How to measure organization-public relationships: Measurement validation in
a company-retailer relationship


Samsup Jo
Doctoral Candidate
University of Florida
5055 SW 78th Way
Gainesville, FL 32608
[log in to unmask]
  (352) 846-1155














Paper submitted to the Annual Convention of the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication, Public Relations Division

Abstract

In spite of attempts to develop operational measurements of
organization-public relationships, the development of global public
relations has been limited in other cultural contexts. The basic premise of
this study supposes that global relational elements can be found when an
organization engages in organization-public relationships.  For this study,
a setting for an organization-public relationship is Samsung Electronics
located in South Korea and its retailers. Two hundred fourteen retailers
and two hundred forty seven Samsung managers in Korea participated in this
study. While managers perceive "trust" 'satisfaction" "face & favor" and
"personal network" as important relationship components, retailers assess
"trust" "commitment" "face & favor" and "personal network" as important
relationship dimensions. These findings provide a conceptually and
operationally meaningful depiction of organization-public relationship that
should be useful for understanding and measuring public relationships by
surveying the two sides that are involved in the relationships.

6
                                                       How to measure
organization-public relationships
INTRODUCTION
The notion of public relations as relationship management has been gaining
more momentum among scholars and public relations practitioners. A new
paradigm of relationship management embraces the value of favorable
organization-public relationships. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) define
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." (p.62) The perspective of organization-public relationship
extends the traditional value of public relations, such as disseminating
information, into the more meaningful area of fostering quality
relationships between an organization and its publics.  The relational
perspective primarily concurs with the conceptual definition of public
relations "the management function that establishes and maintains mutually
beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom
its success or failure depends" (Cutlip, Center & Broom, 1994, p.2).
Many scholars have contributed scholarly reviews of organization-public
relationships from other disciplines such as interpersonal communication,
social psychology, and marketing management (Bruning, 2002; Bruning &
Ledingham 2000 a; Bruning & Ledingham 2000b; J. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon &
J. Grunig; 1999; Huang, 2001; Kim, 2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000;
Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1999).
In line with borrowing theoretical frameworks from other disciplines, the
question "how do you measure the effects of public relations?" has become a
fundamental issue in public relations in recent years. Counting the number
of news clippings and broadcast reports does not necessarily measure the
value of public relationships. For decades, it has been said that public
relations is diverse and difficult to measure in that most of its elements
are intangible (Lesley, 1997). However, the paradigm shift from a mediated
communication perspective to a relational perspective necessitates
measurement of relationship building and its effect on the organizations.
Thus, quantifying organization-public relationships requires a measurement
scale to measure the relational value. Public relations scholars have
proposed relationship indicators as measures of organization-public
relationships (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2001; J. Grunig & Huang, 2000;
Kim, 2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 1999, 2000).
Literature Review
Public Relations as Relationship Management
More often than ever, public relations practitioners are being asked to
demonstrate the effect of public relations. In spite of the emphasis on
relational perspectives in public relations, how to measure the effect of
public relations value is still a challenging task to public relations
practitioners. Thus, the need of valid and reliable indices to measure the
long-term effects of public relationships is in much greater demand in the
public relations field.  Also, scholars are seeking further scale
development of organization-public relationships (Bruning & Ledingham,
1999; Huang 2001; Kim 2001).
Since the value of organization-public relationships can be represented by
relational outcomes, measuring the dimensions of public relationships is
becoming more important. Deciding which specific measure to use when
assessing public relationships can be critical for public relations
professionals given the limited measures on organization-public
relationship scales.
Reviews of the literature on relationship marketing, interpersonal
relationships,
and of the social psychology literature pertaining to relational dimensions
have identified attitudinal and psychological dimensions of relationships.
Scholars have used these researches to construct questionnaires for
relationship measurement.
Ledingham and Bruning (2000) summarize that research concerning
relationship management falls into three categories. (a) models of the
organization-public relationship (e.g., antecedents, maintaining
strategies, and consequences); (b) relationship dimensions as indicators of
relationship, and (c) applications of the relational perspective to various
aspects of public relations practice.
This study is related to the second category, which is research on
relationship dimensions as indicators of organization-public relationships
(OPR). Relationship dimensions can be viewed as an integrated mix that
encompasses multi-facets of relationship qualities that impact the behavior
of key publics of an organization. While  relationship management emerges
as an important framework of the public relations role and value, the
critical issue is how to measure the invisible public relationships between
an organization and its stakeholders. Thus, there is an obvious need for an
instrument to capture complete and valid characteristics of
organization-public relationships. Theory development is delayed without a
valid and reliable instrument. This study involves the elaboration of a
scale assessing organization-public relationships.
Researchers have devoted considerable effort to clarifying the meaning of
relationship dimensions in terms of theory building in public relations. An
important next step is trying to find empirical support for a causal link
between relational efforts and behavioral outcomes.  Before doing so,
however, scholars may need to provide not only  a theoretical framework in
relationship building theory but also need to develop measuring instruments
for public relations professionals. Thus, more valid and reliable
relationship dimensions must be better established. As Ledingham and
Bruning suggested, "There is a need to develop a relationship scale that
includes several measures of each of the relationship dimensions to ensure
greater reliability" (2000, p.67). From a theoretical standpoint, existing
scales need to be refined for two reasons.
First, most organization-public relationship measures have been derived
from the perspective of only one party (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999). This
approach does not reveal the public relationship from the perspective of
two parties. We must reflect on whether a one-way measure, in fact, does
tell us something about the nature of a relationship. Hon and J. Grunig
stated, "At some point, public relations researchers should measure
relationships as seen or predicted by both parties. This evaluation would
document how organizational decision makers see the relationship as well as
how publics see the organization" (1999, p.25). Moreover, Hon and J. Grunig
(1999) contended "Practitioners also should consider administering these
items formally or informally to senior managers to get their perceptions of
a relationship with a specific public" (1999, p.28).  Broom , Casey and
Ritchey (1997) also stated "to truly measure the properties of
relationships, researchers must develop measures of "relationships as
phenomena distinct from the perceptions held by parties in the
relationships." (1997, p.95)
An alternative approach is to measure the relationship quality of two
parties and quantity averaged relational perceptions that are held
evaluations in the minds of both sides. Furthermore, the scale should
ensure reliability and construct validity to be used in a global setting.
Therefore, one crucial assumption being made in this study is that
organization-public relationships between an organization and its publics
correspond to the two-way measures of both sides.
Second, the existing scales should ensure validity and reliability for the
robustness of the measurement scale. One initial question of importance
asks whether the earlier constructs are reliable and valid. More testing
stages and theoretical support can ensure the validity and reliability. In
the relationship management literature, relational dimensions developed by
Huang (2001), Ledingham and Bruning (1998, 2000) and Hon and J. Grunig
(1999) provide general measures for organization-public relationships, but
these measures differ in dimensions. A comprehensive measurement model of
organization-public relationships would enhance the existing relationship
measurement scale. To develop a comprehensive measurement model, the study
combine extensive existing measures with unique dimensions in
organization-public settings and organizational behavior. Only two studies
attempted to validate the relational dimensions using confirmatory factor
analysis. Kim (2001) and Huang (2001) used confirmatory factor analysis to
validate relational dimensions they proposed.
Third, the current measurements of organization-public relationships have
been developed based on Western culture. As Huang (2000) pointed out, the
development of global public relations has become a critical issue in this
global age. Botan (1992) contended that public relations has developed from
Western culture and often cultural assumptions of public relations theory
does not necessarily reflect other societal cultures. Thus, a
cross-cultural theory of organization-public relationships becomes
important in the building of public relations theory in a global setting.
Moreover, Ledingham and Bruning (2000) called for relational dimensions to
be replicated among different industries and different publics to determine
if and how diverse settings and people affect relationship indicators.
Along these lines, Huang (2001) identified face and favor as distinctive
relational features in Eastern culture. Furthermore, Bruning and Ledingham
(1999) called for further relationship study of relationship management as
the dominant paradigm in public relations.
The Purpose of the Study
Thus, the study of relational dimensions needs to consider not only
examining measurable properties, but also determining whether and how
relationship properties may vary across publics in other cultures.
In spite of attempts to develop operational measurements of
organization-public relationships (Bruning & Ledingham, 1998; Huang, 1997,
2001; Hon & Grunig, 1999), the development of global public relations has
been limited in other cultural contexts. Therefore, the present study
starts with Huang's study, which was developed in an eastern culture.
The specific objectives of the study are (1) to design a comprehensive
instrument to measure organization-public relationships (OPR) by Huang's
study (2001) and proposing additional items that could capture specific
features that may influence or characterize OPR in the selected country;
(2) to test the comprehensive instrument proposed and assess its validity
and reliability. This will be accomplished by assessing OPR between an
organization (Samsung Electronics) and one of its key public (retailers).
Research examining the relational dimensions used to measure
organization-public relationships continues to suggest the importance of
relevant features of relationship measurement. The results of this study
may show how relational features are perceived differently depending on an
organization and its public side. Understanding the varying degree of
relational features will enable public relations practitioners to manage
relationships more effectively by understanding to what extent public
relationships are situationally based. The measurement scale for
organization-public relationships can offer practitioners and scholars a
way to measure relationships as they develop. Moreover, this study can be a
starting point to determine the value of public relations and its link to
an organization's bottom line in terms of causal relationships between
relational efforts and their outcomes.
Development of Organization-Public Relationship (OPR) Scale
Public relations scholars have approached the relationship measurement
issue from the perspective of relational outcomes (dimensions). The
organization-public relationship (OPR) attempts at developing measurement
frameworks have incorporated general summaries of the interpersonal
theories, social psychology and relationship marketing approaches. Within
the literature on interpersonal relationships, a variety of frameworks and
measuring dimensions have been developed. Ferguson (1984) suggested that
public relations practitioners use the following tools to evaluate the
quality of an organization's relationship with the public: dynamic vs.
static, open vs. closed, mutual satisfaction, distribution of power and
mutual understanding, agreement and consensus. J. Grunig and Ehling (1992)
suggested reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy, openness,
mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding as the key elements of the
organization-public relationship (p.136). Further, Ledingham, Bruning,
Thomlison and Lesko (1997) found 17 dimensions from an extensive literature
review of interpersonal and marketing qualitative research. Ledingham et
al. (1997) developed 17 relationship dimensions: investment, commitment,
trust, comfort with relational dialectics, cooperation, mutual goals,
interdependence/power imbalance, performance satisfaction, comparison level
of the alternatives, adaptation, non-retrievable investment, shared
technology, summate constructs, structural bonds, social bonds, intimacy,
and passion.
Subsequently, Ledingham and Bruning (1998) suggested five
organization-public relationship indicators: open communication, the level
of trust, the level of involvement, investment in the communities and
long-term commitment. With discriminant analysis, Ledingham and Bruning
(1998) demonstrated that five relational dimensions (trust, openness,
involvement, commitment, and investment) in an organization-public
relationship differentiated stayers, leavers, and undecided subscribers for
local telephone service.
Although Ledingham and Bruning culled comprehensive relational dimensions
from other disciplines such as interpersonal communication, marketing and
social psychology, they relied solely on only twelve focus groups to
finalize the items (trust, openness, involvement, and commitment).  The
development of a summated rating scale requires a considerable investment
of time and effort (Spector, 1992).  A focus group may have checked face
validity to measure organization-public relations, however the measure
still needs to go through a reliability test by using more subjects to see
whether the proposed measures are consistent in other settings. In
addition, Ledingham and Bruning did not show the operational measures in
their studies, preventing further validation studies.  The importance of
reliability needs to be stressed to build a solid instrument. Spector
states, "A good summated rating scale is both reliable and valid.
Reliability will be considered in two ways. First, test-retest reliability
means that a scale yields consistent measurement over time. Assuming that
the construct of interest does not change, each subject should get about
the same score upon repeated testings. Second, internal-consistency
reliability means that multiple items, designed to measure the same
construct, will intercorrelated with one another." (p.6, 1992).
In an effort to develop an organization-public relationship scale, Bruning
and Ledingham (1999) culled 51 relational items from previous studies on
relational dimensions. Out of screened 24 relational items, they extracted
three key dimensions using factor analysis: professional relationship,
personal relationship and community relationship[1].  Professional
relationship refers to the extent to which an organization engages in the
welfare of its customers, whereas personal relationship deals with the
organization's effort to build personal relationships.  Bruning and
Ledingham (1999) state that when an organization is managing a professional
relationship, it should deliver its services in a businesslike manner that
meets the business needs of the customer. A Personal relationship involves
actions that build a sense of trust between the organization and members of
key publics, and that the organization's representatives be willing to
invest time, energy, thought and feelings into their interactions with
members of key publics. Finally, a community relationship refers to the
extent to which an organization interacts with the community in which it is
located.  Bruning and Ledingham state "when an organization is managing a
community relationship it is important that the organization be open with
community members, that the organization engage in activities that can be
used to improve social and economic aspects of the community, and that the
organization take an active role in community development." (p.165)
In this study, Bruning and Ledingham advanced their initial relational
dimensions developed in 1998. They used exploratory factor analysis to
refine organization-public relations. They analyzed 24 items culled from an
extensive literature review. Initially they dropped lower loadings in a
principal-components analysis. measurement. They finalized a 16-item
organization-public relationship scale. As noted above, they identified
three factors – professional, personal, and community relationships. One
limitation in their study is that they didn't test the relational items
based on theoretical bases. Exploratory factor analysis involves reducing
the items based on the correlations one to another.  Development of an
instrument measuring organization-public relationships needs to go through
a further step called confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor
analysis can test whether the proposed scale items (sample data) fit with
the theory. Sole reliance on exploratory factor analysis does not support
solid validation of the proposed scale. Also, the labels (professional,
personal, community) representing organization-public relationships
proposed by Bruning and Ledingham are not comparable to other studies.  For
example, a professional relationship is not comparable with trust or
commitment, which is proposed by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). Incompatibility
with other relational dimensions makes it difficult to replicate their study.
Hon and J. Grunig (1999) summarized maintenance features of interpersonal
relationships and outcomes of relationships from the interpersonal and
public relations literature. They included positivity, openness, assurance,
networking, sharing of tasks, trust, control mutuality, commitment,
satisfaction, communal relationship, and exchange relationship. J. Grunig
and Huang (2000) suggested some indicators to evaluate  organization-public
relationships. With regard to maintenance strategies, they suggest that
disclosure, assurance of legitimacy, and participation in mutual networks
can be used. They also suggest five relationship features such as trust,
control mutuality, commitment, communal relationship and satisfaction from
the extensive outcome features.
Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) suggested that relationship formation and
maintenance involve a process of mutual adaptation and contingent responses
between parties. They believe that relationships between an organization
and its key publics are phenomena that can be studied as distinct from the
perceptions of the relationship held either by an organization or its key
publics.
However, Huang's research (1997, 2000, 2001) has focused on measuring
perceptions as a first step in developing a theoretical model of
relationship formation, maintenance, and outcomes.  She has isolated four
key relational features: trust, control mutuality, commitment, and
satisfaction. Similarly, Ledingham et al. (1997) suggested that the
concepts of openness, trust, involvement, investment, and commitment may
represent the dimensions of an organization-public relationship (Ledingham,
Bruning, Thomlison, & Lesko, 1997). Table 1 summarizes the studies of
organization-public relations with proposed dimensions and research method.

