Big strategy to little strategy: a multiple case analysis of public affairs planning

• Published date: 01 August 2017
• Date: 01 August 2017
• Author: Kenneth D. Plowman
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1627

ACADEMIC PAPER

Big strategy to little strategy: a multiple case analysis of public

affairs planning

Kenneth D. Plowman

BYU, Communications, Provo, Utah, USA

Correspondence

Kenneth D. Plowman, BYU, Communications,

360 BRMB, Provo, Utah 84602, USA.

Email: plowman@byu.edu

Grand strategy or overall strategy is essential to successful strategic communication planning as

are the tactics of any campaign to accomplish that longer‐term strategy. That is what is meant in

thinking of big strategy to little strategy in the title of this study. The terms play off the phrase, the

big idea, generally credited to David Ogilvy who some call the father of advertising but also used

by Edward Bernays, who some call the father of public relations, in his 1936 work, Biography of

an Idea: The Founding Principles of Public Relations. The purpose of the present study was to meld

the big and little concepts of strategy in public relations through analyzing strategic communica-

tion plans for Multi‐National Forces‐Iraq, a United Nations military force of 40 countries led by

the United States. It encompassed multiple case studies that included interviews, documents,

participant observation, and direct observation in strategic communication planning. It also

confirmed the usage of research and overarching goals as big strategy, and the operational and

tactical parts of public relations planning as little strategy although big strategy can be elevated

to the highest corporate levels as well.

1|INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to further explore the concepts of grand or

big strategy juxtaposed against little strategy or operational strategic

communication planning. Big strategy is espoused in such terms as

the big picture (Pearce, 2012), the 10% (Linn, 2014), the big idea

(Gregory, 2010; Moriarty, 1997; Petraeus, 2016; Sudhaman, 2012),

and strategic management (Moss, 2011; Wilson & Ogden, 2015). Big

strategy is contrasted here to little strategy traced back to terms like

the Research, Action Planning, Communication, and Evaluation (RACE)

formula used by Marston (1979) and Hainsworth and Wilson (1992)

with a strategic program planning matrix based on the four‐step RACE

model. Hainsworth and Wilson's work has evolved to a sixth edition of

a strategic communications planning book (Wilson & Ogden, 2015) by

Wilson and Ogden. Various process or little strategy models have

found their way into other current textbooks as well (Broom, Sha, &

Seshadrinathan, 2013; Gregory, 2015; Hayes, Kumar, & Hendrix,

2013; Smith, 2013).

Big and little strategies were examined in two cases during

Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Middle East involving military and

civilian public affairs staff from Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Australia,

and England. Other military personnel from the U.S. came from a

joint forces configuration from the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy,

and Marines.

The U.S. Defense Department (DoD) has had difficulty in separat-

ing between big and little strategy where it uses the term strategic

communication to reflect both big and little strategies, to the point that

an internal memo declared that the words strategic communication

were not to be used going forward (Carlson, 2012). In reality, the term

is still in use, and the use of the term is still misconstrued at different

organizational levels in the Pentagon. Strategic communication is

defined in the commercial or private sector for academe by Hallahan,

Holthausen, Van Ruler, Vercic, and Sriramesh (2007) as “the purposeful

use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission”(p. 3).

The terms commercial sector or private sector are used here because

there is a difference between how strategic communication is defined

for the private sector and for the military, or public sector. A 2010

report to the U.S. Congress from President Obama stated, “Different

uses of the term strategic communication have led to significant confu-

sion. . . . By strategic communication(s) we refer to: (a) the synchroniza-

tion of words and deeds and how they will be perceived by selected

audiences, as well as (b) programs and activities deliberately aimed at

Received: 29 June 2016 Accepted: 11 August 2016

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1627

J Public Affairs. 2017;17:e1627. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of9

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1627