 

 
 

 

                 

~11“.

 

.. I
11:21...qu
. .v.\: .13.»
(3‘51. .
I.

~-.- sauna“... ~uv1i~ntinu

wv- 'rhr-p ~

"V091.“

-~'A4»'.lv"‘

.\_

..‘.

1-1; ~-<~a~a -

.1.“ .2.

    

 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

~

I .. V V , . . V v . , V

A. . . . . V V V

o H . , . . , V . V

\VV , . . V .

u. . . . V
n V , . .

v. V . A , ,

.. .

 
 
 

 

' LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

ELABORATING THE CONCEPT OF
PUBLIC RELATIONS ROLES
AND A TEST OF ITS UTILITY

presented by

JOUNGHWA CHOI

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Advertising, Public Relations,
and Retailing

 

 

sum/3m (\th

MajT)? Professor’s Signature
ll( 2:! ( D7
\ I
Date

 

MSU is an affinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

ELABORATING THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS ROLES
AND A TEST OF ITS UTILITY

By

Jounghwa Choi

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Advertising, Public Relations & Retailing

2007

ABSTRACT

ELABORATING THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS ROLES
AND A TEST OF ITS UTILITY

By
J ounghwa Choi

The types of roles that public relations practitioners play in organizations are
deemed an indicator of the status of public relations as a profession (J. E. Grunig, 2000).
Notwithstanding its signiﬁcance, the concept of public relations roles is rudimentary
rather than sophisticated. Several limitations are found in previous role research. First,
the majority of role studies have adopted the manager-technician dual role typology,
which received substantial criticism (e. g., Leichty & Springston, 1996; Moss, Newman,
& DeSanto, 2005). Second, scholars often conceptualized public relations roles based on
the contents of the activities (i.e., what they do), rather than the purposes of the activities
(i.e., what they do for an organization’s public relations). Third, public relations roles
were conceptualized at the individual level, prohibiting an examination of the relationship
of public relations roles with organizational level variables. Finally, previous role
measures lack construct validity as most of the studies used exploratory factor analytic
techniques.

Given the limitations of previous research, the purposes of the present study were:
1) to elaborate the concepts of public relations roles at the level of public relations unit
(e. g., department, division, or team) taking into account the purpose of role activities in
light of an organization’s public relations; and 2) to test the utility of the elaborated
concepts of public relations roles in South Korea. A survey was administered to public

relations practitioners employed at 226 companies that are among South Korea’s top

1000 companies.

The results from a conﬁrmatory factor analysis of public relations roles suggested
seven public relations roles that include: activist, advocate, advisor, expert prescriber,
liaison, monitor, and coordinator. Each of the seven roles was related differentially to the
criterion variables, such as the influence of the public relations unit on an organization’s
decision making, environmental uncertainty of organizations, and top management’s
philosophy, suggesting their own distinct utility in public relations theories. More
importantly, the results suggested that, depending on the type of public relations roles
enacted, the organization’s public relations model would differ. When public relations
units had more focus on the advocate role while having less focus on the liaison,
coordinator, and advisor roles, companies’ public relations practices were more likely to
be oriented toward the one-way asymmetric public relations model. Meanwhile, all seven
public relations roles were more frequently enacted in organizations that practiced the
two-way mixed-motive model.

In sum, the present study showed the utility of this elaborated concept of public
relations roles. The ﬁndings suggest that using the elaborated concept of public relations
roles would have better exploratory and predictive power in explaining phenomena in
public relations management than using the vague concept of the manager role. It is
expected that this present study provides a ground for sophisticated theorization of public
relations roles. Practical implications for public relations educators and practitioners are
also suggested by providing information regarding the types of public relations roles and

their consequences within organizations.

Copyright by
Jounghwa Choi
2007

This dissertation is dedicated to
my family for their unconditional love and support
and to God for making all this possible.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

When I started my doctoral study, I was over-conﬁdent enough to think that I
should do things by myself. What I realized going through my doctoral study is that
nothing can be done without others and that everything becomes meaningful when I work
“with” and “for” others. Here, I would like to express my appreciation to those who
taught me this simple truth.

First, I thank members of my dissertation committee for their constant
encouragement and intellectual support. They served me as a strong team providing
unique and complementary perspectives. I am extremely grateful for the invaluable
support I received from my dissertation director and committee chair, Dr. Teresa Mastin.
She always put my success in the doctoral program as her priority and instructed my
dissertation study to be focused whenever I wavered. While she encouraged me to be an
independent thinker, she also served as an objective eye to my study preventing me from
being obsessed with my own ideas. Dr. Hee Sun Park helped me to set my study in a
strong conceptual and methodological framework. Her pinpointed comments revealed my
under-developed ideas and help me to carve them out. Her strong knowledge in methods
and statistics allowed the committee members to have conﬁdence in the methodological
approaches of my dissertation. Dr. Yoonhyeng Choi has been a superb counselor and
friend during my dissertation journey. Past research projects with her provided valuable
insights to my dissertation study. She trained me in building strong theoretical arguments
and kept me focusing on how my study answers what it is supposed to answer. I am also
greatly indebted to Dr. Kami Silk who instructed me to probe into the points that I have

missed. Her comments were always very precise and helped me to position my study in

vi

the broader theoretical context. She provided valuable insights to my study from the
organizational management and communication perspective.

I am also grateful to my colleagues and professors in my program who have been
advisors and friends to me: Dr. Mira Lee, Dr. Kyung Nan Kwon, Eunsun Lee, Myeng Ja
Yang, Jung Sun Ahn, Mi Kyung Kim, Hyun J 00 Jeong, and Sung Mi Lee. They helped
me overcome setbacks and I deeply appreciate their friendship. I owe a special note of
gratitude to my friends in the prayers meeting, “Sisters of Lydia,” who shared the
moments of sorrow and happiness: Eun Sil Lee, Miran Kim, Dr. Kumhee Yang, Jee
Young Bang, Jeonghee Noh, J in Young Choi, Yoo-mi Chin, Sunhee Moon, Sang Eun
Lee, Jung Eun Lee, Hyunjoo Ha, Myung Sun Huh, Han Sock Choi, and Christina Dokter.
For the past years, they have been my family.

I could have not completed my doctoral study without support and love from my
family. I would like to express my heart-felt gratitude to my husband, Wooshin Kang, for
his constant love and support, and to my precious baby, Joanne Si-Hyun Kang, for being
a constant source of my strength and endurance all these years. I am also greatly indebted
to my parents-in-law, Sung Won Kang and Bu J a Kim, for their support and patience
taking care of my baby. My special thanks go to my parents Hang Joo Choi and Man
Soon Yang for their unconditional love and support. My sister, sisters—in-law, brother,
and brothers-in-law deserve special thanks for their encouragement and support.

Finally, my highest thanks go to God who blessed me with these amazing people.
It has been a remarkable period of growth for me during which I began to learn walking
in the Lord. I thank God for showing his grace and providing wisdom and courage to go

thorough this journey.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 1
Limitation with the Dual-Role Approach ............................................................ 2
Conceptualization of Public Relations Roles without Considering Purpose ...... 3
Limitation with Individual-Level C onceptualization of Public Relations Roles. 6
Methodological Limitation of Previous Research .............................................. 9
Summary ........................................................................................................... ll
Purposes of the Study ................................................................................................ 11
Signiﬁcance of the Study .......................................................................................... 13
Overview of the Following Chapters ........................................................................ 14
CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................ 16
Background of Public Relations Role Research ....................................................... 16
Professionalism and Public Relations Roles .................................................... 16
Evolution of the Concept of Public Relations Roles ......................................... 17

The Antecedents and Outcomes of Public Relations Roles ............................... 19
Public Relations Roles in South Korea ............................................................. 21
Role Theory .............................................................................................................. 25
Organizational Roles ........................................................................................ 25
Organizational Roles of Public Relations ......................................................... 26
Elaborating Organizational Roles of Public Relations ............................................. 27
Roles Concerning Boundary Spanning ............................................................. 28
Roles Concerning Decision Making ................................................................. 32
Roles Concerning Internal Process .................................................................. 36
Antecedents and Consequences of Public Relations Role Enactment ...................... 39
Antecedents of Public Relations Role Enactment ............................................. 39
Outcomes of Public Relations Role Enactment ................................................ 44
Role Enactment and Public Relations Model ........................................................... 46
Public Relations Model ..................................................................................... 46
Public Relations Model and Public Relations Roles ........................................ 50
CHAPTER III. METHDOLOGY ..................................................................................... 53
Research Design ........................................................................................................ 53
Rationale for Research Method ........................................................................ 53
Population and Sample ..................................................................................... 54
Pilot Test ........................................................................................................... 55
Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................... 56
Survey Instrument ..................................................................................................... 57
Instrument Design ............................................................................................. 57
Measurement ..................................................................................................... 58
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 68
Data Screening .................................................................................................. 68

viii

C onﬁrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) ............................................................... 69

Canonical Correlation Analysis (C CA) ............................................................ 71
Research Ethics ......................................................................................................... 74
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................ 75
Description of Sample ............................................................................................... 75
Description of Participating Companies .......................................................... 75
Description of Participants ............................................................................... 78
Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis ................................................................................... 80
Roles of Public Relations Unit .......................................................................... 80
Public Relations Model ..................................................................................... 82
Testing the Construct Validity Against the Nomological Network .......................... 89
Canonical Correlations .............................................................................................. 95
Univariate Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................. 99
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 102
Discussion ............................................................................................................... 102
Factor Structure of Public Relations Roles .................................................... 102

The Relationship between Public Relations Roles and Public Relations Model
......................................................................................................................... 106
Summary ......................................................................................................... 108
Implications ............................................................................................................. 109
Theoretical Implications ................................................................................. 109
Practical Implications ..................................................................................... 1 1 1
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 1 13
Potential Cultural Inﬂuences on the Factor Models ...................................... 113
Limited Generalization of the Findings to Non-Proﬁt Organizations ............ 114
Low Construct Validity of Some Latent Variables .......................................... 114
Limitations with Criterion Variables .............................................................. 115
Future Studies ......................................................................................................... 116
Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................... 118
APPENDIX A: Questionnaire in Korean ....................................................................... 119
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire in English ....................................................................... 127
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 137

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Public relations role taxonomies ......................................................................... 29
Table 2. Measures of public relations roles ...................................................................... 59
Table 3. Measures of public relations model .................................................................... 64
Table 4. Company size in number of employees .............................................................. 75

Table 5. The size of public relations function in the number of public relations

practitioners ........................................................................................................ 75
Table 6. The job rank of the head of public relations function ......................................... 76
Table 7. The 2006 budget of public relations unit ............................................................ 76
Table 8. Age of the participants ........................................................................................ 77
Table 9. The job rank of the participants .......................................................................... 77
Table 10. Respondents’ experience in public relations .................................................... 78
Table 11. Items retained from CFA of public relations roles ........................................... 82
Table 12. Local ﬁt index for public relations roles ........................................................... 83
Table 13. Items retained from CFA of public relations model ......................................... 85
Table 14. Local ﬁt index for public relations model ........................................................ 86
Table 15. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations ............................................. 87

Table 16. Inﬂuence of organizational characteristics on the roles of public relations
function ............................................................................................................. 91

Table 17. The effect of public relations roles on outcome variables ................................ 93

Table 18. Canonical correlation between public relations roles and public relations model
.......................................................................................................................... 97

Table 19. Univariate Regression Analysis ...................................................................... 100

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

The organizational role of public relations has been one of the most extensively
studied topics in the public relations domain (L. A. Grunig et a1., 2002). Such extensive
academic attention to public relations roles is primarily because the organizational roles
of public relations practitioners indicate the status of public relations as a profession (J. E.
Grunig, 2000). Research has shown that practitioners’ roles in organizations are related to
an organization’s public relations process and practices, such that they inﬂuence the
organization’s public relations model or practitioners’ participation in decision making
(Dozier, 1992). Because practitioners’ everyday activities are likely to be deﬁned by the
way their roles are deﬁned in their organizations and in the society in which they live, the
concept of organizational roles has signiﬁcant implications for public relations
practitioners. While previous public relations role studies have substantially contributed
to the body of knowledge in public relations, they are bounded by several limitations. In
the section below, I discuss the problems with previous public relations role research and

introduce the purpose and overall design of this study.