TABLE 1.  Frameworks for Organization-Public Relationship Measurement

Study
Relationship Dimensions
Sample & OPR setting
Ferguson, 1984
dynamic vs. static, open vs. closed, mutual  satisfaction, distribution of
power, mutual understanding, mutual agreement
Grunig and Ehling, 1992
reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy, openness, mutual
satisfaction, and mutual understanding
Huang, 1997
trust, control mutuality, relational commitment, relational satisfaction
311 legislative members and their assistants, 16 items (1997)
Ledingham and Bruning, 1998
openness, trust, involvement, investment, commitment
384 residential telephone subscribers, 91 items (1998)
Bruning and Ledingham, 1999
professional relationship, personal relationship, community relationship
183 bank customers with 51 items (1999)
Hon and J. Grunig, 1999
trust, control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, communal relationships,
exchange relationships
200 online users with 52 items (1999)
J. Grunig and Huang, 2000
trust, control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction
311 legislative members and their assistants, 16 items (1997)
Huang, 2001
trust, control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, face and favor
1st stage: 311 legislative members and their assistants, 16 items (1997)
2nd stage: 235 public relations practitioners from Executive Yuan in
Taiwan, 21 items (1999)
Kim, 2001
trust, commitment, local and community involvement, reputation
1st stage: 160 undergraduate students, 58 items
2nd stage: 102 community residents, 16 items
3rd stage: 157 customers of online company, 16 items

Drawing from all of relational research, J. Grunig and Hon (1999) suggested
that six relational dimensions could measure the relationship perceptions
between an organization and its publics: trust, control mutuality,
commitment, satisfaction, communal relationship and exchange relationships.
Based on comprehensive theoretical review, they developed a solid
organization- public relationship. Although most of their relational
measures showed acceptable Cronbach's alpha, they drew the sample
online,using graduate students for the data collection. Also, they analyzed
the data by only checking Cronbach alpha, without a pilot test and
exploratory factor analysis to check face validity and consistency with
theory. These limitations should be corrected in further studies.
Based on her dissertation, Huang (2001) developed a multi-item scale for
measuring organization-public relationships from the perspective of a
cross-cultural setting. She combined four relational features (control
mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment) from Western literature with
one relational feature from Eastern culture (face and favor). She
emphasizes the concept of face and favor in Chinese society with "the
strategy of face, face-work, is also important in Chinese society. In
general, maintaining face or doing a face-work in front of others is
important in social interactions, especially for expanding or enhancing
human networks." (p.69) With exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis,
Huang (2001) found that all five dimensions are acceptable for measuring
organization-public relationships with a cross validation method.
Furthermore she suggested future research to test organization-public
relationships across different types of organizations such as non-profit
organizations, of different sizes. Thus, the study corresponds to her
research suggestion and is in line with her scale of organization-public
relationships.
1Relational Dimensions
Trust
Trust has been recognized as a critical construct in relationship
literature. Trust generally is a fundamental component for beneficial
relationships between two parties. A trustworthy reputation is important in
that it affects publics around the issues, products or services originated
by an organization. In public relations literature, trust and credibility
have been regarded as critical components for an organization to exist
(Vercic & J. Grunig, 1995).
Morgan and Hunt (1994, p.23) define trust as the perception that exists
when "...one party has confidence in the exchange partner's reliability and
integrity." Relationship marketing can also give an idea of how to approach
employees. Many different variables have been raised to explicate
long-term-based relationship marketing. Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggested
that successful relationship marketing demands relationship commitment and
trust. They theorized and tested the Key Mediating Variable (KMV) model of
relationship marketing in which commitment and trust were used as mediating
variables between five important antecedents (relationship termination
costs, relationship benefits, shared values, communication, and
opportunistic behavior) and five outcomes (acquiescence, propensity to
leave, cooperation, functional conflict, and decision-making uncertainty).
Commitment
Commitment refers to an implicit or explicit pledge or relational
continuity between exchange partners (Dwyer & Oh, 1987). Similar to trust,
commitment has been recognized as an essential component for favorable
relationships (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).  Morgan and Hunt (1994) define
commitment as "[an] exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship
with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining
it; that is, the committed party believes the relationship is worth
promoting and savoring to ensure that it endures indefinitely." (p.23)
Moorman and Zaltman (1992, p.316) define commitment as "an enduring desire
to maintain a valued relationship." Hon and J. Grunig (1999, p.20) define
commitment as "the extent to which one party believes and feels that the
relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote."  Also, Hon
and J. Grunig (1999) itemize commitment as continuance commitment (action)
and affective commitment (emotion).
Satisfaction
A central tenet of public relationship literature is the creation and
retention of satisfied publics who affect the bottom line of the
organization. Ferguson (1984) suggests that different expectations toward
each other (organization, public) may bring different levels of
satisfaction. Ferguson states "Other variables related to the relationship
might be how much control both parties to the relationship believe they
have, how power is distributed in the relationship, whether the parties to
the relationship believe they share goals, and whether there is mutuality
of understanding, agreement, and consensus" (p.20).
Control Mutuality

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) defined control mutuality as the degree to which
parties agree on who has rightful power to influence one another. The
discussion of power imbalance between an organization and its publics has
been discussed in recent years, specifically from the perspective of
postmodernists. Postmodernism challenges ideological domination and power
structure that maintain control over the people who have legitimate voices.
Postmodernism distinguishes macropolitics from micropolitics. Micropolitics
include people who have been discriminated against in the past such as
females and minorities (Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002).

