See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282612988

Ledingham & Bruning, 1998

Data · October 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 9,781

2 authors:

John A. Ledingham Stephen D. Bruning

Capital University Capital University
39 PUBLICATIONS   1,868 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   1,844 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

on-going OPR study -- Not new View project

Public Relations as Relationship Managenent View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen D. Bruning on 06 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Public Relations Review, 24(l): 55-65 Copyright 0 1998 by JAI Press Inc.
ISSN: 0363-8111 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1Relationship
1Management in Public
John A.
Relations: Dimensions
Leding-ham and of an Organization-
Stephen D.
Brwain. Public Relationship
ABSTRACT: Increasingly, scholars and practitioners are defin-
ing public relations as relationship management. The investiga-
tion reported herein is an attempt to identify through
qualitative research and verify through quantitative research
relationship dimensions upon which good organization-public
relationships are initiated, developed, and maintained. The
respondents for this study were local telephone subscribers
who resided in territories that were recently opened to competi-
tion for local telephone service. A total of 384 respondents were
surveyed.
The results indicate that the relationship dimensions of
must, openness, involvement, investment, and commitment
differentiate those respondents who indicated they would stay
with the current provider, would sign up with a new pro-
vider, or were undecided as to what they would do. Conclu-
sions as to the impact of public relations as relationship
management are offered, as well as suggestions for future
areas of research.
Dr. Ledingham and Dr. Bruning are members of the
Public Relations faculty at Capital University in Columbus, OH.

spring 1998 55
 Public RelationsReview

INTRODUCTION

More than a decade ago, Ferguson urged that the matter

of relationships between an organization and its key publics should be the central
unit of study of the public relations researcher.1 Today, a leading public relations
text defines the field as “the management function that establishes and maintains
mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on
whom its success or failure depends”2 The perspective that views public relations
as “relationship management)’ argues for the practice unfolding within the four-
step management process of analysis, planning, implementation and evaluation.
Moreover, the term “public relations” also implies that the research and practice
of the discipline should focus on an organization’s relationships with its key pub-
lics, concern itself with the dimensions upon which that relationship is built, and
determine the impact that the organization-public relationship has on the organi-
zation and its key publics.
The view of public relations as relationship management represents a con-
ceptual change. In place of the traditional view of public relations primarily as a
communications activity, relationship management is conceptualized as a man-
a.e~~ent function that utilizes communication strategically. Moreover, public
relations traditionally has been described by what it does. The notion of relation-
ship management is an attempt to define the field in terms of what it is.
The field of public relations continues to seek a theoretical framework. As a
part of that search, a central focus of recent research is to understand the nature of
relationships between organizations and their key publics. The investigation
reported herein is an attempt to further explicate the organization-public relation-
ship by identifying and testing organization-public relationship dimensions that
impact consumer behavior. To develop a list of potential dimensions that impact
the organization-public relationship, the authors examined literature from public
relations, interpersonal communication, marketing, and social psychology.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Public Relations

The matter of public relations as “relationship manage-

ment? is the subject of a growing body of research within the literature of public
relations. J. Grunig’s contribution to this body of research focuses around a two-
way symmetrical model that envisions public relations as a process of continual
and reciprocal exchange between the organization and its key publics.3 Central to
Grunig’s model is the notion that successful relationships involve mutual benej-2
for both an organization and its key publics. Grunig also suggests that for public
relations to be valued by the organizations it serves, practitioners must focus their
efforts upon developing long-term behavioral relationships between organiza-
tions and their key publics, rather than relying solely upon symbolic activities

