Knowledge

Organization–public relationships

Source 📝

25: 107:(1998) to propose a working definition of relationship management. Hon and Grunig (1999) outlined measurements for organisational relationships and suggested strategies that could be helpful in understanding these relationships. The burst of excitement around the emerging relationship paradigm at the end of the 20th century led to significant scholarship dedicated to understanding the role relationships play in public relations. 155:
Grunig (1999) developed quantitative measurement scales for assessing six proposed dimensions of an organization–public relationship: control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationships, and communal relationships. The Hon/Grunig scale, developed under the auspices of the Public Relations Institute, and the Bruning/Ledingham scale, as well as others, have been used in studies by these and other scholars.
154:
Ledingham and Bruning's dimensions are: openness, trust, involvement, investment, and commitment. Their statistical analysis categorized OPR dimensions into three distinct types: personal, professional, and community. They claimed that these dimensions could be used to predict public choices. Hon and
141:
Investment, commitment, trust, comfort with relational dialectics, cooperation, mutual goals, interdependence, power imbalance, performance satisfaction, comparison level of the alternatives, adaptation, non-retrievable investment, shared technology, summate constructs, structural bonds, social
120:
from 1975 to 1984. Ferguson identified social responsibility and ethics; social issues and issue management; and public relationships as important concepts. Ferguson predicted that public relationships had the greatest potential for theory development. She asserted that relationships between an
209:
Favor and face–favor (or reneging) connotes a set of social norms by which one must abide to get along well with other people, particularly in Chinese society. In public relations, it is a mode of conduct in which individuals stay in contact with influential parties. Face
205:
Communal relationships–both parties provide benefits to the other because they are concerned for the welfare of the other—even without reciprocity. For most public relations activities, communal relationships are much more important than exchange
419:
Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, T. D., & Lesko, C. (1997). The applicability of the interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of relational loyalty; a qualitative approach.
177:
Competence: the belief that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do (Hon/Grunig). The notion of a fiduciary relationship operates particularly when a not-for-profit organization is a party to the relationship
198:
Exchange relationships–"They provide a fair way for people to obtain many goods and services that might not be available to them in close, communal relationships in which benefits are given to support the others' welfare
164:
Control mutuality–the degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence another. Although some imbalance is natural, stable relationships require that organizations and audiences each have some
194:
Satisfaction–The extent to which each party feels favorably toward the other because of positive expectations about the relationship. A satisfying relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the
214:) is a resource that can be exchanged between individuals as a means of securing favors. Maintaining face is important in social interactions, especially for expanding or enhancing human networks. 168:
Trust–Acceptance that the organization is "doing what you say you will do" (Ledingham and Bruning, 1998). A willingness to communicate frankly to the other party. Trust has three dimensions:
96:
Viewing relationships as the core of public relations research was first advocated by Mary Ann Ferguson in 1984. The relational perspective became a major theory development in the field.
183:
Commitment–The extent to which each party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote. Commitment has two dimensions:
124:
After conceptualizing OPR, researchers started proposing characteristics that could best represent the quality of organization–public relationships. Proposals:
202:
Reciprocal relationships–one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future.
138:
Openness, trust, involvement, investment, and commitment (Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, Lesko, 1997) operationalized through stakeholders' discussion groups
128:
Dynamic/static, open/closed, mutual satisfaction/dissatisfaction, distribution of power and mutual understanding, agreement, and consensus (Ferguson, 1984).
287:
Waters, Richard D.; Bortree, Denise Sevick (March 2012). "Advancing relationship management theory: Mapping the continuum of relationship types".
412:
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization–public relationship.
145:
Open communication, the level of trust, the level of involvement, investment in community, and long-term commitment (Ledingham, Bruning, 1998).
322: 381:. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL. 121:
organization and its key audiences were central to public relations research. Ferguson's widely cited paper was never published.
262: 439: 370:
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization–public relationships.
68: 46: 384:
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.),
351: 39: 405:
Huang, Y. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization–public relationships.