Personal Influence Model and International Public Relations
Since the 1990s, a few international scholars have recognized the
perspectives of international public relations. J. Grunig, L. Grunig,
Sriramesh, Huang, and Lyra (1995) used J. Grunig's four models as a
theoretical framework to examine applicability in the international
setting. In Taiwan, organizations not only practice the four models, but
also take a personal influence approach in the early stage of conflict. The
underlying framework in practicing public relations is primarily
'Confucianism.' In Greece, Lyra (1991) found that the press agentry model
was practiced most dominantly, followed by the public information and
two-way symmetrical model. In India, Sriramesh (1995) found that building a
positive image of the organization is the first purpose of public
relations, and media relations was the predominant activity among most
public relations professionals. J. Grunig et al. (1995) applied an
additional variable - the personal influence model  - in their combined
meta-analysis of the three countries. They argued that public relations in
those countries (Taiwan, Greece, and India) commonly tried to establish
personal relationships with key individuals in the media, government,
political and activist groups.
Cross-cultural variable in Korea
Since the data collection is based in Korea, which is a cultural setting
distinct from the U.S., the study needs to take into account the unique
cultural characteristics specific to Korea.
The importance of culture lies in its dominating power, in that the culture
is embedded in every aspect of a nation from interpersonal communication to
its political system. As in most Eastern Asian countries, Confucianism has
been the most consistent legacy.  For one thousand years, Confucianism has
prevailed as the basic social and political value system (Yum, 1988). The
importance of Confucianism on far-eastern culture can be found in every
aspect of human relationships (Yum, 1988).  The most distinctive
characteristic in East Asia is the emphasis on hierarchical relationships
(Yum, 1988).
Korean Confucianism, descended from the Chosun Dynasty, emphasizes
hierarchical authority in Korean society.  Confucianism is a teaching that
offers a guide for proper human relationships. "Proper" in a Confucian
context means to follow a patterned, uniform behavior. These relationships
are perceived as the building blocks of a society, stressing harmonious
cooperation and a peaceful social order (Kang, 1977). Confucianism is thus
an ideology and a political strategy, as it is concerned with realizing the
prescriptions suggested for the establishment of the ideal society. Human
ties are described in five categories of social relationships. In classical
Confucian texts these relationships are usually mentioned in the following
order: Ruler-Subject; Father-Son; Husband-Wife; Elder-Younger (brother);
and Friend-Friend.
Confucianism has more in common with a political ideology than a religion,
although the social impact of this teaching may have been as strong as any
religion. Having assumed the role of state ideology as well as forming the
essence of all educational efforts in a centralized state for more than 500
years, Confucian ideas and values, morals and norms have been internalized
as the right, apparent and cultured way of judgment and behavior in Korean
society (Helgesen, 1998).
With regard to interpersonal relationship characteristics, Yum and Canary
(2003) summarize the different frames of reference regarding Korean versus
American relationships. Several cultural features and principles appear to
affect Korean beliefs and attitudes toward relationship building and their
styles of relational maintenance communication
Personal Network (yon)
While J. Grunig and Huang (2000) proposed networking as one of the
maintenance strategies[2], this study conceptualizes networking as an
important relationship dimension to be included in organization-public
relationship measurement. This study defines "personal network" as an
established network based on blood tie (hyulyon), school tie (hakyon), and
regional hometown (jiyon). As noted earlier, cultural characteristics such
as jung, eui-ri, noon-chi, chae-myun, and yon can commonly represent the
dimensions of personal networks found in Korea.
Thus, this study assumes that personal networks greatly influence
all  relational interactions in Korea. Practicing public relations in Korea
without a personal network is difficult.  Building and maintaining
relationships with media, government, and the local community is greatly
enhanced by the aid of personal networks based on the practitioner's
academic background, regional hometown and family.  In sum, personal
networks are included as a factor in organizational-public relationships
that are found distinctively in Korea.
This study proposes that publics' global evaluations frequently have close
relationships to that of the U.S. because of common influences from
component attitudes. Huang (2001) demonstrates that consumers use the same
attribute evaluations to render global evaluations, but the weighting of
attributes varies with the global evaluation requested. We found a similar
phenomenon; global evaluations share some of the same component factors,
yet there are varying influences of the component on the global constructs
of overall satisfaction, trust, and commitment.

Research Questions
Although a number of scholars provide organization-public relationship
studies, the measurement of organization-public relations is still in an
infant stage. What dimensions should we use to measure organization-public
relationships? How do we check validity and reliability? How do we measure
the organization-public relationship reflecting the perceptions of both
sides? These issues make it difficult to develop a measurement instrument
of organization-public relationships. In particular, the first attempt to
develop a measurement instrument is increasingly important for subsequent
studies.
Since the measurement of organization-public relations is still in an
exploratory stage in terms of theory building, the present study approaches
assessing relationship quality with research questions. Based on the
theoretical review of organization-public relationships, this study
proposes three research questions.
RQ1: What are the valid and reliable dimensions that represent an
organization-public relationship,  reflecting both sides' evaluations of
the relationship?

RQ2: Is there any distinctive relational dimensions found in Korea when
measuring an organization – public relationship?

RQ3: Do an organization's relational dimensions differ from a public's
relational dimensions in this study?
RESEARCH METHODS
Organization Public Relationship (OPR) Setting
Although the organization-public relationship dynamic in different cultures
can add unique relational features (Huang, 2001), general relational
features can be found commonly in both Western and Eastern cultures. Thus,
the basic premise of this study supposes that global relational elements
can be found when an organization engages in organization-public
relationships.
  For this study, a setting for an organization-public relationship needs
to be proposed. The sample organization-public relationship is Samsung
Electronics located in South Korea and its retailers. Retailers are private
companies that deal with Samsung Electronics' products. General managers
working for Samsung Electronics Corporation in Korea will be asked to
evaluate their relationships. Samsung Electronics is a leading corporation
in the nation in its sales volume as well as its net profit.  The main
products of Samsung Electronics are computers, mobile phones and home
appliances. The corporation accounts for an estimated 10% of Korea's total
export. In Korea.  Samsung Electronics is considered the national flagship
corporation representing Samsung (a business conglomerate). Samsung is one
of the conglomerates called Chaebols, which account for more than half of
the national economic activity (Yoo & Lee, 1998).
For Samsung Electronics, given the fact that retailers are an important
distribution channel for the company, retailers are regarded as a primary
public that can influence organizational bottom line. Samsung Electronics
is a leading corporation nationally in home appliances, telecommunications
and the personal computer market.
To explore the perceptions of this  organization-public relationship,
general managers at Samsung Electronics were surveyed since they are
involved in managing and marketing those products in the domestic market.
Therefore, the above-mentioned general managers are appropriate
organizational representatives to evaluate the organization-public
relationship. They were asked to evaluate the public relationships with
their company and retailers. Likewise, retailers were asked to evaluate
their relational perceptions of Samsung Electronics with the same survey
instrument. Thus, the survey was  two-way in order to uncover both sides'
perceptions.
Sample
In this study, to investigate organization-public relationships, both
sides' perceptions are required. Retailers of Samsung Electronics and
general managers at Samsung Electronics were asked to investigate both
sides' perceptions regarding the Samsung-retailers' relationship. The
retailer sample can be obtained from the website of Samsung Electronics
posted at www.sec.co.kr.  The retailers deal with personal computers,
mobile phones, audio/video and other home appliances. The population of
retailers located in Seoul is 1,030.  The random sample of retailers was
drawn from the retailer directory and contacted for the face-to-face
interview method.
The population of Samsung managers was 1,250 as of January 2003.  The
representative sample was drawn from general managers or above working for
Samsung Electronics. They were contacted with the cooperation of the public
relations department and marketing department at Samsung Electronics, to
increase the response rate. The method of sampling for managing directors
was the convenience sample. The survey was conducted through the internal
mail system at Samsung Electronics. For the purpose of data collection,
public relations employees at Samsung Electronics distributed and collected
most survey questionnaires.

Survey Instrument and Pretest
Since the study aimed to retest relational dimensions previously examined
by Huang (2001), the survey instrument is based on her instrument. Huang's
instrument  consisted of five dimensions with 20 items. The instrument aims
to measure trust, control mutuality, commitment, relational satisfaction,
and face and favor. Each dimension consists of four variables to measure
the construct. These measures have already been tested and applied in
further organization-public relationship studies. In addition, for the
purpose of study, the present study adds one more dimension, which is
personal network (yon). Since this study is designed to conceptualize
organization-public relationships in a global setting, cultural
characteristics defining interpersonal relationships should be included to
capture accurate facets of organization-public relationships in a given
country, South Korea. Thus, given the literature review on cultural
characteristics in Korea, this study added personal network as an
additional dimension to measure organization-public relationships.  The
personal network dimension consists of 4 items, thus, the number of pretest
items is 24.
The initial version of 24 items was pilot-tested with a small number of
respondents. The purpose of the pilot study was to clarify the meaning of
the questions in a real context, and to correct any ambiguity or confusion
when administering the instrument to the subjects. Pretests should indicate
which items are ambiguous or confusing, and which items cannot be rated
along the dimension chosen (Specter, 1992). The questionnaire was then
corrected to ensure face validity when measuring the relationships
from  both sides. The pilot study consisted of administering a preliminary
questionnaire to a sample of general managers and retailers. The initial
pilot test provides appropriate questions and ensure face validity. Unlike
the questionnaires for retailers, the questionnaire for general managers
needed revision to ensure a relevant context toward the public (retailers).
Since the whole questionnaire was designed to ask about respondents'
perceptions of each other, each questionnaire had to be adjusted for
retailers or general managers at Samsung Electronics.
Personal responses are based on a 7-point Likert-scale: 1=strongly
disagree, 2=moderately disagree, 3=slightly disagree, 4=neutral, 5=slightly
agree, 6=moderately agree, and 7=strongly agree. All the above measures
demonstrated an acceptable level of Cronbach alphas, ranging from .76 to
.94, which showed acceptable reliability. The questionnaire is a structured
format asking about various dimensions of an organization-public
relationship. For the selection of an actual survey instrument from the
combined earlier questionnaires, a pretest was necessary.  Twenty-four
items were translated into Korean and translated back into English by
native speaker to ensure the quality of the original measure.  Pretest
items are provided in Table 2 and Table 3.
_______________________

