Content-Type: text/html

Public Relations Orientation:
Development, Empirical Testing and
Implications for Managers



Leeora D. Black*
Department of Management
Monash University
C/- 3 Pental Road, North Caulfield, VIC
Australia 3161
Phone 0011 613 9576 1694
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0209C%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D1424936%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_13021330%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>

Charmine E. J. Härtel
Department of Management
Monash University
P.O. Box 11E, Clayton,
Victoria, Australia 3800
Charmine.building a relational view of public relations, which is supplanting the traditional view of public relations as impression management (eg Heath, 2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). According to the relational view, relationships of an organization with its publics are central to achievement of the organization's mission. Given that many managers and staff of an organization have numerous exchanges with publics every day, a relational view of public relations requires that the capability for public relations or the ability to use public relations must become part of the competencies of all managers. How embedded public relations capability is within an organization is described in this paper as public relations orientation. Furthermore, orientation is specifically linked in this paper with effectiveness. While effectiveness in public relations can be conceptualized in many ways, effectiveness at the organization level includes building relationships with key publics that me
et the goals of the organization (Hon, 1997).
The study uses both theory construction and theory testing techniques to develop and validate the construct and a measure of public relations orientation. The paper begins by describing the method used to construct theory, then offers an operational definition of the construct, public relations orientation. We then present empirical findings of a study of 205 public relations and public affairs managers in 160 organizations in Australia as evidence of the construct's validity. Finally, we suggest how the construct can be used by managers to identify and manage the critical success factors for public relations effectiveness at the organization, rather than at the program, level.

Theory Building Method

A Grounded Theory Approach

To develop a theoretical model of public relations orientation, a grounded theory approach was considered appropriate. Grounded theory relies on simultaneous data collection and analysis wherein categories are developed from the data, rather than from preconceived theory (Charmaz, 1999). It is useful for developing new theory which "includes the perspectives and voices of the people whom we study" (Strauss & Corbin, 1994: 274), an important consideration if the construct is to have managerial relevance and not be regarded as solely an "ivory tower concept" (Terry, 1989: 297). While acknowledging that theory-building research is ideally begun with a "clean theoretical slate" (Eisenhardt, 1989: 536), we also were aware of the difficulty in practice of approaching data collection without any theoretical reference points. This is particularly so when interview participants may themselves be informed by theory in their daily practice. While an interview protocol aimed at inductive theo
ry development (described below) was used, interpretation of data was influenced by extant theory. Indeed, the interplay between the "sensitizing possibilities" (Strauss & Corbin, 1994: 277) of prior reading, and emergent theory from systematically gathered data, can enrich the theory building process. In other words, the data collection process was as theory-free as possible and analysis proceeded initially by coding themes that emerged from the data, but the themes were then interpreted in the light of extant theory.

