Download Public Relation Theory and its Management Perspectives and more Study notes Public Relations in PDF only on Docsity!
An Overview of Public Relations Theory Management Perspectives in Public Relations The field of public relations has progressed far from the research tradition, which primarily focused on production of messages, campaigns, and mass media effects on audiences (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) have provided grounds for the re-conceptualization of public relations. They defined public relations as “the management of communication between an organization and its publics” (p. 7). Furthermore, J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) proposed a model of strategic public relations management. Their strategic public relations management theory encompasses much of the foundational knowledge in public relations strategy, including the situational theory of publicsT P^1 PT and models of public relations. The Excellence Study Considered as a monumental study in public relations, the excellence study can be seen as an integration of strategic management theories of public relations into a greater whole. Funded by the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Research Foundation, a team of six researchers (J. Grunig, L. Grunig, Dozier, Ehling, Repper, and White) began their research by addressing the question posed: How, why, and to what extent does communication contribute to the achievement of organizational objectives? In addition to the original question of organizational effectiveness, they added
TP^1 strategic publics. The situational theory of publics consists of two dependent variables, active and passivePT Developed by J. Grunig, situational theory is a theoretical framework that allows identification of communication behavior, and three independent variables, problem recognition, constraint recognition, andlevel of involvement. Through combination of these dimensions, J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) found consistent types of publics, all-issue publics, apathetic publics, single issue-publics, and hot-issue publics(see J. Grunig, 1997 for an extensive review of the theory).
what they called the excellence question: How must public relations be practiced and the communication function organized for it to contribute most to organizational effectiveness? (J. Grunig, 1992a, p. 5) The IABC team first started to develop a theory of value of public relations by reviewing theories of business social responsibility, ethics, and conflict resolution. They asserted that public relations has value to the larger society as well as to specific organizations. To further identify the value of excellent public relations, they examined previous research on excellence in management and searched for the meaning of organizational effectiveness. The IABC team concluded that organizations are effective when they choose and achieve goals that are important to their self-interest as well as to the interests of strategic publics in their environment (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Ehling, 1992, p. 86). They argued that, by helping organizations build relationships and by resolving conflicts between the organization and its strategic publics, public relations departments contribute to organizational effectiveness. Through a combination of survey research and qualitative research, they identified 14 generic principles of excellent public relations, which they later consolidated into ten. The following are the ten generic principles J. Grunig and his colleagues suggested (Vercic, J. Grunig, & L. Grunig, 1996):
- Involvement of public relations in strategic management. An organization that practices public relations strategically develops programs to communicate with strategic publics, both external and internal that provide the greatest threats to and opportunities for the organization.
relations departments model more of their communication programs on this model than on the press agentry, public information, or two-way asymmetrical models. However, they often combine elements of the two-way symmetrical and asymmetrical models in a “mixed-motive” model.
- A symmetrical system of internal communication. Excellent organizations have decentralized management structures that give autonomy to employees and allow them to participate in decision making. They also have participative, symmetrical systems of internal communication with employees that increases job satisfaction because employee goals are incorporated into the organizational mission.
- Knowledge potential for managerial role and symmetrical public relations. Excellent programs are staffed by professionals—people who are educated in the body of knowledge and who are active in professional associations and read professional literature.
- Diversity embodied in all roles. The principle of requisite variety (Weick,
- states that effective organizations have as much diversity inside the organization as in the environment. Excellent public relations includes both men and women in all roles, as well as practitioners of different racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.
