of communications practitioners. Based on insights and ideas from the research field of professionalism, we want to explore alternative routes to increased professionalization and legitimacy. The implications of managerialism will be illustrated by empirical material from the research project called Communicative Organizations – primarily interviews with communication practitioners, and also some survey data on employees’ and managers’ views of communication practitioners and communication processes.

In the next section, we will review earlier research on professions and professionalism in general and then the professionalization of practitioners. After that we will turn to a discussion of the concept of managerialism and its link to an communication instrumental, transmission-oriented view of communication. Then we will describe the methods and the empirical material used for illustrating and discussing implications of the dominant managerial logic. From this empirical angle, we will then return to a more theoretical perspective and suggest a communicative logic as an alternative to managerialism and as a route to further increase the professionalization of communication practitioners.

Research on professionalism and communication practitioners

In this section, we start off by reviewing earlier research on professionalism and conclude that there are two opposing forms of professionalism in organizations – organizational and occupational professionalism. The last form will be discussed in the latter part of the section, where we summarize research on communication practitioners. Surprisingly enough, there are still only a few examples of research on communication practitioners that have used more contemporary research on professionalism for a better or alternative understanding of the profession. Most of the conducted research takes a trait approach (see below). The same tendency can be found in other fields, such as organization studies and organizational communication (e.g., Lammers & Garcia, 2009). An excellent exception when it comes to studies of communication practitioners that have used insights from research on professionalism, is the work of L’Etang and Pieczka (L’Etang & Pieczka, 1996; Pieczka, 2002; Pieczka & L’Etang, 2001). As we see it, many problems, and challenges that communication professions face can be better understood and explained with insights from research on professionalism.

Research on professions and professionalism

Research on professions and professionalism began in the late 19th century by well-known sociologists such as Weber and Durkheim, but contemporary research was initiated in the 1930s, e.g., Carr-Saunders and Wilson (1933). The simplest description of professionalism is tasks accomplished by persons who commercially conduct certain tasks in contrast to tasks conducted by laypeople or amateurs. Brante (2011) concludes that if profession should work as an analytical instrument, it is important that it is possible to differ between professional and non-professional occupational groups, and that there exist some occupational standards. These standards are often specific education, knowledge, training, tasks, independence in the exercise of the occupation and codes of ethical conducts. In most cases, these standards are agreed upon and maintained by a professional association. However, the lists of characteristics – differentia specifica – only embrace surface aspects that are valid during specific social and historical periods, while they change over time. Brante (2011) further emphasizes the need of scientific knowledge as a characteristic. Brante asserts that this circumstance is what makes professions unique. Along similar lines, Noordegraaf (2007) argues that professionalism includes both a component of content and of control. The content component implies a shared, but unique, knowledge basis and some common work practices. But knowledge and expertise do not guarantee professionalism, there must also be institutionalized control – i.e., professional associations that set up ethical principles, educational programs, conferences, journals, and other regulatory mechanisms. The control component means that professionalism is independent of social surveillance from managerialism and economic logic (Elliot Freidson, 1985; Eliot, 2001). Well-socialized individuals in organizations know that the social world is consistent as a whole and rarely reflect on the logical presumptions that keep the structure together. Our understanding of logic is based on the Berger and Luckmann (1966) description – fundamental principles for a certain practice that guides sequential inferences. An inference consists of a couple of premises and a conclusion, and the inference is valid if it follows by the premises. Since logics most often are naturalized and taken-for-granted there is a need to be reflexive and try to map out and identify them. In the same vein, Weick (2001) proposes that to be able to change the presumption of logic, we need to make individuals aware of these logics by introducing new and alternative logic systems.

An important part of professionalism is a shared professional identity that is produced and maintained by educational and professional socialization (e.g., education, training, membership of professional associations) (Evetts, 2013). Socialization occurs both on a micro-level at the workplace and on a macro-level through education and professional associations. The institutional aspect of profession acts consequently as an extraorganizational impact on an organization, as the profession occurs beyond the organizational control. Institutions can be defined as “constellations of established practices guided by formalized, rational beliefs that transcend particular organizations and situations” (Lammers & Barbour, 2006, p. 364). These practices are often taken for granted and provide meaning and stability to organizational life. Hence, we need to understand these extraorganizational aspects to better understand professions’ organizational situation. Professions can actually be understood as an institutionalized occupation (Abbott, 1988). In order to understand professionalism as institutions, we need to study the micro-macro link between discursive practices that occur in a specific organization and macro structures that exists in society (Lammers & Garcia, 2009). These institutions, i.e., professionalism, are produced, reproduced and changed by communication practices (Lammers, 2011; Suddaby, 2010).

Today, many researchers understand professionalism not as an objective phenomenon, which was the case in the early trait approach that focused on differentia specifica, but rather as something socially constructed by the members of an occupation, by managers, coworkers and others that have certain expectations of service. In other words, professionalism is not the same as some inherent qualities of an occupation, but the value that different stakeholders perceive the professionals can deliver. Hence, an important part of professionalization is that members of a profession define the nature and content of the work and what is expected of the professionals (Evans, 2008). Closely linked to expectations and perceptions of value, are trust and legitimacy. The general public, customers’ and other stakeholders need to trust that a person holding a profession will follow professional standards that support the interests of those being served rather than giving priority to managerial goals and interests (Arman et al., 2014). Professionalism understood as socially constructed makes it a communicative phenomenon. Interestingly, though, researchers in organizational communication have taken the concept for granted and ignored the communicative aspect (Lammers & Garcia, 2009).