Theoretical background

Theories from public relations, marketing and management informed our approach. Marketing and management theories were useful for elaborating the concept of "orientation" as an embedded organizational capability that influences performance. Market orientation influences performance through its focus on market information processing activities and the ability to behaviorally respond to what is received  (Baker & Sinkula, 1999). Market orientation therefore encompasses elements of the internal behavior of organizations as well as its relationships with the external environment, suggesting a structure for the concept of orientation that includes both internal behavior and external transactions of the organization. Strategic orientation influences performance by aligning strategy, structure and process (Miles, Snow, Meyer & Coleman, 1987) and highlights the importance of goals that drive choices about strategy. Thus, orientation was broadly conceived to include goals, which dictate strategy, internal behavior, which facilitates the goal-directed strategy, and the manner in which transactions with the external environment are conducted. The concept of orientation is linked to effectiveness since, in the managerial context, effectiveness is the extent to which goals are met (eg Clark, 2000; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
From the public relations literature, we draw on concepts of public relations effectiveness, excellence, and relationships, public relations worldviews and research on constraints to public relations effectiveness.  Effectiveness of public relations at the organization level can be considered in relational terms by conceiving it as building relationships with key publics (Hon, 1997; Grunig & Huang, 2000). Thus, the goal of public relations is relationship building with key publics.
Public relations "excellence", which delivers effectiveness, is the sum of the knowledge base of the communication department, shared expectations with senior management about communication, and a participative organizational culture that supports diversity (Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995). Accordingly, sources of public relations excellence (and effectiveness) reside within the communication department, within the senior management team, and more generally within the organization itself.
Furthermore, constraints (or enabling factors, when present) on the effectiveness of public relations can occur because of information flows within an organization or because of the strategic influence of the public relations manager (Ryan, 1987; Sweep, Cameron, & Lariscy, 1994).
Another contribution to public relations effectiveness is the organization's public relations worldview, or "mindset [that] guides organizations" (Grunig & White, 1992: 39). Worldviews for public relations can be described as symmetrical or asymmetrical, however, Deatherage and Hazleton (1998) found that these apparently opposing worldviews can be held simultaneously, and that both can predict public relations effectiveness.
In sum, public relations orientation may derive from symmetrical or asymmetrical worldviews for public relations, be expressed via the pursuit of relationship building goals, and enacted via internal behavior (such as information flows and strategic influence between public relations, top management and the rest of the organization) and external transactions of the organization with its stakeholders. Thus, the marketing and management literatures offer a framework for understanding organizational orientation, while the public relations literature adds specific public relations content to the framework.

Sampling Strategy and Field Interviews

A grounded theory approach requires a sampling strategy for theory construction purposes, rather than for representativeness of a given population (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Given that public relations orientation is thought to be embedded in an organization, and not just within the public relations department, both public relations and non-public relations managers were approached to participate in field interviews. Managers in for-profit companies were approached because a key hypothesis was that public relations orientation is correlated with business performance. Following a theoretical sampling strategy (Strauss & Corbin, 1994), both public relations (n = 11) and non-public relations managers (n = 7) were interviewed. To avoid the problem of identifying themes that may be relevant only to specific industries or types of companies, managers were approached from a range of industries and from multinational and domestic firms.
An interview protocol based on the format used by Kholi and Jaworski (1990) was followed for each interview, which lasted from 45 - 60 minutes. After describing the research project, each participant was asked:
1. Tell me about public relations in your organization.
2. What does the term public relations orientation mean to you?
3. What organizational factors foster or discourage public relations orientation?
4. What are the positive and negative consequences of public relations orientation?
5. Can you think of business situations in which public relations orientation may not be very important?
The information obtained from these interviews was analyzed by thematic coding into approximately 40 themes. Two issues then dictated use of a further methodological tactic, called Q sorts. One issue was the need to reduce vast amounts of data to a manageable set of factors; the other was the need for triangulation of findings. Triangulation is a research strategy that aims to counterbalance the limitations of one research method with the strengths of another (Snow & Thomas, 1994). The possibility that researcher bias influenced the thematic coding and interpretation of data was addressed by the tactic of Q-sorts.

Q Sorts

The Q method was developed as a means of objectively studying human subjectivity (Stephenson, 1936). It seeks to model a person's viewpoint by systematically ordering a "purposively sampled set of stimuli, namely a Q-sample" (McKeown & Thomas, 1988:11). The set of stimuli comprising the Q-sample for this exercise was a series of statements and commonly repeated words derived from interview transcripts. The statements were transcribed onto cards, called Q-cards. Q-methodology typically employs a small number of respondents. Five people ranging in public relations and business expertise from a senior practitioner with over 20 years experience to a business student with no public relations knowledge were asked to sort the Q-cards into piles based on themes which were subjectively meaningful to them.
In traditional Q-methodology, the resulting Q-sorts would then be subjected to quantitative factor analysis. However, since the purpose here was theory building, participants were then asked to label each pile of cards with a term of their choice, arrange the piles of cards into a model which made sense to them, and tell the story of how the elements of their model were linked and what the model depicted. The emergence of common factors, themes and stories contributed to the reliability of the subsequent analysis.
Public Relations Orientation: The Construct