131:
Reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy, openness, mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding (
237: 402:. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco. 232: 33: 386:
Excellence public relations and communication management: Contributions to effective organizations
116: 356: 50: 8: 227: 111: 304: 266: 104: 296: 242: 85: 300: 132: 174:
Dependability: the belief that an organization will do what it says it will do.
433: 308: 142:
bonds, intimacy, and passion (Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, Lesko, 1997).
217:
Openness–consistent sharing of plans between parties in a relationship.
379:
Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships
100: 263:"PRaxis - the Public Relations Resource Centre: NonProfitEditorial" 400:
Public relations strategies and organization–public relationships
16:
Management of relationship between an organization and the public
357:
Toward a Concept and Theory of organization–public relationships
346: 388:(pp. 65–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 189:
Affective commitment, an emotional orientation (Hon/Grunig).
171:
Integrity: the belief that an organization is fair and just.
323:"Exchange Relationships (SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY) - IResearchNet" 393:
Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations
352:
Guidelines For Measuring Relationships in Public Relations
395:. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations. 431: 186:Continuance commitment: a certain line of action 422:Academy of Managerial Communication Journal, 1 286: 110:Ferguson investigated 171 public relations 69:Learn how and when to remove this message 407:Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 391:Hon, C. L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). 88:between an organization and the public. 32:This article includes a list of general 372:Journal of Public Relations Research, 9 347:Institute for Public Relations Research 432: 18: 13: 38:it lacks sufficient corresponding 14: 451: 340: 82:Organization–public relationships 377:Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). 23: 362: 315: 280: 255: 158: 1: 248: 149: 440:Public relations terminology 301:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.018 238:Organizational communication 99:It took nearly 15 years for 7: 414:Public Relations Review, 24 221: 10: 456: 398:Huang, Y. (1998, August). 91: 233:Corporate communications 135:, Grunig, Ehling, 1992). 289:Public Relations Review 53:more precise citations. 117:Public Relation Review 178:(Ledingham/Bruning). 228:Stakeholder theory 112:research abstracts 325:. 11 January 2016 199:non-contingently" 79: 78: 71: 447: 334: 333: 331: 330: 319: 313: 312: 284: 278: 277: 275: 274: 265:. Archived from 259: 243:Public relations 86:public relations 74: 67: 63: 60: 54: 49:this article by 40:inline citations 27: 26: 19: 455: 454: 450: 449: 448: 446: 445: 444: 430: 429: 365: 343: 338: 337: 328: 326: 321: 320: 316: 285: 281: 272: 270: 261: 260: 256: 251: 224: 161: 152: 94: 75: 64: 58: 55: 45:Please help to 44: 28: 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 453: 443: 442: 428: 427: 426: 425: 417: 410: 403: 396: 389: 382: 375: 364: 361: 360: 359: 354: 349: 342: 341:External links 339: 336: 335: 314: 295:(1): 123–127. 279: 253: 252: 250: 247: 246: 245: 240: 235: 230: 223: 220: 219: 218: 215: 207: 206:relationships. 203: 200: 196: 192: 191: 190: 187: 181: 180: 179: 175: 172: 166: 160: 157: 151: 148: 147: 146: 143: 139: 136: 129: 114:published in 93: 90: 77: 76: 31: 29: 22: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 452: 441: 438: 437: 435: 423: 418: 415: 411: 408: 404: 401: 397: 394: 390: 387: 383: 380: 376: 373: 369: 368: 367: 366: 358: 355: 353: 350: 348: 345: 344: 324: 318: 310: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 283: 269:on 2018-12-05 268: 264: 258: 254: 244: 241: 239: 236: 234: 231: 229: 226: 225: 216: 213: 208: 204: 201: 197: 193: 188: 185: 184: 182: 176: 173: 170: 169: 167: 163: 162: 156: 144: 140: 137: 134: 130: 127: 126: 125: 122: 119: 118: 113: 108: 106: 102: 97: 89: 87: 83: 73: 70: 62: 52: 48: 42: 41: 35: 30: 21: 20: 421: 413: 406: 399: 392: 385: 378: 371: 363:Bibliography 327:. Retrieved 317: 292: 288: 282: 271:. Retrieved 267:the original 257: 211: 153: 123: 115: 109: 98: 95: 81: 80: 65: 56: 37: 424:(1), 23–43. 416:(1), 55–65. 409:(1), 61–90. 374:(2), 83–98. 159:Definitions 51:introducing 329:2018-12-04 273:2018-12-04 249:References 150:Dimensions 59:April 2011 34:references 309:0363-8111 101:Ledingham 434:Category 222:See also 165:control. 105:Bruning 92:History 47:improve 307:  212:mianzi 195:costs. 133:Grunig 36:, but 305:ISSN 103:and 297:doi 84:is 436:: 303:. 293:38 291:. 332:. 311:. 299:: 276:. 210:( 72:) 66:( 61:) 57:( 43:.

Index

references
inline citations
improve
introducing
Learn how and when to remove this message
public relations
Ledingham
Bruning
research abstracts
Public Relation Review
Grunig
Stakeholder theory
Corporate communications
Organizational communication
Public relations
"PRaxis - the Public Relations Resource Centre: NonProfitEditorial"
the original
doi
10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.018
ISSN
0363-8111
"Exchange Relationships (SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY) - IResearchNet"
Institute for Public Relations Research
Guidelines For Measuring Relationships in Public Relations
Toward a Concept and Theory of organization–public relationships
Category
Public relations terminology

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.