Relationships between organizations and publics: development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale.

INTRODUCTION

As a scholarly discipline, public relations has struggled to develop an identity separate from related fields such as advertising, marketing, or even "journalism with a business orientation." As a professional practice, it is questionable whcthcr public relations has ever been fully accepted within most organizational structures.(1) Botan notes that public relations scholars have developed two branches of research: applied and theoretical. Botan further subdivides these into the areas of symmetrical/systems, rhetorical/critical, feminist, social scientific, and a dominant applied model based on a journalistic heritage with a business orientation.(2) Historically, the practice of public relations has been grounded in a journalistic approach, and initially the field was concerned almost exclusively on generating publicity through the use of press agentry.(3) As the field evolved, the practice expanded to include activities such as publicity, advertising, public affairs, issues management, lobbying, investor relations, and development.(4) Recently, examination of the relationship that exists between an organization and the organization's critical publics (the relationship management perspective) has emerged as an intriguing and fruitful area of public relations scholarship.

The relationship management perspective has the potential to serve as a platform to guide theoretical inquiry and professional practice, and to provide a method of evaluation that is consistent with the management approach.(5) Ferguson's challenge for public relations scholarship to focus on the organization-public relationship as the central unit of study appears to have served as the genesis for many public relations scholars to examine the types, nature, and influence of organization-public relationships, and on subsequent public and consumer behavior.(6) Subsequently, a definition of public relations as "the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends."(7) Although this definition (or some variation of it) has been accepted and espoused by both scholars and practitioners, until recently, little scholarly attention has been paid to the delineation of the concept of organization-public relationships, or to the process wherein organizations initiate, develop, and maintain relationships with publics that can constrain or enhance the organization's ability to meet its mission.

Moreover, the relationship management perspective shifts the practice of public relations away from the manipulation of public opinion and toward a focus on building, nurturing, and maintaining organization-public relationships, a shift Ehling characterizes as "an important change in the primary mission of public relations."(8) Indeed, the growing body of scholarly literature focused around organization-public relationships indicates the increasing popularity of the relational perspective as a theoretical framework for public relations research.

The relational perspective is attractive for a number of other reasons. Adoption of the relationship management perspective allows practitioners to utilize quantitative evaluation methods to track relationship changes over time. Benchmarking consumer relationship perceptions and behavior, and then evaluating program success or failure against the benchmark provides practitioners with measures that go beyond the simple counting of clippings.(9) Despite the difficulty of documenting cause-and-effect relationships when dealing with complicated human behavior, public relations practitioners who use quantified relationship measures can effectively argue for the organization-public relationship as part of the mix of complex interactions that combine to influence human perceptions and behavior.(10)

Previous empirical research raises issues of reliability by employing only single measures of organization-public relationship dimensions. Thus, the need arises for a multiple-unit measurement scale of organization-public relationship dimensions. In order to gain insight into the development of a multiple-item organization-public relationship scale, scholarship that utilizes the relational perspective was examined.

Studying public relations as relationship management necessitates integrating concepts from the disciplines of mass media, interpersonal communication, interorganizational behavior, social psychology, marketing, and management.(11) Indeed, various authors have adopted an integrative approach in studying public relations.(12) A number of studies have reported that perceptions of the relationship not only influence consumer perceptions of the sponsoring organization, but also influences the behavior of key public members.(13)

One of the earliest calls for integrating literature from disparate disciplines came from Toth and Trujillo when they argued for integration of concepts from organizational communication, management research, and public relations in order to develop an overbridging theory of public relations.(14) In a later book chapter, Toth presents a model that suggests that the function of the public relations is to utilize interpersonal communication processes in order to facilitate the building of public relationships.(15) She posits that public relations should be conceptualized in terms of interpersonal communication, with public relations practitioners serving as the intermediary between an organization and the publics that the organization serves. Thus, Toth concludes that the fundamental purpose of public relations is to facilitate communication, acceptance, and cooperation between an organization and the publics that are critical to organizational survival.

Scholars from interpersonal communication have argued that in order for an interpersonal relationship to exist, both parties in the relationship must be aware of the other, and be cognizant of the fact that both parties can influence one another.(16) In taking a similar approach, it has been argued that in order for an organization-public relationship to exist, then, both the organization and the members of the publics must be aware that the actions of one party may influence the lives and experiences of the other.(17) Thus, in order for an organization to practice public relations from a relational perspective, the organization must first recognize that it can affect the lives of the members of its key publics, and also recognize that members of the key publics can affect the organization. Likewise, members of key publics must recognize that they can affect the organization, and also that the organization can affect them. Once the recognition is established, a relationship exists which can be described and analyzed in terms of the perceptions of the relationship on the part of both the organization and its kcy publics. It then becomes incumbent upon the organization to develop practices that facilitate exchange between the organization and the publics the organization serves, exchanges that provide building-blocks for relationships.