Thus, field interviews followed by Q-sorts enabled identification of a series of factors that described public relations orientation. The factors were applied to the theoretically derived framework for orientation developed from the marketing and management literatures as described above. First, orientation comprises a goal against which effectiveness can be measured. Second, orientation comprises an internal process or set of internal behaviors within the organization. Third, orientation describes transactions with stakeholders in pursuit of the goal. "Orientation" is consequently understood to signpost the path between strategic intention and enacted strategy and therefore comprises an embedded organizational capability. The factors identified in the field interviews and Q-sorts filled this framework with public relations content (see Figure 1).

Goal

The goal sub-dimension of PRO can be understood as occurring along a two-dimensional continuum with the quest for positive images (symbolic relationships) forming one axis and the quest for substantive behavioral relationships between organizations and publics forming the other axis. The goal subdimension therefore reflects the two major paradigms for public relations (Grunig, 1993). High PRO occurs when organizations pursue both behavioral and symbolic relationship goals (see Figure 2).

Behavior

The behavior sub-dimension of PRO includes responsiveness of the organization to stakeholders, interfunctional co-ordination and a strategic role for PR within with organization. Responsiveness occurs on a two-dimensional continuum with the intensity of activity from do little to do much on one axis, and the nature of activity from adversarial to collaborative occurring on the other axis.  Interfunctional co-ordination includes the collection of information about the stakeholder environment (Ryan, 1987), the dissemination of information, and the quality of the information (i.e., usefulness, accuracy and timeliness) (Maltz & Kholi, 1996). Previous research has identified the importance of a strategic role for PR within organizations if PR is to achieve organizational goals (eg Lauzen, 1995). The elements of this sub dimension include the development of PR goals to support business strategy, input for PR into strategic planning, and the adequacy of the PR budget.

Transactions with stakeholders

The transaction sub-dimension of PRO includes the centrality of stakeholder focus (the extent to which stakeholders are considered in strategic planning, and the extent to which differing needs of stakeholders are understood and taken into consideration), a dialogic approach to stakeholders comprising respectful attitudes towards the dialogic partner, mutual agreement about the structural attributes of communication, and mutual satisfaction with the rules of communication (Pearson, 1989), and openness (the degree to which organizations share information with members of key publics) (Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999).

In summary, based on field interviews and Q-sorts, public relations orientation was considered to comprise the three dimensions of goal, behavior and transactions, which are further broken down into seven factors. Three practitioner experts then reviewed the final model of PRO for face validity, prior to beginning scale construction work.

Theory Testing Method

Scale construction and mail survey

Multi-item measures of each of the dimensions of public relations orientation were developed according to the methodology recommended by Nunnally (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) and Churchill (1979). An initial list of 56 items was generated to measure the seven hypothesized dimensions and subsequently reviewed by three professors. As a result, some items were reworded for greater clarity. The instrument was then pre-tested on a sample of 20 senior public relations managers. Seven point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) were used. Twenty items were reverse scored to control for acquiescence response bias. Preliminary tests of reliability and examination of item-to-total correlations were used to purify the scale to 34 items. Exploratory factor analysis of the remaining 34 items supported the hypothesized factor structure and further reliability testing indicated co-efficient alphas of between .53 to .83 of the factors, which are considered marginally a
dequate to good for the early stages of scale development.
A second pre-test on a further 20 mid-level managers from non-public relations functions was run because, as noted, the construct relates to how embedded public relations capability is within an organization, not just the capability of the public relations department. Ten of the 34 items were reverse scored.  The scale was again purified through tests for reliability and exploratory factor analysis, resulting in the deletion of a further four items. Results of the pre-test using a general management sample showed improvement of the co-efficient alphas for some dimensions, but a decline in reliability for others. However, reliability scores remained within the range of .46 to .85, that is, comparable to the first pilot. Factors for which reliability coefficients dropped in the second pilot were reviewed and items rewritten to further clarify and simplify the intended meaning.
The final survey instrument included 30 items, of which 14 were reverse scored. In addition, other variables were measured to provide evidence of construct validity. These were buffering and bridging public affairs strategies (Meznar & Johnson, 1996), conflict avoidance with stakeholders, and business performance (Saimee & Roth, 1992). A measure of public affairs strategies was used since public affairs deals with non-market external stakeholders (Fleisher & Blair, 1999) and therefore includes some of the key publics generally considered in public relations management.
The theoretical model tested in the final survey, therefore, hypothesized that PRO would influence business performance through the reduction of conflict with stakeholders (i.e., a mediation effect) obtained as a result of the use of public affairs buffering and bridging strategies (See Figure 3). The operationalization of these variables is now described.