Problem Statement
Several conceptual and methodological limitations are found in previous public
relations roles studies. At least four problems can be discussed: 1) limitation with the
manager-technician dual-role approach; 2) conceptualization of public relations roles

without considering purpose of role activities; 3) limitation with individual-focused level

of conceptualization and analysis; 4) methodological and statistical issues with previous
role measures.
Limitation with the Dual-Role Approach

The ﬁrst limitation arises from the simple dichotomized approach to the public
relations roles. Introducing the concept of public relations roles, Broom and Smith (1979)
originally suggested four types of roles: expert prescriber role, communication facilitator
role, problem-solving process facilitator, and communication technician role. A follow-
up study (Broom, 1982) found that the ﬁrst three roles are highly correlated, and thus
combined them into the manager role (Dozier, 1984). Dozier (1984) argued that this
manager-technician typology provides a parsimonious way to operationalize public
relations roles and to examine its relationships with other theoretical constructs. Manager
role enactment was found to be one of the primary factors that characterize excellent
public relations practices (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). This dual role approach to public
relations has served as a dominant framework in public relations roles research.

Notwithstanding its contribution to the body of knowledge in public relations, the
dual-role approach has several limitations. First of all, scholars (Leichty & Springston,
1996; Moss et al., 2005; Porter & Sallot, 2003) argued that the dual role typology might
obscure the nature of the roles that public relations practitioners play in organizations.
Criticizing that the manager role was conceptualized to refer to “everything other than
technical activities” (p. 468), Leichty and Springston (1996) commented that by
simplifying practitioner roles meaningful information is lost.

Second, the dual-role approach hinders examining the differential effects of the

speciﬁc aspects of the manager role. Several studies suggest that the three roles which

have been subsumed under the manager roles may have different effects on an
organization’s public relations or a certain type of role might be in demand more than
other types of roles depending on an organization’s situation. For example, Acharya
(1983) reported that the type of public relations role enacted depends on an
organization’s environment: problem-solving process was more likely to be enacted when
the organization’s environment is more threatening and changeable while the expert
prescriber role was enacted when the environment was less changeable while being more
threatening. Broom and Smith’s (1979) study also suggest that the three manager roles
may differ in terms of their efﬁcacy in public relations research: public relations
consultants who functioned as a problem-solving facilitator was perceived to be better in
accomplishing tasks than those who played a role as a communication process facilitator.
These ﬁndings suggest that public relations research may beneﬁt by exploring the
differential effects of sub-dimensions of the manager role or the conditions under which
certain roles are more likely to be efﬁcacious. An organization’s public relations needs
can vary, requiring enactment of certain roles to a different degree. An amalgam of sub-
dimensions of public relations manager roles makes it difﬁcult to explore the unique
effects of different aspects of the public relations manager role.
Conceptualization of Public Relations Roles without Considering Purpose

Another issue arises from the fact that scholars often conceptualized public
relations roles based on the contents of the activities (i.e., what they do) rather than the
purposes of the activities in light of the organization’s public relations (i.e., what they do
for the organization’s public relations). When previous role studies mentioned “public

relations roles,” it was not clear whether they were referring to the roles that are germane

to the public relations function or any kind of activities that public relations practitioners
carry out regardless of the nature of the public relations function. For example, among
Broom and Smith’s (1979) four public relations roles typology — communication
facilitator, problem-solving facilitator, and expert-prescriber — describe the types of roles
that public relations consultants perform with particular purposes in order to assist their
clients’ public relations, i.e., to provide solutions to clients’ public relations problems or
to serve as mediator between the clients and their publics. Meanwhile, the
communication technician role activities do not connote public relations related purposes.
For public relations practitioners, technical activities such as producing brochures or
pamphlets or editing written materials are never the ultimate goals, while they could be
the means for other purposes such as informing publics, advocating the organization’s
position, or advising top management. Other types of role activities could be understood
in the similar manner: a group of scholars (DeSanto & Moss, 2004; Ferguson, 1979 as
cited in Dozier, 1992; Moss & Green, 2001; Moss et al., 2005; Moss, Warnaby, &
Newman, 2000) discussed the manager role focusing on the types of tasks that are
applied to general managers, but not necessarily germane to public relations. For example,
Ferguson (1979 as cited in Dozier, 1992) identiﬁed roles such as a staff manager and a
meeting organizer as public relations roles. Moss and Green (2001) also suggested taking
into account the common elements of managerial work identiﬁed in the management
literature, such as monitoring, planning, negotiating, or allocating resources, in deﬁning
public relations manager roles. These conceptualizations of the manager role differ from
Broom and Smith’s three manager roles because these roles activities are general to any

type of management position rather than reﬂecting unique role activities implying

speciﬁc purposes for an organization’s public relations. These types of role activities
would be better seen as activities that contribute to effective enactment of more generic
types of public relations roles, rather than themselves being public relations roles.

As such, the conceptualization of public relations roles differs based on the
approach used. If we solely focus on the role activities that manifest purposes of an
organization’s public relations, administrative or technician roles would not be
considered as public relations roles. If we focus on public relations practitioners’ tasks
without considering the ultimate goals of the activities, we could deﬁne public relations
roles in terms of administrative and technical activities. While this former approach
identiﬁes the role activities in conjunction with purposes of the public relations function,
the latter concerns the tasks or activities that public relations practitioners perform
regardless of the generic public relations function.

This study argues that identifying public relations roles by considering the
purposes of the activities in light of the organization’s public relations is critical. A
couple of public relations scholars (Bivins, 1989; Ehling, 1992) have already pointed out
this issue. For example, Bivins (1989) argued that, while previous public relations role
studies were successful in categorizing, they failed to address the purposes associated
with the roles. He addressed the importance of identifying the public relations role in
conjunction with the purpose of the public relations function. Because role does not
necessarily imply purpose, purpose may determine role, therefore, considering purpose
allows us to explore the normative model of public relations roles. Similarly, Ehling
(1992) criticized the deﬁnition of public relations used by the Public Relations Society of

America (PRSA) for making the statement of public relations practitioners’

responsibilities too broad, which produces conceptual confusion. In an ofﬁcial statement
by PRSA in 1982, the scope of public relations domain as a management function
included activities such as:

“anticipating, analyzing and interpreting public opinion, attitudes and issues

which might impact” on an organization, doing research on a “continuing basis,”

“planning and implementing the organization’s effort to inﬂuence or change

public policy,” and “setting objectives, planning, budgeting, recruiting and

training staff” (Ehling, 1992, p. 458).

Ehling argued that this conceptualization potentially encourages individuals to
view “every manager in an organization as engaging in public relations by virtue of doing
what managers are supposed to do, namely, anticipate attitudes and issues, do research,
set objectives, plan, ﬁx budgets and the like” (p. 459). He further argued that this view is
counter productive “because it makes public relations as a specialized administrative
function irrelevant” (Ehling, 1992, p.459).

Limitation with Individual-Level Conceptualization of Public Relations Roles

The majority of role research has identiﬁed the organizational roles of individual
practitioners rather than the roles of a public relations unit as a whole. The roles and
status of individual practitioners in organizations has been an important issue, because in
the early days of public relations many organizations had single practitioners. However,
as public relations has moved toward a profession, the size of public relations units
within organizations has increased and individual practitioners’ responsibilities have
become more specialized: entry level practitioners are more likely to take care of
technical aspects of public relations while the top public relations manager is more likely

to be in charge of strategic and administrative activities. As a result, the extent of an

organization’s public relations cannot be fully explained by an individual practitioner’s

role. The public relations practices of an organization depends on what its public relations
unit does as a whole rather than what individual practitioners do respectively. It is
therefore important to explore the role of the public relations function in organizations as
a whole. L. A. Grunig et a1. (2002) acknowledged this issue arguing that:

“. .. the role of the individual respondent has been examined independently of the

context of the communication department. This is especially problematic because

manager role enactment involves a wide range of competences, all of which may
not reside in a single individual but may be spread among a number of

communicators” (p. 225).

While L. A. Grunig et a1. (2002) introduced the concept of “department level competence
for manager role” (i.e., competence for administrative and strategic roles), it is not
synonymous with the roles of public relations units. The department level competence
reﬂect the extent to which a public relations unit or members in the unit have the
expertise or knowledge to perform strategic and administrative tasks, rather than speciﬁc
types of roles that a public relations unit plays as a whole.

Measuring public relations roles at the level of the public relations unit has
several theoretical advantages. First, it allows for exploring the relationship between
public relations roles and an organization’s public relations process or outcomes. Because
the public relations role has been conceptualized at the individual level, it has primary
utility in understanding individual practitioners’ behaviors, rather than in understanding
the public relations process at the organization level. For example, previous studies have
examined the relationship between type of public relations role enacted and practitioners’
participation in decision making (Dozier & Broom, 1995), use of technology (Porter &

Sallot, 2003), or competence for the two-way public relations model (Broom & Dozier,

1986; Dozier, 1992). While several role studies (e.g., F abiszak, 1985, as cited in Lauzen

& Dozier, 1992; Lauzen & Dozier, 1992; McMillan, 1984, as cited in Lauzen & Dozier,
1992; Pollack, 1986, as cited in Lauzen & Dozier, 1992) have explored individual
practitioners’ role enactment in conjunction with organizational level variables, the
results are subjected to a question because an individual’s role may not represent the role
of public relations unit. For example, in a study with a sample of PRSA and International
Association of Business Communicators (IABC) members, Lauzen and Dozier (1992)
related role enactment with an organizational level variable, i.e., public relations
encroachment. Because the survey respondents may not be the top public relations
managers, the role they enact may not represent the roles of their public relations
department. In such cases, relating individual practitioners’ role enactment with public
relations outcomes may not capture accurate relationship between the variables.

Second, department/unit level conceptualization of public relations roles can mask
the effects of role enactment with the effects of formal job rank. Tenure with
organizations and professional experience were strongly related to enactment of the
manager role (Dozier & Broom, 1995). As a result, it is not clear whether the effect of
role enactment on participation in decision making, for example, is due to public relations
practitioners’ formal hierarchical position or due to the unique roles they play in
organizations. It is conceivable that even though top public relations practitioners are in
the similar hierarchical position, the role that they play could be different, resulting in
different public relations outcomes. Conceptualizing public relations roles at the
department level allows for a direct exploration of the relationships of public relations

roles with various organizational-level variables, such as public relations models or

contribution of a public relations unit to an organization’s bottom-line, while minimizing
the potential confounding effects of respondents’ job rank.
Methodological Limitation of Previous Research

Previous role measures are lacking construct validity as most of thestudies used
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (e.g., Reagan, Anderson, Sumner, & Hill, 1990) or
principle component factor analysis (PCA) (e. g., L. A. Grunig et al., 2002; Kelleher,
2001; Leichty & Springston, 1996; Moss et al., 2005; Porter & Sallot, 2003). To my
knowledge, no study conducted conﬁrmatory factor analysis on the measure of public
relations roles. The number of factors generated from EFA or PCA depends on the
samples and the number of items measured. As a result, previous role research with EF A
or PCA did not generate consistent factor solutions as the samples and items changed.
For example, Dozier’s (1984) factor analysis with internal practitioners generated four
factors that are conceptually different from Broom and Smith’s (1979). In Dozier’s study,
the media relations specialist role and the communication liaison role emerged as minor
roles along with the two major roles of manager and technician. Meanwhile, the factor
analysis on agency consultants produced six factors (Dozier, 1984). In the excellence
study (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002), the PCA solution on public relations roles among CEOs
was different from the one that emerged from top PR managers: a dual-role structure
emerged from top PR managers whereas ﬁve factors (i.e., manager, technician, media
relations, senior media manager, and representative roles) emerged from CEOS’ role
expectation. F urtherrnore, the items that constituted the manager role among the top PR
managers were different from the ones of the CEOs. Not just the number of factors, the

content of factors was also inconsistent. For example, while previous conceptualization

of the manager role (Broom & Smith, 1979) contained all three managerial roles
identiﬁed by Broom and Smith (i.e., expert prescriber, problem solving facilitator, and
communication liaison), the manager role in the excellence study (L. A. Grunig et al.,
2002) captured primarily the expert prescriber role, not all three roles. Meanwhile, the
senior advisor role in the excellence study was consistent with the items of Broom and
Smith’s problem solving facilitator and communication facilitator.

A similar problem is also found in Leichty and Springston’s (1996) study. They
used PCA with a scale inventory that includes Broom and Smith’s original 24 items and
14 items of the boundary spanning measure. Because the number of items increased, their
factor solution was different from the ones in the previous studies and some of the items
loaded on the factor different from the original ones. For example, “take responsibility
for success or failure,” which was an item of expert prescriber in Broom and Smith was
clustered with “keep management actively involved,” an item of problem-solving
facilitator, under the factor named PR catalyst. A new factor named PR counsel also
emerged, which consisted of items of expert prescriber and problem-solving facilitator.