If awareness is the first condition of an organization-public relationship, the second condition may be dialogue. J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig suggest that conceptualizing and practicing public relations within the two-way symmetrical model may lead to the organization developing a more relationally based focus, and can lead the organization to become more effective and more ethical, and positively influence an organization's revenue stream.(18) In order for a two-way symmetrical model to work, however, both the organization and the key public must be willing to engage in a dialogue. Moreover, they report that the crucial symmetrical concepts that can help to facilitate the organization-public relationship involve creating a sense of openness, trust, and understanding between the organization and the key public, as well as a willingness to negotiate, collaborate, and mediate solutions to issues of concern to both the organization and critical publics.

Early research into organization-public relationships provides direction for measuring the quality of organization-public relationships. J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig, and Ehling suggested the dimensions of reciprocity, trust, mutual legitimacy, openness, mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding as potential indicators of relationship quality.(19) J. E. Grunig emphasizes the importance of linking organization-public relationship evaluations to organizational goals, stating that "for public relations to be valued by the organizations it serves, practitioners must be able to demonstrate that their efforts contribute to the goals of these organizations by building long-term behavioral relationships with strategic publics."(20) Although in recent years there has been an increase in the amount of scholarly attention paid to the notion of relationship management, Broom, Casey, and Ritchey noted that a useful definition of "relationship" in the scholarship of public relations does not exist.(21) Those authors further contend that the absence of a fully explicated definition precludes the development of measures of organizationpublic relationships, and limits effective theory building in public relations. Nonetheless, they concluded: "We are not yet ready to propose either [the] conceptual or operational definitions of organization-public relationships. Our goals . . . were to initiate the process of explication and to invite others to join us in the task."(22)

In an attempt to address the lack of a definition of "relationship" within the study of a public relations, Ledingham and Bruning suggested that the organization-public relationship be defined 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."(23) The authors further explored the notion of organization-public

relationships by defining the ideal organization-public relationship as the "state that exists between an organization and its key publics that provides economic, social, political, and/or cultural benefits to all parties involved, and is characterized by mutual positive regard."(24)

One of the first streams of scholarly research that sought to quantify the influence of organization-public relationships examined consumer pcrccptions of the organization-public relationship dimensions of trust, openness, involvement, investment, and commitment.(25) That stream of scholarly inquiry reported these dimensions to be related to consumer perceptions of satisfaction with the organization,(26) able to differentiate those consumers who were loyal to the sponsoring organization from those who were not,(27) and related to perceptions of satisfaction as well as differentiating those involved in a business-to-business relationship.(28) Finally, through the use of a pretest/intervention/posttest design, research shows that when public relations campaigns are designed to enhance perceptions of the organization-public relationship dimensions of trust, openness, involvement, investment, and commitment, public members evaluate relationship dimensions more positively.(29)

The relational perspective also has been applied to perceptions of the organization in crisis,(30) notions of globalism, multiculturalism, and diversity,(31) symbolic and behavioral influences of employee volunteerism,(32) and physician-patient relations.(33) Likewise, the relational perspective has been applied in the management of issues,(34) the focus of network newscasts,(35) and the influence that time has on organization-public relationships.(36)

The current investigation responds to the need for organization-public relationship scale development.(37) Such a scale should be of interest to both scholars and practitioners who wish to examine the ways in which organizations initiate, maintain, or improve their public relationships. Moreover, the investigation is integrative in nature, and should provide for the academic community a better understanding of the variables that influence perceptions of the organization-public relationship. It should also help practitioners gain a better understanding of the nature of the organization-public relationship, and help them better facilitate relationships between organizations and publics. The scale also can be useful in research designs that employ benchmark, intervention, and retest measurement of public perceptions of the organization-public relationship, and, in that way, initiate the process of quantifying public relations programmatic outcomes. Developing measures of the organizationpublic relationship and the relationship's subsequent influence on consumers also responds to Hon's call for quantifying public relations activities, and demonstrates the influence that these relationship activities have on the behavior of key public members.(38)

METHODS

Survey Development

The current investigation is an attempt to develop an organization-public relationship scale that can be used to determine the status of the relationship between an organization and the organization's key publics. Items were generated for the scale by surveying the relationship management literature in public relations. The nine initial dimensions created for this scale derive from the work of several scholars. First, as earlier discussed, it has been reported that the dimensions of trust, openness, involvement, investment, and commitment differentiate key public behavior, influence perceptions of satisfaction with the organization, influence market share, and differentiate business owner satisfaction with and behavior toward the sponsoring organization in a business-to-business relationship. Thus, the dimensions of trust, openness, involvement, investment, and commitment were included as a part of the survey instrument.