Operationalization of variables

A seven-point Likert-type scale for conflict avoidance was constructed based on the effects of public relations reported by Dozier, Grunig, and Grunig (1995). Respondents were asked to consider "the extent to which observable evidence shows that public relations/public affairs programs had the following effects in the last three years". In addition, respondents were given the choice of "not applicable" and a summary item was added asking respondents to give an overall rating of the effectiveness of public relations at avoiding conflict with stakeholders. Exploratory factor analysis identified three factors with an overall reliability of .83. The factor structure and reliabilities are reported in Table 1.
Public affairs strategies were operationalized using the four-factor scale reported by Meznar and Nigh (1996). The four public affairs strategies tested - social buffering, political buffering, social bridging, and political bridging - were supported by factor analysis and reliability testing with only small modifications.
Business performance was operationalized using a two-item self report measure reported by Saimee and Roth (1992).

Sample demographics

The Centre for Corporate Public Affairs in Melbourne provided a mailing list of names of public affairs and public relations managers from a range of organizations in every state in Australia, who completed the survey in late 2001. Of the 602 deliverable surveys, 205 useable questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 34%.  Respondents came from 160 organizations in every state of Australia covering a wide range of industries. Demographic data collected from 20 executives at non-responding organizations (10% of non-responding organizations) revealed no significant differences between respondents and nonrespondents. There were also no differences between managers with the title of public affairs and managers with the title of public relations.
The demographic profile of the sample was assessed using organization characteristics such as ownership, organization type and number of employees, as well as respondent characteristics such as seniority of manager, gender and age. The responding organizations comprised foreign owned multinational corporations (n=52), Australian owned multinational corporations (n=27), Australian domestic corporations (n=23), government owned or controlled businesses (n=40), and other organizations such as professional associations and government departments (n=18). A summary of organization characteristics is contained in Table 2. The respondents comprised 42% who reported directly to their chief executive officer or top manager and a further 44% who reported one level below that. This is comparable with results of other surveys of public affairs managers in Australia (Post & ACPA, 1993). Approximately 40% of the sample was women. Respondent characteristics are summarised in Table 3.