The battle of authority and status – a communicative dimension

In early research on professions (e.g., Carr-Saunders & Wilson, 1933), researchers praised the development of occupational professionalization. But today, researchers have a more critical approach and emphasize that professionalization can be understood as a means to gain, keep or increase power in society (Abbott, 1988). The power approach focuses on the process in which professions strive to reach social approval to define and control their work independently of others (cf. Pieczka & L’Etang, 2001). Hence, professions exist since occupations have an ability to acquire control of specific work areas (Abbott, 2010). Often, professionalism is related to strategies and rhetoric that members of an occupation use to increase issues such as status, salary conditions and power position within a political arena (Evans, 2008). Consequently, professions are engaged in an everlasting battle of authority, where politics and rhetoric are means to reach the overarching goal. Professionalism can consequently be understood as a symbolic capital, and occupations are engaged in constant struggle to get others to perceive them as professional. Also, the communicative dimension of professionalism becomes evident.

It is through the constitution of a specific work area and competition with other professions that “an occupation identifies itself as a profession” (Abbott, 2010, p. 175). Interprofessional competition also determines the status and power of a profession (Abbott, 1986; Alvesson, 2013). Abbott (2010) argues that would-be professions, also must develop and uphold a social structure that secures their efficiency. But, as noted above, the social structure, often based on professional traits such as license, education, and ethic codes, can be copied or ignored by competing would-be professions. To be professional is to find and develop abstract solutions to concrete problems, which is a way of preserving the terrain in the competitive game of professions in an organization (Abbott, 1988). To handle this competing situation, occupational groups develop and implement skills that are part of managerial expectations. However, practitioners may have problems in persuading colleagues of the importance of their skills and also general public opinion (Gaglio, 2014).

The development of organizational professionalism

Increased internal competitiveness among professions, as described above, has led to corporatization of professional work (Noordegraaf & Schinkel, 2011). The classical occupational professionalism has thus been diluted by organizational logics and is replaced by organizational professionalism (Evetts, 2009, 2013). While occupational professionalism is a discourse constructed within occupational groups with an aim to build and maintain trustful relations with employers and clients, organizational professionalism is a discourse driven by managers to control, motivate, and regulate expectations of a certain profession. Hence, the latterversion of professionalism is a form of management tool and closely related to the logic of managerialism. Organizational professionalism is often driven by fear from managers that professionals will take over power and control the organization (Alvehus et al., 2020). From an institutional perspective, occupational professionalism can be understood as an extraorganizational dimension that influences organizational life (cf. Lammers & Garcia, 2009). The regulations of occupational professionalism inform about a profession’s authority, responsibility, and possibilities to make decisions. Further, they include standardized work procedures and practices, and evaluate performance. Table 1 below is a comparison of the two forms of professionalism.

Table 1. Two ideal-types of professionalism in knowledge-based work

Organizational professionalism	Occupational professionalism
Discourse of control used increasingly by managers in work organizations	Discourse constructed within professional groups
Rational-legal forms of authority	Collegial authority
Standardized procedures	Discretion and occupational control of the work
Hierarchical structures of authority and decision-making	Practitioner trust by both clients and employers
Managerialism	Controls operationalized by practitioners
Accountability and externalized forms of regulation, target-setting and performance review	Professional ethics monitored by institutions and associations

Source from Evetts (2009). New Professionalism and New Public Management: Changes, Continuities and Consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8(2), 247–266.

Research on communication practitioners as a profession

After having read the literature review of profession and professionalism, one might wonder whether communication practitioners can be considered as a true, or genuine, profession? The only unique characteristic of a true profession is a definitive power position: “a profession is the ultimate link to ‘truth’; there is no higher authority” (Brante, 2011, p. 19). The literature review on profession and professionalism confirms that communication practitioners as an occupation could not be regarded as a true profession, while they do not have full control over their work or have an evident status or legitimacy in organizations or society. This conclusion is also confirmed by profession researchers, such as Brante (2011), who maintain that communication practitioners, together with many other occupations such as nurses, teachers, and journalists, could not be counted as a true profession. Additionally, there is no strong connection between research and the practice of communication practitioners that also characterizes a true profession. Pieczka (2006, p. 279) states that there is only a “fragmented and poorly developed body of knowledge in public relations” and a “weak institutional basis in academia.” This further indicates that communication practitioners as an occupation is not a true profession, because “professions are carriers of certain types of scientifically anchored practice” (Brante, 2011, p. 19). Rather, communication practitioners as an occupation is a semiprofession (Etzioni, 1969) or would-be profession (Abbott, 2010).

Researchers have, at least since the 1970s, been interested in communication practitioners as an occupation. We have reviewed this literature and found that at least three themes can be identified. These three themes will be discussed below.

The first theme is closely related to the trait approach in the profession research and focuses on professional roles in the occupation. Researchers have strived to map out and describe different roles of communication practitioners. Among the earliest research is Broom and his colleagues (Broom, 1982; Broom & Smith, 1979) who have developed a role typology based on consulting literature. They found five consulting roles: expert prescriber, communication technician, problem-solving process facilitator, communication facilitator, and acceptant legitimizer. These five roles were also operationalized in studies of communication practitioners’ behavior, that is a result of individual preferences, training, and expectations from clients such as managers. After some studies, the fifth role was dropped, because it was not possible to demonstrate its efficacy. Dozier (1981) developed further Broom’s (1982) typology, and found it better to reduce the roles to two: the manager and the technician. However, later research (e.g., Johansson & Larsson, 2015; Werder & Holtzhausen, 2011) pinpoints that the division between practitioners working primarily strategically or technically is peculiar since the roles in practice are closely and mutually interrelated. A manager or strategist works also with technical tasks such as writing texts and producing messages, and technicians’ task may also have strategic directions and effects. Still, a problem is that all too many professionals build their career on technical specializing in content production (Cornelissen, 2011). Additionally, there are yet ambitions to map out different roles, e.g., recently conducted by the Swedish Communication Association (Sveriges kommunikatörer, 2020). Nevertheless, it is an open question whether such role mappings are valuable for the professionalization of the occupation. Rather, it could be more rewarding to analyze the communication practitioners’ discourse since professionalization, as explained above, is socially constructed (Andersson, 2020). Further, how communication practitioners describe their work, roles, and value contribution internally and externally defines the field as such (Tsetsura, 2011, 2018). Criticism to role research has also been given by Moss and Green (2001) who underline that there has been a too large emphasis on role enactment, rather than observation of the role-making process, i.e., the micro-level perspective (cf. Frandsen & Johansen, 2015).