Insert Table 2 About Here
_______________________
_______________________

Insert Table 3 About Here
_______________________

The purpose of s pretest is to check content validity for the final
instrument, which is administered for the main survey. As noted in Table 2,
twenty-four items of six dimensions were used to test content
validity.  These twenty-four items were administered to twenty-six
retailers and thirty-one general managers at Samsung Electronics between
January and February 2003. The original survey instrument was translated
into Korean and translated back into English by a native speaker to ensure
the accurate meaning of the original survey questionnaire.
When analyzing the responses to open-ended questions, it was noted that
many retailers commented that a personal relationship does not help them to
make profits in the business relationship between Samsung and the
retailers. By the same token, most general managers pointed out that the
relationship between Samsung Electronics and retailers is defined as a
business relationship, where marketing variables are more important than
interpersonal variables such as a personal network.
Some general managers at Samsung commented that a personal network with
government officials or media journalists is more critical than a
relationship with retailers. The impact of a personal network can affect
the management of corporate issues such as approval of new business rights
or managing negative publicity about Samsung Electronics.
However, both retailers and managers of Samsung commonly feel that a
personal network does not affect the relationship of retailers and Samsung.
Retailers responded that, overall, they are satisfied with Samsung
Electronics. In contrast, they don't feel that a personal network with
Samsung greatly helps their problems or addresses their objectives. More
importantly, they pointed out that location and competitive advantage
compared to competitors are more important than personal networks.
Overall, managers at Samsung feel more positive than retailers in relation
to most measures. For example, Samsung managers feel that Samsung is
treating people more fairly and justly than retailers do. While the
Cronbach Alpha of five dimensions showed an acceptable level on both sides,
ranging from  .70 to .90, personal network, with .58,  does not show an
acceptable level.
  Although the deletion of q24 increases Cronbach Alpha .67. for the
personal network deletion, the combined Cronbach Alpha, which averaged
managers and retailers, showed that the combined  one is .63. Therefore,
the present study decided to retain the personal network (yon) dimension
for the finalized instrument. The resulting instrument included 20 items of
Huang's (2001) instrument and 4 items of personal network to measure the
relationship between an organization (Samsung Electronics) and its public
(retailers).
  Also, the pilot test identified that the dimension of face and favor
needs to be translated clearly when questioning subjects in Korea. Pilot
test results showed that face and favor should be translated as chae-myun
in Korean. Chae-myun refers to face work found in all social relationships.
Showing concern and interest to partners and giving favors to maintain a
harmonious relationship is a commonly found cultural dimension in Korea.
Thus, in this study, chae-myun is equivalent to face-work in Huang's
instrument.
Therefore, the present study aims to test whether Huang's five relational
dimensions (trust, commitment, control mutuality, satisfaction and face &
favor) and personal network can be found in a different organization
(Samsung) and its public (retailers) by evaluating perceptions held by both
sides.

RESULTS
Since the study aims to reflect two parties' perceptions of an
organization-public relationship, the two sides (organization & public)
participated in the study. The context of the organization-public
relationship (OPR) is Samsung Electronics and its retailers in South Korea.
Since retailers are one of the strategic stakeholders needed to maintain
organizational survival in a competitive business environment, the
relationship between Samsung Electronics and its retailers may provide
insights into the components of OPR.
1Retailer Participants

Two hundred fourteen retailers owning their own shops in Seoul, Korea
participated in this study during February and March 2003.  The mean age of
the sample was 36.9 years (SD=8.39). One hundred sixty-six are male owners
and forty-eight are female owners. Forty-three percent of the retailers are
dealing with mobile phones, followed by computers (27%), home appliances
(20%) and audio/video (9.8%). Most of the retailers are college or
university graduate level (79.4%), followed by high school graduates
(17.8%). The average number of years of retailing for Samsung Electronics
is 6.51 years.

Samsung Participants
        Two hundred seventy-three Samsung employees participated in the study
during February and March 2003. Since the perceptions of Samsung
Electronics needed to be reflected more precisely, twenty-six of the survey
participants who were lower level managers were excluded. Therefore, the
study only included two hundred forty seven participants who had indicated
the level of manager or above. The mean age of participants was 39.1 years
(SD= 5.76). The average working years at Samsung Electronics was 10.6 years
9SD=5.62). There were two hundred seven male participants and forty female
participants. One hundred eighty four were managers (74.5%, called Gwajang)
followed by forty-six senior managers (18.6%, called Chajang) and four
managing directors (1.6%, called Isa). Thirteen participants did not
specify their level or position. The participants worked for marketing
(28.3%), research and development (13%), general planning and management
(10.9%), corporate communications (8.1%) and other (36.8%). More than 95
percent of Samsung participants were college or university graduate level
or above.
Procedure
Participants completed the organization-public relationship questionnaires
adapted from Huang (2001).  As noted earlier, the construct of "personal
network" was added to Huang's measurement scale to test its applicability
in a Korean setting. The instrument is shown in the appendix. Based on the
literature, personal networks in Korean society is an important construct
to understanding all the relationships.
For the retailers, face-to-face surveys were used to collect the data
efficiently. For the managers at Samsung, the researcher distributed seven
hundred instruments with the cooperation of Samsung Electronics to the
managers who work for domestic sales related to retailers.
RESULT: Retailers
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) enables researchers to test whether the
measurement model fits the data and test the number of factors that can be
detected and reliably estimated in the data. The measurement model is
similar in form to factor analysis; the major difference lies in the degree
of control provided the researcher (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). The
measurement of each construct can be assessed by examining the estimated
loadings and the statistical significance of each loading.
The first phase involved an exploratory factor analysis using principle
factor analysis. Several iterations of the factor analysis were run to
obtain a clearly distinguishable factor structure. Both oblique
(Harris-Kaiser) and orthogonal (varimax) rotation were used to explore all
factors. In order to extract the relevant items from the twenty-four
measurement items, a few rules were employed. First, item loadings
(standardized regression coefficient) had to exceed .44 on at least one
factor. Second, for those items with factor loadings exceeding .44 on more
than one factor, a minimum difference of .1 between factor loadings was
required (Nunnally, 1978). Several criteria were used to determine the
number of factors to extract; (a) prior study (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; Huang
2001). (b) percentage of variance, and (c) Scree plot.
        The second phase of data analysis was to confirm the extracted latent
factors (relationship measurement) using the LISREL 8.5 program (Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 2001). The third phase was to evaluate the confirmed model in the
second phase, using a split half-sample.
For the first phase analysis, rotated exploratory factor analysis extracted
four factors, comprising 18 items, in the factor structure from the
twenty-four items. All three criteria above were used to determine and
finalize the number of factors.
Table 4 presents the means and standard deviation for the different sets of
variables. It also includes the matrix of correlations among the various 18
extracted items.
                ___________________________
                                Insert Table 4 About Here
                         ___________________________
The items in the first factor were involved in "control mutuality,"
"satisfaction," and "commitment." In contrast to theoretical
classification, the first factor combines "control mutuality,"
"satisfaction" and "commitment" under the one factor.
The items in the second factor were related to trust. Relatively high
loadings are with

"Members of Samsung are truthful with us" (.90), "Samsung treats me fairly
and justly

compared to other manufacturers." (.81)  and "Generally speaking, I don't
trust

Samsung" (.66).

The third factor was comprised of three items, which were related to face
and favor,

which was initially found by Huang (2001). "Given a conflict situation,
retailers will

consider the Quanxi (relationship) between Samsung and retailers" (.81), "
When

retailers have favors to ask, Samsung will give retailers face and render
its help" (.84)

and "In certain conditions, Samsung will do the face-work for retailers"
(.75).