Results

Scale properties

Rigorous criteria were applied to further purification of the 30-item scale using principal components analysis with Varimax rotation and calculation of co-efficient alpha. First, the factors extracted needed to relate meaningfully to the theorised dimensions and sub-dimensions of PRO.  Second, items needed to be highly inter-correlated while nevertheless loading simply on one factor only. A cut-off item-to-total correlation of .3 was employed for this purpose (see Table 4). Third, parsimony in scale length was an objective, since the scales are designed with management use in mind. Therefore, items were assessed for their contribution to co-efficient alpha and any underperforming items were dropped. This process was repeated until 14 items remained with an overall scale reliability of .87. A five-factor solution best fit the hypothesized three-dimension structure of PRO, and explained 68.9% of variance.
The first factor corresponded with the hypothesized goal dimension, comprising both symbolic relationship and behavioral relationship goals. Alpha co-efficient for the 4-item sub-scale was .80.  The second two factors corresponded with the hypothesized behavior dimension. They were interfunctional co-ordination and goal setting (collapsed into one factor), comprising four items with a reliability of .77 and adequate resources, comprising two items with a reliability of .83. A final two factors fit the hypothesized dimension of transactions with stakeholders. They were responsiveness (two items) and dialogic approach (two items), with reliability co-efficients of  .53 and .55 respectively. Responsiveness, initially considered part of the behavior dimension, was moved to the transaction dimension, as it was a more logical fit. This was especially so given that items from the hypothesized openness factor within the transaction dimension loaded onto the responsiveness factor - respond
ents in this survey considered openness to be a type of responsiveness. The hypothesized factor called "centrality of stakeholder focus" was absorbed into the goal dimension, which is logical considering that stakeholder focus is a prerequisite to developing symbolic and behavioral relationships with stakeholders. Item to scale correlations depicted in Table 4 show that each item corresponds most strongly with the factor to which it was assigned.
In summary, the three-dimension structure of public relations orientation developed in the theory-building phase, that is, the goals, behavior and transactions pursued by organizations in their relationships with publics, was supported in the theory-testing phase. The hypothesized seven factors reduced to five in the test of the theory; nevertheless, the five factors fit the theory.

Validity

Whereas reliability estimates demonstrate the extent to which items in a scale are consistently interpreted to mean the same thing, establishing validity of new constructs is considered important because it shows the adequacy of a scale as a measure of a specific variable (DeVellis, 1991). In this study, criterion and predictive validity are established by correlating PRO with stakeholder conflict avoidance, which has been established in previous studies as an outcome of public relations excellence (Dozier, et al., 1995). Pearson correlations revealed a significant relationship, r = .407, n = 205, p = < .01. Other measures that go toward establishing criterion and predictive validity are the public affairs buffering and bridging scales. PRO correlated significantly with three of the four strategies, but most strongly with social bridging, as expected, r = .508, n = 205, p = <.01.

Regression analysis

Regression analysis confirmed the hypothesis that PRO contributes to business performance. PRO accounted for 10% of variance in business performance (F (1, 203) = 21.34, p<.0001, R2 Adj = .10). The effect of PRO on business performance was partially mediated by conflict avoidance (F (1, 201) = 4.50, p = 0.0350, R2 Adj = 0.02). Social bridging accounted for 5% of variance in business performance (F (1. 203) = 12.41, p = 0.0005, R2 Adj = 0.05). Conflict avoidance was also a partial mediator of the effect of social bridging on business performance (F (1, 201) = 6.61, p = 0.0108, R2 Adj = 0.03). The theoretical model was therefore supported.

Discussion and conclusions

The development and validation evidence of the construct of public relations orientation was outlined. A grounded theory approach, comprising field interviews and Q-sorts, was used to develop the concept. An empirical test of the theory was then conducted to develop a reliable and valid measure of the construct and to assess its relationship to strategy and performance. The test indicated support for a multi-dimensional construct comprised of five factors. The public relations orientation measure assesses the degree to which organizations (1) pursue both behavioral and symbolic relationships with publics, (2) set public relations goals to support organizational goals and facilitate effective flow and use of public relations information within the organization, (3) provide adequate resources for the conduct of public relations, (4) are responsive to stakeholder needs, and (5) engage in dialogue with publics.

Methodological issues

The scales are intended for management, as well as scholarly, use. Scales for management use should be actionable, cost efficient, generalizable and easy to interpret with descriptive statistics (Reardon, Miller, & Coe, 1995).  The parsimony of the scales at this point, and their focus on actionable and controllable variables, indicates much has already been achieved. However, a comparison of the items within each factor with the hypothesized domain of the factor indicates that not all aspects of each factor have yet been captured adequately by the scales. Further development and testing of each of the sub-scales is required. In particular, the pursuit of symbolic relationships, the separation of interfunctional co-ordination and goal setting factors, and elaboration of the responsiveness and dialogue dimensions is required. Construct validity of the scales could also be enhanced using interviews with managers to expand understanding of the relationships between each of the dimens
ions. The stability of the scales over time has also not yet been demonstrated. Finally, the proposition that PRO measures public relations effectiveness could be tested by obtaining stakeholder views of the effectiveness of the organization in managing mutually beneficial relationships. Such measures are available in the public relations literature (e.g., Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Huang, 2001).