The second theme is gaining access to the dominant coalition and becoming a strategic management partner, which by many researchers is regarded as the key to increased status and professionalization (e.g., Bowen, 2009, 2015; Kanihan et al., 2013). Along similar lines, it is argued that communication practitioners need to shift from the role of technicians executing orders from others and instead take the role of managers with the power to influence strategic decisions on communication. The Excellence project by James Grunig and his colleagues (Dozier et al., 1995; Grunig, 2006, 1992) showed that representation of communication practitioners in the dominant coalition is the critical characteristic of excellent public relations. Hence, it is more or less taken for granted that membership in the dominant coalition will, from an institutional perspective, result in increased social status (Frandsen & Johansen, 2015). The importance of having a seat at the table seems to have turned into an axiom within the communication industry, and also among many scholars: “the communication manager must have access to dominant coalition” (e.g., Berger, 2005; Bowen, 2009; Moss & DeSanto, 2011). The underlying assumption is that once communication practitioners have gotten inside the dominant coalition, they will be able to do the right things – which usually implies practice of symmetrical communication focused on dialogue, openness, and power sharing. But research also shows that communication practitioners that get access to the management table must be aware that other members of the dominant coalition may increase their expectations and the communication department must then be able to meet them (Wilson, 2016). However, Berger (2005), and a few other critics (e.g., Holtzhausen, 2012), argue that the urge to be part of the dominant coalition ignores power relations and processes inside the coalition, which will make it difficult to represent the voices and interests of others and shape the organization’s decision to benefit not only the management, but also the profession, the organization (as a whole), and the greater society.

The third theme is status and legitimacy of the profession. Strategic communication as a function is occupied with the establishment and maintenance of organizational legitimacy (Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2015). However, communication practitioners as an occupation does not, as mentioned above, have a definitive or certain status in organizations, at least not compared to more powerful professions such as managers or financial officers. These professions have a greater resistance towards managerial and organizational control, such as standardizing work process and measuring output, since they have greater autonomy and higher status that gives power and authority (Evetts, 2009). As mentioned above, communication practitioners have different status and legitimacy challenges from an internal and external perspective. Inside organizations, communication practitioners have a lower status and legitimacy since they tend to stay in a technical role, which was pointed out by Grunig and Hunt (1984) already in the 1980s. Also, newer studies by, for example, Johansson et al. (2011) and Falkheimer, Heide, Simonsson, Zerfass & Verhoeven (2016) confirm this situation. From an external perspective, status and legitimacy are questioned since the communication practitioners’ work tends to be related to manipulation and washing of the truth (Edwards, 2020).

Managerialism

We have previously argued that communication practitioners increasingly strive for being perceived as a management function and hence also tend to align to a managerial logic. In discussing professionalism, we have described the increase of a new, organizational professionalism with close links to managerialism. In the following, we will further discuss what managerialism is, how it has become so dominant, and how it can be related to the role and value of communication.

An ideology based on false universalization

Managerialism should not be equated with management tools or methods applied by people in a management position. It is much more than that. Deetz (1992, p. 222) argues that it is “a kind of systemic logic, a set of routine practices, and an ideology, rather than the emergence of control by a particular group.” According to Klikauer (2013, 2015, 2016) managerialism originates from factory administration of small workshops, which turned into (scientific) management as workplaces grew larger during the early 20^th century. By merging legitimizing ideologies such as competition, efficiency, free markets, management transformed into an -ism that that has expanded from for-profit enterprises to all kinds of organizations and parts of human society. Thus, managerialism is a combination of the three components: management methods with ideology and expansion into the wider economic, social, cultural, and political sphere.

As with other ideologies and “isms”, managerialism is a belief system, a logic, with a certain content which is held up as a set of neutral and unquestioned truths (Klikauer, 2013). The expansion of managerialism can be linked to the underlying idea that organizations have more similarities than differences and, consequently, all organizations can perform better by applying generic management skills and knowledge. Klikauer further argues that this false universalization implies that there are no big differences in managing a university, a municipality, or an oil rig. Each organization’s core business or mission is secondary to the techniques and methods you can acquire at a business school. Other ideas and beliefs characteristic of managerialism are described by Deetz (1992, p. 222):

It begins with an imaginary identification where the corporation and management become a unitary identity; its central motif is control; its primary mode of reasoning is cognitive-instrumental; its favored expressive modality is money; and its favored site of reproduction is the formal organization.

Managerialism is thus closely linked to an emphasis on instrumentality, order, control, predictability, and measurement. Idealized rationalism is a key feature, and as Brunsson (2006, p. 15) argues “the rule that we should be intentional and rational is pervasive in modern society.”

Following from this, people in a formal management position are perceived as rational actors who have the knowledge necessary to predict expected results and make optimal decisions for the good of the organization (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003). Managers are perceived as superior decision-makers – also in knowledge intensive organizations dominated by professionals. However, even if managerialism is an ideology that clearly privileges those in power, it can still be embraced and expressed by practically anyone – owners, workers, labor unions, etc. (Deetz, 1992).

Managerialism and communication

As managerialism is such a pervasive logic it also has clear implications for the view of communication and its value. For the discussion of these implications we find Habermas (1971) distinction between the rationalities of technical and practical reasoning useful. Technical reasoning is instrumental and focuses on the means by which ends are reached (Deetz, 1992). In line with managerialism, the aim of technical reasoning is control, growth, and material gain and its origins are found in the pursuit of biological survival. In this view, communication is primarily a means to reach mastery and control. This instrumental view implies that communication only has a value as long as it creates a value beyond the communication process. Thus, communication is seen as something that is to support other functions and processes in the organization, rather than as being the very process that constitutes the organization.