The items in the fourth factor explained the personal network, which was
added to extend the earlier organization-public relationship in another
cultural context. Three variables (items) showed relatively high loadings
on the personal network respectively. The variables are "When necessary, I
seek important people that I know at Samsung" (.79), "I can get a better
deal with Samsung through someone at Samsung" (.87), and "If I have any
"yon" with Samsung, it greatly benefits me in doing business with Samsung"
(.88).
___________________________
                             Insert Table 5 About Here
                         ___________________________
Both oblique and orthogonal factor analysis revealed that satisfaction,
commitment and control mutuality are closely related to each other. It is
possible that one dimension could replace these three different constructs
with a new label. Overall, Huang's measurement scale is congruent with the
observed data with the additional dimension of personal network. This means
that the discriminant validity is met by explaining the conceptual
relationship with different dimensions. In addition, SEM allows us to
analyze the measurement model simultaneously to test the discriminant
validity and convergent validity. Convergent validity refers to the extent
to which multiple items of factors should have common power to explain the
underlying factor.  While the number of factors is not consistent with
Huang's scale, the exploratory factor analysis extracted four factors,
which confirms the unique dimension of personal network in one eastern
culture, Korean society.
The second phase analysis employed confirmatory factor analysis to show
whether the proposed model fits the observed data. Based on Huang's
measurement model, this study added one more dimension of "personal
network" to elaborate the OPR model. Figure 3 describes the measurement
model, as a guideline for measuring organizational public relationships
between an organization and its stakeholder.
___________________________________
                               Insert Figure 1-a , 1-b, 1-c About
Here
                         ___________________________________
As shown in Figure 3, overall the confirmatory factor analysis supported
the six-factor model with fewer items than the original items in the
proposed model. The loadings for each observed variable to the latent
factor are satisfactory. Most factor loadings are over .65, which indicates
that many variances of indicators are explained by latent six-factors. The
vast majority of factor loadings were over .7, which means that the
variance of each observed variable was explained adequately by six
different factors.
The fit of the six-factor model is generally good. Chi-square (?2 = 293.85,
d.f. =69, p<. 005) can be acceptable given the adequate number of the
sample size (n=214). Low SRMR, acceptable NNFI, CFI, SRMR, GFI indicated
the six-factor model fit the data reasonably (NNFI=. 91; CFI=. 93; SRMR=.
049; GFI=. 88). However, the acceptable model requires many correlates
among ?d, indicating that adding too many error variances is not consistent
with theoretical reasoning. In other words, theoretical reasoning does not
appear to support the correlates among error variances.
Another competing model is the five-factor model, which includes "trust,"
"commitment," "satisfaction," "face & favor" and "personal network." Since
the dimensions of "commitment" "satisfaction" and "control mutuality" are
more likely to share the variances, one or two dimension could be explained
by other dimensions.  In this case, "commitment" and "satisfaction" have
more explanatory power than "control mutuality." The five-factor model
indicates that it is acceptable with ?2 = 200.48, d.f. =107, p<. 005, NFI=.
91; NNFI=. 90; CFI=. 93; GFI=. 89.
Other competing multiple factor models can fit the data reasonably. The
four-factor model is possible in that the "commitment" "satisfaction" and
"control mutuality" factors can be grouped with one dimension. In other
words, the retailers perceived the three proposed factors very similarly.
The factor structure reveals that the retailers are satisfied if they have
control power. Likewise, the retailers can commit to Samsung Electronics if
they are satisfied with the relationship with Samsung. Thus, the
four-factor model encompasses "trust" "commitment" "face & favor" and
"personal network." The four-factor model shows fairly satisfactory
goodness of fit indices (?2 = 114.02, d.f.=44, NFI=.92, NNFI=.92, CFI=.95,
SRMR=.055, GFI=.92).
The following tables show the comparison fit of the six-factor,
five-factor, and four-factor models.
2Table 6.  Summary of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Three Models
Number of Factors
Chi-Square (?2)
d.f.
RMSEA
p value
RMR
NNFI
CFI
6
293.85
102
.088
p<.01
.059
.89
.93
5
200.48
69
.094
p<.01
.049
.90
.93
4
114.02
44
.086
p<.01
.055
.92
.95

The following model comparison test indicates the superiority of the
four-factor model over the five- and six-factor models. Chi-square
comparison tests showed why the six-factor and five-factor models were
rejected in favor of the four-factor model. In a subsequent comparison
test, the Chi-square difference is significant, favoring the four-factor
model over the six-factor and five-factor models, since the difference is
large enough to support the four-factor model.
        One caveat needs to be sounded when choosing the appropriate model. The
model choice should be based on theoretical reasoning and rational support.
By and large, the similar perceptions of the retailers between "commitment"
"control mutuality" and "satisfaction" have resulted in the four-factor
model. Although the four-factor model is not consistent with the proposed
six-factor model based on Huang's study, a four-factor model fits the data
best among the models.
Table 7. Model Comparison Test
Six-factor model vs. five-factor model
Six-factor model vs. four-factor model
Five-factor model vs. four-factor model
²(33) =298.85-200.48=93.37
p<0.05
²(58) =298.85-114.02=179.83   p<0.05
²(25) =200.48-114.02=86.46 p<0.05
Note. ²0.05, 34=48.60²0.05, 58=76.77 ²0.05, 25=37.65
Thus, the four-factor model appears to be appropriate in the context of
organization-public relationships between Samsung Electronics and its
retailers. There are several reasons to support the four-factor model.
First, indices of overall goodness of fit indicated the model showed a
satisfactory level. Second, indices of goodness of fit indicated a
satisfactory level without adding correlating residual errors between
variables, meaning the latent factors explain each variable moderately
well. Although "control mutuality" and "satisfaction" were not included in
the four-factor model, the observed data explained much of the variances of
the two dimensions.  Thus, the four-factor model fit the data and can be
applied to measure business organization-retailer relationships.
1RESULT: Managers

As shown in the case of retailers, the instrument was designed to elicit
the perceptions of Samsung managers as to Samsung Electronics-Retailer
relationships. Similarly, exploratory factor analysis was used for the
first step and confirmatory factor analysis attempted to prove the model
proposed by this study as a second stage.
As applied in the retailers' analysis, two criteria were used to determine
the relevant number of observed variables for the subsequent analysis.
First, item loadings (standardized regression coefficient) had to exceed
.44 on at least one factor. Second, for those items with factor loadings
exceeding .44 on more than one factor, a minimum difference of .1 between
factor loadings was required. The criteria resulted in 19 items out of 24
total items. Table 8 presents the means and standard deviation for the
different sets of variables. It also includes the matrix of correlations
among the various 19 extracted items from the sample of managers of Samsung
Electronics.
                ___________________________
                                Insert Table 8 About Here
                         ___________________________
___________________________
                             Insert Table 9 About Here
                         ___________________________
Table 9 shows the underlying factor structure based on varimax rotational
method. The items of the first factor represent "control mutuality" and
"satisfaction." Except for one "good" item, the variables of "decision,"
"same," "agree," "cooper," "meet," and "satisfy" are supposedly to measure
the two construct of "control mutuality" and "satisfaction."
The items in the second factor commonly represent the "trust" and
"commitment" dimension. The indication that "trust" and "commitment" can
get together suggests these two constructs share much of the variance
simultaneously. The managers at Samsung tend to perceive that if the
retailers perceive Samsung trustfully, they are more likely to develop a
committed relationship with them.
The items in the third factor represent the "personal network" dimension.

Relatively high loadings explain the dimension well,  with "deal" (.84),
"network"

(.79), and "yon" (.91). (See the variables in the Appendix). The fourth
factor represents

the "favor & face" dimension. Three items of "favor" "face" and "lose"
explain the

construct of Huang's proposed dimension in a Confucian culture. The last
factor includes

only one item,  "good" with a loading of .74.  Although the variable of
"Samsung's

relationship with retailers" is supposedly to measure the "satisfaction"
dimension, the one

item has an exceptionally large amount of variance with 9%.

Overall, while the dimensions of public relationships developed in the U.S.
represent similar perceptual dimensions in the context of Samsung
Electronics-Retailers
relationship, the distinctive dimensions in Eastern culture such as "face &
favor" and
"personal network" are found to be distinctive dimensions as predicted in
the proposed model.
        The second phase is to test whether the observed data can fit the proposed
model, which consisted of six-factors. As in the retailers' sample, the
confirmatory factor analysis supported three promising models.
___________________________________
                               Insert Figure 2-a, 2-b, 2-c About
Here
                         ___________________________________
First, the six-factor model is supported by the observed data with moderate
level of goodness of fit indices (?2 = 247.89, d.f. =83, p<. 005, NFI=.88,
NNFI=.88, CFI=.92, RMR=.068, SRMR=.068, GFI=.90). Although the six-factor
model moderately fit the observed data, the acceptable indices of goodness
of fit have been achieved through many unrelated correlates of error
variances among the variables, which means that modification of model was
not completely based on theoretical reasoning.  In addition, the indices of
NFI, NNFI are less than .90, which is the recommended level of goodness of
fit.
Secondly, the fit of the five-factor model is generally good. Chi-square
(?2 = 162.08, d.f. =64, p<. 005) can be acceptable given the adequate
number of the sample size (n=247). Since the dimensions of "satisfaction"
and "control mutuality" similarly share the variance of the perceptions of
relationship, either dimension can represent the other dimension.  Thus,
"trust," "control mutuality," "commitment," "face & favor" and "personal
network" can explain the structure of Samsung Electronics and its retailers
from the perspective of Samsung Electronics. Acceptable indices of goodness
fit support the five-factor model Low SRMR, and acceptable NNFI, CFI, SRMR,
GFI indicated the six-factor model fit the data reasonably (NFI=.90; NNFI=.
89; CFI=. 93; SRMR=. 082; GFI=. 92).
Thirdly, the most parsimonious competing model is the four-factor model,
which includes "trust," "satisfaction," "face & favor" and "personal
network." In this model, the dimension of "satisfaction" encompasses the
characteristics of the initially proposed two other dimensions (control
mutuality, commitment). The four-factor model indicates that it is
satisfactory acceptable with ?2 = 73.98, d.f. =36, p<. 005, NFI=. 95;
NNFI=. 95; CFI=. 97, GFI= .94.
The following tables show the comparison fit of the six-factor,
five-factor, and four-factor models in the sample of Samsung managers on
the perception of Samsung-retailers relationships.
3Table 10.  Summary of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Three Models
Number of Factors
Chi-Square (?2)
d.f.
RMSEA
p value
RMR
NNFI
CFI
6
247.89
83
.084
p<.01
.068
.88
.92
5
162.08
64
.079
p<.01
.082
.89
.92
4
73.98
36
.062
p<.01
.048
.95
.97

The model comparison test suggests that the best model is the four-factor
model over the five- and six-factor models. Chi-square comparison tests
showed the Chi-square difference between the models supporting the
four-factor model.
        While the four-factor model is not consistent with the proposed six-factor
model based on Huang's study, the four-factor model fits the data best.
Table 11. Model Comparison Test
Six-factor model vs. five-factor model
Six-factor model vs. four-factor model
Five-factor model vs. four-factor model
²(19) =247.89-162.08=85.81
p<0.05
²(47)=247.89-73.98=173.91  p<0.05
²(28) =162.08-73.98=88.1 p<0.05
Note. ²0.05, 19=30.14²0.05, 48=65.17 ²0.05, 28=41.33
Likewise for retailers, the four-factor model appears to represent the
Samsung Electronics-retailer relationships most appropriately. From the
perspective of the organization (Samsung), the absence of  "commitment" and
"control mutuality" is reasonable when it comes to the organization-public
relationship, since the organization tend to consider itself as having more
control power and less need to commit to the relationship on a long term
basis.
The confirmatory factor analysis resulted in the different four-factor
dimension as summarized in Table 12. While both groups surveyed perceive
the organization-public relationship, they put different weights on each
dimension. While Samsung Electronics values more the overall satisfaction
of the relationship, retailers put more weight on the dimension of
"commitment" when being asked about relationships with the organization.




