Interpersonal Approaches to Relationship Building: Diplomat As a Human Agent of Public Diplomacy

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

Tam, Lisa (2019) Interpersonal approaches to relationship building: diplomat as a human agent of public diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 15(2), pp. 134-142.

This ﬁle was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/119171/

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other speciﬁed license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identiﬁed by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-018-0101-2 This is a preprint for:

Tam, L. (2019). Interpersonal approaches to relationship building: diplomat as a human agent of public diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 15(2), 134-142. doi: 10.1057/s41254-018-0101-2

URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41254-018-0101-2

Interpersonal approaches to relationship building: diplomat as a human agent of public diplomacy

Lisa Tam

Abstract

In extant literature, it has been advised that the central purpose of public diplomacy should be redefined as relationship management. Against this backdrop, the effects of engagement efforts made to build and nurture relationships has been contested. On one hand, relationship management is presented as an approach to promote mutual understanding while, on the other, research studies show that diplomatic agencies remain focused on advocacy and that foreign publics are unwilling to engage. As public relations research has identified the positive effects of using interpersonal approaches to build and nurture relationships, this study conducted a case analysis on the engagement efforts made by a diplomat to build relationships. It was found that relationships were built with multiple publics both locally and globally and that offline relationships preceded online relationships. In relating to foreign publics, relational capabilities, including relational continuation, relational attentiveness, relational curiosity, and relational empathy, were portrayed. Although shared values and interactions were promoted, foreign publics were only invited to engage on soft topics, such as cultural and social issues.

Keywords Diplomat, engagement, interpersonal, public diplomacy, relationship, social media

Introduction

Existing research has demonstrated the similarities between public relations and public diplomacy (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al. 2009; Fitzpatrick 2007; L’Etang 2009; Signitzer and Coombs 1992). The significance of public relations to international affairs was first explored in the 1990s when Grunig (1993) explained public relations as a vital communication function in facilitating understanding amongst groups and reducing conflicts through engaging in international and intercultural activities. In recent years, empirical research has explored the significance of interpersonal relationships formed through public diplomacy programs, such as the Humphrey program (Kim 2016) and the Fulbright Program (Bettie 2015). As a result of these people-to-people exchanges, relationship linkages were formed amongst people. Inside- border foreign publics, such as international students and foreign workers, became ambassadors of their host countries (Yun 2012) as they shared their experiences with families and friends in their home countries (Vibber and Kim 2015).

In the context of public relations, Gupta and Bartlett (2007, p. 1) argued that ‘‘the line between business and personal relationships is extremely blurred.’’ The personal influence model is particularly prominent in the Asian contexts (Huang 2001; Lim et al. 2005). Public relations research has identified the positive effects of interpersonal approaches to building and nurturing relationships (Men and Hung 2012), such as the use of digital buddies to generate parasocial interactions with consumers in online communities (Yuksel and Labrecque 2016) and CEOs’ engagement with publics on social media (Men and Tsai 2016). When organizational characters as the human voices representing their organizations, such as CEOs, were engaged in parasocial interactions with publics, publics’ trust in and satisfaction with the organizations increased (Men and Tsai 2016). By injecting a human component to social media communication, public engagement and relational outcomes improved as a result of increased interpersonal interactions (Men and Tsai 2015).

While the relationship building efforts made in public diplomacy have received criticisms, such as the delusion of engagement (e.g., Comor and Bean 2012) and the focus on advocacy (Dodd and Collins 2017), this study proposes to examine the interpersonal approaches to relationship building by examining how a diplomat, as a human voice representing a country, built and nurtured interpersonal relationships with foreign publics by engaging with them. Diplomats are expected to use public relations to connect with global publics and share ideas with them (Copeland 2009). Their relationship-building efforts, such as their interpersonal interactions with foreign publics, are critical to public diplomacy (Buckle 2012).

Literature review

Relationship-centered approach to public diplomacy

Public diplomacy has its roots in advertising, marketing, and public relations (Snow and Taylor 2009), with public relations being described as contributing most to public diplomacy (Gilboa 2008). Public relations is discussed in association with the management of relationships between states and foreign actors (Ki 2015). Current literature on public diplomacy recognized that the relationship-centered approach to public diplomacy differed from impression management (Signitzer and Wamser 2006). Public diplomats build and cultivate relationships to increase trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment between a country and its global publics (e.g., Huang 2001). Although long-term relationships might not be profitable in the short term, the involvement of multiple actors in promoting these relationships could create an enabling environment for both the governments and the actors involved in the long term (Nye 2008).