- Organizational context for excellence. Excellent public relations departments are nourished by participative rather than authoritarian cultures, activist pressure from the environment, and organic rather than mechanical management structures. (pp. 37–40)
Over the years, the excellence theory has been tested and supported through studies by several researchers (for example, Kaur, 1997; Rhee, 2002; Shrout, 1991; Vercic, J. Grunig, & L. Grunig, 1996). Most of its theoretical components have been extended and incorporated into the recent development of relationship management theory. In particular, the two-way models were directly applied to J. Grunig and Huang’s (2000) relationship management model as maintenance strategies, which I will discuss in detail in a later section. In this study, I attempted to identify communication structures and processes important for internal and external relationship building processes. In this regard, theories of excellence that identify organizational structure for effective organizational communication provided useful insights. More specifically, principles closely related to structure, such as organization of the communication function, internal communication system, and organizational context, are relevant to this study. Although not a principle related to structure, I also included the two-way models of public relations principle, because it is related to the cultivation strategies for relationships. I also focused on the dominant coalition’s support principle because I believe much of an organization’s structure and process is greatly affected by the key decision makers of an organization. In the following, I will further discuss these principles, along with recent developments in organizational psychology and organizational communication. Empowerment of Public Relations Function Dominant coalition refers to “the group of senior managers who control the organization” (J. Grunig, 1992a, p. 5). The excellence study maintained that because the dominant coalition makes the organization’s key strategic decisions, the senior public
to Dozier and L. Grunig (1992), the public relations function can be understood by using open-systems theory. The basic idea behind the open-systems theory is that an organization exists in an environment, and organizations adapt and change according to their surrounding environments. Organizations have vertical structures, which reflect hierarchical location, and horizontal structures, which reflect the segmentation of responsibilities within a function or a department. Using these concepts, Dozier and L. Grunig (1992) suggested that public relations should be understood as a component of the adaptive subsystem. They asserted that public relations should be placed high in the organizational hierarchy in order to participate in strategic decision-making that affects the organization’s internal and external relationships with publics. To garner stronger presence within the vertical structure, the public relations function should be integrated into a single department, which would enable efficient use of scarce resources. In summary, Dozier and L. Grunig (1992) proposed that a public relations function should be integrated within a single department. They asserted that through such integration, public relations practitioners can seek power through acquiring hierarchical authority, control of resources, and network centrality,T P^2 PT eventually contributing to organizational effectiveness. Two-way Models of Public Relations In order to provide better understanding of the two-way models described in the excellence study, I will briefly review theories on models of public relations. The first
TP^2 department performs activities more critical to survival and growth of the organization, it is likely that thePT Network centrality means to be at the right place at the right time within the organization. If a department will be perceived to be more important than other departments (Dozier & L. Grunig, 1992, p.412).
four models of public relations were developed in an effort to describe the different ways public relations is practiced by J. Grunig and Hunt (1984). J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) described typical ways in which public relations is practiced by using two dimensional combinations of directions of communication—one- way versus two-way, and purposes of communication—asymmetrical versus symmetrical. The model of press agentry describes propagandistic public relations that seeks media attention in any way possible. Practitioners of this model use a one-way, source-to-receiver communication model. The public information model is a truth- oriented approach to public relations. The practitioners strive to provide accurate information to the public, but they do not disclose unfavorable information voluntarily. In the two-way symmetrical model , communication is balanced in that it adjusts the relationship between the organization and its publics through negotiation and compromise. The practitioner of this model uses planned communication to manage conflict and to improve understanding with publics. It uses research to facilitate understanding and communication rather than to identify messages most likely to motivate or persuade publics. In the symmetrical model, “understanding is the principal objective of public relations” rather than one-sided persuasion (J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1992, p. 289). The two-way asymmetrical model is characterized by unbalanced, one- sided communication. Practitioners of this model use social science theory and research on attitudes and behaviors to persuade publics to accept the organization's point of view or to behave as the organization wants. L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002), explained that symmetrical public relations also can be described as mixed motive public relations. It is based on game