The inconsistent results of factor analysis draw attention to problems with the
statistical procedures used in the previous studies. Even though many role studies were
based on Broom and Smith’s conceptualization and expected emergence of manager and
technician roles, principle component factor analysis (PCA) was used instead of
conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CF A). It is generally recommended to use CF A in order to
examine the stability of factor structure, once an instrument has been developed with
EF A. The use of PCA is especially problematic, given that the purpose of PCA is data

reduction rather than ﬁnding a latent factor structure, which is a goal of EF A (H. S. Park,

10

Dailey, & Lemus, 2002). Furthermore, varimax rotation was utilized in most studies (e.g.,
Kelleher, 2001; Moss et al., 2005; Porter & Sallot, 2003; Toth & Grunig, 1993), although
it was expected or shown that the sub-roles were highly expected to correlate with one
another. H. S. Park et a1. (2002) suggested using oblique rotation when factors are
expected to correlate one another. Given the limitations with the statistical procedures in
the previous studies, more attempts to validate the measure are required.
Summary

In summary, previous public relations role research provides a limited
understanding about the nature of public relations roles in four primary ways. First, the
concrete nature of the public relations roles was obscured by relying on the manager-
technician dual-role approach. Second, a critical conceptual issue also arises from the
inconsistent perspectives on identifying what constitute the manager roles: i.e., any role
activity that public relations managers do vs. role activities with purposes in light of an
organization’s public relations. Third, conceptualizing the public relations roles at the
individual level also limited exploring the relationship between public relations roles and
organizational level variables. Finally, the previous studies are subjected to shortcomings
of statistical approaches, resulting in inconsistent factor solutions and lack of construct

validity.

Purposes of the Study
Conceptual clariﬁcation is the ﬁrst step of theory building. The limitations
revealed in the previous research require further sophistication of the concepts of public

relations roles in order to advance public relations research. Given the addressed

11

limitations, the purposes of the present study are: 1) to elaborate the concepts of public
relations roles, in particular the manager role; and 2) to test the utility of the elaborated
concepts of public relations roles. It is of particular interest to see if the concept of public
relations roles derived from the Western literature would apply to South Korea.

In an attempt to achieve the ﬁrst research goal, this study adopted the following
approaches in order to address the limitations of previous studies: (1) going beyond the
dual role typology, this study attempts to identify public relations roles not just from the
previous role research but also other public relations literature, in order to capture the
evolving roles of public relations in this era; (2) in conceptualizing public relations roles,
this study takes into account the purposes of the activities in light of an organization’s
public relations, rather than focusing on managerial/technical tasks; (3) this study
conceptualizes public relations role at the public relations department/unit level, not at
the individual level; (4) this study conducts a conﬁrmatory factor analysis rather than
exploratory factor analytic techniques.

In order to achieve the second research goal of this study, the newly developed
cooncept of public relations roles will be tested against the nomological network. That is,
I will examine the relationship of role enactment with several antecedents and outcome
variables such as management philosophy, organizational environment, inﬂuence of
public relations in decision making, value of public relations to the organizations, and
public relations models. This study has a particular interest in public relations models,
which lies at the core of public relations research. Aiming for extending the theoretical
application of public relations role theory, this study will examine whether enactment of a

certain role is more or less related to certain public relations models that organizations

12

practice. By examining this relationship, the study will be able to identify the roles that
are unique to the public relations function and that have greater utility in predicting other

public relations variables.

Signiﬁcance of the Study

This study is expected to contribute to the body of knowledge in public relations
with several theoretical implications. First, the present study can facilitate public relations
role research by elaborating the concepts of public relations roles. The manager-
technician dichotomy has served as a dominant theoretical framework, while hindering an
examination of the unique effects of each sub-dimension of the manager role. When
studies went beyond the dual-role typology, the role of public relations was inconsistently
conceptualized, often based on the types of activities without reference to the purposes of
the activities. Individual level conceptualization of roles has been a weakness also. This
study addresses several limitations concerning the concept of public relations roles.
Future studies will beneﬁt by incorporating the concepts of public relations roles
proposed in this study. Second, this study can contribute to theory building of public
relations by testing the relationship of public relations roles with various process and
outcome variables related to an organization’s public relations, in particular, its public
relations models. Finally, the study will provide insight regarding perspectives on public
relations roles in Asian countries. Most of the public relations role measurement studies
have been conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. Only a few studies
explored public relations roles outside the US. and UK, e. g., Canada (Piekos &

Einsiedel, 1990), Austria and Norway (Coombs, Holladay, Hasenauer, & Signitzer,

13

1994), Thailand (Ekachai, 1995), and Brazil (Molleda & Ferguson, 2004). Most of the
studies relied on the concepts and measurement of the manager-technician dual roles.
Therefore, the study will examine the applicability of the Western concept of public
relations roles within a South Korean context.

This study also has several practical implications to public relations practitioners
and organizations. The results of the study can be used to inform public relations
practitioners of the types of public relations roles their unit should play. Education on
such role norms is important, because professionalism is greatly inﬂuenced by the way
practitioners view and deﬁne their profession (Cameron, Sallot, & Lariscy, 1996; Sallot,
Cameron, & Lariscy, 1997). Thus, public relations educators will discover the ﬁndings of
this study useful in teaching future public relations practitioners the type of roles they are
expected or should play in order to practice public relations as a management function

within their organizations.

Overview of the Following Chapters

The rest of the dissertation is organized as follows. In Chapter II, I will describe
the theoretical frameworks and concepts within which this study is grounded. The
concepts of roles and public relations roles are explained and previous research ﬁndings
concerning public relations roles will be detailed. Next, I will propose a set of public
relations roles that are theoretically driven. For each role, its concept and theoretical
rationales will be provided. Then, antecedents and outcomes variables of public relations
roles will be introduced and their relationships with public relations roles will be

discussed. Finally, I will provide background information on public relations in South.

14

Korea. The characteristics of public relations practices in South Korea and previous
research conducted in South Korea, in particular, public relations role research will be
introduced.

Chapter III will describe the details of the research method. First, description of
the population and sample will be provided and then the data collection procedures are
explained. Next, the operationalization of construct and speciﬁc measurement items for
the instrument are given. Finally, the speciﬁc data analysis techniques to answer research
questions are provided.

Chapter IV provides the results of the study. First, the description of the sample
will be provided. Next, the ﬁndings corresponding to each research question will be
presented.

Finally, Chapter V discusses the ﬁndings of the study and its theoretical and
practical implications. Then, I discuss the limitations of the study and provide

recommendation for future studies.

15

CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Background of Public Relations Role Research
Professionalism and Public Relations Roles

The driving force of role research was theorists’ and practitioners’ striving for
professionalism of public relations, i.e., obtaining the legitimacy of public relations as a
profession (J. E. Grunig, 2000). Professionalism, “the extent to which public relations is a
profession and its practitioners are professionals,” has been the focus of discussions at
many conferences and meetings (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1985, p.72). Because
professionalization of an occupation accompanies beneﬁts, such as prestige, respect, and
a positive public image, public relations researchers (e.g., Cameron, Sallot, & Lariscy,
1996; Marston, 1968) have searched for the characteristics of public relations that ﬁt the
standards of professionalism.

A profession is distinguished from a skilled occupation in the following aspects:
having a deﬁned area of competence; an established body of knowledge; supported with
scientiﬁc research and theory building; availability of continuing education; professional
values and granted autonomy to practitioners (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Marston,
1968). If public relations is just a skilled occupation, there is no need for continuous
effort for scientiﬁc research and higher level education.

Professionalism is closely related to the roles that public relations practitioners
play in organizations. The traditional public relations role as publicity cannot achieve the
status of professionalism, because its body of knowledge and practices would rely on

other disciplines, such as journalism, rather than having an independent domain. To the

16

extent that the roles that public relations practitioners play in organizations is perceived
specialized, non-substitutable, and critically independent from other professional
domains, professionalism is likely to be achieved. As practitioners in the earlier days
primarily focused on publicity, identifying public relations roles simply based on what
they do cannot contribute to the professionalization of public relations. Given that
understanding, public relations scholars have attempted to identify roles of public
relations in terms of its operation as a management function.
Evolution of the Concept of Public Relations Roles

The concept of public relations roles were ﬁrst introduced by Broom and Smith
(1979). Borrowing from the consulting literature, they proposed four role types: expert
prescriber role, communication facilitator role, problem-solving process facilitator, and
communication technician role. When public relations practitioners act as problem-
solving process facilitators, they help top management work to solve public relations
problems with a satisfactory solution. Meanwhile, practitioners who play a role as expert
prescribers provide solutions for public relations problems to the management, rather
than making public relations issues the responsibility of management. The
communication facilitator indicates a role as a go-between senior management and key
publics. Finally, communication technicians focus on providing technical communication
services. Broom and Smith’s work served as a foundation for subsequent studies. Broom
and Dozier (1986) later developed the manager-technician dual-role typology and it
became one of the most frequently cited journal articles in the area of public relations

from 1990 to 1995 (Pasadeos, Renfro, & Hanily, 1999).

17

As public relations gains recognition as a management function, the public
relations functions of organizations are becoming more sophisticated and are extending
their domain of activities. Accordingly, recent concepts of public relations roles have
evolved to include a more diverse aspect of managerial activities by public relations
practitioners (e.g., Leichty & Springston, 1996; Molleda & Ferguson, 2004; Moss et al.,
2005; Ryan, 2003). For example, Leichty and Springston (1996) produced eight public
relations activities: advocacy, catalyst, gatekeeping, training, counsel, communication
technician, formal research, and information acquisition. Using cluster analysis, they
categorized PR practitioners into ﬁve groups depending on their focus on the reported
eight activities: internals, generalists, extemals, managers, and outliers. These ﬁve
clusters could be seen as different types of roles that public relations practitioners play in
organizations. Moss et al. (2005) came up with ﬁve public relations roles typologies, such
as monitor/evaluation, issue management expert, key policy and strategy advisor, trouble-
shooter problem-solver, and communication technician.

Meanwhile, a group of scholars argued that public relations manager roles should
be deﬁned considering the core managerial activities identiﬁed in the management
literature (DeSanto & Moss, 2004; Moss & Green, 2001). In line with this argument,
Moss et a1. (2000) conducted a qualitative study that explored the types of managerial
work in which senior public relations managers engaged. Their study found that senior
public relations professionals spend signiﬁcant amounts of time on administrative tasks
such as internal and external meetings, attending external events, and organizing staffs,

while also playing as a communication technician role and advisor to the management.

18

Recently, scholars began to move beyond the organizational roles of public
relations, and increasingly call for attention to the social roles of public relations. Some
scholars viewed public relations practitioners as agents of social transformation (Pe’rez-
Senac, 1998; del Rey-Morato, 2000, as cited in Molleda & Ferguson, 2004) and social
integration (Simoes, 1992; J. E. Grunig, 2000). In this view, promoting social progress
and well-being is deemed as the ultimate purposes of the profession of public relations.
For example, Molleda and Ferguson (2004) identiﬁed four types of internal and external
social roles of public relations in Brazil, which include: ethics and social responsibility,
employee well-being, community well-being, and government harmony. The social
trends that demand honesty and transparency are asking for further attention to this
extended concept of public relations roles beyond the boundary of organizations
(Molleda & Ferguson, 2004).

Although recent studies have tried to extend the concept of public relations roles,
researchers have continued to work primarily with the same role activities (i.e., primarily
the manager role and the technician role) over a 20-year period.

The Antecedents and Outcomes of Public Relations Roles

The concept of public relations roles have served as a useful tool to predict and
explain the public relations process in organizations. Previous studies have shown that
practitioners’ roles are associated with their participation in decision making (Broom,
1982; Gordon & Kelly, 1999; Lauzen & Dozier, 1994), public relations model of
organizations (Fabiszak, 1985, as cited in Lauzen & Dozier, 1992; McMillan, 1984, as
cited in Lauzen & Dozier, 1992; Pollack, 1986, as cited in Lauzen & Dozier, 1992), and

encroachment of the public relations function (Lauzen, 1992a, 1993; Lauzen & Dozier,

19

1992). More speciﬁcally, manager role enactment was positively related to practitioners’
participation in decision making (Broom, 1982; Lauzen & Dozier, 1994), while the
technician role was not. Manager role enactment also had a negative effect on
encroachment of the public relations function. To the extent public relations practitioners
enact the manager role, they were able to prevent the assignment of individuals from
outside public relations to the head of the public relations unit, suggesting the
organizational power of public relations units to maintain their own domain (Lauzen &
Dozier, 1992). A study by Gordon and Kelly (1999) also suggests that manager role
enactment contributes to an organization’s effectiveness. They found that communication
departments’ competencies to enact the manager role were strongly related to the
departments’ competencies to participate in strategic decision making, and ultimately,
effectiveness of organizations.

