95:. These variables are divided into two categories based on its external and internal environment. The variables in the external category are sub-divided into five different sets of variables; i) threats; ii) industry environment; iii) general political, social environment, and external culture; iv) characteristics of the external public; and v) the issue under question. The internal variables on the hand can be sub-divided into six sets of variables; i) characteristics of the organization; ii) characteristics of the public relations department; iii) characteristics of top management (dominant coalition); iv) internal threats; v) the individual characteristics of the public relations practitioner, managers; and vi) characteristics of organization-public relationships. Adapted from the seminal work on contingency theory, the table below shows the different variables and their corresponding categories.
176:
the knowledge level the corporation uses, Economic stability of the organization, Existence or nonexistence of issues management personnel or program, Corporation's past experiences with conflicting outside organizations: positive or negative, Distribution of decision-making power, Formalization: Number of rules or codes defining and limiting the job descriptions of employees, Stratification/hierarchy of positions, Existence or influence of corporation legal department, Business exposure, Corporate culture,
59:
both internally and externally should be measured more by an infinite number of points than an "either-or" picture might suggest, providing a more accurate representation of the fluidity of organizational stances and decisions on public relations strategies made over time. The various factors proposed in the theory thus aim to make it possible for both public relations practitioners and scholars to identify what makes the most appropriate approach for
71:. On one end of the continuum, advocacy defines the role of public relations practitioners like those of an attorney representing their clients' side of the issue. Similarly, to plead ethically and effectively towards a cause of an organization is an intrinsic function of public relations practitioners as advocators and defenders of organizations. Pure advocacy of organizational interests on the other hand portrays a negative image associated with
191:
perception of reality is open to innovation, Extent to which they can grasp others' worldviews, Personality, Communication competency, Cognitive complexity, Predisposition toward negotiation, Predisposition toward altruism, How they receive, process, and use information and influence, Whether they know or are familiar with external public or their representative, Whether they like external public or their representative, Gender
138:
Public's perception of group: reasonable or radical, Level of media coverage the public has received in past, Whether representatives of the public know or like representatives of the organization, Whether representatives of the organization know or like representatives from the public, Public's willingness to dilute its cause/request/claim, Moves and countermoves, Relative power of organization, Relative power of public
46:
the contingency approach posits that "true" excellence should instead facilitate public relations to pick the most appropriate strategies which best meet the current need of the organization and its publics at any given point in time, and that antecedent, mediating, and moderating variables may inevitably lead to greater or lesser accommodation during organizational-public communication.
180:
communication competency of department, Autonomy of department, Physical placement of department in corporate building, Staff trained in research methods, Amount of funding available for dealing with external publics, Amount of time allowed to use dealing with external publics, Gender population of staff, Potential of department to practice various models of public relations
45:
The contingency theory is concerned about "what is going to be the most effective method at a given time" by considering the various contingent factors in the strategies organizations use when dealing with their external publics (p. 35). Opposed to the normative nature of the excellence theory,
190:
Professional training in public relations, marketing, journalism, engineering, and so on, Personal ethics, Tolerance or ability to deal with uncertainty, Comfort level with conflict or dissonance, Comfort level with change, Ability to recognize potential and existing problems, Extent to which their
175:
Open or closed culture, Dispersed widely geographically or centralized, Level of technology the corporation uses to produce its product or service/complexity of products and/or services, Homogeneity or heterogeneity of employees, Age of the corporation/value placed on tradition, Speed of growth in
58:
that perfect 2- way symmetrical communication will never end with satisfactory solution for both parties who are trying to please the other side, and proposed instead two-way communication as a continuum between pure advocacy and accommodation. In this view, organizational communication strategies
137:
Size and/or number of members, Degree of source credibility/powerful members or connections, Past successes or failures of groups to evoke change, Amount of advocacy practiced by organization, Level of commitment/involvement of members, Whether the group has public relations counsellors or not,
179:
Total number of practitioners and number with college degrees, Type of past training of employees, Location of public relations department in corporate hierarchy, Representation in the dominant coalition, Experience level of public relations practitioners in dealing with conflict, General
83:
which threatens the organization's ability to foster and maintain relationships with its publics. The theory of contingency thus suggests that any organizational-publics communication should at any point in time be focused instead on consensus-building at a suitable point along the
66:
The theory of contingency is premised on the different possibilities for organizational communication at any point within the advocacy-accommodation continuum. This view of communication approach based on a continuum differs from the view proposed by the more traditional
186:
Economic considerations (potential loss vs. potential gain from implementing various strategies), Marring of employees' or stockholders' perception of the company, Marring of the personal reputations of the company decision
183:
Political values: conservative or liberal/open or closed to change, Management style: domineering or laid back, General altruism level, Support and understanding of public relations
128:
Litigation, Government regulation, Potentially damaging publicity, Scarring of company's reputation in business community and in the general public, Legitimizing activists' claims
317:
Cancel, A. E., Mitrook, M. A., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Testing the contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Public
Relations Review, 25(2), 171–197.