Several scholars (Huang, 1997; Rhee, 1999; Sha, 1999) have succeeded in describing a general picture of an organization's public relations strategies by using these dimensions. The dimensions of communication provide more flexible ways of looking at complex public relations practices than the four models. The models theory is an integral part of relationship management theories as they are incorporated into cultivation strategies. Further discussion of relationship cultivation strategies will be provided in the later part of this chapter. Internal Communication System and Organizational Culture In this study, I was interested in exploring the employees’ role in relationship management and how the quality of employee-organization relationships affects their interaction with the publics. The internal communication principles discussed under the excellence study provided insights in this regard. I will discuss together the contextual principles with the internal communication principles as they are conceptually closely related to each other. In this research, among the contextual variables suggested I focused on the participative culture variable. Through an extensive literature review of internal communication theories developed in organizational communication and organizational psychology, J. Grunig (1992b) pointed out the lack of an integrative general theory of internal communication. J. Grunig maintained that employees are among the most important strategic publics of an organization and thus employee communication should be a part of an “integrated and managed communication program—that is, public relations” (p. 532). According to J. Grunig (1992b), internal communication research was primarily carried out by the organizational communication scholars, which resulted in great
improvement of theory on interpersonal and group communication within organizations. However, there has not been a great deal of interaction between the public relations scholars and the organizational communication scholars interested in internal communication. J. Grunig (1992b) further explained that for organizational psychology scholars, communication was a secondary variable that affects their main interests in human relations such as job satisfaction, productivity, or superior-subordinate relationships. Organizational sociologists, on the other hand, focused on the structural issues surrounding the organization; and communication was not on their research agenda. J. Grunig proposed developing an integrative internal communication theory by adopting relevant theories of these fields. He argued that in order to understand how internal communication makes an organization effective, we need to look into the nature of communication systems, organizational structure, and organizational culture. J. Grunig (1992b) found that throughout several research traditions in organizational communication and organizational psychology, symmetrical concepts such as trust, credibility, openness, relationships, reciprocity, network symmetry, horizontal communication, or feedback are repeatedly discussed. J. Grunig observed that organizational communication and organizational psychology scholars often disregarded structural issues. He explained that, as in organizational sociology, structural issues should be included in understanding internal communication management. He stated that an organization’s structure and communication system are intertwined. J. Grunig considered the communication system to be a part of organizational structure; thus, he advocated viewing communication as a product of organizational structure. Furthermore,
J. Grunig (1992b) maintained that employees are critical constituencies in the internal environment, who can either constrain or enhance the organizational mission. In this regard, a symmetrical internal communication system that facilitates employees’ satisfaction with the organization is “the catalyst if not the key to organizational excellence and effectiveness” (J. Grunig, 1992b, p. 569). Based on his reviews, J. Grunig proposed the following three propositions: Proposition 1 : Excellent systems of internal communication reflect principles of symmetrical communication. Proposition 2 : Symmetrical systems of communication make organizations more effective by building open, trusting, and credible relationships with strategic employee constituencies. Proposition 3 : Good relationships with employee constituencies are indicated by high levels of job satisfaction, especially organizational job satisfaction. (p. 559) Most recently, the excellence team published complete results of the study as Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. In this book, L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) reported empirical research findings on internal communication, culture, and structure. As for organizational culture, the IABC team found through quantitative and qualitative research that participatory culture is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for public relations excellence. In other words, excellent public relations can occur even in authoritarian cultures. However, participative culture was found to provide more supporting environment for excellent public relations than authoritarian culture.
According to L. Grunig at al. (2002), the IABC team also investigated the relationship between internal communication variables and public relations excellence. The team measured asymmetrical and symmetrical internal communication, correlated them with organizational structure and culture variables. L. Grunig et al. reported that organizations with organic structuresTP^3 PT possess symmetrical internal communication systems and participative cultures. On the other hand, organizations with mechanical structuresP^3 P have asymmetrical internal communication systems and authoritarian cultures. However, the team found only a moderate correlation of culture and the internal communication system with overall communication excellence. Organizational Effectiveness In this study, I did not attempt to fully explore the concept of organizational effectiveness. However, literature on organizational effectiveness is reviewed to inform the study. According to Kalliath, Bluedorn, and Gillespie (1999), efforts to identify the causes of organizational effectiveness have occupied many organizational scholars. There are different ideas about how one should define and conceptualize organizational effectiveness. In public relations, the IABC team provided the most comprehensive review of literature on organizational effectiveness. The IABC team adopted Robbins’ (1990) description of four major perspectives on organizational effectiveness: goal-attainment, systems perspective, strategic constituencies, and competing values. Robbins’ description is still widely used in recent organizational study literature (for examples, see Herman & Renz, 1999; Kalliath, Bluedorn, & Gillespie, 1999; Rojas, 2000).