Turning to the practical reasoning instead, we find that this is focused on ends rather than means. Means are seen as value laden, and the practical reasoning focuses on how the practical in terms of their goodness, can be an end in itself. The aim of communication is accordingly to reach understanding and is governed by an interest in how actions, events, texts etc., can be used to bridge differences between individuals and traditions. Deetz (1992) argues that the practical reasoning is a complement to the technical: “Human beings seek more than survival but also a meaningful existence and satisfaction of social and symbolic needs” (p. 230). From this perspective, communication can have an end in and of itself. In Habermas (1971) view, the problem is that the technical reasoning with its pursuit of control and economic goals has become the dominating concept of rationality. It has not only become dominating, but also seen as value-neutral or taken for granted. As a consequence, people questioning the technical rationality linked to managerialism, tend to be perceived as irrational and unprofessional. Or as Kvarnström and Pallas (2019, p. 159) succinctly phrase it: “The reason why formal rational structures develop, travel, and are implemented across organizations and societies is not the strive for efficiency, but rather the search for legitimacy.” In sum, having gained the status of a value-neutral rational logic, the false universalization of it, and the search for legitimacy are some of the main reasons for why managerialism has become so dominant.

Methods and empirical material

Our discussions and reflections on the implications of managerialism will be illustrated by empirical material from a four-year research project “Communicative Organizations” which was conducted by ourselves and some colleagues at the Department of Strategic Communication, Lund University (2014–2018). The overall aim of the project was to increase knowledge about communication value and how communication contributes to organizational goal attainment. The project was based on a quantitative survey as well as semi-structured interviews. Before presenting more details about the empirical material, we will explain how the material has been used in this study.

Empirical material as a source to challenge assumptions

In this study, the use of empirical material is inspired by the notion of empirical material as a critical dialogue partner rather than as a mirror of social reality (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011; Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013). Alvesson and Kärreman (2011) argue that both inductivists and deductivists rely on the robustness of data, which means that empirical material is seen as the guide or the ultimate arbitrator for knowledge claims. Theory and data are thus perceived as two separate entities and the ambition is to find a perfect match between the two. However, acknowledging the constructed nature of empirical material opens for a close interplay between theory and empirical material. Data is rarely so clear-cut that it speaks for itself or only can have one clear-cut meaning. Empirical material can rather be perceived as a partner for critical dialogue that can help us to challenge and rethink dominant assumptions, and to illustrate theory. Following this approach means that we do not aim to give an exhaustive description of the empirical results in order to mirror the professional “reality” of communication practitioners as precisely as possible. A more conventional use of the empirical material would certainly have made the empirical findings the main act of the article. We have instead used the empirical material in a more selective or focused way and given it a less prominent role. We will use some material and insights from the research project to illustrate the dominant managerial logic, which hopefully will trigger some rethinking and new insights (cf. Weick, 1989). Instead of seeing empirical material as data with a fixed, inherent meaning, we believe that empirical material is open for many different readings and interpretations. In this case, we have raised questions and listened to answers in the material about the negative sides of managerialism for communication professionalism. Asking other questions with other theoretical lenses could have given other answers. This does not mean that anything goes or that empirical material should not be taken seriously. In analogy with the dialogue metaphor, the empirical material still has a voice that needs to be carefully listened to. In a similar vein, Alvesson and Kärreman (2011) explain that theorization can be understood as disciplined imagination:

Empirical material can facilitate theorization because it provides resources for both imagination and discipline. And although empirical material never exists outside perspectives and interpretive repertoires, it nevertheless creates a relative boundary for imagination. Some constructions make more sense than others. (p. 17)

Empirical material

As mentioned above, we will use empirical material collected within the framework of a bigger research project. The project Communicative Organizations involved eleven public (both governmental and municipal) and private sector organizations. A quantitative survey was carried out in all the participating organizations during 2015 and 2016. In addition, qualitative interviews were held with approximately 170 persons – managers, coworkers, and communication professionals. In this study we will mainly draw on the material from semi-structured interviews with 25 communication professionals and some results from the survey. About half of the communication professionals interviewed were communication managers, whereas the remainder had titles such as communication strategist and communication officer. The average duration of the interviews was one hour, and verbatim transcriptions were made. We conducted interviews in different phases of the project. Most of the interviews with the communication professionals were conducted prior to the survey to get a better understanding of the different organizations in a broad sense, and to get a picture of the primary communication challenges, the work with goals and strategies, and the role and status of communication professionals. The interviews after the survey were primarily made with managers and coworkers and focused on two broad themes: a) branding, reputation, and the role of coworkers as ambassadors, and b) leadership, coworkership, and communication. We chose to focus on one of these themes in each organization. Also in this phase, we interviewed some communication practitioners. Even though the primary focus in these interviews was not on their role and profession, it was still a topic that several of them talked about and which we have integrated into this analysis. A thematic approach was applied when analyzing the qualitative material. We searched for themes related to a variety of communication processes and aspects involving the roles of communication professionals, managers’ and coworkers’ expectations of communication professionals, ideas of communication value, the view of strategic communication, and the status of the occupation.

The survey targeted three groups: managers, coworkers, and communication professionals, aiming to find commonalities and differences in attitudes towards different aspects of communication. A random sampling strategy was applied in all the participating organizations, except one – where the survey was sent out to all employees. The survey was answered by 8,087 respondents, which equals a response rate of 29%. The total was distributed between the three groups as follows: 1,520 managers, 6,068 coworkers, and 499 communication professionals. The questionnaire was divided into sections and covered areas such as communication climate, managers’ and coworkers’ communication, communication professionals’ work, and interaction with external stakeholders. Most of the questions were formulated as statements and the respondents were asked to indicate their answers on a five-point Likert type scale.

As already mentioned, the ambition in this study is not to follow a more conventional use of the empirical material. Hence, we will not provide a broad summary of the main findings, but rather focus on the empirical material that encourages critical thinking and illustrates the implications of managerialism. When analyzing the material, we did not aim to cover all possible implications of managerialism, but rather to identify some areas or issues that can be described as hot spots for the managerial logic.