Meanwhile, the type of public relations roles enactment depends on various
organizational and individual factors, such as environmental uncertainty (Acharya, 1983;
White & Dozier, 1992); gender (Broom & Dozier, 1986; Toth & Cline, 1989; Toth &
Grunig, 1993; Toth, Serini, Wright, & Emig, 1998); length of professional experience,
tenure with an employer, previous education, and the size of the public relations function
(Dozier & Broom, 1995); and competence to enact public relations roles, such as
knowledge to use scientiﬁc research for program planning and evaluation (Dozier, 1984,
1990; L. A. Grunig, 2002). Environmental complexity is one of the most frequently
discussed factors as an inﬂuencer on public relations role enactment. Manager role
enactment by top communicators was positively related to environmental uncertainty of

organizations (Lauzen & Dozier, 1992). While practitioners tended to enact technician

20

roles when an organization’s environment is non-threatening/ static, manager roles, in
particular, expert prescriber and problem-solving process facilitator role, were
pronounced in both dynamic and threatening environments (Acharya, 1983; Johnson &
Acharya, 1982). Top management also plays a critical role in public relations role
enactment. Moss et al.’s (2000) qualitative study suggested that management’s
understanding and expectations of the public relations function inﬂuences PR
practitioners’ role enactment. Another important condition for role enactment concerns
expertise or knowledge to perform a certain role (L. A. Grunig, 2002). Two types of
competence were suggested: competence for administrative roles and strategic roles.
Administrative competence for the manager role factor consisted of activities such as
developing goals and objectives, preparing a departmental budget, and managing people,
whereas strategic managerial role activities included conducting evaluation research,
using research to segment publics, and performing environmental scanning. Similarly,
Dozier (1984, 1990) reported that having the knowledge to use scientiﬁc research for
program planning and evaluation is related to manager role enactment.
Public Relations Roles in South Korea

Public relations in South Korea. The origin of the modern concept of public
relations goes back to the 1940’s when the US. Army established an administrative
operation in Korea (Oh, 1991). In the 1960’s and 1970’s, public relations began to be
practiced widely in the private sector following the dramatic economic growth of Korean
corporations. The public relations activities of Korean conglomerates in this period,
however, primarily focused on the publicity model (Kim & Hon, 1998). In-house public

relations departments were established to prevent negative media coverage (Oh, 1991).

21

In the 1980’s, public relations in Korea experienced qualitative growth into more
sophisticated public relations practices. The domains of public relations began to expand
to broader areas, such as employee relations, crisis communication, issues management,
reputation management, community relations, reputation management, and investor
relations. These changes were driven by various social and political changes, such as
political democratization, globalization, growth of social interest groups, and the inﬂux of
foreign entities (Rhee, 2002). While the economic crisis in the 1990’s slowed down the
growth of in-house public relations by laying off public relations practitioners, it
stimulated the growth of the public relations consulting industry, as the laid-off
practitioners moved to or opened public relations consulting agencies (J. Park, 2005). The
multiple media environment also stimulated the need for professional public relations,
moving from marketing communication with an emphasis on advertising (J. Park, 2005).
Since 2000, a large number of global public relations ﬁrms have opened their branches in
South Korea, which served to accelerate the professionalization of public relations (J.
Park, 2005).

Nowadays, public relations in South Korea is obtaining status as a profession and
top management in Korean companies is increasingly recognizing the value of public
relations (Kim & Hon, 2002).

Previous research in South Korea. Previous public relations studies conducted in
South Korea primarily explored the applicability of the Western public relations theories
in the context of South Korea. For example, Rhee (2002) found that cultural values of
South Korea such as Confucianism and collectivism are strongly related to public

relations excellence, while conﬁrming that the excellence theory can be applied to South

22

Korea. Choi and Cameron (2005) examined public relations practices of multinational
corporations and reported that the media environment and the local culture play key roles
in shaping their public relations practices. The culture of cherishing informal
interpersonal relationship is another signiﬁcant factor determining public relations
practices in South Korea. In South Korea, the personal inﬂuence model, where
practitioners’ personal networks with journalists plays a key role, is a dominant public
relations model (Jo & Kim, 2004; Sriramesh, Kim, & Takasaki, 1999).

Several studies provide insight to the public relations model practiced among
South Korean organizations. Kim and Hon (1998) reported that Korean practitioners
aspire to practice the two-way asymmetrical and two-way symmetrical models, but are
most likely to practice the craft models of press agentry and public information. A recent
study by Shin, Park, and Cameron (2006) suggests that ethical public relations practice is
not yet prominent among most Korean organizations: only 14.6% of the respondents
reported that their organization releases information even when it negatively affects the
organization.

Roles of public relations in South Korea. Few studies have examined the roles of
public relations in Korean organizations, although several studies do provide insight
regarding this matter. Kim and Hon (1998) suggested that public relations in Korea has
been used primarily as a defensive system against the media. Park, Cameron, and Cropp
(2000) examined Korean public relations practitioners’ perception of professional
standards. They found that Korean practitioners think there are well-established

performance standards for the tasks required for technical skills but not for continuing

23

education, licensing, or salaries. These ﬁndings indicate that the technician role is
predominant among Korean practitioners.

However, there is some evidence that the roles of Korean public relations
practitioners are no longer limited to the technician role. In Park’s (2005) study, when
corporate public relations practitioners were asked if they think their top management
perceives public relations in terms of the technician role as opposed to the manager role,
on average, they answered close to “no” (Mean = 1.91, on the ﬁve point scale anchored
with l = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Furthermore, playing a technician role
does not necessarily mean that they do not play any manager role. Scholars have
acknowledged that an individual practitioner may play some or all of the public relations
roles in varying degrees (Broom, 1982; Broom & Dozier, 1986; Toth & Grunig, 1993). In
fact, in some studies the correlation between manager roles and technician roles was
about .40 (Reagan, Anderson, Sumner, & Hill, 1990; Wright, Grunig, Springston, &
Toth, 1991). Many critical aspects of public relations functions, e. g., boundary spanning,
also have both technical and managerial components (White & Dozier, 1992).

The evidence for a more sophisticated role of public relations in Korean
companies is also observed from the national recognition for Soon-Dong Lee, President
of the Planning & Communications Team, Samsung Strategic Planning Ofﬁce. In 2006
he was awarded with a national decoration for his contribution to Korean public relations
and national reputation through successful public relations for Samsung in foreign
countries. Many Korean public relations practitioners are also actively pursuing
professionalism for their career by actively engaging in professional associations such as

the Korean Public Relations Association.

24

Role Theory
Organizational Roles

Role theory refers to the domain of role research rather than referring to a grand
theory (Thomas & Biddle, 1966a). Under the overarching name of role theory, scholars
have explored how individuals’ performance of their roles in social positions is
determined by various factors, such as social norms, demands, and individual
characteristics (Thomas & Biddle, 1966a). In the domain of role theory, various
perspectives exist on the concept of role. One of the most common deﬁnitions is that
“role is the set of prescriptions deﬁning what the behavior of a position member should
be” (Thomas & Biddle, 1966b, p. 29).

The concept of role is in the central place of the theories of organizations (Katz &
Kahn, 1978). Organizations are often seen as a system of roles. Organizational role is
deﬁned as “standardized patterns of behavior required of all persons playing a part in a
given functional relationship” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p.43). It is the similar acts performed
by the occupants of a position where they have interactions with others (Hage, 1972) and
consist of a set of activities that are expected to perform as a function of individuals’
positions within an organization.

Social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) suggests that
roles are cognitive concepts that are socially constructed and that employees interpret
social and behavioral cues related to roles from the environment. For an individual in an
organizational position, expectations about the role associated with the position are sent
through communication. Role expectation, as the conception of the role held by others, is

the aggregate of the activities and behaviors expected of the position holder (L. A. Grunig

25

et al., 2002). However, individuals are not simply passive recipients of roles but actively
construct their roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Therefore, role making is a dynamic and
gradual process where individuals establish patterns of work and social behaviors
according to the role expectation through ongoing social interaction (Graen, 1976).
Through a feedback loop of role sending and role receiving, role expectation‘is modiﬁed.
Organizational Roles of Public Relations

Public relations, as a profession, has a relatively short history, thus the roles of
public relations are still under social construction. According to Ahlwardt (1984 as cited
in Dozier, 1992), the position of communicators in organizations involves high levels of
role ambiguity. In fact, Ryan and Martinson (1983) reported that practitioners often
disagree about what public relations is or should be. Role ambiguity could lead to
discrepancy in role expectation between public relations practitioners and top
management (Dozier, 1992). As a result, role ambiguity is possibly associated with role
conﬂict and, in turn, practitioners’ job dissatisfaction.

Role ambiguity, on the other hand, provides public relations practitioners with an
opportunity to modify the roles with their own interpretation. Katz and Kahn (1978)
argued that moderate level of role ambiguity could be beneﬁcial as it allows for some
level of autonomy in role making. L. A. Grunig (2002) commented that “role ambiguity
provides communicators with the wiggle room needed to enact role behaviors in a
strategic and proactive manner” (p. 201). Lauzen’s (1992b) study, in fact, Showed that
public relations practitioners carve out their roles rather than practicing the roles forced
upon them. This is especially more likely for public relations managers than public

relations technicians as, in the latter case, responsibilities have been typiﬁed for a long

26

period of years (Culbertson, 1991). While the technician role is highly codiﬁed and
repetitive, the manager roles, such as problem-solving facilitator, are subject to a greater
level of uncertainty, thus allowing for more room for role making by practitioners
(Culbertson, 1991). As public relations evolves into a management function in the recent
two decades, the demand for public relations roles are extending beyond the technical
aspect of communication. On the other hand, this trend necessitates clarifying the roles of

public relations, in particular, the manager roles.

Elaborating Organizational Roles of Public Relations

In this section, I introduce and provide explanations on public relations roles
drawing from public relations literature. In order to identify the critical aspect of public
relations roles, this study referred to a wide range of public relations role studies
encompassing Broom and Smith’s (1979) initial work and the recently evolved concepts
of public relations roles. In an attempt to theoretically derive public relations roles from
the previous literature, this study went through the following process: (1) comparing the
conceptualization of public relations roles in various studies, similar concepts were
merged; (2) identiﬁed public relations roles in a more abstract level in light of the
purpose of the public relations function; (3) conceptualized the public relations role at the
public relations department/unit level, not at the individual level.

In particular, the present study identiﬁes public relations roles on the basis of
normative perspective (i.e., what practitioners should do), rather than positive perspective
(i.e., what practitioners are doing). The ambiguous nature of public relations roles

suggests that the model of public relations roles should be normative rather than positive.

27

Several scholars (Ferguson, 1979 as cited in Dozier, 1992; Moss et al., 2005) took a
positive approach to public relations roles, i.e., deﬁning the roles of public relations by
what they are doing. A problem with a positive approach is that public relations has been
widely equated with publicity and this practice can limit the roles of practitioners in
organizations to only the communication production process. Pointing out the limited
insights of public relations studies that are based on positive models, several researchers
argued that an emerging profession such as public relations requires normative theories
that could guide the establishment of a set of professional values, the creation of strong
professional norms, and the development of a body of literature (Ehling, 1992; J. E.
Grunig, 1989; Jackson, 1988). Wright (1978) also argued that public relations should be
examined in terms of their norms or ideals of public relations rather than the actual
practice in order to be more professional than the present position. With a normative
approach, it is possible to provide the guidance for advanced professional training.

Based on the review of previous public relations role studies and literature, I
introduce the roles that are considered critical to the function of public relations under the
three categories: roles concerning boundary spanning; roles concerning decision making;
and roles concerning the internal process. Table 1 presents public relations roles
taxonomies comparing the similarity and dissimilarity among previous studies.
Roles Concerning Boundary Spanning

Public relations practitioners are often referred to as boundary spanners. In public
relations literature, a practitioner’s role as a boundary spanner has been primarily focused
on the information processing aspect, i.e., environment scanning involving information

gathering. Meanwhile, in the management literature, boundary spanning is

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.82 8888.—
«38088
8.5
80603.32 08a—
..85 8.888
888588 ao§a§a8
gag
53g 388 E 8853— saaﬁm age.—
8. 88.. so. gag 880% 888 ESE 888 832
888.385 .88.: 8882
823.832.. 88825 28 6882 8888858 888388 388583
88.8 E
Si
3.80%
883 $82 883. 882
88888. 888a 888g 28 88888. Sage 8.883.
888858 155 8888838 8883 888858 8888858 8§§aa8
58V 388 68c 28c 685 :81889 as:
8882 88888 gag—88883 .88 £88.88 .289 58m 882:

 

thEQSQRBN mNQK hQQCGNNk UNN©3AN

~ 033‘

29

conceptualized as a set of activities that involve representing and information processing
(Aldrich & Herker, 1977). At least three distinct roles that capture different aspects of
boundary spanning are proposed: advocate, communication liaison, and monitor.