In a relationship, countries and foreign publics are engaged in a co-adaption of communications and behaviors. Different from impression management, which focuses on changing symbols such as words to change publics’ perceptions of a country’s (mis)behaviors, relationship management emphasizes that countries and foreign publics co-adapt to each other through mutual understanding and mutual influence (Kim and Ni 2010). In international relations, the use of communication to nurture relationships is described as a diplomatic effort made by diplomatic institutions (Leonard 2002). Gregory (2008) suggested expanding diplomacy to nurture relationships between state and non-state actors and using diplomats as boundary spanners in strategic public diplomacy.

Initiatives led by state departments, especially embassies, have remained critical to achieving the goals of public diplomacy. Embassies have expertise in understanding the audiences of public diplomacy and can provide guidance on how to pursue public diplomacy in different countries (Rawnsley 2012). With the rise of Web 2.0 technologies, their functions have also been extended from physical embassies to virtual embassies to connect their countries with foreign publics (Cull 2013). An example was Cafe´ USA, an online community which promoted interactive communication between United States (US) government and South Korean publics, during the process of which the embassy could better understand South Korean publics by listening to and discussing with them (Seo 2013). Other research studies have also explored the efforts carried out by embassies as an institution for promoting public diplomacy, including their use of media relations (Khakimova 2013), their use of Twitter (Dodd and Collins 2017), and their use of blogs and microblogs (Zhong and Lu 2013). Yun (2007) suggested that further research be conducted to evaluate the strategy used by embassies in communicating with local publics. In South Korea, positive associations were found between university students’ relationship quality with the US embassy and their positive attitudes and behavioral intentions towards the US (Lee and Jun 2013).

Problems in engagement

Organizations with which diplomats are associated, such as embassies and state departments, play significant roles in facilitating the dynamic process of relationship formation and cultivation between countries and foreign publics (Zaharna and Uysal 2016). One of the areas in which embassies and diplomats play a critical role is engagement. In an interview with Time Magazine in 2011, Hillary Clinton said: ‘‘One of my goals upon becoming Secretary of State was to take diplomacy out of capitals, out of government offices, into the media, into the streets of countries.’’ (Stengel 2011: para. 21). She was proclaimed a champion of public diplomacy for embracing the use of social media to engage with global publics who were affected by US policies so that their voices could be expressed and heard (Seib 2013).

Engagement has become a buzzword, especially around the topic of social media (Macnamara 2014). Organizations and publics initiate engagement when they affectively and cognitively share salient topics of mutual interests (Dhanesh 2017). Publics’ engagement behaviors could range from passive (e.g., clicks, views, reads) to active (e.g., advocates), whereas organizations’ engagement behaviors could range from control (e.g., inform) to collaboration (e.g., participate). In public diplomacy, engagement has been discussed in association with the use of digital and social media to promote dialogue, mutual respect, partnership, and mutual understanding (Zhang 2013). US President Barack Obama, an advocate for engagement in diplomacy, defined engagement as ‘‘to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect each other; and to seek common ground’’ (Zhang 2013, p. 1316). Examples of public diplomacy engagement include the use of digital and transmedia engagement for co-creation and co-option of shared values (Pamment 2016) and digital monitoring to identify issues affecting foreign publics (Cull 2013).

Despite the importance of engagement, the US’s engagement efforts in public diplomacy has been criticized for being an engagement delusion—they appear to emphasize the facilitation of dialogue but the real intention is to persuade foreign audiences to empathize with US policies (Comor and Bean 2012). Although listening is the foundation of effective public diplomacy, Western embassies have primarily used Twitter for advocacy, not listening (Dodd and Collins 2017). Furthermore, publics can be reluctant to interact with foreign governments online for various reasons (Khakimova Storie 2015). They were afraid that their opinions would be monitored, misinterpreted, and possibly used against them. Zaharna and Uysal (2016) found that people who were willing to interact could be adversarial publics who used social media to challenge state legitimacy.

Interpersonal approaches to engagement

While foreign publics were unwilling to engage with foreign governments for various reasons, they were more willing to follow political figures on social media and to engage in face-to-face interactions (which were considered to be safer) (Khakimova Storie 2015). As research on public relations found a positive association between organizational character and relational outcomes (Men and Tsai 2015), studies in public diplomacy also found the significance of diplomatic visits by heads of state (Wang and Chang 2004) and favorability towards presidents’ diplomatic approaches (Gregory 2011). In organization-public relationships, a human component is critical to parasocial interactions. Through the construction of an imagined relationship between a media persona and publics, these parasocial interactions could be strengthened as a result of publics’ identification with and commitment to the characters (i.e., the media personae with whom they were parasocially interacting) (Eyal and Dailey 2012). According to Rubin and McHugh (1987), these mediated relationships follow a similar process of development to interpersonal relationships formed as a consequence of social attraction. Parasocial interactions between media persona and publics on social media platforms could result in changes in cognitions, affections, and behaviors (Yuksel and Labrecque 2016). The illusion of intimacy at a distance is mediated by the commonalities publics share with the persona.