TP^3 complexity; and mechanical organizations are large-scale and low-complexity structures.PT According to Dozier and L. Grunig (1992), organic organizations are small in scale but high in
Robbins (1990) explained that the strategic constituencies perspective is problematic because of the difficulty of separating the strategic constituencies from the larger environment, rapid change in the environment, and the difficulty of identifying the expectations that strategic constituencies hold for an organization (p. 67). However, as L. Grunig et al. (1992) maintained, these are problems public relations has been addressing over the years. For instance, S. Bowen (2000) aptly described how situational theory can help identify the strategic constituencies within the environment. Environmental scanning suggested by J. Grunig and his colleagues (Dozier & L. Grunig, 1992; J. Grunig, & Repper, 1992; L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) can address the second problem of rapid change in the environment. The third problem of constituency expectations also has been addressed by public relations scholars such as J. Grunig and L. Grunig (1992, 1996). They have long been suggesting systematic research on external publics’ opinion and incorporation of the research data in the organizations’ decision-making process. The competing values approach is what Robbins (1990) calls an integrative framework of organizational effectiveness. Robbins explained that with the competing values approach, “the criteria you value and use in assessing an organization’s effectiveness—return on investment, market share, new-product innovation, job security—depend on who you are and the interests you represent” (p. 68). In other words, depending on the evaluator, the criteria can be quite different. However, proponents of the competing values approach argue that these diverse preferences can be consolidated (Robbins, 1990). Through series of research, Quinn and his colleagues identified the three value continua of organizational effectiveness: flexibility-control (FC), internal-external (IE), and means-ends (ME) (for historical
development, see Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Their approach is often referred to as the “competing values framework (CVF).” Cameron and Quinn (1999) later consolidated the continua into flexibility-control (FC) and internal-external (IE). Kalliath, Bluedorn, and Gillespie (1999) explained: The F/C continuum represents the way organizations handle their internal components while simultaneously meeting the external challenges of competition, adaptation, and growth…The I/E continuum represents how well the organization manages the demands for change arising from its environment while simultaneously maintaining continuity. (p. 144) In the CVF model, the combination of the two continua produces four quadrants: The human relations quadrant results from the flexibility-internal axis; the open systems quadrant results from the flexibility-external axis; the rational goal quadrant from the external-control axis; and the internal process quadrant from the internal-control axis. Advocates of the CVF approach believe that contents of these quadrants can explain most organizations’ value orientations (Quinn & Cameron, 1999). Organizations that focus on people, teamwork, participation, and empowerment tend to be dominant on the human relations quadrant. Values such as flexibility, growth, innovation, and creativity are important in organizations dominant on the open systems quadrant. Organizations that emphasize efficiency, performance, task focus, and productivity are dominant on the rational goal quadrant. Centralization, routinization, stability, and predictability are highly valued in organizations dominant on the internal process quadrant (Kallaith, Bluedorn, & Gillespie, 1999; Quinn & Cameron, 1999; Robbins, 1990).
theories also maintain that an organization is effective when it builds long-term, positive relationships with its strategic publics (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Ehling, 1992; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). According to these scholars, an organization will be able to garner support for its activities by building long-term, positive relationships with its strategic publics, which eventually will be conducive to achieving its goals. Relationship Management Perspectives in Public Relations Researchers of the excellence study suggested early on that in order for an organization to achieve its goals, building long-term, positive relationships with strategic publics is important (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Ehling, 1992). However, it was not until the last few years that relationship building and management of relationships with publics emerged as the key research interest in public relations. Twenty years ago, Ferguson (1984) argued that the relationships between an organization and its key publics should be the focus of public relations research. J. Grunig (1993) maintained that practitioners must be concerned about behavioral relationships rather than just focusing on symbolic relationships between organizations and key publics. According to Ledingham and Bruning (1998), the relational perspective reconceptualizes public relations as a “ management function that uses communication strategically” (p. 56). Bruning and Ledingham (2000) explained that the relational management perspective moves public relations practice away from “manipulating public opinion through communication messages” to combination of “symbolic communication messages and organizational behaviors to initiate, nurture, and maintain mutually beneficial organization-public relationships” (p. 87).
Definition of Organization-Public Relationships (OPR) Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) were among the first to come up with a definition of organization-public relationships after an extensive literature review of interpersonal communication, psychotherapy, interorganizational relationships, and systems theories. Broom et al. reported that these relationship studies adopted notions of relationships that combine subjective perceptions of the participants with qualities of relationships independent of the participants. Broom et al. concluded that systems theory provides a useful framework to understand relationships and suggested the following definition: Organization-public relationships are represented by the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage between an organization and its publics. These relationships have properties that are distinct from the identities, attributes, and perceptions of the individuals and social collectivities in the relationships. Though dynamic in nature, organization-public relationships can be described at a single point in time and tracked over time. (p. 18) Broom et al. (1997) explained that under systems theory, there are antecedents that lead to formation of relationships. They proposed perceptions, motives, needs, and behaviors as antecedents. Broom et al. maintained that relationships have consequences such as goal achievement, dependency, and loss of autonomy. For Broom et al., relationships are measurable concepts that are separate from the perceptions held by parties in the relationships. Many public relations scholars take similar positions with Broom et al. on defining organization-public relationships (J. Grunig and Huang, 2000; Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).