J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig, and Ehling argued that the dimensions of reciprocity, mutual legitimacy, and mutual understanding would influence perceptions of the relationship that exists between an organization and its key publics.(39) Thus, the dimensions of reciprocity, mutual legitimacy, and mutual understanding were included in the current investigation in order to more thoroughly examine all of the dimensions that may influence the organization-public relationship.

Three statements for each of the organization-public relationship dimensions of trust, openness, involvement, investment, commitment, reciprocity, mutual legitimacy, and mutual understanding were created. The participants then were asked, using a 10-point scale, with 1 indicating they strongly disagree and 10 indicating they strongly agree, to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each of the items in the survey. Items 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 20, and 23 were negatively worded to avoid response set, and thus were reverse-scored.

An additional 27 items also were included in the survey. Of those, seven examined respondent satisfaction with the organization and seven questioned whether the sponsoring organization had fallen short, met, or exceeded respondent expectations with regard to the satisfaction questions. Two questions explored what the respondent would do if offered the same service at a 10% discount, an additional two questioned whether the respondent feels they have a relationship with the sponsoring organization, three examined respondent awareness of the sponsoring organization's advertising/direct mail campaigns, and six questions examined demography.

Data Collection

To conduct this investigation, the authors needed to secure cooperation from an organization. A research proposal which outlined the methodology of the research project, the benefits to be accrued by the organization, and the experiential opportunities for students was created and presented to the officials of a full-service banking system located in a major midwestern metropolis. Bank officials provided the researchers with a list of 2100 randomly selected customers and their telephone numbers. All customers appearing on the list have the same type of account with the bank.

Data were gathered by 17 students enrolled in an undergraduate public relations research course. Each student completed approximately 11 telephone interviews. The student interviewers were trained in telephone interview techniques during a two-hour training session. The survey instrument was pretested, and as a result of the pretest, transitions were added and slight modifications to the questionnaire were made to allow for a more conversational tone during the administering of the survey. Telephone calls were placed between 4:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. weeknights. The authors monitored interviews through follow-up calls to 30 randomly selected respondents. Approximately 51% of calls in which an individual was reached resulted in a completed interview. All of the respondents who initially agreed to be involved in the study completed the interview. The average interview lasted six minutes, and a total of 183 surveys were collected.

Participants

The sample consisted of 183 bank customers, with 9% indicating they were 18 to 24 years old, 20% were 25 to 35 years old, 47% were 36 to 50 years old, 10% were 51 to 65, 2% were 66 or older, and 12% did not disclose their age. Respondents whose annual household income was $20,000 or less made up 11% of the sample, 16% reported incomes of $20,001 to $35,000, 12% reported incomes of $35,001 to $50,000, 11% indicated household incomes of $50,001 to $65,000, 26% indicated household incomes exceeding $65,001, and 24% did not report household income. Respondents who had been with the bank one year or less made up 8% of the sample, 27% had been with the bank two to five years, 20% had been with the bank six to 10 years, 13% had been with the bank 11 to 15 years, 21% had been with the bank 16 to 25 years, 9% had been with the bank 26 years or more, and 2% did not report how long they had been a bank customer. Female respondents made up 51% of the sample; 49% were male.

RESULTS

Comparison of the observed distribution of scores with the normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit test indicated a normal distribution. The responses to the 24 items were factor-analyzed using a principal-components analysis, followed by a Varimax rotation. A scree test was employed and three factors were extracted for rotation. After the factors were rotated, a 60/40 criterion was employed to determine which items would be retained for inclusion in the final organization-public relationship scale. Seven questions loaded on the first factor, five questions loaded on the second factor, and five questions loaded on the third factor. A purity test was then conducted on those factors that met the 60/40 criterion. As a result of the purity test, one additional question was removed from the first factor because the question loaded highly on two dimensions, and the question was marginally related to the main thrust of factor 1.