As representatives of their home countries, diplomats are tasked with the responsibilities of engagement, networking, relationship building, and public policy advocacy (Copeland 2009). They are engaged in daily exchanges with foreign governments and people during the process of which they find a balance between promoting their national interests and not interfering with the host country’s internal affairs (Barder 2010). They practice diplomacy by forming relationships between their home countries and host countries; their multilateral roles expose them to challenges, such as having to address multiple audiences simultaneously (Pouliot 2011). Their capacities in empathizing with their host nations, generating trust, and promoting mutual reassurance at the interpersonal level are central to mitigating conflicts between countries (Wheeler 2013). They play three social roles in embassies: knowledge producer, representative of government, and bureaucrats, and are engaged in diplomatic practices such as meeting with officials, making contacts with local publics, and exchanging information with other embassies (Cornut 2015).

Against the backdrop that engagement efforts made at the state level was challenged as being limited, the roles of diplomats, as a human agent in engagement, should be further explored. Dodd and Collins (2017) called for more research on the intersections between public diplomacy and public relations in and outside of social media. In view of the criticism that diplomats have focused more on promoting values than engaging (Park and Lim 2014), this study seeks to examine engagement at an interpersonal level by analyzing a case involving a diplomat who was widely acclaimed for actively engaging with foreign publics. It proposes to study the relationship-building activities of a diplomat by examining (a) with whom he built relationships, (b) how he built these relationships, and (c) what implications these relationships had on public diplomacy. Case analysis: how a diplomat engaged with foreign publics

To offer an in-depth understanding on the relationship-building activities carried out in public diplomacy, a prototypical case, which reflected how relationships were built in public diplomacy, was studied (Orum 2015). The case study approach allowed the details of the case to be thoroughly investigated to explore the dimensions of time and process. According to Yin (2015, p. 194), a case study is ‘‘an empirical inquiry that closely examines a contemporary phenomenon (the case) within its real-world context.’’ Situating the case in an actual setting, contextual conditions could also be analyzed through a detailed description of the case based on multiple sources of evidence.

Clifford Hart (referred to as ‘CAH’ in his Facebook posts) served as the US Consul General in the Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions (SARs) between July 2013 and July 2016. During his tenure, he was fondly nicknamed Clifford BB (‘‘baby’’) by local media and publics and was described as ‘‘the best-known US representative ever to serve in Hong Kong’’ (Shen 2016: para. 2), ‘‘America’s top man in Hong Kong since 2013’’ and ‘‘most-talked-about diplomat’’ who used social media tools to interact with local publics (Lau and Cheung 2015: para. 1). He received public acclaims for his social media diplomacy and started a new era where ‘‘iDiplomacy will be the norm’’ (Shen 2016, p. 25). He was ‘‘a very popular figure who knows how to push a positive message and let people know that he cares deeply about Hong Kong’’ (Kwok 2016: para. 18).

This case analysis followed several steps. First, the media coverage on Clifford Hart published in local newspapers during his three-year term was downloaded from the Factiva database. A qualitative approach to conventional content analysis was then conducted (Hsieh and Shannon 2005)—after reading through all the articles, codes were generated and defined, including the people and organizations with whom Hart built relationships, the relationship- building activities involved, and reactions to the activities. A total of 412 news articles were studied. Second, the images involving Hart posted on the US Consulate General’s Facebook page during his tenure were downloaded. Images were found to generate the most engagement on social media (Redsicker 2014). A total of 135 images were downloaded. Open coding was conducted on the images and the texts used to describe the images, specifically addressing what was happening, with or to whom Hart was interacting, how it was presented and when it happened (Strauss 1987). Then, selective coding and axial coding were conducted to understand the core variables and the relationships amongst them. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the phases of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006).

Findings and discussions

According to Dhanesh (2017), engagement takes place between an organization and its publics where there are salient topics of mutual interest which bring them together. To encourage engagement, organizations are advised to humanize themselves using interpersonal approaches (Men and Tsai 2015). To apply this to the context of public diplomacy, this study explored the multifaceted roles of diplomats in injecting a human component into building relationships with foreign publics. Figure 1 portrays the boundary-spanning roles of diplomats in connecting their home countries (and their people) with foreign countries (and their people); their activities range from formal (e.g., political and economic interactions) to informal (e.g., cultural and interpersonal interactions) (e.g., Kim and Ni 2011).