Implications of managerialism for communication professionals’ work

In this section, we will present and discuss some examples of problematic consequences of the dominant managerial logic. Some of the presented difficulties are rather well-known from previous research but have seldom been related to managerialism. Being perceived as a management function has rather been presented as the solution to increased professionalization – but there is a lack of problematization of the expectations and limitations that comes with a managerial logic.

A paradoxical view of communication

One important issue that our research project focused on was the understanding of communication among managers, coworkers, and communication practitioners. The survey results clearly show that communication is seen as something highly important for the success of organizations: 90% of all the respondents agree, completely or partially, to the following two statements: “communication is an increasingly important success factor for organizations” and “communicative ability is an increasingly important competence in working life.” The figures are supported by interviews with communication practitioners who also underline that communication is seen as something crucial. Some of them even think that communication is over-valued and believed to be a panacea – communication is a means that can cure more or less all organizational problems. Despite strong belief in the power of communication, communication practitioners recurrently depicture a situation where they are not part of decision making. When discussing the general picture of communication practitioners and the view of communication, one of the interviewees describes her experiences in the following way:

I believe that there is a rather widespread view that communication is important, both externally and internally. But there is an immature view of what resources are needed and communication still has a fairly low status even though you talk about it as being important. Communication often comes in quite late in the processes, and then it is often like this: ‘Yes, we also need to communicate. You as a communicator can now enter the stage and swing your magic wand, and todeloo it will be great. Then I sit there and think—I could have done a lot more if I had been part of the process when the decisions were made. Now, I just have to try do something with this … !’

Thus, there is a tendency to place a lot of faith in the power of communication and it is almost seen as something magic. Simultaneously, and which also produces a paradox, communication is understood as something quite simple and as an “add-on-activity” that can be done after the important decisions and discussions have taken place. The dominant, managerial logic gives favor to managers as decision-makers which in turn, implies an expectation that communication practitioners shall deliver communication after managers have decided. A communication manager argues that communication is given too little importance during management meetings and compares how communication and finance are considered in decision processes:

In every important decision basis, communication should be included. Not as a point last on the agenda. Because it’s almost like putting finance last on the agenda and saying: “Well, how are we going to solve this financially?” That’s unreasonable.

As we see it, there is a clear link between managerialism that praises rationalism, understood from a traditional, economic decisional perspective, and a linear transmission view of communication. Communication is too often reduced to a matter of formulating a message designed for a specific target group, selecting appropriate media, pushing the button and praying for the desired outcomes. At the same time, the interviews show that some communication practitioners struggle to find alternative ways of working. A communication practitioner reflects on challenges related to internal communication:

We have talked a lot about, what we call, the waterfall–transmission of information from the top level out to the rest of the organization. Yes, we have talked a lot about it, and that it does not work very well. But at the same time, what else do we have to relate to, what other tools do we have in the toolbox? We are looking for alternative tools, and we have been looking at quite a lot as well. How can we avoid the waterfall?

Thus, the traditional transmission-oriented communication is seen as not working very well, but it seems to be hard to go beyond the dominant logic and find alternative ways of working with communication.

In line with the managerial transmission view of communication, Zerfass and Sherzada (2015) have also found that senior managers rate speaking as much more important than listening. Information products, media output, visibility and image are valued more than collaboration, dialogue, exploring developments in society, etc. (cf. Fredriksson & Pallas, 2016). The overly simplistic transmission view of communication has always been problematic, but the increasing complexity in contemporary society makes it even more challenging. Furthermore, this organization-centric and sender-oriented view of communication is also in stark contrast to goals focusing on collaboration, engagement, and trustful relationships that most organizations claim to aspire for.

Even if the communication function is making some progress towards a more strategic position, the managerial logic with its inherent transmission view of communication tends to preserve the rather low professional status. The transmission view tends to maintain and cement the idea of communication professionals as specialists in press releases, media relations, staff presentations and information production (cf. Malmelin, 2007). This kind of service delivery, in the form of reactive, tactical tasks, is often seen as less prestigious compared to proactive strategic work, such as internal consulting or leading organizational development and innovations (Pilkington, 2016). Thus, the transmission view of communication will certainly limit the possibilities to act as a strategic partner equivalent to specialists in finance, production, IT, HR, etc. The transmission view may also fuel skepticism towards the communication industry and strengthen the image of communication practitioners as sinful advocators, propaganda makers and spin doctors (cf. Edwards, 2020). Consequently, the managerial transmission view of communication may actually widen the gap between the increasing recognition of the importance of communication and the still slow advancement of the communication profession. Rather than trying to adopt to and fit into the dominant managerial logic, it seems more fruitful for communication practitioners to try to change the general understanding of communication in organizations. Along similar lines, Malmelin (2007) writes that [c]ommunications is an organizational asset, but its ultimate weight and meaning as a success factor for the business depends on the way in which the role of communications is understood” (p. 304).

Communication goals and goal alignment

The European Communication Monitor, a yearly survey among communications professionals, shows that linking business strategy and communication is perceived as one of the most strategic issues. Over several years it has been ranked as the most or second most important strategic issue (Zerfass et al., 2020). The pursuit of goal alignment reflects a fundamental idea of the modernist perspective of strategic communication, which, according to Hallahan (2015), can be linked to Peter Drucker’s (1955) concept management by objectives (MBO). Drucker emphasized that all managers must know how to contribute to the business goals and each superior must know what to demand from subordinates and judge them accordingly. Thus, from a modernist, managerial perspective, strategic communication is a matter of translating top management goals into measurable communication goals and then evaluating the outcome (e.g., Argenti, 2017). Our interviews with communication managers in the eleven organizations indicate the same line of reasoning. There is a firm belief that goals are important in order to give some focus and demonstrate the contribution of communication. Although there is a variety of to what extent and in what way they formulate and evaluate goals, they all seem to struggle with goal alignment. They use different systems, diagrams, and Excel spreadsheets to organize and follow their goals. Some of them find that they have too many goals and in one organization the employees should relate to as many as 50 different goals. While there are some communication practitioners who can see a direct link between the overall organization goals and the communication goals, there are others who think it is hard to link all the communication goals to the overall goals. One communication manager reflects on goals:

Seventy-five percent of what we [the communication department] do is not related to the overall goals of the organization, for example, the goal to improve internal communication. Most of our activities are not linked to the high-level goals and many of my coworkers find it hard to not work with things that are linked to top management goals.