56 Vol. 24, No. 1

 RelatimasbipManagement in Public Rdatiuns

designed to enhance organizational image. When organizations focus public rela-

tions efforts on developing long-term behavioral relationships, benefit-cost analy-
ses then can be used as a means of deter mining the value of those organization-
public relationships.4
Broom and Dozier address the need to measure the organization-public
relationship as part of public relations audits5 As they note: “Conceptually,
public relations programs affect the relationships between organizations and
their publics, but rarely is program impact on the relationships themselves
measured.“6 They suggest using a coorientational approach to relationship
audits to bring together the interests of an organization and those of its key
publics.
Broom, Casey and Ritchey reviewed the literature of interorganizational
and interpersonal relationships as well as that of psychotherapy as a part of the
process of explicating the term “relationship.“7 They suggest a concept of organi-
zation-public relationships with measurable properties, independent of the parties
in the relationship, and distinct from their antecedents and consequences. In an
unpublished work, Grunig and Huang have responded to Broom’s notion of rela-
tionship precedents and antecedents, as well as maintenance strategies that
address the state of the relationship itself.8
Numerous other scholars have approached discussion of public relations
from a relational perspective. For example, Wilson calls for the use of public rela-
tions as a vehicle for building responsibility in contemporary corporations.9
Acknowledging that public relations practitioners must “have a finger on the
public pulse,” she contends nonetheless that the focus of public relations ought
to be toward the development of ‘creZutiunal responsibility.” Similarly, Heath
argues for a focus on social responsibility, employing a traditional rhetorical per-
spective. lo
Various authors such as Toth and Trujillo have suggested there is a need to
integrate concepts from organizational communication, management research,
and ublic relations to bring greater clarity to the area of corporate communica-
tion.9 1 More recently, Toth suggests that public relations “should be considered
interpersonal communication behavior because public relations practitioners
worked in a buffer zone between an organization and its publics.“12
The research cited above provides a excellent basis for theory building
within the relationship management perspective. However, one area of the orga-
nization-public relationship which has not been explored concerns the matter of
the dimensions of the organization-public relationship. Identifying and verifying
such dimensions could contribute to the effort to develop a relational themy of
public relations and add to the model building advanced by Broom and Grunig.
At the srrate@c fevel, knowledge of the dimensions which comprise organization-
public relationships- and their relative impact-could lay the groundwork for
program design. This investigation addresses the need for identification and veri-
fication of organization-public relationship dimensions. It does so through quan-
titative testing of hypotheses that were generated during qualitative research
conducted by Ledingham, Bnming, Thor&on, and Lesko.13

Spring 1998 57
 Public RdationsReview

The scholarly literature of the field of public relations yielded a great deal
of useful information in terms of broad-stroke paradigms with implications for
developing relationship models. Following the lead of Totb and Broom et al., we
also turned to other fields in our search for relationship dimensions that might
apply to an organization-public relationship. One area of literature which proved
fruitful was that of interpersonal relationships.

Interpersonal Communication

The components of successful interpersonal relationships

is the subject of a recent seminal work by Wood.14 Through her exhaustive
review of more than 700 articles and books on the subject, Wood isolated four
essential dimensions of successful interpersonal relationships which are invest-
ment, commitment, trust, and a comfort with relational dialectics. Investment
refers to the time, energy, feelings, efforts and other resources given to build the
relationship. Cmnmitment involves the decision to continue a relationship. It adds
the element of responsibility by suggesting that successful relationships involve
facing relational dif&ulties together. Trust essentially refers to a feeling that those
in the relationship can rely on each other. Dependability, forthrightness and
trustworthiness are key components. Comfm with relationaldialectics refers to the
numerous forces which can pull a relationship in opposite directions. Wood iden-
tified autonomy/connection, novelty/predictability, and openness/closedness as
the three dialectics of relationships.
In an interpersonal context, ,relationships flourish when: (1) there exists a
balance in the relationship, (2) both parties in the relationship feel that the other
is investing of time and themselves, (3) both parties are willing to make a com-
mitment to the relationship, and (4) both parties can be trusted to act in a man-
ner that supports the relationship.

Marketing and Social Psychology

The literature of marketing identifies commitment, trust,

cooperation, mutual goals, interdependence/power imbalance, performance satis-
faction, comparison level of the alternatives, adaptation, non-retrievable invest-
ment, shared technology, summate constructs, structural bonds, and social bonds15
as dimensions that impact the “buyer-seller” relationship. Finally, the field of social
psychology contributes the dimensions of commitment, intimacy and passionl6.
As a result of the review of literature, we developed a list of 17 relationship
dimensions (investment, commitment, trust, comfort with relational dialectics,
cooperation, mutual goals, interdependence/power imbalance, performance satis-
faction, comparison level of the alternatives, adaptation, non-retrievable invest-
ment, shared technology, summate constructs, structural bonds, social bonds,
intimacy, and passion) that were used in qualitative research with key publics in
order to identify organization-public relationship dimensions that impact con-
sumer behavior.

58 Vol. 24. No. 1

 Relatiunsbi~ ManaHement in Public Relutians

METHODS

Setting for the Study

The geographic setting for the study is the three-state ter-

ritory of a telecommunication company that provides local telephone service. The
field of telephony was once the province of carriers operating under exclusive
franchises granted by governmental agencies. Today, it is experiencing competi-
tion at various levels from familiar and newly-emerging entities.