Unlike an organization–public relationship in public relations, a country-public relationship in public diplomacy is characterized by a multitude of factors beyond the control of diplomats, such as the effects of nationalism (e.g., Wang 2005) and changes in political leadership and relationships between two countries (Banks 2011). To balance the effects of hard power (i.e., changes in political and economic domains) on the relationship, public diplomacy strives to achieve soft power by promoting mutual understanding (and, ideally, mutual influence) between a country and its foreign publics.

Relationships with multiple publics, both local and global

Research promoting the relational approach to public diplomacy has criticized the primary use of social media for advocacy purposes in one-sidedly promoting a country without demonstrating a willingness to listen to and engage with other countries. In relationship management, public segmentation is critical to ensuring that organizations are investing their resources strategically into building relationships with the most important publics—with whom they will interact to understand their positions, concerns, and interests, and for whom they will adjust their behaviors to achieve mutually beneficial relationships (Kim et al. 2008). Hence, diplomats must also strategically identify with whom they should build relationships. This study has identified that, as a diplomat, Hart was engaged in building relationships with multiple publics, including both local and global publics.

As Fig. 1 portrays, diplomats are the messengers between two countries and between the people from the two countries. The media coverage showed that Hart held and attended formal meetings with government officials, legislators from both the pro-Beijing and the pro- democracy camps, as well as business leaders and the media. In one occasion, he met with individual legislators to lobby for the copyright legislation in Hong Kong to safeguard US interests. During his three-year term, he was actively engaged in activities with a variety of publics, many of whom had conflicting interests. He was frequently criticized for interfering with local affairs by the Chinese government (e.g., Leung 2013) because of the relationships he had built with legislators from the pro-democracy camp and local publics in Hong Kong. He also attended numerous receptions held by different political camps as well as business and media organizations. He was also actively engaged with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which promoted social causes, educational institutions, and foreign embassies. He was heavily involved in building relationships with local publics through his informal visits and social media activities; particular groups which were mentioned included children, the homeless, and the elderly.

Figure 1. The boundary-spanning roles of diplomats

In respect to the promotion of social causes, he was involved in promoting a cease on ivory trade, unsustainable fishing, the consumption of shark fins, rallies for sexual minorities and against homophobia, making mooncakes and delivering them to the elderly, delivering food for the homeless, and expressing concerns about human trafficking. As a Cantonese speaker, he delivered a speech in Cantonese at the Taoist art exhibition. He could be seen interacting with local publics through his informal visits to a variety of places, including tea museum, temples, local bookstore, sauce factory, beer factory, traditional restaurants, school of Cantonese opera, flower market, art exhibitions, dragon boat championships, schools, and social enterprises.

On social media, Hart portrayed three types of engagement activities: (a) activities involving engagement with a variety of local publics, such as school children, owners of traditional shops, and organizations promoting social causes, such as delivering free food to people in need; (b) activities involving engagement with US publics, such as official visits from government representatives and diplomatic actors, such as chef Ben Ford and US sports teams; and (c) activities showing his connecting local publics with the US, such as visiting a Hong Kong brewery which adopted US technologies and hosting discussions on human trafficking with both US and local representatives. Instead of only advocating for US positions, he built connections between his country and local people. First, he highlighted collaborations, engaging in activities demonstrating that the SARs and the US had worked together. On March 3, 2015, he posted a picture of himself with his visitors with the caption:

I was so honoured to host internationally-renowned conservationist Dr. Richard Leakey. He and Dr. Paula Kahumbu visited Hong Kong from Kenya, where they seek to protect African elephants from extinction. Dr. Leakey led Kenya’s efforts to destroy its illegal ivory stockpile. The US and Hong Kong governments had taken similar actions. – CAH.

Second, he promoted similarity in values, demonstrating engagement in issues on which the US and local publics would agree upon, such as a halt on ivory trade, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and children’s rights. On September 20, 2014, he posted a picture of himself next to an elephant exhibit with the caption: ‘‘Visited the elephant parade at Pacific Place and saw this unique Sharkaphant statue. What a great use of creative arts to highlight wildlife conservation for sharks and elephants! – CAH.’’ Lastly, he promoted local cultures and practices to US publics and US cultures and practices to local publics. He portrayed relationships with a wide variety of publics, from young children to the elderly, and from government officials, NGO representatives, and colleagues to small shop owners. In portraying these relationships, there were often two elements in the caption: (a) what he did during the specific occasion; and (b) new information that publics might be unaware of, such as the names of the people with whom he was building relationships and what they did and the history behind traditional festivals. For example, on January 22, 2015, he posted a picture of himself and a lady each holding a piece of baby clothing with the caption: ‘‘What a pleasure to meet Allie Wieser at the Hong Kong Baby Products Fair last week. Her social enterprise Baby Hero supports at-risk mothers in the developing world by donation [sic] a portion of sales proceeds to the purchase of neo-natal maternal health kits. – CAH.’’ Similarly, he introduced new information about a traditional village in Hong Kong that local publics might not be aware of. On November 19, 2015, he posted pictures of his visit to a village with the caption:

Thrilled to be with Kam Tin villagers as they prepared for their 33rd Jiu Festival. They also graciously let me accompany them on a visit to Chou Wong Yi Kung Study Hall and Tang Ching Lok Ancestral Hall to learn about the centuries-old history of Hong Kong. I wish continued great success to this festival, which is celebrated once every ten years, and peace and prosperity to people in Kam Tin. – CAH.

During his boss’s visit to Hong Kong, on May 5, 2014, he posted an image of himself introducing his boss to local food with the caption: ‘‘My boss, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel, just arrived. On the eve of Buddha’s birthday, we’re having vegetarian food at Chi Nin Nunnery. – CAH.’’

Offline relationships before online relationships

Much research on public relations and public diplomacy has focused on the use of social media as a tool to build relationships—the positive effects of online relationships were often assumed. This study has identified that the success of online relationships is founded on the success of offline relationships. Hart had built offline relationships with publics before he built online relationships with them. As portrayed in Fig. 1, the relationship-building activities involved ranged from formal (e.g., meeting with local government officials, speaking in forums, promoting the US for business opportunities, etc.) to informal (e.g., watching Cantonese operas, learning to make fire dragons, tasting food in local restaurants, introducing US Thanksgiving, etc.). It must be acknowledged that online relationships do not take place in isolation from offline relationships—offline relationships are a prerequisite for online relationships.

In the establishment and nurturing of offline and online relationships, Hart portrayed a variety of relational capabilities to identify with local publics. First, he portrayed relational continuation by showing a commitment to building and continuing his relationship with local publics—from the start to the end of his tenure Hart showed a commitment to his relationship with the SARs by re-asserting how much he looked forward to learning more about the SARs and continuing the relationship. For example, on August 23, 2013, a picture of him in a temple had this caption:

Dear friends, I’m thrilled to be the Consul General for Hong Kong and Macau, and to have this chance to talk to you. You may not know that I’m from the US state of Virginia, and while Virginia and Hong Kong are oceans apart, I look forward to finding out the things that make us alike, rather than different. I’ll post again soon. I do enjoy hearing from you and reading your comments! – CAH.

On July 22, 2016, prior to ending his role as Consul General, he said: ‘‘A tribute to Hong Kong. Until we meet again.’’ Second, he portrayed relational attentiveness by demonstrating a strong understanding of and willingness to gather more information about Hong Kong. On February 19, 2014, he posted a selfie of his visit to the History Museum with the caption: ‘‘The History Museum puts on another great show: I’m so glad I got to see its exhibit on the cheongsam, which showcases the development and beauty of the fashion over the years. – CAH.’’ Third, he portrayed relational curiosity by seeking to behaviourally experience the lives of the locals, such as attending yearly events like food festivals and book festivals, tasting local food, celebrating traditional festivals (with traditional food), and experiencing traditional medicine. On January 27, 2016, he posted a picture of him being examined by a traditional doctor with the caption:

Recently, I visited Banyan Services, where I experienced a traditional Chinese medical consultation complete with herbal soup, acupuncture, and a bone setting. Along with other Chinese medicine practitioners, Dr. Wong and Dr. Lee take turns volunteering four days a week to give free consultations and medicine to the elderly and homeless. – CAH.

Lastly, he portrayed relational empathy by showing empathy for the problems local publics had experienced and participating in related events in support of those social causes. On June 19, 2014, he posted a picture of himself covering his mouth in a poster with the headline ‘I am FINished with fins’ promoting this caption: ‘‘Thrilled to join the Finished with Fins campaign. I love eating Chinese food, but there’s one dish that I won’t eat, and that’s shark fin. – CAH.’’

Using social media to engage on certain topics

Research has promoted the use of social media for engagement; that is, both an organization and its publics should be co-creators of meanings and communication to achieve shared meanings, interpretations, and goals—interactions with publics with diverse views, including opposing views, should also be valued (Johnston 2014). Zhang (2013, p. 1327) proposes that ‘‘growth of the public sphere should become a key goal of public diplomacy.’’ Although existing research has explored user engagement in public diplomacy by measuring the extent of users’ activeness on social media (Park and Lim 2014), what diplomacy agencies do after audience engagement should be further explored.