Substantive issues

        The conceptualization of public relations orientation draws on theories about public relations worldviews, public relations effectiveness and public relations excellence. Grunig (1989) identified the symmetrical worldview, which sees mutual understanding through relationship building as the goal of public relations, and the asymmetrical worldview, which sees persuasion of publics as a core goal of public relations. A study to measure how worldviews influence public relations effectiveness found that while the symmetrical worldview did indeed predict more successful public relations, the symmetrical view is nevertheless normative insofar as it describes what public relations should do rather than what it actually does (Deatherage & Hazleton, 1998). The PRO concept is based on a normative understanding of public relations, yet it measures what organizations actually do in pursuit of public relations goals. Therefore, PRO is related to the symmetrical worldview concept because it is
 based on the normative assumption that mutually beneficial relationships with publics should be the goal of public relations. PRO differs from the worldview concept by being narrower in focus insofar as it concentrates only on organizational behavior that is required to achieve the relationship goal, and not on broader aspects of the organizational environment such as efficiency, innovation, and equity. It also differs from the worldview concept because it provides a series of actionable, controllable variables that managers can use to change the way they practice public relations.

Implications for managers

        It is in the application of measures to public relations that the concept of PRO holds most promise. The PRO measure could be used to establish a baseline for the level of public relations effectiveness within an organization. By studying the scores for each sub-dimension, public relations managers can plan internal strategies to increase the effective use of public relations by their organizations. For example, the application of the PRO measure might indicate that even though the public relations manager has an impact on strategy, the flow and usefulness of public relations information throughout the organization is limiting the extent to which the organization benefits from public relations.
The PRO measure could also be used on different cohorts of employees, such as top managers, line managers and public relations staff, to identify areas where change is needed. For example, the measure may reveal a high score on the dialogue dimension at the top management level, but a low score on the dialogue dimension at the line management level. This should provide clues to the public relations manager about the dissemination of skills and values throughout the organization that will improve the organization's relationships with publics. Tactics such as the involvement of line managers in community advisory committees may be indicated. Likewise, organizations with multiple sites and locations could use the PRO measure to identify where effort is needed to improve the overall organizational capability to conduct mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders.
In sum, the construct of public relations orientation has been described and measured in this paper. If public relations is to succeed in its efforts to help organizations manage mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and publics then public relations must be considered an organization-wide capability. PRO measures the extent to which such capability is embedded in organizations. It offers a parsimonious and managerially actionable way of measuring and managing public relations effectiveness.