Qualitative Research

The qualitative research process was initiated with in-

depth discussions with 14 public relations personnel of the telecommunications
company. That discussion was followed by interviews with 18 local governmen-
tal, business and community leaders across the three-state area. The results of
these interviews served as the basis for discussions with residential telephone sub-
scribers in focus group settings across the three-state area.
Focus groups were conducted using a group of randomly selected residen-
tial subscribers. Twelve focus groups of six to 12 residential subscribers were con-
ducted in this manner across the tri-state territory. In these groups, the residential
subscribers discussed the impact that price, product features, and the organiza-
tion-public relationship have on consumer behavior. Also, focus group partici-
pants were asked which of the 17 relationship dimensions they believed would
have an influence on their relationship with an organization.17 The following
relationship dimensions were defined by focus group participants as being critical
in the process of creating, developing, and maintaining an organization-public
relationship: trust, openness, involvement (investment, and commitment).

HYl?OTHESES

The hypotheses developed as the result of the review of lit-

erature and the qualitative research are presented below:

Hl: The organization-public relationship dimensions of openness, trust,

involvement, commitment, and investment will differentiate staying, leaving,
and undecided consumers.

H2: The organization-public relationship dimensions of openness, trust,

involvement, commitment, and investment can be used to predict which sub-
scribers will stay, leave, or are undecided.

H3: The organization-public relationship mean scores of stayers will be high-

est of the stayers, leavers, and undecideds. The organization-public relation-
ship mean scores of undecideds will be in the middle, and the mean scores of
leavers will be the lowest.

Spring 1998 59
 Public Relations Review

Procedures

The fmdings generated by the executive interviews and

focus groups served as the basis for development of a 91-item survey instrument.
The survey instrument tested respondent perceptions of the local telephone com-
pany and other competitors, attitudes about price and product features, the local
telephone company’s relationship with its key publics, and expectations with
regard to choosing between the traditional telephone service provider and new
service providers. The survey instrument was then pre-tested and interviewers
were trained to administer the survey questionnaire. The survey was conducted
by telephone using a computer-generated random-digit-dialing program. The
interviews took place over a two week period, and 20% of the telephone numbers
catled resulted in a respondent agreeing to be interviewed. Of the 390 people
who agreed to be involved in the study, 384 (99%) completed the interview. The
average completed interview lasted 25 minutes.

Participants

The sample consisted of 384 residential telephone sub-

scribers across a three-state region, with 12% indicating they were 18-27 years
old, 33% were 28-42 years old, 38% were 43-65 years old, and 17% were older
than 66. Respondents whose annual household income was $15,000 or less made
up 10% of the sample, 21% of the respondents indicated their household income
was $15,001-30,000, 30% of the respondents indicated their household income

TABLE 1

Discriminant Analysis

Discriminating Mean Scores Mean Scmes Mean Scores Structure

Variab&s of Stayers of Undecideds of Leavers Univariate F Coefficients
Trust 7.47 6.55 6.39 8.86*** .97
Commitment 7.44 6.73 6.38 7.64*** .91
Openness 7.42 6.53 6.42 6.48** .83
Investment 6.93 6.12 6.00 5.68*x .78
Involvement 7.05 7.07 6.19 5.01X” .63

Summary of Clmsijkation
Put In to Group Leavers Stayers Undecideds
Leavers 33 14 8
Stayers 68 152 36
Undecideds 5 3 5
Total N 106 169 49
N Correct 33 152 5
Proportion .311 ,899 .102
Notes: lp < .05; l*p < .Ol; l**p < .OOl
Overall: N = 324; N Correct = 190; PropotionCorrect= 0.59.

60 Vol. 24, No. 1

 Relationship Management in Public Relutims

was $30,001-50,000, 14% of the respondents indicated their household income

exceeded $50,000, while 25% declined to report their income. Respondents who
had lived in the area O-5 years made up 23% of the sample, 12% had lived in the
area 6-10 years, 13% had lived in the area 11-20 years, 25% had lived in the area
21-35 years, and 27% had lived in the area 36 years or more.

RESULTS

Discriminant analysis was computed to determine if the

relationship dimensions (1) differentiated those who will stay with their historic
telephone service provider, leave that provider to sign up for service with a new
provider, or are undecided with regards to their provider of local telephone ser-
vice, and (2) could predict subscriber choice behavior. A significant discrimiuant
function resulted, which indicated that respondent perceptions of trust, commit-
ment, involvement, investment, and openness distinguish and can predict stayers,
leavers, and undecideds (Wilks Lambda = .93, ~2 = 23.74, df = 10, p < .Ol).
The highest organization-public relationship mean scores were found among the
stayers, the lowest scores were found among the leavers, and the middle scores
were among the undecideds (the one exception was found with involvement,
where the mean scores of stayers was 7.05 and the mean scores of undecideds was
7.07). See Table 1 for the means, univariate Fs, structure coefficients, and classifi-
cation results.
As can be seen in the above table, trust, commitment, and openness are
strongly related and investment and involvement are substantially related to an
individual’s decision to stay with the current provider or sign up with a new pro-
vider. Correct classification into groups was 59% (prior probabilities were 33%).