The first factor extracted from the factor analysis examines the bank adopting a professional role when dealing with key public members, and thus has been labeled the professional relationship dimension. The questions that make up the professional relationship dimension are as follows: Organization Name is not 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 interests and the bank's interests as the same; I think that 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. Coefficient alpha for the professional relationship dimension was .85.

The second factor extracted from the factor analysis deals with the bank's effort to establish a personal relationship orientation with key public members, and thus was labeled the personal relationship dimension. The questions that make up the personal relationship dimension are as follows: I feel I can trust Organization Name to do what it says it 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 an interest in me as a person; and Organization Name understands me as a customer. Coefficient alpha for the personal relationship dimension was .84.

Finally, the third factor appears to revolve around the bank's commitment to and interaction with the communities it serves. Thus, the third factor has been labeled the community relationship dimension. The questions that make up the community relationship dimension are as follows: Organization Name is open about its plans for the future; I feel that Organization Name supports events that are of interest 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. Coefficient alpha for the community relationship dimension was. 88. Coefficient alpha for the overall 16-item organization-public relationship scale was .91.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current investigation was to create an organization-public relationship scale and, as a part of that process, to determine the relationship dimensions that operate within the organization-public relationship. The results gathered from the research conducted indicate that conceptualizing organization-public relationships as multidimensional (professional, personal, and community relationship dimensions) is viable and has implications for both public relations scholars and practitioners.

First, the findings from this investigation support the notion that organizations and their publics have professional, personal, and community relationship expectations. Intuitively, most if not all public relations scholars and practitioners gravitate toward the notion of establishing relationships with key publics that are mutually productive. However, the types of relationships, as well as techniques for managing those relationships have not been explored extensively by public relations scholars and practitioners. As a result, quantifying the results of managing organization-public relationships often has been a perplexing and difficult task. The multidimensional organization-public relationship scale reported herein should provide for scholars and practitioners a springboard for better understanding of the role that professional, personal, and community relationships play in consumer perceptions and behavior, and should help scholars and practitioners craft strategies to enhance organization-public professional, personal, and community relationships.

Secondly, the results from this investigation should be helpful to public relations practitioners who are interested in managing organization-public relationships. Ledingham and Bruning suggest that public relations programs should be designed around relationship goals.(40) The results from this investigation support the notion that three types of relationships exist between organizations and key publics, and that strategies should be designed to maximize the benefit experienced by both parties in each of these types of relationships. Moreover, the results from this investigation show that the idea of "managing relationships" may be so broad a concept as to limit its effective use in the field of public relations. However, the information resulting from this investigation can serve as the basis for developing specific strategies around the notion of personal, professional, and community relationships in order to maximize public relations effectiveness when initiating, developing, maintaining, or repairing organization-public relationships.

The organization-public relationship scale created in this investigation is a multi-item, multidimensional scale that shows there are different types of relationships that exist between organizations and their key publics. Thus, the need arises for strategies that can be developed to manage professional, personal, and community relationships. For example, when an organization is managing a professional relationship, it is important that services be delivered in a businesslike manner, that those services meet the business needs of the customer, and that the organization demonstrate a willingness to invest financially in the organization-public relationship. Likewise, when an organization is managing a personal relationship, it is important that the organization's representatives engage in actions that build a sense of trust between the organization and the members of key publics, that the organization's representatives be willing to invest time, energy, thought and feelings into their interactions with members of key publics, that the organization's representatives take a personal interest in key public members, and that the organization be willing to demonstrate commitment to the needs of the individual key public members. When an organization is managing a community relationship it is important that the organization be open with community members, that the organization support/sponsor events that are of interest to 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. All of these organization-public relationship strategies will allow organizations to target specific key publics and should provide a more focused approach to organization-public relationship initiation, development, maintenance, and/or recovery.

Finally, the development of a multi-item, multidimensional scale responds to concerns regarding issues of reliability and validity.(41) Reliability tests on each of the dimensions, as well as the overall test reported a highly reliable instrument, and a purity test on the dimensions that resulted from the initial factor analysis showed stability within the factor structure.