326:
Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the
Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263–284.
323:
Murphy, P. (2000). Symmetry, contingency, complexity: Accommodating uncertainty in public relations theory. Public
Relations Review, 26(4), 447–462.
320:
Hallahan, K. (2001). The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues processes model. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 13(1), 27–59.
91:
which affects the different public relations stances taken between pure advocacy and accommodation when organizations deal with their external
194:
Level of trust between organization and external public, Dependency of parties involved, Ideological barriers between organization and public
231:
Cancel, Amanda; Geln
Cameron; Lynne Sallot; Michel Mitrook (1997). "It depends: A contingency theory of accommodation in public relations".
336:
305:
68:
206:
23:
was proposed in 1997 by Amanda Cancel, Glen
Cameron, Lynne Sallot and Michel Mitrook to highlight the pertinent factors of how a
55:
88:
60:
131:
Dynamic or static, Number of competitors/level of competition, Richness or leanness of resources in the environment
258:
Murphy, P (1991). "The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations".
38:
in public relations, the contingency theory provides an alternative to the highly normative nature of the
337:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100312000418/http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall99/Westbrook/models.htm
306:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100312000418/http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall99/Westbrook/models.htm
356:
35:
27:
practitioner facilitates communication between the organization and its external publics.
8:
63:
at any point in time within the continuum between pure advocacy and pure accommodation.
76:
39:
240:
24:
244:
31:
211:
30:
As an alternative to the theory of excellence in public relations developed by
134:
Degree of political support of business, Degree of social support of business
350:
230:
72:
80:
92:
87:
The contingency theory thus forwarded an extensive list of 87
341:
167:
Individual characteristics of PR practitioner, managers
49:
170:
Characteristics of organization-public relationships
212:
Edward
Bernays & Propaganda in Public Relations
277:Smith, A. N. (1972). "The Principle of Advocacy".
158:Characteristics of the public relations department
117:General political, social environment, and culture
348:
54:The contingency theory considers arguments from
69:Four models of public relations communication
207:Index of public relations-related articles
98:
349:
296:. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
291:
257:
120:Characteristics of the external public
294:Effective Public Relations. (6th Ed.)
276:
36:2-way symmetrical communication model
260:Journal of Public Relations Research
233:Journal of Public Relations Research
61:organizational-publics communication
50:The advocacy-accommodation continuum
21:contingency theory of accommodation
13:
311:
84:advocacy-accommodation continuum.
14:
368:
330:
161:Characteristics of top management
155:Characteristics of organization
285:
270:
251:
224:
1:
217:
245:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0901_02
148:Internal Environment factors
104:External Environment factors
7:
200:
10:
373:
279:Public Relations Quarterly
16:Theory in public relations
141:Size, Stakes, Complexity
292:Cutlip, S. M. (1985).
123:Issue under question
99:Contingency variables
42:in public relations.
342:http://www.prsa.org/
114:Industry environment
198:
197:
145:
144:
40:excellence theory
364:
357:Public relations
298:
297:
289:
283:
282:
274:
268:
267:
255:
249:
248:
228:
164:Internal threats
152:
151:
108:
107:
25:public relations
372:
371:
367:
366:
365:
363:
362:
361:
347:
346:
333:
314:
312:Further reading
302:
301:
290:
286:
281:. Summer: 9–11.
275:
271:
256:
252:
229:
225:
220:
203:
101:
52:
17:
12:
11:
5:
370:
360:
359:
345:
344:
339:
332:
331:External links
329:
328:
327:
324:
321:
318:
313:
310:
309:
308:
300:
299:
284:
269:
250:
222:
221:
219:
216:
215:
214:
209:
202:
199:
196:
195:
192:
188:
184:
181:
177:
172:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
143:
142:
139:
135:
132:
129:
125:
124:
121:
118:
115:
112:
100:
97:
51:
48:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
369:
358:
355:
354:
352:
343:
340:
338:
335:
334:
325:
322:
319:
316:
315:
307:
304:
303:
295:
288:
280:
273:
266:(1): 115–131.
265:
261:
254:
246:
242:
238:
234:
227:
223:
213:
210:
208:
205:
204:
193:
189:
185:
182:
178:
174:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
153:
150:
149:
140:
136:
133:
130:
127:
126:
122:
119:
116:
113:
110:
109:
106:
105:
96:
94:
90:
85:
82:
78:
74:
70:
64:
62:
57:
47:
43:
41:
37:
34:based on the
33:
28:
26:
22:
293:
287:
278:
272:
263:
259:
253:
239:(1): 31–63.
236:
232:
226:
147:
146:
103:
102:
86:
77:manipulation
65:
53:
44:
32:James Grunig
29:
20:
18:
56:game theory
218:References
73:persuasion
89:variables
351:Category
201:See also
81:mistrust
111:Threats
93:publics
187:makers
79:and
19:The
241:doi
353::
262:.
235:.
75:,
264:3
247:.
243::
237:9
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.