DISCUSSION

Scholars have the luxury to deliberate the nature of public

relations but practitioners deal on a daily basis with the immediate problem of
justifying the value of their programs. One measuring stick of a successful rela-
tionship is the predisposition of members of significant publics to react positively
toward a sponsoring organization. Indeed, if organizational activities can be
shown to favorably impact a decision to stay with a provider in the face of com-
petition, then there can be little doubt that these activities have value that contrib-
utes to the economic well-being of that organization. This research indicates that
an organization-public relationship centered around building trust, demonstrat-
ing involvement, investment, and commitment, and maintaining open, frank
communication between the organization and its key public does have value in
that it impacts the stay-leave decision in a competitive environment. We suggest
that, in this case, the value of the relationship between the sponsoring organiza-
tion and its significant publics is equal to the number of local subscribers for

spring 1998 61
 Public R&dons Review

whom relationship factors spelled the difference between staying with the spon-
soring organization or opting for service from a new provider.
In this research, subscribers were asked to make a choice. In that sense, this
research is consistent with Grunig’s~* concern that public relations practitioners
must demonstrate the impact of their programs on behavioral relationships if
they are to have value within sponsoring organizations. The research results also
provide verified relationship variables that can be used as the basis for further
exploration of Broom and Dozier’s19 coorientation approach to relationship
audits. Moreover, the research is responsive to Toth’s20 call for identification of
constructs that overbridge the areas of interpersonal communication, organiza-
tional communication and public relations. Finally, in response to Broom et al.,21
we offer a tentative definition of the organization-public relationship as “the state
which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of
either entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well-being of
the other entity.” An ideal organization-public relationship, then, would be “the
state that exists between an organization and its key publics that provides eco-
nomic, social, political, and/or cultural benefits to all parties involved, and is char-
acterized by mutual positive regard.”
This study also suggests that when public relations is viewed as relation-
ship management, then public relations programs can be designed around rela-
tionship goals, with communication strategies employed to support the
achievement of those goals. And, if the success of public relations programs is
to be evaluated in terms of relationship goals, then-as Ferguson has con-
tended-the central focus of public relations research should be on relation-
ships.
This research also was conducted within a setting in which one organiza-
tion had a substantial advantage because of its long-term relationship with its sig-
nificant publics. Indeed, it is that very relationship which seemed to spell the
difference when the organization’s activities were made known. However, rela-
tively few public members (some eight percent) were aware of the numerous
activities which the local organization supports in order to build relationships
with key publics. Moreover-as noted in the Ledingham, Bruning, Thor&on,
and Lesko22 report of the qualitative research-the decision to stay or leave
changed significantly after respondents became aware of the organization’s efforts
to create, develop, or maintain relationships with its key publics. In that regard, a
comment from a focus group participant captures the power of the organization-
public relationship:

I hadn’t thought of that. Now that it has been mentioned, though, I changed
my mind. There’s no way I’d sign up with a new company.

This reaction not only underscores the importance of activities designed to build
relationships with key publics, but also emphasizes the need to communicate
those activities so they are top-of-mind.

62 Vol. 24, No. 1

 Relationship Management in Public Relations

This investigation clearly suggests a role for communication initiatives

within the framework of relationship management; in that role, goals are devel-
oped around relationships, and communication is used as a strategic tool in help-
ing to achieve those goals. Moreover, while measurement of communication
efficiencies should certainly be part of the evaluation process, their importance
eventually may rest upon their ability to impact the achievement of relationship
objectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the survey show that the relationship

dimensions of trust, openness, involvement, commitment and investment in an
organization-public relationship differentiated stayers, leavers, and undecided
subscribers in an emerging competitive environment. These findings further
suggest that organizational involvement in and support of the community in
which it operates can engender loyalty toward an organization among key pub-
lics when that involvement/support is known by those key publics. What emerges
is a WO-stepprocess in which organizations must (1) focus on the relationships
with their key publics, and (2) communicate involvement of those activities/
programs that build the organization-public relationship to members of their
key publics.
Overall, the results of this research also suggest a significant role for public
relations within the broader scope of corporate strategic planning. In that light,
relationship dimensions can be viewed as part of an integrated mix that includes
variables such as product characteristics, perceptions of quality, service, price, lev-
els of technology, demographics, and predispositions that impact the behavior of
members of an organization’s significant publics. The numeric value of each of
these factors may vary, but there can be no doubt as to the significant contribu-
tion of public relations to this mix, particularly when developed around the activ-
ities most valued by public members and grounded in the organization-public
relationship dimensions of trust, involvement, investment, commitment, and
openness.