This scale offers practitioners and scholars alike a diagnostic tool with which to assess the current state of organization-public personal, professional, and community relationships. This, in effect, provides a starting point from which programs can be developed strategically, focused around the notion of relationships, and represents a major shift in public relations scholarship and practice. The results of this investigation suggest, moreover, that the notion of relationship itself must be considcred as multi-dimensional. Indeed, if the term "relationship" is a primitive word that begs defining, bringing complete clarity may be an even greater task than originally thought.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Future research should be designed to further explicate the role that professional, personal, and community relationships play in the loyalty of public members, as well as the role that these relationships play in influencing consumer satisfaction with the organization. This type of research would provide for scholars and practitioners a more thorough understanding of the role that organization-public relationships play in consumer behavior and perceptions, as well as determining whether relationship influences cross industries. Broom, Casey, and Ritchey argue that a generalizable theory of public relations should be created.(42) Expanding organization-public relationship research into different relationship and industry contexts would provide scholars with the support needed to further develop a general theory of organization-public relationships.

Expanding organization-public relationship research into different industries and key publics also would provide practitioners with support for the notion that the management of relationships is important. Additionally, examining whether the dimensions are equally influential, situationally different, and whether perceptions of personel, professional, and community relationships are influenced by demographic variables such as gender, age, length of time in the relationship, and so on should provide scholars and practitioners with information that can be used to better understand and manage organization-public relationships. Moreover, demonstrating that the organization-public relationship influences consumer perceptions and behaviors will help practitioners define the role that public relations plays within many organizations. Finally, practitioners could use the relationship scale as a part of a method of determining which programs were successful, and which were not.

Moreover, research concerning relationship management is pivotal to the future location of public relations within the organizational structure, as well as to the practice itself. Increasingly, public relations managers are called upon to account for their expenditures by demonstrating the contribution of public relations to organization goals. Those who do so may find the opportunity to participate in the decisions that drive policy for their organization. Failure to provide accountability in an era in which corporate streamlining of processes and flattening of the organization chart is the norm leaves public relations vulnerable to being usurped by related functions such as marketing and advertising. Moreover, failure to conceptualize public relations as the management of relationships rather than the placing of publicity perpetuates the practice of public relations as little more than publicity seeking, with the measurement of success in terms of press clippings generated by a "perpetual motion machine, squirting ink."(43) Adoption of the relational perspective encompasses more than making a conceptual breakthrough. The scholarship cited within this article opens the door to a greater understanding of what constitutes the organization-public relationship, what is meant by the term, and the components of organization-public relationships. At the same time, however, reconceptualizing the practice of public relations presents new challenges for practitioners of public relations. The generation of press coverage, as well as message creation, production, and dissemination - long the central focus of public relations - must be viewed in a new light within the relationship management perspective, a perspective in which these traditional public relations activities are a part of the practice but are not the defining function.

In the reality the public relations practitioner faces daily, conceptual adoption is a prelude to professional practice. The bridge between the two is a schematic that guides the translation of theory to practice. It is one thing to conceptualize relationship management; it is quite another to know what to do as a manager of the organization-public relationship. One of the first steps that could lead to a general adoption of the relational perspective in the practice of public relations is a diagrammatic model that not only illustrates the nature of the organization-public relationship, but also serves as a process road map for those seeking to apply the relational perspective to the everyday practice of public relations. That, along with the necessary field work across situations and industries, is critical if the relationship management approach is to merit consideration as the dominant paradigm for the scholarship and practice of public relations.

The research that examines the role that organization-public relationships play in influencing consumer perceptions and behaviors continues to evolve. Although this investigation is somewhat limited in that customers of only one company are studied, only one city is represented, and it was conducted only at one point in time, nonetheless the current investigation demonstrates that organization-public relationships should be conceptualized as multidimensional. Further understanding of the professional, personal, and community relationships that key publics feel they have with the organization will continue to aid in the building and development of a general theory of public relations as relationship management. This investigation is offered as a part of that process.

NOTES

1. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, "Background and Current Trends in the Study of Public Relations as Relationship Management," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press-a).

2. Carl Botan, "Introduction to the Paradigm Struggle in Public Relations," Public Relations Review 19 (1993), pp. 107-110.

3. Jean Cardwell, "Career Paths in Public Relations," in Clarke L. Caywood (ed.) The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations & integrated Communications (New York: McGraw-Hill 1997), pp. 3-14.

4. Scott M. Cutlip, Allan H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, Effective Public Relations, 7th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994).

5. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, op. cit.

6. Mary A. Ferguson, "Building Theory in Public Relations: Interorganizational Relationships," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL, August 1984.

7. Scott M. Cutlip, Allan H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, Effective Public Relations, 6th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985).

8. William P. Ehling, "Estimating the Value of Public Relations and Communication to an Organization," in James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon Whirs (eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), p. 622.