This study has identified that, as a diplomatic figure, Hart used social media to invite interactions on social media, including inviting suggestions for restaurants to visit and hosting a Facebook live chat prior to the end of his tenure. He was engaged in both formal (i.e., political and economic interactions) and informal (i.e., cultural and interpersonal interactions) activities but showed a tendency to invite interactions on topics related to culture, especially food, which could be associated with Hong Kong’s reputation as a food paradise. Amidst the call for a balanced approach to public diplomacy, in which smart power is achieved as a combination of hard power and soft power (Nye 2010), it is necessary to further explore which topics countries really wish to engage foreign publics in.

In this study, there were two types of activities for which responses were invited from publics on social media: (a) culture: where should Hart eat? and (b) social: what more could be done to promote social causes? As early as his first week in office, an image of his visit to a local restaurant was posted with the caption: ‘‘CG Hart took your suggestions, and while chatting with staff, tried milk tea, chicken pie, and egg tarts at Kam Fung in Wan Chai on Monday! What should he try next?’’ On September 24, 2013, he posted a picture of himself holding a pork chop bun with the caption: ‘‘A delicious pork chop bun in Macau’s Tai Lei Loi Kei last week. Facebook friends, make another excellent suggestion! – CAH.’’ There were also other instances when he took suggestions from netizens, including addressing himself as ‘‘Clifford BB’’ in his Facebook videos and showing a picture of himself brushing his hair (after he received the comment that he looked like a local movie star who brushed his hair in one of his movie scenes).

To promote social causes, on May 19, 2014, the Consulate General posted an image of Hart with consul generals from other embassies with the caption: ‘‘Last week CG Hart volunteered for the local charity, Food Angel, but this time, he was joined by his counterparts from other Consulates! To support the organization, they worked together to package meals for underprivileged communities in Hong Kong. Do you volunteer?’’ The invitation for engagement only on certain topics demonstrated that while soft power did not exist in isolation from hard power, it was preferred that engagement on social media was on topics related to soft power, especially cultural and social issues.

Conclusion and implications

This study examined relationship building at an interpersonal level with a diplomat as a human agent representing a country and found that an interpersonal approach to relationship building could address some of the limitations in the engagement efforts made at the embassy or the state levels. During his term, Hart’s media coverage and social media posts featured the relationships that he had built with publics from multiple sectors with different interests and portrayed that he was out there listening. Before he started promoting the US to foreign publics as a holiday destination, an investment opportunity and a food paradise and advocating for US interests, he was engaged in a variety of relationship building activities with local publics during which he promoted shared values and collaborations and connected local publics with US publics. He immersed himself in local cultures and practices, such as celebrating local festive seasons like a local. His use of social media in encouraging interactions, through contests and live chats, generated effects of parasocial interactions where the audiences identified with him (Eyal and Dailey 2012). On issues which could not be compromised, such as US’s refusal to grant visa-free access to SAR passport holders, Hart responded by producing a video which explained the simple processes of the visa renewal program.

When building relationships, Hart displayed four specific relational capabilities. First, he portrayed relational continuation by demonstrating how committed he was to building and continuing his relationship with local publics. Second, he showed relational attentiveness by demonstrating that he held knowledge about local history and news and was hoping to learn more. Third, he portrayed relational curiosity by behaviorally experiencing local cultures and practices. Lastly, he showed relational empathy as he emphathized with local publics on the problems they experience. Findings from this case analysis showed that the roles of diplomats in connecting countries and foreign publics should be further explored, including whether their face-to-face interactions and parasocial interactions could increase foreign publics’ identification with them and their home countries, and whether this identification could contribute to the goals of public diplomacy.

References

Banks R. 2011. A resource guide to public diplomacy evaluation. http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publications/perspectives/CPD_ Perspectives_Paper9_2011.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

Barder, B. 2010. Diplomacy, ethics and the national interest: What are diplomats for? Hague Journal of Diplomacy 5: 289–297.

Bettie, M. 2015. Ambassadors unaware: The Fulbright Program and American public diplomacy. Journal of Transatlantic Studies 13 (4): 358–372.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.

Buckle A. 2012. The new diplomacy: Devising a relational model of public diplomacy. Pursuit - The Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennessee 3 (2): 1–47. http://trace. tennessee.edu/pursuit/vol3/iss2/3. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

Comor, E., and H. Bean. 2012. America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. International Communication Gazette 74 (3): 203–220.

Copeland, D. 2009. Transformational public diplomacy: Rethinking advocacy for the globalisation age. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 5 (February): 97–102.

Cornut, J. 2015. To be a diplomat abroad: Diplomatic practice at embassies. Cooperation and Conflict 50 (3): 385–401.

Cull, N.J. 2013. The long road to public diplomacy 2.0: The internet in US public diplomacy. International Studies Review 15 (1): 123–139.