The last lines of the quote indicate the idea that if there is no direct link between the communication work and the organizational goals, then your work as a communication professional is of no strategic value and hence not that important. Even so, the emphasis on goals and goal alignment sometimes seems to be more a matter of bringing legitimacy to the profession than real value for the organization (Falkheimer, et al, 2017). Some interviewees also admit that goals and evaluations can be subject to post hoc rationalization. One interviewee argues that “the set goals often disappear into the fog, but then you find reasons for why you didn’t achieve the goals.”

In a previous article (Falkheimer et al. 2016), where we also draw on the empirical material from the research project Communicative Organizations, we concluded that it seems to be common that communication departments break down overall business goals into communication goals, but it is more seldom that communication managers also have a strong or active role in setting those strategic business goals. This means that communication becomes subordinated to rather than integrated with top management goals. In line with managerial, technical reasoning (Habermas, 1971), the emphasis on linear goal alignment also means that communication becomes reduced to a means rather than an end in itself. From this perspective, communication is something subsidiary, it is and should never be anything else than a support function.

Measurements and evaluations

Another implication of managerialism is the pressure to measure goal fulfillment and demonstrate the effects of communication. How to best measure and evaluate communication has been a perennial topic for many decades among practitioners and scholars (e.g., Volk, 2016; Zerfass, Verčič, & Volk, 2017) and the interviewees in our study confirm how difficult it is to find methods to measure communication outcomes. At the same time, some interviewees think there are too many evaluations conducted in the organization as a whole and they do not know how to use all the data. Some of them also claim that other managers do not understand or acknowledge the difficulties in measuring communication effects. One communication manager argues that it is only quantitative data that matters, and it is hard to find new, valid methods:

We’re stuck with surveys with a low response rate. We should trust our own ideas—we are a profession. But it is difficult, we need the numbers as they give credibility.

Furthermore, results from the survey show that communication practitioners have listed evaluations as the third most important communication activity that needs to be further developed and improved (leadership communication and communication with customers/citizens/consumers are ranked as the top two). In the light of this result, it is quite surprising that the same group of communication practitioners reports that evaluations is the activity they spend the least resources on. These, seemingly contradictory, results can be taken as a sign of the prevalence of the technical, instrumental reasoning. In line with the managerial approach there is a pressure to prove how communication contributes to the goals in a direct, linear way. The fact that they spend little time and money on evaluations can be related to the difficulties of doing reliable measurements of that kind. Zerfass, Verčič and Volk (2017) conducted a survey which shows that communication practitioners lack the necessary expertise to conduct robust measurements. We agree that the lack of methodological expertise is problematic, but we can also see that the managerial logic leads to a one-dimensional, narrow view of what to evaluate, why and how it should be done. Volk (2016) reviewed 324 journal articles on the topic of evaluation and measurement (published from 1975 to 2015 in 12 selected journals). The findings of this review confirm the dominance of the managerial logic: “The vast majority of the sampled articles were identified as representing a functionalistic paradigm (78%), thus originating from managerial, instrumental, and/or strategic thinking” (Volk, 2016, p. 971). Contributions from what Volk refers to as non-functional paradigms, e.g., socio-constructionist thinking and the critical paradigm, represent only five per cent of the articles. She also found that most of the empirical contributions were based on quantitative methods. While quantitative methods are not inherently managerial, the use of them is most often aligned to a positivistic, linear cause-effect-reasoning. Hence, there is a need of a broader view of evaluations – not only measuring effects from a managerial, economic perspective but analyzing and demonstrating different kinds of values from the perspective of several stakeholders (not only from the perspective of shareholders or senior managers). In line with this, Volk argues that indirect value-adding processes at the input level have been remarkably neglected in previous research. Having a dialogue and listening to key stakeholders may be a way of avoiding possible risks, i.e. they have a preventive effect. However, these kinds of indirect values are not part of the managerial logic. This being said, it should be noted that the role of intangible assets has gained increasing attention in recent years, which in turn, has given shift to a broader and more complex view of value creation. The notion of linear value chains has turned into an idea of more complex value networks (de Beer, 2014). Indeed, researchers such as Malmelin (2007) and Zerfass and Viertmann (2017) have made promising attempts to establish broader perspectives of communication values. Even so, the dominant managerial logic comes with a quantitative imperative that tends to lead to a focus on what is easy to measure rather than what is important. By applying measurement techniques, KPIs and other management tools, communication practitioners can create the image of being rational professionals. However, as Wehmeier (2006) argues, this may stimulate instrumental thinking rather than everyday reflection and foster an illusion of controllable communication processes.