Table 12. Finalized 4-factor model of the organization-public relationship
Organization/Public
Four dimensions
Characteristic of the organization-public relationship
Organization (Samsung Electronics)
Trust, Satisfaction, Face & Favor, Personal network
-More control power than public
-In general, consider whether the public is satisfied or not.
Public (retailers)
Trust, Commitment, Face & Favor, Personal network
-Less control power than an organization
-"Commitment" is critical for long term relationship

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
This research effort was designed to (1) empirically test an
organization-public relationship scale based on Huang's (2001) instrument;
(2) test the additional dimension of "personal network" in a different
culture; and (3) validate the instrument using both sides' perceptions, of
an organization and its strategic public. Although each of the two data
sets displayed slightly different four-factor structures, overall the two
subjects similarly supported the proposed measures as valid and reliable
indicators of an organization-public relationship.
In the retailers group, a four-dimension model was supported as the  best
model to measure organization-public relationships from the perspective of
the public. Retailers perceive "commitment" more distinctively compared to
other relationship qualities such as "control mutuality" and
"satisfaction." This does not mean the retailers do not
value  "satisfaction" and "control mutuality," but they put more weight on
considering the relationship quality with an organization.
Despite the difficulty of measuring a communal relationship in this
setting, it is hard to conclude that the overall sample data do not fit the
proposed OPR measures, since, in the sample of retailers, the retailers
perceive similarly "commitment," "control mutuality," and "satisfaction."
In other words, much of the variances of the three dimensions are shared
simultaneously.
In contrast, the managers representing Samsung Electronics perceive more
distinctively the "satisfaction" dimension compared to "commitment" and
"control mutuality." When considering the relationship quality from the
perspective of  the organization, they are more likely to value the overall
satisfaction of the public.
The most important finding is that both groups of subjects perceived "face
& favor" and "personal network" as a distinctive relationship quality in
the context of an organization-public relationship in an Eastern culture,
South Korea. No matter whether respondents were from the organization side
or the public side, they commonly perceived  "face & favor" and "personal
network" in measuring relationship quality. In particular, the study
attempts to test the validity and reliability of the "personal network"
based on the early study examined by Huang (2001). The solid existence of
the "personal network" affirms that the earlier findings of the personal
influence model should be incorporated into a global relationship
measurement scale.
Lastly, organization-public relationships should be tailored to the context
of organization-public relationships and other variables such as culture,
media and the economic environment. While a standardized instrument is
convenient and desirable, the variety of organization-public contexts
requires a more sophisticated instrument that can support the
characteristics of the relationships.
  Hon and J. Grunig (1999) called for research efforts to develop a way of
relationship measurement. Lindenmann (1999) asserted that when perceptions
of relationships are measured from both sides, one can begin to measure
gaps in the way management and publics perceive the relationship. This
study has attempted to echo these research needs.
These findings provide a conceptually and operationally meaningful
depiction of OPR that should be useful for understanding and measuring
public relationships by surveying the two sides that are involved in the
relationships. Ultimately, these insights should help scholars and
practitioners document compelling evidence of the value of public relations.
LIMITATIONS
Several limitations of this study should be mentioned.  First, the
perceptions of business retailers of their relationship with their
manufacturer may not necessarily be generalizable to other publics and
types of organizations.  As Spector (1992) pointed out, the development of
a summated rating scale requires testing the measures in several separate
studies.  Second, this research examined a slightly modified Huang's
measurement scale instead of building from scratch based on a broader scope
of scholarly literature about relationships.  Third, this study attempts to
validate the measurement scale in an Eastern culture. The robustness of a
measurement scale can be examined in other cultures and different
organization-public contexts. Doing so might render a theoretical model and
operational measures that would provide more explanatory power than what
was investigated here.  Additional refining of a conceptual understanding
of public relationships and scales for measuring perceptions of
relationship dimensions seems a promising avenue for future research.





[1]  The questions that make up the professional relationship dimension are
as follows: Organization name is no involved in activities that promote the
welfare of its customers; Organization name does not act in a socially
responsible manner; Organization name is not aware of what I want as a
customer; Organization name does not see my interest and the bank's
interests as the same; I think the Organization name is not honest in its
dealings with customers; and Organization name is not willing to devote
resources to maintain its relationship with me. Personal relationship
dimension: I feel I can trust Organization name to do what it says ii will
do; Organization name seems to be the kind of organization that invests in
its customers; I think that Organization name takes into account my
convenience in all of our interactions; Organization name demonstrates as
interest in me as a person; and Organization name understands me as a
customer Community relationship dimension: Organization name is open about
its plans for the future; I feel that Organization name supports events
that are of interests to its customers; I think that Organization name
strives to improve the communities of its customers. Organization name
shares its plans for the future with customers; and I think that
Organization name actively plays a role in the lives of the communities it
serves.

[2]  Based on Stafford and Canary (1991), Grunig and Huang (2000) suggested
relationship maintenance strategies – positivity, openness, assurances,
networking, shared tasks (2000, p36).
How to measure organization-public relationships


References
Botan, C.  (1992). International Public Relations : Critique and
reformulation. Public Relations Review 18, 149-159.

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory
of            organization-public relationships. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 9(2), 83-98.

Bruning, S.D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy :
Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral
outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28, 39-48.

Bruning, S.D., & Ledingham, J.A. (1998). Organization-public relationships
and consumer satisfaction: The role of relationships in the satisfaction
mix. Communication Research Reports, 15, 199-209.

Bruning, S.D.,& Ledingham, J.A. (1999). Relationships between organizations
and publics: development of a multi-dimensional organization-public
relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157-170.

Bruning, S.D., & Ledingham, J.A. (2000 a). Perceptions of relationships and
evaluations of satisfaction : An exploration of interaction. Public
Relations Review, 26, 85-95.

Bruning, S.D., & Ledingham, J.A.(2000 b). Organization and key public
relationships; Testing the influence of the relationship dimensions in a
business-to-business context. In J.A. Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (Eds.),
Public relations as relationship management; A relational approach to the
study and practice of public relations (pp. 159-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bruning, S.D., & Ralston, M. (2001). Using a relational approach to
retaining students and building mutually beneficial student-university
relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 66, 337-345.

Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H., & Broom, G.M. (1994). Effective Public
Relations, Englewood, NJ; Prentice Hall, Inc

Dwyer, F.R., & Oh, S. (1987). Output Sector Munificence Effects on the
Internal Political Economy of Marketing Channels. Journal of Marketing
Research 24, 347-358.

Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public
relations:  Interorganizational relationships as a public relations
paradigm. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective
organization? In James E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellent public relations and
communication management: Contributions to effective organizations
(pp.65-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J.E. , Grunig, L.A., Sriramesh, K., Huang, Y.H., & Lyra, A. (1995).
Models of public relations in an  international setting. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 7, 163-186.


Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to
relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations
strategies, and relationship outcomes. J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning
(Eds.). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach
to public relations (pp. 23-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E., & Dozier, D.M (2002). Empowerment of the public
relations function. In L.A. Grunig, J.E. Grunig, & D.M. Dozier (Eds.).
Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations. (pp.140-195).

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River , NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hecht, M.L. (1978). The Conceptualization and Measurement of Interpersonal
Communication Satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4(3), 253-264.

Helgesen (1998). NEED IT!!

Holtzhausen, D.R., & Voto, R. (2002). The Postmodern Public Relations
Practitioner as Organizational Activist. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 14(1), 57-82.

Hon, L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in
public      relations. Institute for Public Relations. University of
Florida, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400.

Hosmer, L.T. (1996). Research notes and communications: Responses to 'Do
good ethics
always make for good business?', Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 501.

Hosmer, L.T. (1994). Why be moral? different rationale for managers.
Business Ethics
Quarterly, 4(2), 191-204.

Huang, Lyra Sriramesh (1995) NEED IT

Huang, Y.H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and
conflict management strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Huang, Y.H. (2000). The personal influence model and gao guanxi in Taiwan
Chinese public relations. Public Relations Review, 26, 216-236.

Huang, Y.H. (2000). Cultural aspect of organization-public relationships.
Paper presented to the annual convention at the International
Communalization Association, Acapulco, Mexico, June, 2000.

Huang, Y.H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for
measuring organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 13, 61-91.

Huang, Y. (2001). Values of public relations :Effects on
organization-public relationships mediating conflict resolution. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 13(4), 265-301.

Huang, Y. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations research,
13, 61-91.

Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.5 [Computer Program].
Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

Kang (1977). NEED IT

Kim, B (1996). Korean families. In M. McGorldrick, J. Giordano, & J.K.
Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy ((pp. 281-294). New York: The
Guilford Press.

Kim, Y. (2000). Measuring the bottom-line impact of corporate public
relations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 273-291.

Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organization-public relationship: A valid
and reliable instrument. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
78(4), 799-815

Kim, Y., & Hon, L. (1998). Craft and professional models of public
relations and their relation to job satisfaction among Korean public
relations practitioners. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 155-175.

Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. NY: The Guilford Press.

Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D., Thomlison, T.D., & Lesko, C. (1997). The
application of interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational
context; Toward a theory of relational loyalty; a qualitative approach. The
Academy of Managerial Journal, 1(1), 23-43.

Ledingham, J.A., & Bruning, S.D. (1998). Relationship management in public
relations; Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public
Relations Review, 24 55-65.

Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D., & Wilson, L.J. (1999). Time as an indicator
of the perceptions and behavior of member of a key public :monitoring and
predicting organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 11(2), 167-183.

Ledingham, J.A., & Bruning, S.D. (2000). Public Relations as Relationship
Management. NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lesley (1997) NEED

Lindenmann, W.K. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public
relations. Institute for Public Relations. University of Florida, PO Box
118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400.


Lindenmann, W.K. (1988-1999). Measuring Relationship is Key to Successful
Public Relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 43(4), 18-24.

Lyra, A. (1991). Public relations in Greece: Models, roles, and gender.
Unpublished mater's thesis, University of Maryland, College  Park.

McLeod, J..M., & Chaffee, S.H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to
communication research. In S.H. Chaffee & J.M. McLeod (Eds.), Interpersonal
perception and communication (pp.483-488). Special edition of American
Behavioral Scientist.

Morgan, R., & Hunt, S.(1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.