9. Allders Gronstedt, "The Role of Research in Public Relations Strategy and Planning," in Clarke L. Caywood (ed.), The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations & Integrated Communications (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997), pp. 34-59.

10. Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham, "Organizational-Public Relationships and Consumer Satisfaction: The Role of Relationships in the Satisfaction Mix," Communication Research Reports 15 (1998), 198-208.

11. John A. Ledingham, Stephen D. Bruning, and Laurie J. Wilson, "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 (1999), 167-183.

12. Glen M. Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey, "Toward a Concept and Theory of Organization-Public Relationships," Journal of Public Relations Research 9 (1997), pp. 83-98. James E. Grunig, and Yi-Hui Huang, "From Organizational Effectiveness to Relationship Indicators: Antecedents of Relationships, Public Relations Strategies, and Relationship Outcomes," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press).

13. Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham, "Organization and Key Public Relationships: Testing the Influence of the Relationship Dimensions in a Business to Business Context," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press). John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, "A Longitudinal Study of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions: Defining the Role of Communication in the Practice of Relationship Management," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press-b).

14. Elizabeth L. Toth and Nick Trujillo, "Reinventing Corporate Communications," Public Relations Review 13 (1987), pp. 42-53.

15. Elizabeth L. Toth, "From Personal Influence to Interpersonal Influence: A Model for Relationship Management," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press).

16. Stephen Duck, "Social and Personal Relationships," in Mark L. Knapp and Gerald R. Miller (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984), pp. 655-686.

17. Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham, "Public Relations and Consumer Decisions: Effectively Managing the Relationships that Impact Consumer Behavior," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD, August, 1998.

18. James E. Grunig and Larissa A. Grunig, "Models of Public Relations and Communication," in James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon Whirs (eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1992), pp. 285-325.

19. James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, and William P. Ehling, "What is an Effective Organization," in James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon Whits (eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 65-90.

20. James E. Grunig, "From Symbolic to Behavioral Relationships," Public Relations Review 19 (1993), pp. 136.

21. Glenn M. Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey, op. cit., p. 84.

22. Ibid., p. 96.

23. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, "Relationship Management in Public Relations: Dimensions of an Organization-Public Relationship," Public Relations Review 24 (1998), p. 62.

24. Ibid., p. 62.

25. Ibid., pp. 55-65.

26. Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham (1998), op. cit., p. 204.

27. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (1998), op. cit., p. 61.

28. Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham (in press), op. cit.

29. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (in press-b), op. cit.

30. Timothy Coorobs, "Crisis Management: Advantages of a Relational Perspective," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press).

31. Dean Kruckeberg, "Public Relations: Toward a Global Profession," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press).

32. Laurie J. Wilson, "Building Employee and Community Relationships Through Volunteerism: A Case Study," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press).

33. Susan Lucarelli-Dimmick, with Traci E. Bell, Samuel G. Burgiss, and Caroline Ragsdale, "Finding Out What Trust Means in an Integrated Health Care Environment," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press).

34. Janet A. Bridges and Richard A. Nelson, "Issues Management: A Relational Approach," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press).

35. Steven A. Esposito and Stephen C. Koch, "'Relationship' and the Evolution of Network News," in John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press).

36. John A. Ledingham, Stephen D. Brunirig, and Laurie J. Wilson (1999), op. cit.

37. Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham (1998) op. cit., p. 205.

38. Linda C. Hon, "Demonstrating Effectiveness in Public Relations: Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation," Journal of Public Relations Research 10 (1998) pp. 103-135.

39. James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, and William P. Ehling, op. cit., pp. 81-84.

40. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (1998), op. cit., p. 62.

41. Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham (1998), op. cit., p. 205.

42. Glen M. Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey, op. cit., p. 96.

43. David M. Dozier, with Larissa A. Grunig and James E. Grunig, Manager's Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995), p. 208.

Dr. Stephen D. Bruning and Dr. John A. Ledingham are members of the Department of Communication at Capital University, Columbus, OH.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Comment:	Public relations has long struggled to develop an identity in both scholarship and practice.
Author:	Bruning, Stephen D.; Ledingham, John A.
Publication:	Public Relations Review
Geographic Code:	1USA
Date:	Jun 22, 1999
Words:	5983
Previous Article:	Queen Elizabeth's image repair discourse: insensitive royal or compassionate queen?
Next Article:	Testing the contingency theory of accommodation in public relations.
Topics:	Public relations Analysis