Berger. BK 2005, “Power Over, Power With, and Power to Relations: Critical Reflections on Public Relations, the Dominant Coalition, and Activism”, Journal of Public Relations Research 17 (1): pp. 5-28.
Berger’s journal, “Power Over, Power With, and Power to Relations: Critical Reflections on Public Relations, the Dominant Coalition and Activism” convey that power will assist relationship in the public relations profession. The author claimed to provide wider aspects on how power operates and developed under the symmetrical public relations theory. Dominant coalition allows public relations managers (top management) become part of the decision-making of an organization where conflicts are involved to handle strategic planning and solve problems for the organization (Broom & Dozier, 1985; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Plowman, 1998, p. 5).
The conceptual argument in this study was to explore further how public relations top management gains power in organizations to enforce the direction, objective, and function of the organizations. Berger conducted six propositions on the dominant coalition. In one of the in-depth interview in conflict situations, shows that “power relations occur in multiple dominant coalitions in large organizations” (p. 9). The author portrays that budget and plans review built power relations where practitioners have no voice apart from presenting proposal and support it. However, during a crisis, the chief executive officer (CEO) and executive is part of the dominant coalition where they value public relations highly (p. 10). This indicates that public relations activities are demanded to an excellent communication execution. “Multiple coalitions, shifting coalition venues and roles, multiple checking points on public relations power” (p.15) criticize the six propositions that restricted public relations to do the right thing.
Power with relations can be portrayed by “power with relations, refers to shared power and collaborative decision making” (Kanter, 1979; Rakow, 1989; p. 16). Two- way symmetrical model plays a role where through conversation, compromising, and relationship will develop an outstanding share power with the stakeholder (p.16). Berger emphasize that Bologh model is viewed femininely and led to gendered dialectic. Hence, diversity of male and female based on different ethnic and cultural background is needed for effective organizations. Yet, Bologh and Rakow (1990, 1989) mentioned that women have less opportunity than men to gain strategic expertise because of women represent weakness, powerlessness, irrationality and emotionality (p. 17).
In conclusion, there are many conditions whether it is inside, around or outside the system that power relations may offer by “dialogue, compromise and shared power (p. 22). The author stresses that even though public relations practitioners may follow the framework in doing the right thing, they are able to avoid the power that they have in turn of dominant coalition. By interviewing the executives based on their experience provides evidence on how to make organizations effective. Yet, more men (17) are being interviewed than women (4). This raised a concern whether the results are legitimate when addressing the issue that men have more power than women in decision-making. Although the author explained thoroughly on how the executive voices are being heard in a dominant coalition, Berger should explore another aspect where public relations executive voices failed to take action and what they do to gain the share power between clients and executive. The journal article is based on a textual analysis where interview is conducted under the Public Relations discipline.