Morgan, B.S., & Schiemann, W.A. (1994, March). Why internal communication
is failing. Public Relations Journal, 15-17.

Moorman, C.R., & Zaltman G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market
relationships, Journal of Marketing, 57, 81-101.

Peltier, J.W., Boyt, T., & Schibrowsky, J.A. (1998). Relationship building.
Marketing Health Services, 18(3), 16-24.

Rhee, Y. (2002). Confucian culture and excellent public relations: A study
of generic principles and specific and applications in South Korean public
relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(3), 190-201

Ring, P.S., & Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). Formal and informal dimensions of
transactions,
  in A.H. Van de Ven, H.L. Angle and M.S. Poole (eds.), Research on the
Management of Innovation (pp.171-192). New York :Harper and Row.

Spector, P.E. (1992). Summated Rating Scale Construction. Newbury :CA, Sage
Publishing

Sriramesh (1995) Need it

Stafford, J., & Canary, D.J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic
relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217-242.

Strutton, D.A., Toma, & Pelton, L.E.(1993). A relationship between
psychological
climate and trust between salespersons and their managers in sales
organizations.
Psychological Reports, 72(3), 931-939.

Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Thomlison, T. D. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for
public relations.
             In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.). Public relations as
relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp.
177-203). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Vercic, D., Grunig, L.A., &  Grunig, J. E.  (1996). Global and specific
principles of public relations: Evidence from Slovenia. In H. Culbertson
and N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 93-106.

Ward,  K.L. (1998). Evaluating Public Relationships. Institute for Public
Relations. University of Florida, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400.

Watson, D.R. & Sallot, L.M. (2001). Public Relations in Japan: an
exploratory study, Public Relations Review 27. 389-403

Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., & Werner, J.M. (1998). Managers as initiators
of trust : An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial
trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review 23(3), 513-530.

Wilson, J.W (2000). Building Employee and Community Relationships Through
Volunteerism : A Case Study. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.).
Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to
public relations (pp. 137-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.

Wiener, Yoash (1982). Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View.
Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 418-428.

Yoo, K.S., & Lee, M.S. (1998). Understanding Korean Corporate
Culture.  Seoul , Korea: Oh-ROM.

Yum, J.O (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships
and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55,
374-388.

Yum, Y., & Canary, D.J. (2003). Maintaining Relationships in Korean and the
United States: Features of Korean Culture that Affect Relational
Maintenance Beliefs and Behaviors. In D.J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.),
Maintaining Relationships Through Communication (pp.277-296). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Zane, N., Takeuchi, D., & Young, N. (1994). Confronting critical issues of
Asian and Pacific Islander Americans. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.






Table 2. Pretest items for retailers and managers, Mean, Cronbach Alpha
Dimension (construct)
Instrument Items
Retailers
Mean
Managers Mean.
Trust
(4)
Q1. Members of Samsung are truthful with us.
Q2. Samsung treats me fairly and justly, compared to other manufacturers.
Q3. Generally speaking, I don't trust the Samsung. *
Q4. Samsung keeps its promises.
4.38

5.39

5.65

5.19
4.83

5.75

5.67

5.41
Cronbach Alpha
.90
.75
Control Mutuality
(4)
Q5. Generally speaking, Samsung and retailers are both satisfied with the
decision-making process.
Q6.In most cases, during decision-making both Samsung and retailers have
equal influence.
Q7. Both Samsung and retailers agree on what retailers can expect from on
another.
Q8. Both Samsung and retailers are cooperative each other.
5.03


3.03


3.88


3.61
5.25


4.16


4.38


4.58
Cronbach Alpha
.78
.77
Satisfaction
(4)
Q9.Generally speaking, Samsung members meet retailers' needs.
Q10.Generally speaking, Samsung's relationship with retailers has problems. *
Q11. In general, Samsung is satisfied with the relationship with retailers.
Q12. Samsung's relationship with retailers is good.
4.23

5.19


4.76

4.73
5.12

5.32


5.22

5.35
Cronbach Alpha
.87
.81
Commitment (4)
Q13. Samsung does not wish to continue a relationship with retailers. *
Q14. I believe that it is worthwhile to try for Samsung to maintain the
relationship with retailers.
Q15. Samsung wish to keep a long-lasting relationship with retailers.
Q16. Samsung wish it had never entered into the relationship with retailers. *
5.42

5.02


5.15

5.73
5.64

5.19


5.41

6.19
.82
.77
Face and Favor (4)
Q17. Given a conflict situation, retailers will consider the Quanxi
(relationship) between Samsung and retailers.
Q18. When retailers have favors to ask, Samsung will give retailers face
and render its help.
       Q19. In certain conditions, Samsung will do the face-work (chaemyun)
for retailers.
Q20. Given a situation of disagreement, Samsung won't let retailers lose face.
4.11


3.88


3.89

3.76
4.48


4.16


4.74

4.76
Cronbach Alpha
.73
.70
Personal Network (Yon)
(4)
Q21. When necessary, I seek important people that I know at Samsung.
Q22. I can get better deal with Samsung through someone at Samsung.
Q23. Without personal network with Samsung, it is hard to make a profit.
Q24. If I have any "yon" with Samsung, it greatly benefits me in doing
business with Samsung.
2.69

2.31

2.15

2.84
3.38

3.35

2.35

2.77
Cronbach Alpha
       .67
       .58
* Q3, Q10,  Q13, Q16 were reverse-scored.

7- Strongly agree ; 6-Moderately agree ; 5-Slightly agree; 4-Neutral ;
3-Slightly disagree 2-Moderately disagree; 1-Strongly disagree














 Table 3. Pretest items for Samsung managers


Dimension (construct)
Instrument Items
Trust
(4)
Q1. Retailers think members of Samsung are truthful with them.
Q2. Retailers think Samsung treats them fairly and justly, compared to
other manufacturers.
Q3. Generally speaking, retailers don't trust the Samsung.
Q4. Retailers think Samsung keeps its promises.
Control Mutuality
(4)
Q5. Generally speaking, Samsung and retailers are both satisfied with the
decision-making process.
Q6.In most cases, during decision-making both Samsung and retailers have
equal influence.
Q7. Both Samsung and retailers agree on what retailers can expect from on
another.
Q8. Both Samsung and retailers cooperative each other.
Satisfaction
(4)
Q9.Generally speaking, retailers think Samsung members meet retailers' needs.
Q10.Generally speaking, Samsung's relationship with retailers has problems.
Q11. In general, Samsung is satisfied with the relationship with retailers.
Q12. Samsung's relationship with retailers is good.
Commitment (4)
Q13. Samsung wishes to continue a relationship with retailers.
Q14. Retailers believe that it is worthwhile to try for Samsung to maintain
the relationship with them.
Q15. Samsung wish to keep a long-lasting relationship with retailers.
Q16. Samsung wish it had never entered into the relationship with retailers.
Face and Favor (4)
Q17. Given a conflict situation, retailers will consider the quanxi
(relationship) between Samsung and retailers.
Q18. When retailers have favors to ask, Samsung will give retailers face
and render its help.
       Q19. In certain conditions, Samsung will do the face-work for
retailers.
       Q20. Given a situation of disagreement, Samsung won't let retailers
lose face.
Personal Network (Yon)
(4)
       Q21. When necessary, retailers seek important people that they know
at Samsung.
Q22. Retailers can get better deal with my company through someone at Samsung.
Q23. Without personal network with Samsung, it is hard for a retailer to
make a profit.
Q24. If a retailer has any "yon" with Samsung, they can benefit in doing
business with my company.

Table 4. Retailers Group

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation for 18 Items in First Phase

Item
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.Truth
4.91
1.38
1.00
2.Fair
4.81
1.52
.77
1.00
3.Keep
4.88
1.24
.62
.52
1.00
4.Same
3.36
1.35
.45
.56
.44
1.00
5.Agree
4.49
1.45
.37
.47
.37
.61
1.00
6.Cooper
4.91
1.45
.42
.55
.50
.66
.69
1.00
7.Meet
4.64
1.59
.49
.48
.40
.61
.71
.66
1.00
8.Satisfy
4.83
1.21
.60
.47
.55
.49
.62
.71
.64
1.00
9.Good
4.99
1.31
.52
.58
.49
.54
.72
.62
.71
.71
1.00
10.Continue
5.34
1.14
.41
.39
.42
.51
.59
.72
.55
.36
.71
1.00
11.Maintain
5.45
1.32
.28
.24
.39
.37
.47
.36
.34
.62
.35
.48
1.00
12.Long
5.30
1.36
.33
.39
.45
.56
.57
.62
.58
.33
.58
.69
.58
1.00
13.Quanxi
4.07
1.37
.26
.32
.17
.39
.47
.33
.30
.26
.30
.29
.16
.24
1.00
14.Favor
3.83
1.42
.23
.30
.32
.36
.37
.26
.31
.31
.31
.25
.26
.27
.66
1.00
15.Face
4.38
1.32
.15
.24
.32
.25
.34
.31
.32
.42
.32
.25
.14
.28
.51
.59
1.00
16.Seek
4.01
1.69
.21
.20
.24
.25
.31
.41
.28
.32
.28
.32
.25
.28
.41
.33
.34
1.00
17.Deal
4.13
1.62
-.01
.05
.06
.24
.11
.31
.18
.16
.18
.20
.27
.31
.27
.26
.39
.71
1.00
18.Yon
3.94
1.80
.01
.00
-.07
.04
.03
.16
.03
.09
.03
.09
.25
.17
.25
.28
.33
.62
.70
1.00




