Advocate. Advocacy has been the integral part of public relations ever since its
emergence (Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997), therefore, the role of advocate
has been traditionally considered as the most generic activities of public relations. This
role involves delivering the organization’s viewpoint and presenting the organization in a
favorable way to the target stakeholders in order to create favorable attitudes toward the
organization.

The advocate role was identiﬁed in the Leichty and Springston’s (1996) study. In
their conceptualization, the advocate role focuses on disseminating favorable information
about the organization and representing the organization.

Although the advocate role could be closely related to the previously identiﬁed
communication technician role or media relations roles, it should not be considered
equivalent with them in the conceptual hierarchy. The advocate role does not necessarily
mean exclusion from decision making because strategic representation and advocation of
the organization often requires input from the public relations function during the
decision making process.

Communication liaison. The communication liaison role focuses on delivering
the views of key publics to top management and employees. Broom and Smith’s (1979)
study termed this role as communication facilitator role and conceptualized it as a “go-
between,” facilitating communication between the top management and the publics. A

public relations unit acting as a communication liaison keep organizational members of

30

abreast opinions of key publics and creates opportunities for organization members to
hear the views of key publics (Dozier & Broom, 1995, p. 9). In Dozier’s (1984) study, the
communication liaison role emerged as a minor role separate from the manager role. In
his study, practitioners who perform as a communication liaison were characterized as
specializing in linking communication between management and publics, but excluded
from management decision making.

The importance of the communication liaison role is emphasized in Grunig and
Hunt’s (1984) two-way symmetric model, which is a normative model of public relations.
In this model, public relations activities focus on facilitating mutual understanding and
communication with key publics. While the one-way asymmetric model focuses on
persuading the publics, the primary objective of the symmetric model lies in developing
mutual understanding (J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 1992). Playing communication
liaison helps top management establish understanding of their key publics, thus critical
for practicing the symmetric public relations model.

Monitor. The monitor role in this study is conceptualized in terms of
informational boundary spanning activities that involve gathering, selecting, and relaying
information from the environment to organization members. Leichty and Springston’s
(1996) and Springston and Leichty’s (1994) concept of informational boundary spanning
activities captures the monitor role. The roles activities identiﬁed in their studies, such as
gatekeeping, information acquisition, and formal research, all concerns of the public
relations practitioner’s role to monitor organizational environments and stakeholders’

opinions.

31

Communication managers as a monitor or informational boundary spanner play a
critical role for organizations to interpret and construct meanings out of the environment
(White & Dozier, 1992). Because organizational boundaries are often associated with
communication breakdown (Tushman & Scanlan, 1981), communication managers are
expected to create shared meaning across organizational boundaries. Technical
monitoring, such as news clipping, has long been one of the typical activities required for
public relations practitioners. The monitor role by public relations function, however, is
not limited to technical monitoring. For the public relations function to inﬂuence an
organization’s decision making process, it is required that they provide interpretation of
information. Often, top management interprets an issue differently from the key
stakeholders. When public relations managers can detect such discrepancy via
interpretation of information and provide a tool that changes the idiosyncratic meaning
systems, they can contribute to the decision making process (White & Dozier, 1992).
Roles Concerning Decision Making

Roles concerning the decision making process include: public relations advisor,
disturbance handler, and activist. The roles in this category primarily concern inﬂuencing
certain aspects of an organization’s decision making processes.

Advisor. When public relations units play a role as an advisor, they provide top
management with solutions regarding how to handle an organization’s public relations
problems and advise top management on various organizational issues/policies from the
public relations standpoint. The advisor role is conceptualized as the problem-solving

facilitator role in Broom and Smith’s (1979) study. A similar role dimension also

32

appeared in Moss et al.’s (2005) study. Their key policy and strategy advisor role
captures this role dimension.

An important characteristic of the advisor role is engaging the top management
regarding the public relations problem-solving process. Public relations units which
successfully enact the advisor role “help management systematically think through
organizational communication and public relations problems to solutions” (Dozier, 1992,
p.330)

The importance of advisor role enactment is obvious when we consider the role of
the dominant coalition in an organization’s public relations practices. The excellence
study suggests that public relations’ participation in decision making contributes to an
organization’s excellence in public relations (L. A. Grunig, 2002). By playing a role as an
advisor to top management, public relations units are more likely to inﬂuence an
organization’s decision making processes.

Expert prescriber. The expert prescriber role is described with the activities of
providing answers to public relations questions to the management and organization
members. This role is often referred to being analogous to the doctor-patient relationship
(Broom & Smith, 1979). Moss et al.’s (2005) problem solver role resembles the concept
of the expert prescriber. Leichty and Springston’s (1996) public relations training role
also could be seen as a similar concept as their public relations training role concerns
providing public relations-related skills to other organization members.

Previous research suggests that practitioners’ expertise is an important factor for
empowerment of the public relations function (L. A. Grunig, 2002). Knowledge base,

such as expertise in evaluation methods and environmental scanning techniques, is

33

necessary in order to create a demand-supply loop between the public relations function
and top management (Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995). Therefore, serving as an expert
on the organization’s public relations problems is deemed a critical aspect of public
relations roles.

In the original conceptualization by Broom and Smith (1979), the primary
difference between expert prescriber and advisor roles lies in the level of involvement of
management in public relations problems and solutions. In the expert prescriber role,
practitioners take a lead on the organization’s public relations, while management rather
passively follows the practitioners’ advice. On the other hand, the advisor role
encourages top management to engage in the public relations problem solving process.
This conceptual distinction may apply to the agency-client relationship, but needs to be
slightly changed in the context of in-house public relations. In the in-house public
relations context, it is not likely the case that a public relations unit takes the lead while
management remains passive. Rather, the expert prescriber role in the in-house public
relations context would be better conceptualized whereby public relations units passively
and reactively respond to the requests of the management. On the other hand, the advisor
role should be seen as a more pro-active behavior of public relations units toward
management concerning public relations issues.

Disturbance handler. The disturbance handler role concerns a public relations
unit’s role of taking a leading role in an organization’s crises or issues management that
could be potential threats to the organization. This role is different from the public
relations advisor role in that the advisor role primarily concerns consulting on general

managerial strategy or policy from the public relations perspective (i.e., not necessarily

34

dealing with threats or crisis), whereas the disturbance handler role focuses on handling
non-routine organizational issues. Disturbance handler roles can be referred to as a ﬁre
ﬁghter or trouble-shooting role.

The role of the public relation function in issue and crisis management has
received substantial attention in public relations literature (e. g., Coombs, 2000; Coombs
& Holladay, 2001; Lauzen, 1994, 1997; Lauzen & Dozier, 1994). Studies suggested that
public relations contributes to issue management (Lauzen, 1994) and the extent to which
the public relations function takes an active role as a disturbance handler may result in
different consequences in an organization’s crisis management (Fitzpatrick & Rubin,
1995). For example, Fitzpatrick and Rubin (1995) reported that, when legal strategies
rather than public relations strategies dominated organizational decision making in times
of crisis, an organization’s decisions were often shortsighted and costly.

This role is synonymous with Moss et al.’s (2005) issue management role and
trouble shooting role. Moss et al. (2005) presented them as separate roles, but their
exploratory factor analysis showed that some of the items were loaded on each other,
which indicates that public relations practitioners do not clearly distinguish those roles.
Therefore, in this study, those two roles are subsumed under the disturbance handler role.

Activist. This role concerns the public relations unit’s activities to advocate the
interests of publics within their organizations. This role could be seen in opposition to the
advocate role, because the primary interests of the advocate role lies in advocating
organizations to the publics. The activist role is also different from the liaison role. While
the liaison role reﬂects public relations’ role as a neutral deliverer of public perspectives

to the top management, activist roles involves persuading organizational members on

35

behalf of the publics and speaking for publics’ interests. Although the activist role was
not identiﬁed as a public relations role in previous role research, many public relations
scholars implicitly recognized it as an important aspect of public relations roles.
Holtzhausen and Voto (2002) are the ones who ﬁrst pointed out the importance of the
activist role. They argued that practitioners should be able to challenge the dominant
world views and unjust practices of the organization (Holtzhausen, 2000; Holtzhausen &
Voto, 2002) and proposed that public relations practitioners should be organizational
activists.

The activist role is critical in its signiﬁcant implication for public relations ethics.
Both scholars and professionals have argued that corporate public relations departments
are responsible for the moral dimension of corporate conduct (Bowen, 2004; Heath,
1994; Paluszek, 1989; Pratt, 1991; Ryan & Martinson, 1983; Wright, 1996). It has been
argued that the success of organizational efforts for responsible behavior is contingent on
public relations practitioners (Pratt, 1991). Holtzhausen (2000) suggested that, when
public relations practitioners play a role as internal activist, they can lead an
organization’s ethical practices and worldview, in turn making a difference in society as
well as in the organization.

Given the signiﬁcance of the activist role to public relations ethics, the present
study includes it as one of the primary roles of public relations units.
Roles Concerning Internal Process

Two roles related to internal process are proposed: internal communication

facilitator and public relations coordinator.

36

Internal communicationfacilitator. Distinguishing from communication liaison
role, I propose a role of internal communication facilitator. Internal communication,
facilitator, in this study, refers to public relations roles designed to facilitate
communication among organizational members. While the communication liaison role
focuses on facilitating communication between organizational members and external
stakeholders, this role emphasizes facilitating communication within organizations.
Although previous role studies did not take this into account, it is worthy of more
attention.

Wright (1995) and D’Aprix (1984) commented that most public relations
researchers ignore the internal communication role of public relations, even though most
public relations textbooks have a chapter on it and internal communication has been
considered a legitimate domain of public relations. Employees are the most important
publics of organizations and the public relations function plays a critical role in linking
top management and other organizational members. Furthermore, there has been an
increasing trend for public relations to perform as an amalgam of organizational members
by informing employees of various management decisions and policies as well as new
organizational developments in other work divisions (Dozier & Grunig, 1992; van Ruler,
Vercic, & Butschi, 2004).

Scholars are increasingly recognizing the role of the public relations function for
internal communications (Bronn, Roberts, & Breunig, 2004; Wright, 1995). For example,
Bronn et a1. (2004) emphasized the communication manager’s role as an internal

communication facilitator as well as an external communication liaison, arguing that “a

37

large part of this new role [of communication managers] is helping organizational
members relate to each other and to the world outside the organization” (p.23).

Public relations coordinator. This role concerns the public relations function’s
role to integrate and coordinate organization-wide public relations efforts in cooperation
with other management functions in organizations. In fact, substantial academic attention
has been given to the integrative perspective of various communication functions, such as
marketing and public relations (Comelissen & Thorpe, 2001; Heath, 1994; Leuven,
1991). The excellence study suggested that excellent public relations departments exist as
a single and independent department but also perform an integrated communication
function coordinating communication programs managed by other departments, such as
marketing, human resources, legal, and ﬁnance (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).

This coordination role is critical because public relations is not only a function but
also a process which engage all functions of organizations. Multiple departments, not just
the public relations department, are involved in boundary spanning, building relationships
with an organization’s stakeholders, and implementing public relations programs. In this
sense, public relations can be seen as an organization-wide process. Therefore, the public
relations function should be able to coordinate activities of other organizational functions
that have implications for an organization’s public relations.

This coordinator role did not emerge as a separate construct in the early study by
Broom and Smith (1979). However, in Leichty and Springston’s (1996) study that
utilized Broom and Smith’s items, the concept of public relations catalyst emerged as a
separate factor, which captured the extent to which public relations practitioners work

with non-public relations personnel and function as PR catalysts. Springston and

38

Leichty’s (1994) study also revealed the dimension of collaborative public relations
similar to the communication coordinator in this study.

In summary, I propose nine types of public relations roles based on the previous
literature. This study will empirically test the model of public relations roles under the
following research question.

RQl. What is the structure of the roles of public relations units in organizations?

Antecedents and Consequences of Public Relations Role Enactment

Given the initial conceptualization, the utility of public relations roles could be
evidenced by testing the constructs against the nomological network (Campbell & Fiske,
1959) that includes antecedents and outcome variables of public relations roles. This
section describes the relationship of public relations role enactment with antecedents and
outcome variables. Antecedent variables to public relations role enactment include
environmental uncertainty, management philosophy, and prior crisis experience. The
outcome variables include participation in decision making, values of public relations to
organizations, and public relations model. Among the outcome variables, a public
relations model will be discussed in detail in the following section, as it is a primary
interest of this study.
Antecedents of Public Relations Role Enactment

Environmental uncertainty. Environmental uncertainty is conceptualized in terms
of complexity and turbulence of the environment (Duncan, 1972; Lauzen & Dozier,
1992; Meznar & Nigh, 1995). The complexity dimension captures the extent to which the

organization should deal with various stakeholders. The larger the number of

39

stakeholders and the more diversity among the stakeholders, the more complex the
environment. Turbulence of environment refers to the extent to which the organization’s
management is affected by environmental changes. Environmental uncertainty has been
considered as threats to organizations as it hinders predictability in an organization’s
operations (Meznar & Nigh, 1995). Rather than responding to the objective reality,
organization members respond to their perception of the environment and choose their
strategic option accordingly (Duncan, 1972; White & Dozier, 1992). It has been argued
that the information from boundary spanners receive greater attention from top
management as the environment becomes more complex (Emery & Trist, 1965).