Competing logics

Above we have discussed some problematic implications of the dominant managerial logic. Managerialism can certainly be a double-edged sword. Embracing the managerial logic can, at least in the short run, bring status and legitimacy to communication and communication practitioners. However, adhering to the managerial logic may also lock communicators into a negative spiral – the instrumental transmission view of communication will be upheld, and communication practitioners will keep doing traditional, tactical tasks in order to retain their status. The managerial logic implies a strong, but subtle power dimension. Traditionally, professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers are expected to resist managerial expectations in order to develop and preserve professionalism (Olakivi & Niska, 2016). However, recent research has moved on and given room for the idea that managerial and professional logics may co-exist and compete, i.e., professionals can strike a balance between professionalism and managerialism. Noordegraaf (2007, 2014)) explores how managerial and professional principles can come together into hybrid professionalism. Arman et al. (2014) studies hierarchization of different logics in healthcare organizations and finds that while the managerial dominates the professional logic, the latter logic still competes and is influential. Olakivi and Niska (2016) examines professionalism and managerialism as overlapping discourses. They emphasize the ambiguity of different logics and argue that depending on the interpretive context the same action is open for multiple interpretations and is difficult to classify as either managerial or professional. From an institutional perspective, it is an axiom that different logics are embedded in organizations and translated into being (Pallas et al., 2016). However, in the case of communication practitioners we do not find a strong professional counter-logic to the dominant managerial logic-in the interviews, they do not present a clear alternative way to view and practice communication. Thus, one of the major obstacles for the professionalization of the communication occupation is the lack of a strong professional communication logic. Put differently, communication practitioners have not developed a clear, professional logic that can hybridize, compete, or overlap with the managerial logic. As discussed above, professions are socially constructed and have clear, communicative dimensions, but without a clear professional logic there is no source for self-representations (Ashcraft et al., 2012). Communication practitioners are still searching for a way to describe their role and value – both to themselves and others. So far, it seems that they have worked harder to approach managerialism than to develop an autonomous, professional logic – which makes the managerial logic even more threatening to the professionalization project (Heide & Simonsson, 2019).

Following from this, it is relevant to raise the question of what a professional logic of communication practitioners could involve in terms of underlying assumptions and work practice. In the Table 2 below we outline a communicative logic and compare it with the dominant managerial logic. We have already discussed managerialism, but here we link the managerial logic to practice of strategic communication. As with all theorizing, the table is only a simplification of the complex, and often paradoxical, organizational reality. Hence, the logics presented in the table may not be possible to clearly map out in practice, because there are many variations and combinations in real organizational life. However, the categorization has a heuristic value and may serve as an invitation to reflective thinking and to make visible what is taken for granted and thereby forge an alternative logic (cf. Sandberg & Alvesson, 2020). The two logics will be discussed in the following two sections.

Table 2. Contrasting logics and implications

	Managerial logic	Communicative logic
Epistemology – what are the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge?	Rationalism	Social constructionism
Communication – what is the function of it?	Communication as information distribution and a tool for control	Communication as sensemaking and social construction
Value creation – how is value proved?	Quantitative values, tangible assets, shareholder focus, linear value chains	Qualitative values, immaterial assets, stakeholder focus, complex value networks
Strategic communication – how is it understood?	Direct link between business goals and communication goals, communication as conducted by a separate function	Indirect relationship between communication and business goals (obliquity), communication as conducted by the whole organization
Strategy – what does it entail?	Strategy – something an organization has, controlled and executed by managers	Strategy – something an organization do, emergent and materialized by coworkers
Role of communication practitioners – what should they do in organizations?	Communication practitioners as executors – demand-delivery	Communication practitioners as enablers and developers – strategic partners
Focus of communicative ability – who is the target group?	Managers	Managers and coworkers

Managerial logic

We have previously concluded that communication is valued as highly important in general by managers and coworkers, but the perception of the role of communication, of what communication practitioners should focus on, etc., is still very much colored by a simplistic, transmission-oriented understanding of communication. In line with a production-dominant view of value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), communication tends to be evaluated in terms of concrete, tangible products (press releases, web sites, social media platforms etc.). Values are primarily understood in quantitative terms (numbers of visits, receivers or revenue and profit) and something that primarily is related to economic values. Hence, the managerial logic builds on the epistemology rationalism. It should be noted that this value orientation is not only found in private companies, but also in public sector organizations, not least with the expansion of New Public Management. Within this perspective there is an over-belief in the value of persons in formal management positions, and it is taken for granted that managers are the only ones that have the competence and legitimacy to make strategic decisions. Consequently, strategic communication is a matter of departing from management goals and translating these into communication goals. Communication is delegated to the communication function, who are to perform what managers ask them to do – i.e., it is primarily a demand-delivery relationship. At the same time, managers are seen as key actors in relation to create employee engagement (Heide, Simonsson, von Platen & Falkheimer, 2018) and build trust among external stakeholders, which implies that communication practitioners also are supposed to train and counsel managers to be skilled as communicators. The focus on managers as key actors generates a focus on top-down oriented communication processes and neglects the importance of horizontal, informal communication processes and coworkers as communicators.

Professional, communicative logic

From a communicative logic perspective, communication is not first and foremost one of several management tools. Communication is something much more fundamental as it is the process by which organizations are constructed and reproduced (Nathues et al., 2020). An organization is a result of all organization members’, not only managers’, communication and sensemaking processes. Communication is thus not a means to convey meanings from one person or place to another in order to reach control, but an interactive sensemaking process which informs both identity and action (Weick et al., 2005). Hence, organizations happen in communication (Schoeneborn et al., 2019).

In line with this communication view and Habermas’ practical reasoning, values are defined in terms of qualitative, relational aspects rather than quantitative, product-oriented ones. Thus, value arises primarily from the quality of relationships with various stakeholders (cf. Rennstam, 2013) and communication values are understood in terms such as meaningfulness, cocreation, participation, trust and legitimacy. Cocreation and participatory communication are not necessarily a matter of reaching consensus, but a multi-voiced interaction is rather a way to come up with an understanding that goes beyond what could have been reached by one single voice (de Beer, 2014). Thus value-creation is seen as an interactive, integrative process – beneficial not only for the organization (i.e., management and shareholders), but also for involved stakeholders. Value-creation is further understood as an indirect, non-linear process. Kay (2012) has suggested the term obliquity to describe the process of achieving objects indirectly:

Obliquity is the best approach whenever complex systems evolve in an uncertain environment, and whenever the effect of our actions depends on the ways in which others respond to them. Directness is appropriate when the environment is stable, objectives are one dimensional and transparent, and it is possible to determine when and whether the goals have been achieved. And only then. (p. 8)

Communication is certainly a process that fits into Kays’ description of unpredictable complex processes where the effects depend upon others’ actions and responses. Kay (2010, 2012) argues that in an oblique approach, there are no predictable links between intentions and outcomes. Obliquity implies successive choices rather than evaluating all possible alternatives from the outset, i.e., a meandering, iterative approach which allows us to adapt our strategy to changing situations. Mintzberg and Waters (1985) argued several decades ago that the deliberate strategy approach is seriously limited and introduced the concept of emergent strategy – which is similar to the oblique approach. From an emergent, oblique approach, strategic communication does not necessarily entail a direct link to high-level management goals. Communication processes may have a value in themselves, not only as a means to an end beyond the communication process. Communication creating meaningfulness or trust can be seen as value-adding regardless of any direct link to business goals.