References
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance. Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411-427.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of Relationships and Evaluations of Satisfaction: An Exploration of Interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95.
Charmaz, K. (1999). Grounded Theory. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology.: Sage.
Churchill, G. A. J. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 64-73.
Clark, B. H. (2000). Managerial Perceptions of Marketing Performance: Efficiency, Adaptability, Effectiveness and Satisfaction. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8, 3-25.
Deatherage, C. P., & Hazleton, V. (1998). Effects of Organizational Worldviews on the Practice of Public Relations: A Test of the Theory of Public Relations Excellence. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(1), 57-71.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications ( Vol. 26). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager's Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Fleisher, C. S., & Blair, N. M. (1999). Tracing the Parallel Evolution of Public Affairs and Public Relations: An Examination of Practice, Scholarship and Teaching. Journal of Communication Management, 3(3), 276-292.
Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical Presuppositions as a Framework for Public Relations Theory. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton Jr (Eds.), Public Relations Theory (pp. 17-44). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and Substance: From Symbolic to Behavioral Relationships. Public Relations Review, 19(2), 121-139.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From Organizational Effectiveness to Relationship Indicators: Antecedents of Relationships, Public Relations Strategies, and Relationship Outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & White, J. (1992). The Effect of Worldviews on Public Relations Theory and Practice. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 31-64). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heath, R. L. (2001). Shifting Foundations: Public Relations as Relationship Building. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 1-9). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hon, L. C. (1997). What Have You Done For Me Lately? Exploring Effectiveness in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(1), 1-30.
Huang, Y.-H. (2001). OPRA: A Cross-Cultural, Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Organization-Public Relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 131(1), 61-90.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1-18.
Lauzen, M. M. (1995). Public Relations Manager Involvement in Strategic Issues Diagnosis. Public Relations Review, 21(4), 287f.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (Eds.). (2000). Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an Indicator of the Perceptions and Behavior of Members of a Key Public: Monitoring and Predicting Organization-Public Relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2), 167-183.
Maltz, E., & Kholi, A. K. (1996). Market Intelligence Dissemination Across Functional Boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(February), 47-61.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Meznar, M. B., & Johnson, J. H. (1996). Multinational Operations and Stakeholder Management: Public Affairs Strategies, and Economic Performance. Journal of International Management, 2(4), 233-261.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman Jr., H. J. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory ( 3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Pearson, R. (1989). Business Ethics as Communication Ethics: Public Relations Practice and the Idea of Dialogue. In C. H. Botan & J. Vincent Hazleton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory (pp. 111-131). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Post, J. E., & ACPA. (1993). Australian Public Affairs Practice: Results of the 1992 National Public Affairs Survey. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 14, 91-101.
Reardon, J., Miller, C. E., & Coe, B. (1995). Applied Scale Development: Measurement of Store Image. Journal of Applied Business Research, 11(4), 85-93.
Ryan, M. (1987). Organizational Constraints on Corporate Public Relations Practitioners. Journalism Quarterly, Summer-Autumn, 473-482.
Saimee, S., & Roth, K. (1992). The Influence of Global Marketing Standardization on Performance. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 1f.
Snow, C. C., & Thomas, J. B. (1994). Field Research Methods in Strategic Management: Contributions to Theory Building and Testing. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 457-480.
Stephenson, W. (1936). The Inverted Factor Tequnique. British Journal of Psychology, 22, 344-361.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In N. K. Densin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sweep, D., Cameron, G. T., & Lariscy, R. W. (1994). Rethinking Constraints on Public Relations Practice. Public Relations Review, 20(4), 319-331.
Terry, K. E. (1989). Educator and Practitioner Differences on the Role of Theory in Public Relations. In C. H. Botan & V. J. Hazleton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory (pp. 281-298). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.





Figure 1: The hypothesized Dimensions of Public Relations Orientation

Dimensions
Sub-dimensions
Goal
* Symbolic & behavioral relationships
Behavior
* Responsiveness
* Interfunctional co-ordination
*  Strategic role for PR  (combining goal setting and resources)
Transactions
* Centrality of stakeholder focus
* Dialogic approach
* Openness









Figure 2: The goal of Public Relations Orientation


Symbolic
Relationship
Axis
                High


                Low

                        Low                             High
                        Behavioral Relationship Axis

Figure 3: A theoretical model for testing the construct of public relations orientation.


Table 1: Factor Loadings and Reliability for Conflict Avoidance Scale.
Factor
1
2
3
Co-efficient alpha
.81
.76
.67
There were fewer disagreements or disputes with relevant stakeholder groups.
.877
.192
.194
Complaints from stakeholder groups were reduced.
.864
.125
.108
Overall, rate the effectiveness of your organization's public relations/communications function over the last three years in avoiding conflicts with stakeholders.
.781
.360
.134
A strike or boycott was avoided.
.159
.853
.121
Litigation was avoided.
.221
.828

Activist groups were willing to negotiate with the organization.
.211
.639
.305
Desirable legislation was passed or undesirable legislation was defeated.
.185

.860
There was less interference by government in the management of the organization.
.112
.225
.831