Public relations literature suggests that perceived environmental complexity
affects the roles that are enacted by public relations practitioners. Environmental
uncertainty was related to manager role enactment by top communicators (Lauzen &
Dozier, 1992). Also, practitioners tended to enact technician roles when an organization’s
environment is nonthreatening/static, whereas manager roles, in particular, the expert
prescription and problem-solving process facilitation role, were pronounced in both
dynamic and threatening environments (Acharya, 1983; Johnson & Acharya, 1982).
Although these studies employed manager-technician role distinction, they suggest that,
depending on the level of environmental complexity, certain public relations roles might
be more or less sought by the top management.

When the environment surrounding organizations is uncertain, it is likely that the
public relations roles involving boundary spanning activities, such as monitor,
communication liaison, and advocate roles, will more likely be enacted by public

relations units. To respond to the uncertain environment, organizations would need to

40

perform boundary spanning activities involving external stakeholders to a great extent
(Aldrich & Herker, 1977). Meanwhile, other roles, such as internal communication
facilitator and public relations coordinator, are not directly related to external activities as
they focus on the internal processes of public relations. Thus, environmental uncertainty
may not be related to those roles. Because there is not enough literature to guide
formation of hypotheses in regard to the relationship between each of the nine public
relations roles and environmental uncertainty, the following research question is put
forth:

RQ2. How is an organization’s environmental uncertainty related to enactment of

public relations roles?

Management philosophy. Management philosophy refers to top management’s
orientation toward the organization’s role in society (Ansoff, 1979; R. E. Freeman, 1984;
R. E. Freeman & Gilbert, 1988). According to Miles (1987), top management may have
an enterprise-oriented philosophy at one extreme and an institution-oriented philosophy
at the other extreme. Top management teams that possess an enterprise orientation tend to
see the corporation as operating independently from society. They make decisions to
maximize economic performance. In contrast, institution-oriented executives think that
“society has the right to make certain claims on a private corporation and that the
corporation has some duty to respond and to adapt its policies and practices to social and
political change” (p. 30). Similarly, other scholars (e. g., Carroll, 1979; Meznar,
Chrisman, & Carroll, 1991) conceptualized the institution-oriented philosophy as the
degree to which top executives think the corporation should be a pioneer or leader in

meeting social expectations. It was conceived that top managers who have a social

41

orientation try to achieve legitimacy through collaboration with multiple stakeholders
(Meznar & Nigh, 1995).

Miles (1987) suggested that management philosophy plays a critical role in an
organization’s adoption of strategies toward its stakeholders. He argued that institutional
philosophy is related to bridging strategy while enterprise philosophy is related to
buffering strategy with stakeholders. Buffering refers to the strategic orientation in which
organizations respond to the environment by either resisting environmental change or
trying to control it, whereas bridging occurs when organizations promote internal
adaptation to changing external circumstances (Meznar & Nigh, 1995). Buffering
strategy involves “trying to keep the environment from interfering with internal
operations and trying to inﬂuence the external environment” through various means such
as lobbying or advocacy (Meznar & Nigh, 1995, p. 976). Meanwhile, with bridging
strategy, organizations actively try to adapt organizational activities in order to conform
to external expectations (Meznar & Nigh, 1995). Organizations exercising the bridging
strategy try “to meet and exceed regulatory requirements in its industry” and attempt to
“identify changing social expectation” (p. 976). An empirical study by Meznar and Nigh
(1995) suggests that top management’s philosophy is critical for the strategies adopted in
public affair departments. They found that organizations whose top management has a
more socially oriented philosophy attempted to bridge with their stakeholders while being
less engaged in buffering strategy in their public affair practices.

Given that management philosophy inﬂuences an organization’s strategies toward
its publics, it is conceivable that top management’s philosophy will inﬂuence enactment

of public relations roles. In particular, it is expected that the liaison and the activist roles

42

will be strongly inﬂuenced by top management’s philosophy. Speciﬁcally, top executives
with strong social orientation (i.e., institutional orientation) would place greater
importance on communication liaison and activist roles, than those who are less socially
oriented. They are more concerned about the social role of organizations (Miles, 1987),
thus they will be more concerned about the views held by their primary publics. Effective
enactment of the communication liaison role by public relations function will help top
management adopt the perspectives of key publics. Likewise, functioning as an activist
will encourage top managers to consider social responsibility as they make decisions. In
order to explore the relationship between public relations roles and top management’s
philosophy, the following research question is posed:

RQ3. How is the top management’s philosophy related to enactment of public

relations roles?

Prior crisis experience. Organizational crisis experience has been deemed as one
of the important antecedents of an organization’s public relations practices.
Communication plays a pivotal role during crisis events and organizations often grow to
appreciate the value of public relations after they experience a crisis that affects their
reputation. In fact, the excellence study (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002) reported that crises
provide an opportunity for public relations to become a critical function within
organizations. The qualitative research of the excellence study revealed that public
relations practitioners may obtain better access to top decision makers via responsive
handling of organizational crises. During crises, organizations were more likely to rely on
top communicators to a greater extent and their top communicators were more likely to

enact the senior advisor roles. Crisis experience may also stimulate enactment of the

43

advocate and expert prescriber roles. As organizations experience crises, management
demands the public relations unit to operate as a buffer for the organization, i.e., playing
the advocate role. In addition, organizations will require their public relations functions to
become more sophisticated, functioning as experts. In order to explore this relationship,
the following research question is posed:

RQ4. How is an organizations’ crisis experience related to enactment of public

relations roles?
Outcomes of Public Relations Role Enactment

Influence of public relations in an organization ’3 strategic decision making. The
issue of power of public relations within organizations has received increasing attention
lately (e.g. Berger, 2005; Berger & Reber, 2006). The power of public relations can be
evidenced by the extent to which it inﬂuences an organization’s decision making.
Because an organization’s strategic decisions affect their key publics, public relations’
involvement in the decision making process is critical (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). To the
extent that top public relations managers participate in strategic decision making, the
public relations function is empowered. With this reason, top communicators’
participation in decision making has been identiﬁed as a characteristic of an excellent
public relations department (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).

Several role studies explored the relationship between participation in decision
making and role enactment. Manager role enactment was positively related with
participation in decision making (Broom, 1982; Dozier & Broom, 1995). Similarly,
Gordon and Kelly (1999) reported that manager role competencies in the public relations

department are positively related to public relations’ participation in strategic planning.

44

On the contrary, technician role enactment was not signiﬁcantly related to participation in
management decision making (Broom, 1982).

Among the nine types of public relations roles proposed in the section above, the
advisor role is likely to have the most signiﬁcant implication to the inﬂuence of public
relations in an organization’s decision making. The advisor role involves providing
recommendations and advice to top management concerning a variety of organizational
issues that have public relations implications. Because the members of top management
are responsible for decision making, to the extent that public relations units function as an
advisor to top management, their public relations unit would be able to inﬂuence an
organization’s decision making processes. Enactment of other public relations roles may
also contribute to the inﬂuence of a public relations unit within an organization, thus the
following research question is posed:

RQ5. How do public relations roles contribute to the inﬂuence a public relations

unit has in an organization’s decision making processes?

Value of public relations to organizations. A few studies examined how role
enactment inﬂuences the value of public relations units to organizations. “Value of public
relations” is a concept that manifests public relations’ contributions to organizational
effectiveness (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). It is important to test if certain role activities are
more strongly associated with the value of public relations, as it would provide insight
into what kinds of roles public relations units should perform to guarantee excellence in
public relations.

It seems that the relationship between role enactment and perceived value of the

public relations function requires further exploration. The excellence study reported that

45

performing the roles, such as manager role, senior advisor role, and media relations
specialist role was positively related to overall communication excellence of an
organization, whereas internal technician role was not related to (L. A. Grunig et al.,
2002). However, the manager role enactment was not signiﬁcantly related to the
dominant coalition’s perceived value of the communication function (L. A. Grunig et al.,
2002). Meanwhile, the dominant coalition’s role expectation of the manager role was
positively related to the value that dominant coalition places on public relations.

It is likely that all public relations roles discussed above will contribute to an
organization’s performance when they are enacted successfully. Meanwhile, it is an
empirical question to explore which of the public relations’ roles are most likely to
contribute to the value of public relations. To the extent the public relations roles are
related to an organization’s bottom line, they should be considered as core roles of public
relations. Therefore, the following research question is posed:

RQ6. How do public relations roles contribute to the value that public relations

adds to organizations?

Role Enactment and Public Relations Models
As one of the outcome variables of public relations, this section discusses the
relationship between public relations roles and public relations models.
Public Relations Models
The concept of public relations model occupies a central role in the excellence
study (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). Four types of public relations models were proposed by

J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984): press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetrical,

46

and two-way symmetrical. These four types of public relations models basically reﬂect
the historical development of public relations. The press agentry/publicity model was
practiced in the mid-19’h century when the ﬁrst full time specialists emerged. The press
agentry model is a propaganda model, where practitioners use any possible way to get
favorable attention from the publics. At the beginning of the 20‘h century, the public
information model was developed in response to “attacks on large corporations and
government agencies by muckraking journalists” (J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 1992,
p.288). The public relations practitioners hired by organizations at this time played the
role of in-house journalists whose primary tasks were writing good things about their
organization but generally in a truthful and accurate manner. They primarily focused on
disseminating factual but usually only favorable information about the organization.
While both press agentry and public information models are a one-way approach, two-
way approches were introduced during World War I, based on behavioral and social
sciences (J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 1992). The two-way asymmetric model is
characterized with the use of scientiﬁc research in order to persuade publics in favor of
organizations. Being successﬁrlly practiced during World War II, the two-way
asymmetric practice utilized scientiﬁc theories and research in order to manipulate
human behaviors and attitudes based on understanding what motivates people. Finally,
the two-way symmetrical model is the most recent model and it focuses on using public
relations to facilitate understanding and communication rather than persuaSion. In the
two-way symmetric model, practitioners also use scientiﬁc research but intend to build
mutual understanding between organizations and publics. Later, Murphy (1991)

developed the idea of the mixed-motive model, which posits that organizations could also

47

simultaneously use both two-way symmetrical and asymmetrical public relations
practices. L. A. Grunig et a1. (2002) stated that the concept of a mixed-motive model
accurately describes the original conceptualization of the two-way symmetrical model,
because the two-way symmetrical model focuses on reconciling the organization’s and its
publics’ interests, rather than fully accommodating the publics’ interest.

Among the four models, the two-way symmetrical model has been the most
critical component of public relations research, while also being the most controversial
and debated component (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). Several scholars criticized that the
two-way symmetrical model may only exist in theory (Leitch & Neilson, 2001; L’Etang,
1996). The argument that symmetrical communication is superior to other models (J. E.
Grunig & Hunt, 1984) also has been often contested. Some scholars (e.g., Miller, 1989;
Van der Meiden, 1993) argued that public relations is asymmetrical in its nature. The
other groups of scholars (e.g., Leichty & Springston, 1993; Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, &
Mitrook, 1997; Cancel, Mitrook, & Cameron, 1999) viewed that the value of the
symmetrical model depends on various organizational factors (i.e., a contingency
approach). In response to these criticisms, Grunig and colleagues (J. E. Grunig, 1989; L.
A. Grunig et al., 2002) argued that plentiful evidence exists which indicates the two-way
symmetrical model is also a positive model that is observed in reality as well as a
normative. Furthermore, the excellence study suggests that excellent public relations
departments attempt to exercise two-way symmetrical communication rather than the
other model types (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).

Meanwhile, previous research also revealed limitations with theories of public

relations models. Studies (e.g., J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Lauzen, 1986) have failed to

48

provide a reliable measure of the public relations models. Early studies reported alphas of
.53 to .62 for measures of each model (J .E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 1992). Although it
has improved over time, the reliability scores were typically less than .80. The excellence
study reported alpha levels of .59 to .70 for the four public relations models. In addition
to the reliability issue, validity of the model was also often questioned. According to the
review of J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (1992), the factor analysis in the previous studies
often revealed a two—factor model (i.e., one-way vs. two-way model) rather than a four
factor model, suggesting that only two models exist. Theorists (J. E. Grunig & Hunt,
1984; Leichty & Springston, 1993) also suggested that organizations can exercise some
or all of the four models, while one of the models could be dominant in their public
relations practice.