Future Research
It is hoped that this research contributes to a greater
understanding of the organization-public relationship process and at least some
of the factors that affect that process. Nonetheless, there is still a need for scholars
in this area to work toward a comprehensive definition of the term “relationship”
as it applies to public relations. There is still a similar need to expand current
models of public relations to include relationship dimensions, as well as the ante-
cedents and consequences of those dimensions. Moreover, there is still the need
to explore the dimensions of an organization-public relationship within a longitu-
dinal design that includes benchmark measurement, intervention, and subsequent

Spring 1998 63
 Public Relations Review

follow-up. And, further research is needed to determine if the dimensions identi-

fied in this study apply to other contexts if they are to be considered of a general
nature. As Broom, et al.,23 have suggested, this area of scholarship is vital to con-
structing a general theory of organization-public relationships. This study is
offered as a part of that process.

Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank Research Assistant Cheryl Lesko for her
assistance with this research.

NOTES

1. Mary A. Ferguson, “Building Theory in Public Relations: Interorganizational Rela-

tionships,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, Florida, August, 1984.
2. Scott M. Cutlip, Allan H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, Efictive Public Relations, 7th
ed., (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994), p. 2.
3. James E. Grunig, “Image and Substance: From Symbolic to Behavioral Relation-
ships,” Public Relations Review 19 (1993), pp. 121-139.
4. William P. Ehling, “Estimating the Value of Public Relations and Communication
to an Organization,” in James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling,
Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon Whits (eds.), Excellence in Public Rela-
tions and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, 1992), pp. 617-638.
5. Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier, Usin Research in Public Relations: Applica-
this to ProgramManagement (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), p. 82.
6. Ibid., p. 82.
7. Glen M. Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey, “Toward a Concept and Theory
of Organization-Public Relationships,” Journal of Public Relations Research 9(2)
(1997), pp. 83-98.
8. James E. Grunig and Yi-Hui Huang, ‘Working Model of Relationships,” Unpub-
lished manuscript.
9. Laurie J. Wilson, “Excellent Companies and Coalition-Building Among the Fortune
500: A Value and Relationship-Based Theory,” Public R.elatiuns Review 20 (1994),
pp. 333-343.
10. Robert L. Heath, “The Wrangle of the Marketplace: A Rhetorical Perspective on
Public Relations,” in Elizabeth L. Toth and Robert L. Heath (eds.), Rhetorical and
Critical Approaches to Public Relations (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992), pp.
17-36.
11. Elizabeth L. Toth and Nick Trujillo, c‘Reinventing Corporate Communications,”
Public Relations Review 13 (1987), pp. 42-53.
12. Elizabeth L. Toth, “Interpersonal Communication and Organizational Communica-
tion: Contributions to the Study and Practice of Public Relations,” paper presented
to the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, November 1995.
13. John A. Ledingham, Stephen D. Bruning, T. Dean Thomlison, and Cheryl Lesko,
‘The Transferability of Interpersonal Relationship Dimensions Into an Organiza-
tional Setting,” Academy of ManaJetial Communications Journal 1 (1997), pp. 23-
43.

64 Vol. 24, No. 1

 RelationshipManagement in Public Relutiuns

14. Julia T. Wood, Relational Communication (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995), pp.
180-189.
15. David T. Wilson, “An Integrated Model of Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of
the Academy ofMarketing Science 23 (1995), pp. 335-345.
16. Robert J. Trotter, ‘The Three Faces of Love,” Psychology Today (September 1986),
pp. 46-56.
17. John A. Led&ham, Stephen D. Bruning, T. Dean Thomlison, and Cheryl Lesko,
op. cit., pp. 3940.
18. James E. Grunig, op. cit., pp. 121-139.
19. Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier, op. cit., p. 82.
20. Elizabeth L. To& op. cit., p. 2.
21. Glen M. Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey, op. cit., pp. 83-98.
22. John A. Ledingham, Stephen D. Bruning, T. Dean Thomlison, and Cheryl Lesko,
op. cit., p. 40.
23. Glen M. Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey, op. cit., pp. 83-98.

Spring 1998 65

View publication stats