Dhanesh, G.S. 2017. Putting engagement in its PRoper place: State of the field, definition and model of engagement in public relations. Public Relations Review 43 (5): 925–933.

Dodd, M.D., and S.J. Collins. 2017. Public relations message strategies and public diplomacy 2.0: An empirical analysis using Central-Eastern European and Western Embassy Twitter accounts. Public Relations Review 43 (2): 417–425.

Eyal, K., and R.M. Dailey. 2012. Examining relational maintenance in parasocial relationships. Mass Communication and Society 15 (5): 758–781.

Fitzpatrick, K., J. Fullerton, and A. Kendrick. 2009. Public relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual and practical connections. Public Relations Journal 7 (4): 1–21.

Fitzpatrick, K.R. 2007. Advancing the new public diplomacy: A public relations perspective. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2 (3): 187–211.

Gilboa, E. 2008. Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (March 2008): 55–77.

Gregory, B. 2008. Public diplomacy: Sunrise of an academic field. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (March): 274–290.

Gregory, B. 2011. American public diplomacy: Enduring characteristics, elusive transformation. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 6 (3): 351–372.

Grunig, J.E. 1993. Public relations and international affairs: Effects, ethics and responsibility. Journal of International Affairs 47 (1): 137–162.

Gupta, C., and J.L. Bartlett. 2007. Guanxi, astrology and symmetry: Asian business and its impact on public relations practice. Asian Pacific Public Relations Journal 8 (1): 1–18.

Hsieh, H.-F., and S.E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288.

Huang, Y.-H. 2001. OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization- public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 13 (1): 61–90.

Johnston, K.A. 2014. Public relations and engagement: Theoretical imperatives of a multidimensional concept. Journal of Public Relations Research 26 (5): 381–383.

Khakimova, L.F. 2013. Public diplomacy at Arab embassies: Fighting an uphill battle. International Journal of Strategic Communication 7 (1): 21–42.

Khakimova Storie, L. 2015. Lost publics in public diplomacy: Antecedents for online relationship management. Public Relations Review 41 (2): 315–317.

Ki, E.-J. 2015. Application of relationship management to public diplomacy. In International public relations and public diplomacy: Communication and engagement, ed. G.J. Golan, S.-U. Yang, and D.F. Kinsey, 93–108. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Kim, J. 2016. Public relations and public diplomacy in cultural and educational exchange programs: A coorientational approach to the Humphrey Program. Public Relations Review 42 (1): 135–145.

Kim, J.-.N, and L. Ni. 2010. Seeing the forest through the trees: The behavioral, strategic management paradigm of public relations and its future. In: The Sage handbook of public relations, ed. R.L. Heath, 35–57. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, J.-N., and L. Ni. 2011. The Nexus between Hallyu and soft power: Cultural public diplomacy in the era of sociological globalism. In Hallyu: Influence of Korean popular culture in Asia and beyond, ed. D.K. Kim and M.S. Kim, 131–154. Seoul, South Korea: Seoul National University Press.

Kim, J.-N., L. Ni, and B.-L. Sha. 2008. Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85 (4): 751–768.

Kwok, B. 2016. Goodbye, Clifford BB. EJ Insight. http://www. ejinsight.com/20160720- goodbye-clifford-bb/. Accessed 20 July 2016.

L’Etang, J. 2009. Public relations and diplomacy in a globalized world: An issue of public communication. American Behavioral Scientist 53 (4): 607–626.

Lau, S., and G. Cheung. 2015. How Hong Kong got under the skin of United States Consul General Clifford Hart. South China Morning Post. http://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/article/ 1848096/how-hong-kong-got-under-skin-united-states-consul-general-clifford. Accessed 10 Aug 2015.

Lee, H.M., and J.W. Jun. 2013. Explicating public diplomacy as organization–public relationship (OPR): An empirical investigation of OPRs between the US embassy in Seoul and South Korean college students. Journal of Public Relations Research 25 (5): 411–425.

Leonard, M. 2002. Diplomacy by other means. Foreign Policy 132 (October): 48–56.

Leung, P. 2013. Outside interference bad for HK. China Daily. http:// www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2013-11/27/content_17133662. htm. Accessed 27 Nov 2013.

Lim, S., J. Goh, and K. Sriramesh. 2005. Applicability of the generic principles of excellent public relations in a different cultural context: The case study of Singapore. Journal of Public Relations Research 17 (4): 315–340.

Macnamara, J. 2014. Emerging international standards for measurement and evaluation of public relations: A critical analysis. Public Relations Inquiry 3 (1): 7–29.