Acknowledging the limitations of previous conceptualization and that the public
relations models can coexist, J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (1992) proposed that an
organization’s public relations practices can be characterized with multiple dimensions,
such as direction, intention, channel, and ethics. The dimension of direction captures the
extent to which an organization’s public relations is one-way or two-way. One-way
public relations practices focus on disseminating information, whereas two-way practices
mainly reﬂect activities involving an exchange of information with publics, such as
formative and evaluative research. The intention dimension consists of symmetry and
asymmetry. When organizations practice symmetric public relations, they intend for
mutual changes between organizations and the publics, pursuing collaboration and
cooperation between the two parties. On the other hand, asymmetric public relations

practices intend to change their publics’ attitude or behaviors in favor of the

49

organization’s positions. The channel dimension concerns the extent to which
practitioners utilize an interpersonal channel or mediated channel of communication.
While the interpersonal channel involves face-to-face and direct communication with the
publics, mediated channel means the mass media. Finally, the ethics dimension reﬂects
the degree to which an organization’s public relations is ethical. When organizations
practice ethical public relations, they are responsible for the consequences of their public
relations not only for their immediate publics but also for society as a whole (J. E. Grunig
& L. A. Grunig, 1996).

Given the four dimensions, the four public relations models are characterized in
the following ways: the press agentry model is relatively one-way, asymmetrical, and
unethical and mostly mediated communication; the public information model is one-way,
asymmetrical, mediated, and generally more ethical than the press agentry model; the
two-way asymmetrical model is two-way, asymmetrical, either ethical or unethical, and
either mediated or interpersonal; the two-way symmetrical model is two-way,
symmetrical, ethical, and either mediated or interpersonal communication (L. A. Gruning
et al., 2002). Recent studies (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002; Huang, 2001; Rhee, 2002; Yun,
2006) utilized this dimensional approach to assess an organization’s public relations
model.

Public Relations Model and Public Relations Roles

A few studies examined the relationship between public relations models and
public relations roles. In summary, studies suggest that manager role enactment is related
to the two-way public relations models, but it is less clear if manager role enactment is

more likely to be related to the symmetric model than the asymmetric model. Previous

50

research suggests that manager role enactment is positively related to an organization’s
practice of both two-way symmetric and asymmetric models of public relations
(Fabiszak, 1985, as cited in Lauzen & Dozier, 1992; McMillan, 1984, as cited in Lauzen
& Dozier, 1992; Pollack, 1986, as cited in Lauzen & Dozier, 1992). Manager roles were
also positively related to competences for two-way symmetric and asymmetric model,
i.e., the ability to conduct evaluation research, either formally, informally, or a mixed
approach of formal and informal research (Broom & Dozier, 1986). Dozier (1992)
concluded that manager roles and two-way asymmetric and symmetric models go hand in
hand. Meanwhile, J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) presumed that the expert prescriber role
would be linked to the two-way asymmetric and the press agentry model of public
relations.

Previous studies have not provided clear insight about how public relations roles
can contribute to the two-way symmetrical model more than the two-way asymmetrical
model. Given that the symmetrical model is deemed as the normative public relations
model, this distinction is important. J. E. Grunig (2006) argued that public relations as a
strategic management function is equivalent to public relations as a bridging activity,
implying that manager role enactment would contribute to an organization’s two-way
symmetric model. However, there is evidence that manager role enactment is positively
related to two-way asymmetrical model while not being related to the symmetrical model
(L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).

Moving beyond the manager-technician distinction may make it possible to
explore if enactment of certain public relations roles contributes to the symmetrical

public relations model. For example, roles such as communication liaison or advocate

51

roles might be more strongly related to the symmetric model as those role activities
would be related to dimensions of ethics and symmetric communication. There might be
certain composition of public relations roles that contribute differentially to the
symmetrical and asymmetrical models of public relations. To explore the relationship
between public relations role enactment and an organization’s public relations strategy,
the following research question is posed.

RQ7. How does the enactment of public relations roles inﬂuence an

organization’s practice of public relations models?

52

-_‘.‘_. Ta; g.q

CHAPTER III. METHDOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research methodology that was used to answer the
proposed research questions. First, I describe the survey research method used in the
present study. 1 will give details on the population for the survey, sampling method, and
data collection procedures. Second, the description of the survey instruments, i.e.,
instrument designs and operationalization of key variables, will be provided. Finally, I
will review the statistical procedures for data analysis and discuss the criteria used to
evaluate statistical results. Finally, the procedures taken to ensure research ethics will be

described.

Research Design

Rationale for Research Method

The goal of this study is to elaborate the roles of public relations in organizations
and test the utility of the elaborated conceptualization. Under this universal research goal,
seven research questions were proposed. The survey research method is considered most
appropriate in answering these research questions over other types of research methods
such as experimental design or qualitative research because of the following reasons.

First, a quantitative research method is preferred over a qualitative research
method as the ﬁrst research question involves assessing the factor structure of public
relations roles. While a qualitative method can provide in-depth insights, the goals of this

study is not to explore all types of public relations roles. That is, this study is intended to

53

assess the factor structure of public relations roles that were theoretically driven from the
existing public relations literature.

Second, the survey research design is deemed ideal, because this study attempts to
explore associations between variables rather than assessing the effects of manipulated
variables. This study intended to explore the existence and strength of the relationships
between public relations roles and other criterion variables in uncontrolled settings, rather
than in an artiﬁcial laboratory setting, for the purpose of obtaining more generalized
ﬁndings among South Korean companies. The survey research design is more appropriate
for generalizing the ﬁndings beyond the irmnediate settings (Judd, Smith, & Kidder,
1991)

Population and Sample

The population of the survey was identiﬁed using the following steps. First, at the
organizational level, the 2007 Daily Economics (Mae-Kyung, MK) list of 1,000 Korean
companies served as a sampling frame. This annual published list identiﬁes the top 1,000
companies based on companies’ business performance, i.e., revenues and net proﬁts.
Public relations/communication agencies were excluded from the population. Second, the
survey respondents were essentially deﬁned as top public relations managers (i.e., head
of the public relations unit) who work in companies that met the aforementioned
criterion. Top public relations managers are the ideal participants for this study because
they oversee the public relations ﬁrnction and are in the best position to describe the
company’s public relations practices and the role of the public relations unit. However,
because of difﬁculty in recruiting participants in organizations, especially those who are

in the higher positions, additional criteria for participant recruitment were established.

54

First, members of public relations units designated by top public relations
managers were also considered as acceptable respondents, because it is assumed that the
top public relations manager will designate individuals who can provide the appropriate
answers. Second, when top public relations managers refuse to participate in the study or
are not available, middle-level managers (Kwa-Jang) or those who have had at least three
years of experience in public relations in their organizations were included in the
population. This criterion was deemed acceptable as well because,hwith such a level of
position or experience, they would have a reasonable understanding of their
organization’s public relations activities. Finally, when companies have only one or two
public relations practitioners in their public relations units, the practitioners or their
supervisors, if available, were recruited regardless of their job rank or experience in
public relations. In this case, still, the priority of recruitment was given to those who are
in the higher job rank.

Pilot Test

Before the survey was administered, a pilot test of the survey instrument was
conducted in June 2007. The participants (N = 17, 10 males, 7 females; average age of
34.5; average experience in public relations of 5.89 years) from 10 companies were
recruited through a public relations association in the South Korean IT industry, where
the researcher previously served as a member. The data was collected via a survey Web
site. Each participant received a gift certiﬁcate (about $10) and was entered into a lottery
for an MP3 player. The survey instrument included 63 items tapping into the roles of
public relations units and 42 items measuring public relations models practiced by the

companies. As the last block on every survey Web page, an open-ended question asked

55

l.

participants to address any suggestions or difﬁculties in understanding the survey
questions. Participants did not indicate any difﬁculty in answering the survey
questionnaire and only a minor revision, i.e., spelling errors, was suggested. The
reliability for each measurement construct was also examined. The measures showed an
acceptable level of reliability (i.e., a = .70) except for: activist and communication
coordinator among the measures of public relations roles, and mediated communication
among the measures of public relations models. For these measures, the items which
lowered the reliability were dropped or the wording of the items was carefully revised
considering the content of other items. The companies that participated in the pilot test
were excluded from the main survey.
Data Collection Procedure

The main survey was conducted from July 12, 2007, to September 7, 2007, via a
research agency in South Korea, The Opinion. The participants were recruited following
the deﬁnition of the population as described above. Based on the MK list, the research
ﬁrm searched and compiled the contact information of public relations units of the
companies. Once the list was generated, The Opinion held training sessions for its staff
members who were involved in data collection to educate them regarding recruitment of
participants and data gathering procedures. The potential participants were initially
contacted via telephone and provided with information about the research. Once they
agreed to participate in the study, the recruiters sent the survey questionnaire via either e-
mail or fax and provided detailed instructions on the phone. Follow-up contact was made
until the completed surveys were returned. Every completed survey was examined in

terms of response sincerity and clarity. Among the 1,000 companies of the MK list, 865

56

companies were contacted, and 262 cases were returned (Response rate of 30.3 %). Out
of 262 cases, 36 cases were not used due to insincere responses. As a result, 226 cases
were retained for analysis. Out of 226 cases, 39 were collected through the referrals of

the researcher’s acquaintances.

Survey Instrument

Instrument Design

The survey instrument was initially constructed in English and translated into
Korean by the researcher. Then, a bilingual person compared the Korean-version
questionnaire with the original questionnaire and revised some questionnaire wordings.

The survey instrument contained the following measures: roles of public relations
unit, measures for criterion variables including companies’ practices of public relations
models, characteristics of companies and their public relations unit, and participants’
demographics. The ﬁrst page of the survey instrument explained the research purposes
and provided information about the informed consent procedure. The ﬁrst section of the
survey asked participants to answer the questions concerning the roles of their public
relations unit. The second section consisted of questions on public relations models.
Additionally, various attributes of organizations and their public relations tmits were
assessed: perceived uncertainty of organizational environment, management philosophy,
prior crisis experience, inﬂuence of public relations units in the organization’s decision
making process, self-assessed value of the public relations unit to the organization, top
management’s support of public relations, participative organizational cultures,

organization size (i.e., number of employees), industry, job rank of top public relations

57

manager, and size of public relations unit in terms of the number of practitioners.
Demographic questions included: age, public relations experience, job rank, education in
public relations, accreditation in public relations, and specialty in public relations.

Because one of the goals of the study was to determine if various types of public
relations roles are conceptually distinct, the items measuring different roles were mixed
up and the order of the scale items was randomized rather than grouped by construct. The
same procedure was applied for the measures of public relations models. Three versions
of the survey instrument were developed counterbalancing the measurement items in
order to control for order effect.
Measurement

Roles of public relation function. The measures of the eight roles proposed above
were adopted primarily from public relations and management literature (See Table 2).
Because this study explores roles of public relations units rather than the roles of
individual public relations practitioners, the measurement items were revised
accordingly. Four to seven items were utilized to tap various activities reﬂecting the nine
roles of a public relations unit (a total of 45 items). Participants were asked to indicate the
extent to which their public relations units engage in each of the activities. Each
questionnaire item had ﬁve anchored response choices ranging from not at all (1) to a
great extent (5).

In addition to the eight roles which are of primary interests in this study, four
roles that reﬂect activities as a technician and as an administrator were measured in order

to determine whether these roles are distinct. The four roles included: communication

58

technician, media relations, administrator, and planner. Sixteen items were employed

from L. A. Grunig et al. (2002).

Table 2

Measures of public relations roles

 

Roles

Items

 

Roles concerning boundary spanning

 

Advocate
(Leichty &
Springston, 1996)

Communication

Liaison

(Leslie, Dalton,
Ernst, & Deal,
2002; Springston &
Leichty, 1994)

1.
2.
3.

4.

Speak for corporate interests to multiple publics.

Deliver a favorable image of the company to the key publics.
Represent the company's economic or social perspectives to
the publics.

Promote publics' understanding about the company's position.

Create opportunities for management to hear the views of the
company's publics.

Keep the management informed of the opinions of various
publics.

Diagnose communication problems between the organization
and various publics.

Keep management informed of key publics’ reaction to the
company's decisions.

Keep top management informed of key publics' expectations.

 

Monitor

(Conger &
Kanungo, 1994;
Moss et al., 2005)

Roles concerning decision making process

. Monitor constraints in the company's environment that may

stand in the way of achieving the company's objectives.
Track social issues that may affect the company's political
situation.

Track changes in key publics that may affect the company's
strategies.

Monitor external trends that might affect the company.
Analyze external intelligence relevant to the company.

 

Expert Prescriber
(Broom & Dozier,
1995)

l.

2.

3.

