All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Exploring the Link Between the Concepts of Organization-Public Relationships and Organizational Reputations
Unformatted Document Text:  Tracking Number: ICA-15-10266 7 “public relations practitioners, like scholars, also increasingly are pointing to relationships as the key indicator of successful public relations” (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000, p. 24). However, despite the common use of the term “relationship” by both scholars and practitioners in explaining the value of public relations, “neither scholars nor practitioners have defined the concept carefully or have developed reliable measures of relationships outcomes” (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000, p. 25). Broom, Casey, and Richey (2000) pointed out the problems concerning the lack of definitions of the relationship concept: “Even though the public relations function builds and maintains organizations’ relationships with publics, we found few definitions of such relationships in public relations literature” (p. 3). As a consequence, the absence of a fully explicated definition of relationships hinders the development of valid operational measures of relationships and limits theory building in public relations (Broom et al., 2000, p. 3). After searching definitions of relationships in perspectives from interpersonal communication, psychotherapy, interorganizational relationships, and systems theory, Broom et al. (2000) defined the concept of organization- public relationships as “the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage between an organization and its publics” (p. 18). Besides this definition of organization-public relationships, Broom et al.’s (2000) three-stage model of relationships is useful in explaining why organizations come to build relationships with specific publics (J. Grunig and Huang, 2000). Their framework consists of three stages, including antecedents 3 , the concept of relationships, and consequences 4 , in which they contended “relationships act as both dependent and independent variables as well as intervening variables” in public-organizational relationships (p. 16). J. Grunig and Huang’s (2000) developed Broom et al.’s (2000) model of relationships in further explicating the process of relationships. Instead of the relationship concept, they conceptualized maintenance strategies 5 as the middle stage of the model, which Stafford and Canary (1991) first developed to look at maintenance strategies of romantic couples in interpersonal communication. The first stage of J. Grunig and Huang’s (2000) model highlights environmental scanning 6 to identify key publics that are most likely to have consequences with an organization. The second stage incorporates models of public relations into develop a set of communication strategies that can be used to develop and maintain relationships. The third stage provides a set of relationship outcomes that can be used for measuring the quality of on-going relationships. The process of relationships, proposed by J. Grunig and Huang (2000), can be useful for measuring reliable relationship outcomes as well

Authors: Yang, SungUn. and Mallabo, Jose.
first   previous   Page 7 of 35   next   last



background image
Tracking Number: ICA-15-10266
7
“public relations practitioners, like scholars, also increasingly are pointing to relationships as
the key indicator of successful public relations” (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000, p. 24).
However, despite the common use of the term “relationship” by both scholars and
practitioners in explaining the value of public relations, “neither scholars nor practitioners
have defined the concept carefully or have developed reliable measures of relationships
outcomes” (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000, p. 25). Broom, Casey, and Richey (2000) pointed out
the problems concerning the lack of definitions of the relationship concept: “Even though the
public relations function builds and maintains organizations’ relationships with publics, we
found few definitions of such relationships in public relations literature” (p. 3).
As a consequence, the absence of a fully explicated definition of relationships hinders
the development of valid operational measures of relationships and limits theory building in
public relations (Broom et al., 2000, p. 3). After searching definitions of relationships in
perspectives from interpersonal communication, psychotherapy, interorganizational
relationships, and systems theory, Broom et al. (2000) defined the concept of organization-
public relationships as “the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage
between an organization and its publics” (p. 18).
Besides this definition of organization-public relationships, Broom et al.’s (2000)
three-stage model of relationships is useful in explaining why organizations come to build
relationships with specific publics (J. Grunig and Huang, 2000). Their framework consists of
three stages, including antecedents
3
, the concept of relationships, and consequences
4
, in
which they contended “relationships act as both dependent and independent variables as well
as intervening variables” in public-organizational relationships (p. 16).
J. Grunig and Huang’s (2000) developed Broom et al.’s (2000) model of relationships
in further explicating the process of relationships. Instead of the relationship concept, they
conceptualized maintenance strategies
5
as the middle stage of the model, which Stafford and
Canary (1991) first developed to look at maintenance strategies of romantic couples in
interpersonal communication. The first stage of J. Grunig and Huang’s (2000) model
highlights environmental scanning
6
to identify key publics that are most likely to have
consequences with an organization. The second stage incorporates models of public relations
into develop a set of communication strategies that can be used to develop and maintain
relationships. The third stage provides a set of relationship outcomes that can be used for
measuring the quality of on-going relationships. The process of relationships, proposed by J.
Grunig and Huang (2000), can be useful for measuring reliable relationship outcomes as well


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 7 of 35   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.