“Let us talk”: incorporating the Coordinated Management of Meaning’s communication perspective as part of public diplomacy efforts between government, the private sector, and the foreign public

The strategic partnership between public institutions and the private sector is imperative in public diplomacy endeavors. Coordination between public diplomacy efforts and the private sector can lead to substantial global promotional campaigns with positive results in nation branding. Viewing public diplomacy as a multi-dimensional concept influenced by business requires constant theoretical updates and revision of practical tools. Rather than seeking a unified theory of public diplomacy or its multiple functions (soft power, country image and reputation, place branding, nation branding), this paper adds a communication perspective on how those functions can be created and coordinated with greater inclusivity of stakeholders. Public institutions provide support to private institutions through public services and infrastructure, which is essential when promoting the country to foreign publics. Place branding extends beyond image promotion to brand experience, which depends on infrastructure and its maintenance. The country’s history and culture shape public diplomacy tools used to maintain a positive international image. In public diplomacy, the government often acts as initiator and sender with central control over messages, whereas nation branding sees the government as an initiator but rarely the sender due to risks of propaganda. Public diplomacy can also have negative dimensions, such as deterrence narratives aimed at potential migrants/refugees. Given multiple applications of public diplomacy strategies, governments often rely on political rhetoric and may fail to communicate effectively with the domestic private sector and foreign publics. The authors propose that triadic communication between government, private sector, and foreign public can benefit from communication theory, namely the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM), an interpretive, interpersonal communication theory used by diverse practitioners. Current public diplomacy communication is dominated by the transmission model (clear messages through a channel to a receiver), which is inadequate given the rise of non-state stakeholders. An integrated approach across time horizons (short/medium, medium/long, long-term) is recommended. The communication perspective suggests looking at communication itself to see what it creates, enabling changes in patterns to produce better social realities. This approach helps identify current public diplomacy communication patterns and suggest new ways of understanding them. The paper introduces a case (Cupertino 1996 community project) to illustrate the potential of CMM’s perspective to identify ineffective patterns and replace them through stakeholder-generated questions: What are we making together? How are we making it? What are we becoming as we make this? How can we make better social worlds? These questions provide a foundation for inter-stakeholder communication, clarifying goals, strategies for inclusion and dialogue, anticipated outcomes, and the creation of better environments for all stakeholders. The paper supports understanding public diplomacy as a complex undertaking requiring dialogical processes between government and private sector, extended to foreign publics.

Public diplomacy’s theoretical development has long been tied to communication concepts, with diplomacy defined by some as communication among nation-states. One view of public diplomacy’s evolution emphasizes necessity in response to advances in technology, media, and public opinion, which impacted strategic communication targeting foreign publics in non-traditional ways. Assessing and shaping global public opinion has become integral to international relations, exemplified by attention to foreign views of U.S. policy in other countries’ decision-making. There is a recognized need to evaluate the impact of public diplomacy programs post-implementation, as perceptions are often created without follow-up analysis; despite difficulties, evaluation and measurement should receive more attention. The authors avoid advocating for dominance of “soft power” over “hard power,” preferring Nye’s “smart power,” combining both for effective diplomacy. Two main viewpoints in the literature exist: one sees public diplomacy as an evolving academic field that initially lacked an analytical framework; the other is driven by practitioners and policy advocates. Coordination between scholars and practitioners has enriched public diplomacy’s development, moving beyond generalist goal-focused elaborations. Overall, the literature underscores the importance of communication, evaluation, integration with related fields, and recognition of non-state actors.

The study employs thematic analysis of two key articles (Ross, 2002; Gilboa, 2008) to identify communication models used in public diplomacy. The authors use the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) as the primary theoretical lens, grounded in social constructivism and the co-creation of social reality through interaction and communication. Conceptual and theoretical framework terms are used interchangeably, as coordination, coherence, and mystery are core CMM concepts. The paper identifies transmission-focused models of public diplomacy communication and uses CMM to propose a convergence-based, dialogical approach between public diplomacy and the private sector. The dialogical approach is further informed by organizational development research, where CMM has been integral to theory and practice.