Men, L.R., and C.F. Hung. 2012. Exploring the roles of organization-public relationships in the strategic management process: Towards an integrated framework. International Journal of Strategic Communication 6 (2): 151–173.

Men, L.R., and W.H.S. Tsai. 2015. Infusing social media with humanity: Corporate character, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review 41 (3): 395–403.

Men, L.R., and W.H.S. Tsai. 2016. Public engagement with CEOs on social media: Motivations and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review 42 (5): 932–942.

Nye, J. 2008. Public diplomacy and soft power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1): 94–109.

Nye, J. 2010. Smart power needs smart public diplomacy. Harvard Kennedy School. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/ news-archive/smart-power-needs-diplomacy. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

Orum, A.M. 2015. Case study: Logic. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, ed. J. Wright, 202–207. Second edition. London: Elsevier.

Pamment, J. 2016. Digital diplomacy as transmedia engagement: Aligning theories of participatory culture with international advocacy campaigns. New Media & Society 18 (9): 2046–2062.

Park, S.J., and Y.S. Lim. 2014. Information networks and social media use in public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of South Korea and Japan. Asian Journal of Communication 24 (1): 79–98.

Pouliot, V. 2011. Diplomats as permanent representatives. International Journal 66 (3): 543– 561.

Rawnsley, G. 2012. Approaches to soft power and public diplomacy in China and Taiwan. The Journal of International Communication 18 (2): 121–135.

Redsicker, P. 2014. Social photos generate more engagement: New research. http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/photos-gener ate-engagement-research/. Accessed 13 May 2014.

Rubin, R.B., and M.P. McHugh. 1987. Development of parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 31 (3): 279–292.

Seib, P. 2013. Hillary Clinton was a champion of public diplomacy. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/ 2013/05/12/judging-hillary-clinton-as-secretary-of- state/hillary-clinton-was-a-champion-of-public-diplomacy. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

Seo, H. 2013. The ‘virtual last three feet’: Understanding relationship perspectives in network- based public diplomacy. In Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy, ed. R.S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, and A. Fisher, 209–226. New York, NY: Routledge.

Shen, S. 2016. How Clifford BB set a new tone for diplomacy. EJ Insight. http://www.ejinsight.com/20160801-how-clifford-bb-set-a-new-tone-for-diplomacy/. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.

Signitzer, B., and C. Wamser. 2006. Public diplomacy: A specific governmental public relations function. In Public relations theory II, ed. C.H. Botan and V. Hazelton, 435–464. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Signitzer, B.H., and T. Coombs. 1992. Public relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual convergences. Public Relations Review 18 (2): 137–147.

Snow, N., and P.M. Taylor. 2009. Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stengel, R. 2011. Q&A: Hillary Clinton on Libya, China, the Middle East and Barack Obama. Time. http://swampland.time.com/ 2011/10/27/qa-hillary-clinton-on-libya-china-the-middle- east-and-barack-obama/. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

Strauss, A.L. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Vibber, K., and J.-N. Kim. 2015. Diplomacy in the globalized world: Focusing internally to build relationships externally. In International public relations and public diplomacy: Communication and engagement, ed. G.J. Golan, S.-U. Yang, and D.F. Kinsey, 131–146. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Wang, J. 2005. Consumer nationalism and corporate reputation management in the global era. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10 (3): 223–239.

Wang, J., and T.K. Chang. 2004. Strategic public diplomacy and local press: How a high- profile ‘head-of-state’ visit was covered in America’s heartland. Public Relations Review 30 (1): 11–24.

Wheeler, N.J. 2013. Investigating diplomatic transformations. International Affairs 89 (2): 477–496.

Yin, R.K. 2015. Case studies. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, ed. J. Wright, 194–201. Second edition. London: Elsevier.

Yuksel, M., and L.I. Labrecque. 2016. ‘Digital buddies’: Parasocial interactions in social media. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 10 (4): 305–320.

Yun, S. 2007. Exploring the embassy sampling strategy for large-scale cross-national study in replicating the normative theory of global public relations. Public Relations Review 33: 224– 226.

Yun, S. 2012. Relational public diplomacy: The perspective of sociological globalism. International Journal of Communication 6: 2199–2219.

Zaharna, R.S., and N. Uysal. 2016. Going for the jugular in public diplomacy: How adversarial publics using social media are challenging state legitimacy. Public Relations Review 42 (1): 109–119.

Zhang, J. 2013. A Strategic Issue Management (SIM) approach to social media use in public diplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist 57 (9): 1312–1331.

Zhong, X., and J. Lu. 2013. Public diplomacy meets social media: A study of the U.S. Embassy’s blogs and micro-blogs. Public Relations Review 39 (5): 542–548.