Table 5. Retailers: Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.   Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Item (variable name)
Factor1
Factor 2
Factor3
Factor4
1. Members of Samsung are truthful with us. (truth)
.23
.90
.003
.05
2. Samsung treats me fairly and justly, compared to other manufacturers. (fair)
.28
.81
-.004
.19
3. Samsung keeps its promises  (keep)
.37
.66
-.08
.12
4.In most cases, during decision-making both Samsung and retailers have
equal influence. (same)
.54
.44
.22
.18
5. Both Samsung and retailers agree on what retailers can expect from on
another. (agree)
.78
.20
-.01
.28
6. Both Samsung and retailers are cooperative with each other. (cooper)
.72
.32
-.004
.35
7.Generally speaking, Samsung members meet retailers' needs. (meet)
.69
.32
.20
.25
8. In general, Samsung is satisfied with the relationship with retailers.
(satisfy)
.65
.46
.21
.12
9. Samsung's relationship  with retailers is good. (good)
.73
.40
-.4
.20
10. Samsung does not wish to continue a relationship with retailers. (continue)
.81
.20
.008
.008
11. I believe that it is worthwhile to try for Samsung to maintain the
relationship with retailers. (maintain)
.64
.007
.24
-.2
12. Samsung wish to keep a long-lasting relationship with retailers. (long)
.81
.13
.16
-006
13. Given a conflict situation, retailers will consider the Quanxi
(relationship) between Samsung and retailers.(quanxi)
.19
.15
.16
.81
14. When retailers have favors to ask, Samsung will give retailers face and
render its help. (favor)
.17
.14
.15
.84
15. In certain conditions, Samsung will do the face-work (chaemyun) for
retailers.(face)
.13
.006
.25
.75
16. When necessary, I seek important people that I know at Samsung.  (seek)
.22
.14
.79
.23
17. I can get better deal with Samsung through someone at Samsung. (deal)
.22
-.12
.86
.17
18. If I have any "yon" with Samsung, it greatly benefits me in doing
business with Samsung. (yon)
-.001
.008
.88
.15
Variance (%)
27.8
15.9
13.9
13.5



Appendix 1. Retailers, 18 variables for relationship measurement (variable
name)

Trust

  1. Members of Samsung are truthful with us (truth)
  2. Samsung treats me fairly and justly, compared to other manufacturers
(fair)
  3. Samsung keeps its promises (keep)

Control Mutuality

4. In most cases, during decision-making both Samsung and retailers have
equal influence. (same)
5. Both Samsung and retailers agree on what retailers can expect from on
another. (agree)
6. Both Samsung and retailers are cooperative with each other. (cooper)

Satisfaction

7. Generally speaking, Samsung members meet retailers' needs. (meet)
8. In general, Samsung is satisfied with the relationship with retailers.
(satisfy)
9. Samsung's relationship with retailers is good. (good)

Commitment

10 Samsung does not wish to continue a relationship with retailers. (continue)
11. I believe that it is worthwhile to try for Samsung to maintain the
relationship with retailers. (maintain)
12. Samsung wish to keep a long-lasting relationship with retailers. (keep)

Face and Favor

13. Given a conflict situation, retailers will consider the Quanxi
(relationship) between Samsung and retailers. (quanxi)
14. When retailers have favors to ask, Samsung will give retailers face and
render its help. (favor)
       15. In certain conditions, Samsung will do the face-work (chaemyun)
for retailers.(face)

Personal Network

16. When necessary, I seek important people that I know at Samsung. (seek)
17. I can get better deal with Samsung through someone at Samsung. (deal)
18. If I have any "yon" with Samsung, it greatly benefits me in doing
business with Samsung. (yon)




Table 8. Samsung Managers Group

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation for 19 Items in First Phase

Item
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1 Fair
5.40
1.05
1.00
2.Credit
5.43
1.06
.61
1.00
3.Keep
5.30
1.03
.60
.68
1.00
4. Decision
4.54
1.05
.54
.47
.47
1.00
5. Same
3.52
1.29
.40
.35
.27
.57
1.00
6. Agree
4.29
1.21
.47
.47
.32
.49
.64
1.00
7. Cooper
4.96
1.19
.55
.2
52
.6
46
.7
57
.1
51
.3
63
1.00
8. Meet
4.74
1.13
.3
53
.1
51
.9
39
.5
55
.6
46
.7
57
.7
57
1.00
9. Satisfy
4.67
.6
96
.9
49
.5
55
.3
43
.8
48
.8
38
.4
54
.9
59
.1
61
1.00
10.Good
4.95
1.13
.3
43
.8
38
.7
27
.2
42
.5
25
.5
45
.4
54
.7
57
.6
66
1.00
11.Continue
5.55
1.01
.2
52
.9
49
.6
46
.7
37
.9
19
.4
34
.5
55
.4
44
.1
51
.0
50
1.00
12.Maintain
5.46
1.17
.8
48
.8
38
.1
51
.2
32
.5
15
.3
23
.3
43
.4
34
.2
32
.5
35
.6
66
1.00
13.Long
5.31
1.30
.9
39
.1
51
.3
43
.2
42
.3
33
.6
36
.0
40
.4
34
.8
48
.7
37
.6
56
.8
58
1.00
14.Favor
4.40
1.06
.3
13
.9
09
.1
11
.9
19
.6
26
.9
19
.0
20
.6
16
.7
07
.3
03
.8
18
.6
16
.9
19
1.00
15.Face
4.36
.9
99
.3
13
.8
18
.6
06
.6
16
.5
25
.7
17
.0
20
.6
06
.0
20
.7
17
.2
22
.5
15
.7
27
.6
46
1.00
16.Lose
4.24
1.10
.8
28
.5
25
.7
27
.2
22
.8
38
.9
29
.0
30
.3
33
.5
25
.6
16
.6
26
.4
24
.3
33
.6
46
.6
26
1.00
17.Deal
4.15
1.50
-.21
-.13
-.15
-.23
-.17
-.05
-.13
-.17
-.08
.4
04
-.05
.3
03
.2
12
.8
08
-.06
-.00
1.00
18.Network
3.11
1.38
-.38
-.26
-.19
-.25
-.17
-.08
-.21
-.30
-.29
-.25
-.22
-.33
-.16
.5
05
-.18
-.06
.9
49
1.00
19.Yon
3.65
1.49
-.25
-.16
-.14
-.28
-.12
-.01
-.08
-.22
-.03
-.04
-.07
-.12
.4
04
-.04
.05005
-.15
.8
68
.6
66
1.00

Item : variable name



















Table 9. Managers: Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.   Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Item (variable name)
Factor1
Factor 2
Factor3
Factor4
Factor5
1. Retailers think Samsung treats them fairly and justly, compared to other
manufacturers. (fair)
.9
49
.9
59
-.25
.02002
.06006
2. Generally speaking, retailers don't trust the Samsung. (credit)
.8
48
.4
64
-.11
-.07
-.004
3. Retailers think Samsung keeps its promises. (keep)
.6
36
.8
78
-.10
-.36
-.19
4. Generally speaking, Samsung and retailers are both satisfied with the
decision-making process. (decision)
.7
67
.2
32
-.22
.09009
-.004
5. In most cases, during decision-making both Samsung and retailers have
equal influence. (same)
.8
78
-.002
-.009
.1
31
-.004
6. Both Samsung and retailers agree on what retailers can expect from on
another. (agree)
.2
82
.3
13
.07007
.2
12
.9
19
7. Both Samsung and retailers are cooperative with each other. (cooper)
.6
66
.7
37
-.004
.2
12
.0
30
8.Generally speaking, retailers think Samsung members meet retailers'
needs.(meet)
.6
66
.8
28
-.18
.03003
.2
32
9. In general, Samsung is satisfied with the relationship with retailers.
(satisfy)
.6
56
.4
34
-.003
.08008
.5
55
10. Samsung's relationship with retailers is good. (good)
.2
42
.5
25
.03003
-.02
.4
74
11. Samsung wishes to continue a relationship with retailers. (continue)
.6
16
.0
70
-.03
.6
16
.1
41
12. Retailers believe that it is worthwhile to try for Samsung to maintain
the relationship with them. (maintain)
.07007
.0
80
-.007
.6
16
.5
25
13. Samsung wish to keep a long-lasting relationship with retailers. (long)
.1
21
.6
66
.4
14
.6
26
.5
25
14. When retailers have favors to ask, Samsung will give retailers face and
render its help. (favor)
.3
13
.08008
.06006
.3
83
-.10
15. In certain conditions, Samsung will do the face-work for retailers. (face)
.01001
.02002
-.008
.4
74
.2
32
16. Given a situation of disagreement, Samsung won't let retailers lose
face. (lose)
.0
30
.5
25
-.002
.2
62
-.14
17. Retailers can get better deal with my company through someone at
Samsung. (deal)
-.17
.05005
.4
84
.05005
.0
10
18. Without personal network with Samsung, it is hard for a retailer to
make a profit. (network)
-.002
-.21
.9
79
-.003
-.33
19. If a retailer has any "yon" with Samsung, they can benefit in doing
business with my company. (yon)
-.006
-.007
.1
91
-.005
.07007
Variance (%)
20.58
18.81
12.54
9.97
8.85














Appendix 2. Managers, 19 variables for relationship measurement (variable name)

Trust

1. Retailers think Samsung treats them fairly and justly, compared to other
manufacturers. (fair)
2. Generally speaking, retailers don't trust the Samsung. (credit)
       3. Retailers think Samsung keeps its promises. (keep)

Control Mutuality

4. Generally speaking, Samsung and retailers are both satisfied with the
decision-making process. (decision)
5. In most cases, during decision-making both Samsung and retailers have
equal influence. (same)
6. Both Samsung and retailers agree on what retailers can expect from on
another. (agree)
       7. Both Samsung and retailers are cooperative with each other. (cooper)

Satisfaction

8.Generally speaking, retailers think Samsung members meet retailers'
needs.(meet)
9. In general, Samsung is satisfied with the relationship with retailers.
(satisfy)
       10. Samsung's relationship with retailers is good. (good)

Commitment

11. Samsung wishes to continue a relationship with retailers. (continue)
12. Retailers believe that it is worthwhile to try for Samsung to maintain
the relationship with them. (maintain)
13. Samsung wish to keep a long-lasting relationship with retailers. (long)

Face & Favor

14. When retailers have favors to ask, Samsung will give retailers face and
render its help. (favor)
       15. In certain conditions, Samsung will do the face-work for
retailers. (face)
       16. Given a situation of disagreement, Samsung won't let retailers
lose face. (lose)

Personal Network

17. Retailers can get better deal with my company through someone at
Samsung. (deal)
18. Without personal network with Samsung, it is hard for a retailer to
make a profit. (network)
19. If a retailer has any "yon" with Samsung, they can benefit in doing
business with my company. (yon)