From the communicative logic, strategy is not something that an organization has, but rather something organization members do (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). Furthermore, strategy is not primarily what leaders plan to do (cf. Mintzberg & Waters, 1985), but rather something that is realized and materialized by coworkers in the organization. This is, for example, evident when it comes to organizational vision. The managerial logic assumes that the value of visions is made by managers who formulate, produce and decide on the visions. But when it comes to the communicative logic, it is assumed that visions cannot be reduced to the managers’ words but they are also formed in coworkers’ continuing communication (Cooren, 2006). In other words, visions are made real and materialized through the speech acts and conversions of both managers and coworkers.

Coworkers are also principal producers of corporate brand values and other intangible assets. They are significant messengers and act as ambassadors of their organization in both their professional and private lives (Heide & Simonsson, 2011). Along similar lines, Malmelin (2007) emphasizes that communication competence is a critical success factor for organizations, but we need to develop a broader understanding of communication. It is not something only conducted by communication practitioners, but it is rather an organization-wide activity that cuts across the entire organization (Heide, et al, 2018; Kuhn & Schoeneborn, 2015). The role of communication practitioners is thus shifting from being primarily executors and producers to enablers and facilitators of other organization members’ communication.

Concluding discussion

Our ambition with this article can be described as critical performativity, i.e., producing critically informed knowledge that has practical relevance and impact, by “[p]ointing at the absurdity of the dominant rationality” (Alvesson, 2020, p. 7) and suggesting an alternative communicative logic that can strengthen the professionalization of communication practitioners. By illustrating the negative and often hidden implications of managerialism for communication practitioners’ role and practices, we have tried to unmask some of the detrimental consequences of the managerial logic for advancing communication professionalism. Managerialism, e.g., in the form of new public management, has also weakened traditional professional groups such as medical doctors (Noordegraaf, 2007). There is also some recent research on professionalism which shows that managerial and professional logics may co-exist and overlap, and we might see a more general transition in society from “pure” to “hybrid” professions (Noordegraaf, 2007; Olakivi & Niska, 2016). However, this presupposes that there is a strong professional logic within the professional group at hand – otherwise there is nothing that can act as a counter-logic to the managerial logic. In this article, we have argued that communication practitioners lack a well-developed professional logic, which makes them even more vulnerable, and perhaps also susceptible, to the managerial logic.

In an earlier article, we (Falkheimer, Heide, Simonsson, Zerfass & Verhoeven, 2016) questioned the common tendency among communication practitioners to focus exclusively on doing things right rather than reflecting on whether they are doing the right things. This tendency could be explained by the fact that practitioners are inclined to adjust to the dominant managerial logic, i.e., they aim to deliver what is expected of them by others rather than following their own professional logic. Thus, regardless whether communication practitioners are inside the dominant coalition or just aiming to get access to it – there is pressure to adhere to a managerial logic which may be a hindrance to advancing a professional communicative logic. Similarly, Berger (2005) argues that membership of the dominant coalition may work as golden handcuffs. Those who ascend the ranks are provided power, status, and various benefits, but they are also tied closer to the managerial logic and management goals, and it may be harder to do the right things from a professional perspective. Focusing on the managerial logic may lead to increased organizational professionalism rather than occupational professionalism, that is professionalism driven and developed by communication practitioners as an occupation. As seen, there are two conflicting streams within professionalism in organizations, and so far, neither communication practitioners nor communication researchers have paid enough attention to this.

The lack of an alternative logic to the dominating one can be perceived as a symptom of a need among communication practitioners to exert more reflexivity (cf. Falkheimer, et al, 2016). Managerialism is an institutionalized logic, i.e., it is naturalized and consequently taken-for-granted (cf. Berger & Luckmann, 1966). If communication practitioners want to increase the professionalization, they need to allow more time for reflections about the organizational conditions and develop their understanding of the communicative logic. Part of the solution is actually to take their own medicine – to advance their own occupational brand (cf. Ashcraft et al., 2012). By developing the communicative logic as a way to strengthen the occupational professionalism, it will be become easier to develop a stronger collective identity among communication practitioners, and also for others to understand the role and value of communication (cf. Heide & Simonsson, 2019). Without a clear communicative logic, communication practitioners have little or no possibilities to make their professional voice heard. We have here proposed some elements of a communicative logic, which hopefully, can serve as a start and inspiration for further development.

Finally, we want to emphasize that researchers in strategic communication also have an important role in the professionalization project by favoring and advocating a communicative logic. However, a great deal of the research in strategic communication is permeated with the managerial logic that ignores the constitutive aspect of communication (cf. Heide, Simonsson, von Platen & Falkheimer, 2018). We agree with researchers (e.g., Lock et al., 2020; van Ruler, 2018) who point out that communication, strangely enough, too often is taken for granted within the field. By starting from a communicative perspective, researchers could advance both the development of new and nuanced understanding of strategic communication and the professionalization of communication practitioners. That could per se help communication practitioners to change the embedded meanings of the relationship between organization and communication, and develop rhetorical strategies for increased legitimacy (cf. Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.