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.   Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a  Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Cumulative variance explained by three factors = 74.449%.
Overall scale reliability = .83
Factor 1 = Conflict reduction
Factor 2 = Conflict avoidance
Factor 3 = Conflict minimisation with government


Table 2: Characteristics of responding organizations (N = 160)
Employees
Foreign owned MNCs
Aust owned MNCs
Aust. domestic
Gov't business es
Assoc-iations
Gov't departments
Other
Total
<499
3.0%
2.5%
3.5%
9.4%
3.5%

1.0%
22.8%
500-2,499
7.4%
4.5%
5.0%
8.9%
.5%
2.5%
1.0%
29.7%
2,500-4,999
4.0%
5.4%
3.0%
4.5%



16.8%
5,000-9,999
2.5%
2.5%
1.0%
.5%


.5%
6.9%
10,000-50,000
2.5%
8.4%

4.0%



14.9%
>50,000
6.9%
2.0%





8.9%
Total
26.2%
25.2%
12.4%
27.2%
4.0%
2.5%
2.5%
100.0%



Table 3: Characteristics of Respondents
Age
Seniority
Female
Male
Total
Under 35
Report to CEO
6.9%
2.0%
8.9%

Report to someone who reports to CEO
9.9%
3.0%
12.8%

Report at a level below this
2.5%
.5%
3.0%

Group Total
19.2%
5.4%
24.6%
36-45
Report to CEO
5.4%
8.4%
14.3%

Report to someone who reports to CEO
9.9%
11.3%
21.2%

Report at a level below this
1.0%
1.0%
2.0%

Group Total
16.3%
20.7%
37.4%
46-55
Report to CEO
2.5%
15.8%
18.2%

Report to someone who reports to CEO
2.5%
8.9%
11.3%

Report at a level below this
.5%
2.0%
2.5%

Group Total
5.4%
27.6%
33.0%
56 or older
Report to CEO

2.5%
2.5%

Report to someone who reports to CEO

2.0%
2.0%

Report at a level below this

.5%
.5%

Group Total

4.9%
4.9%


40.9%
58.6%
99.5%*
* Total does not add up to 100% as some respondents declined to answer the question on age.


Table 4: Factor Loadings and Reliability of Public Relations Orientation
Factors
1
 2
3
 4
5
Co-efficient alpha
.80
.77
.83
.53
.55
Managers in our organization have genuinely respectful attitudes towards key stakeholder groups.
.783
.119
.180

.129
Our management understands the differing needs of our stakeholder groups.
.801

.247

.112
The way stakeholders see our organization is a low priority for us. R
.716
.285

.183
.139
Our organization does not place a lot of emphasis on developing good stakeholder relationships. R
.602
.123
.187
.349

The information distributed by public relations staff is accurate.

.814

.171

The information distributed by public relations staff to other functional staff gets there fast enough to be useful.
.212
.702
.160
.365

Public relations sets objectives to meet the organization's objectives.
.138
.661

.462

Information prepared by public relations staff is not used by other staff in this organization. R
.202
.691
.171
-.301
.186
PR managers have not discussed with stakeholders how the organization should best communicate with them.R
.148
.110

.679
.243
Our public relations staff try to accommodate stakeholder needs.
.217
.163

.718

The over-riding public relations goal in our organization is to build good relationships with strategic stakeholder groups.
.303



.824
Stakeholders and public relations managers have equal opportunity to initiate communication with one another.

.204
.283
.327
.682
Our organization shows its commitment to the public relations function by giving it a good budget.
.214
.185
.825
.105
.145
Public relations activity in this organization is impeded by inadequate budget.R
.192

.908


Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.   Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a  Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Factor 1: Behavioral and symbolic relationship goal
Factor 2: Goal setting & interfunctional co-ordination
Factor 3: Budget
Factor 4: Responsiveness
Factor 5: Dialogue
5 factors explain 68.903% of variance
Alpha co-efficient for the 14 item scale is .86.
R denotes reverse scored items




Public Relations Orientation: Development, Empirical Testing and Implications for Managers




1