- Public diplomacy communication has been dominated by transmission models focusing on message sending from source to receiver, assuming objective messages and accurate reception. - Gilboa’s three models—the Basic Cold War model, Non-state Transnational model, and Domestic PR model—reflect this transmission orientation. They are increasingly insufficient for today’s complex communication involving government, private sector, and foreign publics. - The paper identifies shortcomings of transmission approaches: limited feedback, assumptions about shared meaning, and neglect of how communication creates social realities. - A CMM-based model is proposed emphasizing coordination, coherence, and mystery. It focuses on shaping emergent communication patterns, honoring multiple voices, maintaining productive tensions, and co-constructing social worlds. - The suggested model reframes key questions from message clarity and uncertainty reduction to: What is being made through communication? What identities, speech acts, cultures, and worldviews are produced? Who is included/excluded, and what contexts and forms of speech are elicited? - Application examples from organizational development and the Cupertino Community Project illustrate how dialogic processes can replace adversarial, cause-effect approaches, enabling inclusive participation, power rebalancing, and sustainable outcomes. - Practical guidelines adapted from Pearce (2007) outline steps for constructing richer, systemic stories; increasing stakeholder awareness of their role in co-creating patterns; changing contexts and participants; and cultivating appreciative energy. - The study advocates for integrating public diplomacy with related communication fields (PR, public opinion research, health communication, media psychology) and adopting triadic communication among government, private sector, and foreign publics.

The dialogical perspective has cross-contextual implications. NGOs have historically advocated for dialogue among key stakeholders and the public, playing important roles in global politics and as links between publics and governments; however, their influence can be contextually limited. In public relations, positioning theory aligns with social constructivism and complements CMM by focusing on rights, duties, and local moral orders in campaigns. Organizations often attempt to position without attending to these dynamics; positioning theory offers a societal lens for managing meaning, akin to CMM’s communication perspective. The Cupertino Community Project demonstrates CMM’s practical application: facing rapid ethnic demographic changes, conventional complaint-handling and legalistic responses were ineffective and reproduced power imbalances. A multi-phase, five-year dialogic process was designed to create new conversations, redistribute power through interaction, and institutionalize community-generated ideas. The process moved from small-group issue discussions and intergenerational interviews to city council dialog and citywide leadership events, ultimately embedding outcomes in city practices. The authors use this case to argue that public diplomacy can adopt similar dialogic designs, moving beyond transmission-centric models to create inclusive forums for co-constructing policies, campaigns, and place branding initiatives with domestic and foreign stakeholders. Table 1 conceptually contrasts traditional public diplomacy’s transmission focus with a CMM-informed model centered on emergent patterns, inclusion, and the transformative work communication does (identities, speech acts, cultures). This reorientation addresses the research question by showing how a communication perspective enables more sustainable coordination and outcomes in triadic public diplomacy settings.

The paper contributes a communication-centered reframing of public diplomacy, identifying the dominance and limitations of transmission models and proposing a CMM-based, dialogical alternative to guide triadic interactions among government, private sector, and foreign publics. It synthesizes insights from public diplomacy, organizational development, PR/positioning theory, and NGO practice to argue for integrated, inclusive, and co-constructive communication processes. Practically, it offers guidelines for initiating and sustaining dialogic engagement, emphasizing richer systemic narratives, role awareness, context shifts, stakeholder inclusion, and appreciative energy. The authors advocate for broader theoretical convergence with related communication fields and promote a “diplomacy of the public,” expanding beyond government-centric approaches. Future research should develop a detailed handbook for state and non-state stakeholders, apply the proposed CMM-based model in real public diplomacy contexts, and systematically monitor and evaluate outcomes to refine the framework and assess its effectiveness across settings.

The study is conceptual and relies on thematic analysis of selected literature (notably Ross, 2002; Gilboa, 2008) to identify prevailing models, without presenting empirical applications or quantitative evaluation of outcomes. The proposed CMM-based model has not yet been implemented and assessed in public diplomacy contexts within this paper; the authors explicitly call for future application, monitoring, and evaluation. Program evaluation in public diplomacy is acknowledged as challenging, underscoring the need for further empirical work to test generalizability and effectiveness across diverse contexts and stakeholders.