Name: Pranav Dagar

MBAM-CRM
2019PBA9202
ASSIGNMENT

Relationship Management Theories

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) posited that

there are two distinct kinds of
relationships
– exchange and communal. They
theorized that in an exchange
relationship each party gives
Relationship management theory specifies how to build toward symmetry (managing
organizational–public relationships around common interests and shared goals) and when to
apply that approach (over time).
Hon and J. Grunig (1999) posited that there are two distinct kinds of relationships
– exchange and communal. They theorized that in an exchange relationship each party
gives
Hon and J. Grunig (1999) posited that there are two distinct kinds of relationships
– exchange and communal. They theorized that in an exchange relationship each party
gives
Hon and J. Grunig (1999) posited that there are two distinct kinds of relationships
– exchange and communal. They theorized that in an exchange relationship each party
give
Hon and J. Grunig (1999) posited that there are two distinct kinds of relationships
– exchange and communal. They theorized that in an exchange relationship each party
give
“Relationship Management is the ethical and efficient management of an organization-
stakeholder relationship, focused over time, on common interests and shared goals in support
of mutual understanding and mutual benefit”
Hon and J. Grunig (1999) posited that there are two distinct kinds of relationships – exchange
and communal. They theorized that in an exchange relationship each party gives benefits to
the other only if the other has provided benefits in the past or will do so in future; while in a
communal relationship, both parties provide benefits not for something in return but for the
welfare of the other. While this is not an empirically-tested theory, the research provides
insight into different types of relationship and offers opportunities for categorization.
Hung (2005) deconstructed the notion of relationships and identified an additional six types
of organization-public relationships:
1.Exploitive relationships,
2.Manipulative relationships,
3.Symbiotic relationships,
4.Contractual relationships,
5.Covenantal relationships and
6.Mutual communal relationships.
These relationships were, therefore, developed along a continuum, with one end of the
continuum highlighting “concern for self-interest” and the other end highlighting “concern
for others”. Again, while not strictly a theory, the notion of the continuum illustrates the
range of “self-interest” vs. “concern for others more realistically than an “either-or” choice.
J. Grunig and Huang (2000) consulted Stafford and Canary’s (1991) cultivation strategies,
management theories for organizational effectiveness, and conflict resolution strategies in
developing a model of organization-public relationships. In addition, they also provided
methods for evaluating relationships in each stage: relationship antecedents, cultivation
strategies, and relationship outcomes. While a model, strictly speaking, is not a theory, one is
reminded of Littlejohn’s (1995) note that a model is an illustration of a theory.
The theory holds that a commonality of interests is mandatory if management is seeking a
long-term relationship, and if an organization and stakeholders have different interests, goals
or objectives the relationship likely will be short-term. Similarly, if either an organization or a
stakeholder group comes to believe that the other is receiving benefit from the relationship
while they are not, the relationship will not last.
Relationship management suggests that an organization and stakeholders exist in a kind of
partnership. And, while the benefits may not always be equal, each partner in the relationship
must feel the other is operating in good faith or the relationship will fail. Furthermore, if one
entity tolerates a relationship that is deceitful or unfair because of the rewards involved,
again, the relationship will not last. Relationships, like communication are not something
someone does to someone else.