Lit

Play a role as the company's expert in solving public relations
problems.

Take responsibility for the success of the company's public
relations programs.

Take responsibility for the failure of the company's public
relations programs.

Make the communication policy decisions of the company.
Diagnesepublic relatiens problemaefthe .comp,any:-,-_,

59

Table 2 — Continued

 

Roles

Items

 

Advisor (Problem
solving facilitator)

(Moss et al., 2005) 2.

p—a
O

Advise management on a variety of important stakeholder
issues.

Advise management on the PR/communication implications of
any strategic decisions of the company.

Help other managers to increase their skills in solving and/or

Advise management on a regular basis about relevant
communication issues and challenges of the company.
Recommend top management courses of action for solving

Operate as a catalyst in management’s decision making.

persuade" organization membergtasupp‘sri a "change 1n W ' ' "
company's practices in order to deal with an emerging public

Challenge the company's practices in public relations that are

Play a role in activating changes in the company in response to

. Advocate for the best interests of key publics within the

Challenge the company's practices that could adversely affect

 

 

Play a role as an expert i}; dealing with crises affecting the

Be responsible for dealing with any unexpected events that

. Help the company to manage issues arising from conﬂicts

Manage the company's responses to a range of issues.

3.
avoiding public relations problems
4.
5.
public relations problems.
6.
Activist ‘ ’ 1.
relations problem.
2.
no longer appropriate.
3.
publics' demands.
4
company.
5.
publics.
Disturbance 1.
Handler (Moss et company
al., 2005) 2.
threaten the company.
3
with external stakeholder groups.
4.
5.

Recommend how the company should respond to the threat
from major issues.

 

ﬁelwsoneeming the internelpreeea ,

 

Internal 1 .
Communication 2.
Facilitator

(Leichty & 3.

Springston, 1996)

4.

Diagnose problems with internal communication.
Inform organization members of new developments (e. g., new
business decisions, changes in policies) within the company.
Provide communication channels and programs that help
communication among organization members.

Facilitate communication between top management and
employees.

 

 

 

 

60

Table 2 — Continued

 

 

Roles Items
PR Coordinator 1. Coordinate communication-related activities with other work
(Ancona & groups within the company.
Caldwell, 1992; 2. Provide an overall direction concerning diverse
Arnold, Arad, communication-related activities of the company.
Rhoades, & 3. Collaborate with members in other work groups to diagnose
Drasgow, 2000; public relations problems.
Springston & 4. Resolve organization's public relations problems in
Leichty, 1994) coordination with members in other work groups in the
company.
5. Coordinate a variety of communication-related activities by
other work groups for consistency.
6. Explain public relations problems to others in the company.

 

Technical & Administrative Roles (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002)

 

 

 

 

Administrator 1. Monitor performance of the PR/Communicator function
against targets.

2. Ensure that the PR/Communication function operates within
the agreed budgets.

3. Regularly reports about the operation of the communication
function for senior management.

4. Manage resources and workloads for the PR
department/function.

Planner 1. Develop strategies to solve PR problems.

2. Develop goals and objectives for the public relations
department.
3. Plan public relations programs.
Communication 1. Handle the technical aspects of producing public relations
Technician materials.
2. Produce brochures, pamphlets, and other publications.
3. Write public relations materials presenting information on
issues important to the organization.
4. Edit and/or rewrite for grammar and spelling the materials
written by others in the organization.

Media Relations 1. Maintain media contacts for the company.

Role 2. Keep others in the organization informed of what the media
report about the organization and important issues related to
the company.

3. Be responsible for placing news releases.
4. Figure out what the media will consider newsworthy about the

companj.

 

61

Public relations models. In previous research, studies were somewhat different in
terms of the measurement items and the factor model utilized. For example, Huang
(2001) utilized ﬁve dimensions (i.e., mediated, two-way, interpersonal, symmetrical-
ethical communication, and social activities), while Rhee (2002) used six dimensions (i.e.,
asymmetric, symmetric, ethical, interpersonal, mediated, and direction of communication
including both one-way and two-way). Yun (2006) used six dimensions (i.e., two-way,
symmetrical, asymmetrical, ethical, interpersonal, and mediated communication).

In this study, the public relations models practiced by the participating companies
were measured with seven factors along the four dimensions: direction (two-way/one-
way communication), intention (symmetrical/asymmetrical communication), ethical
communication, and channel (interpersonal/mediated communication). The items were
drawn from previous studies (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002; Rhee, 2002; Huang, 2001; Yun,
2006). Following the precedents, the dimension of intention was operationalized as two
separate factors, because they were deemed as coexisting continua (Yun, 2006; Rhee,
2002). The direction dimension was also measured with two separate sub-factors — one-
way and two-way communication. Previous studies often utilized only a two-way
communication dimension (e. g., Huang, 2001; Yun, 2006), or constructed both one-way
and two-way dimensions into a single factor (e. g., Rhee, 2002). In Rhee’s (2002) study,
one-way and two-way communication were combined into a single factor, the items for
one-way communication loaded very weakly compared to the items for two-way
communication, which indicate they are distinct dimensions. One-way communication
reﬂects information ﬂow from organizations to their publics, while two-way

communication reﬂects information ﬂow in the opposite direction. Because it is possible

62

for a company to engage in both types of communication, this study constructs one-way
and two-way communication as separate factors.

A total of 37 items were used to assess companies’ public relations models. Using
a ﬁve-point multiple item scale, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which
each statement accurately describe their companies’ public relations practices. The initial
inventory of the items is presented in Table 3.

Top management ’s philosophy. Six items for management philosophy were
developed based on the contents of interviews reported in Miles’ (1987) qualitative
research. Items were constructed on a ﬁve-point Likert scale with higher scores
indicating greater social (institutional) orientation. Participants were asked to indicate the
extent to which they agree or disagree with each of the statements on a ﬁve-point scale (1
= strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The CF A for this construct showed that two
items were not measuring the same underlying construct, thus only four items were used
in the analysis (a = .84). The speciﬁc items follow:

1. Society has the right to make certain demands from a private corporation.

2. Corporations should bring social responsibility into their day-to-day operations.
3. Corporations should make social responsibility a part of business decisions.

4. Corporations must set social goals just as they set business goals.

Environmental uncertainty. An organization’s environmental uncertainty was
measured in terms of environmental complexity and turbulence, utilizing the items from
Meznar and Nigh (1995). Seven items with ﬁve-point bipolar items were originally
utilized, but two items were dropped as a result of CFA. Five items showed the

acceptable level of reliability, or = .82. The speciﬁc items follow:

63

Table 3

Measures of Public Relations Model

 

Roles

Items

 

Dimension of Intention

 

Symmetry

1.

In my company, the purpose of public relations is to promote
mutual understanding between the management of the
company and its publics.

 

2. We not only try to change the attitudes of members of the
public, but also try to change our attitudes.

3. We not only try to change the behaviors of members of the
public, but also try to change our behaviors.

4. Before making ﬁnal decisions, we seek the opinions of those
groups or individuals who will be affected by the decisions
or policies.

5. We try to change our company’s policies considering the
opinions of the public.

6. In my company, public relations provide mediation to help
the management and the public negotiate conﬂict.

Asymmetry 1. We do public relations in order to change the behaviors of
publics.

2. We do public relations in order to change the attitudes of
publics.

3. We do public relations programs to persuade publics to
behave friendly to our company.

4. The purpose of our public relations is to help the public to
see our company more favorably.

5. We do public relations programs to persuade publics to agree

with the company’s point of view.

 

Dimension of Direction

 

Two-way

We promote communication from the publics to the
management.

We listen to the opinions of the publics.

Obtaining information about publics is one of the primary
activities of our public relations.

We conduct research to understand how the publics feel
about certain issues.

We conduct research to understand how the publics think
about our company.

We conduct evaluative research after conducting public
relations or communication activities.

 

64

Table 3 -— Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

One-way 1. Our company's public relations activities primarily focus on
disseminating information.

2. Public relations programs in my company involve one-way
communication from the company to the publics.

3. The public relations department functions as more of a
disseminator of information than a mediator between
management and publics.

4. The primary activity of our public relations is to disseminate
information about the company.

5. The purpose of our public relations is quite simply to get
publicity for the company.

6. In my company, public relations and publicity mean
essentially the same thing.

7. The success of our public relations is determined by the
amount of publicity.

Dimension of Ethics

1. We disclose our purpose when conducting communication
programs.

2. The information we provide is factual.

3. In our public relations activities, we disseminate accurate
information, regardless of whether it is favorable or not.

4. We deﬁne success of public relations not just by results but
also the way that they are obtained.

5. We examine any possibility of negative consequences of the
company’s public relations activities.

Dimension of Channel
Interpersonal 1. We use face-to-face communication.

2. We communicate in person with the public.

3. We make informal contact with the public.

4. We offer party favors or memorabilia

Mediated 1. We distribute news releases.

2. We use mass media, such as television and radio broadcasts,
newspapers, or magazines.

3. We offer information and news brieﬁngs.

4. We distribute ﬂyers, pamphlets, magazines, or other printed

materials that represent the company.

 

65

1. Social demands on our ﬁrm rarely change/Social demands on our ﬁrm change
frequently (turbulence).

2. We face a low level of regulation/We face a high level of regulation (turbulence).

3. We deal with few regulatory agencies/We deal with many regulatory agencies
(complexity).

4. We face low levels of social interest in our operation/ We face high levels of
social interest in our operations (turbulence).

5. We deal with few social advocacy groups/We deal with many social advocacy
groups (complexity).

Prior crisis experience. In order to assess organizations’ prior crisis experience,
participants were asked to indicate if their organizations have gone through a crisis that
affected the organization’s reputation or public trust within the past three years (Yes = 1,
N0 = 0).

Inﬂuence of public relations unit in decision making. The inﬂuence of the public
relations unit in decision making was measured by adopting items provided by Broom
and Dozier (1986). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they believe
their public relations or communication function has inﬂuence in various decision
making situations in their company, such as introducing new procedures or policies. A
ﬁve point scale was used (1 = very little; 5 = a lot). One item asked the overall inﬂuence
of the public relations unit in comparison to other work groups in the company. The ﬁve
items showed a reliability of a = .92. The speciﬁc contents of the items follow:

1. Overall inﬂuence of public relations unit compared to other teams.

2. Inﬂuence of public relations unit in introducing new procedures.

66

3. Inﬂuence of public relations unit in decision making of strategic direction.

4. Inﬂuence of public relations unit in introducing new policies.

5. Inﬂuence of public relations unit in planning customer services/support.

Value of public relations unit to the company. The value of public relations was
measured through respondants’ self-assessment. Two measures were adopted from the
excellence study (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002), which asks participants to estimate the value
of the public relations department “in comparison with a typical other department in the
organization” and “as a percentage of the department’s budget.” One additional item
asked performance of public relations unit in comparison to public relations units in other
companies. A ﬁve-point scale was used (1 =much below the average, 3 = about the
average, 5 = much higher than average). The items showed a reliability of or = .79

1. Performance compared to PR in other companies in the industry.

2. Value of PR compared to other teams in the company.

3. Value of PR compared to PR budget.

Data Analysis
The research questions were explored employing various statistical techniques,
such as conﬁrmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling, canonical
correlation analysis, and multiple regressions.
Data Screening
Before conducting the main analysis, the missing data pattern and distribution of
the data were examined in order to employ appropriate data analysis techniques. Only

one missing data point was found for the responses on public relations roles and four

67

missing data points were found for the responses on public relations models. In using
structural equation modeling, various techniques are available to deal with missing data,
such as pairwise deletion, listwise deletion, the full information maximum likelihood
(FIML) method, and data imputation. It is well known that FIML method yields
consistent and efﬁcient parameters (Enders & Bandalos, 2001) and listwise deletion is
also deemed an acceptable method when the proportion of the cases containing missing
data is less than 5.0% of the total cases. However, because the number of missing values
was very small, mode replacement of the missing data was chosen.

Except for a few measurement items, most of the variables were normally
distributed with skewness and kurtosis of less than one. Among the items for public
relations roles, four items showed a slight departure from the univariate normality: one
item for administrator, one item for technician, and two items for media relations role.
Among the items for public relations models, two items for media relations role and one
item for activist role indicated departure from the normality. While the value of skewness
and kurtosis for these items were still less than the deﬁnite two, in conducting CFA, they
were recoded using square transformation in order to prevent the potential inﬂuence of
the nonnormality.

C onﬁrmatory Factor Analysis (C FA)

For both public relations roles and public relations model, a conﬁrmatory factor
analysis was conducted. The data was analyzed with a SEM software, Mplus 4 (Muthen
& Muthen, 2006).

Model estimation. In order to choose the appropriate model estimation method,

the multivariate normality of the data was examined. The maximum likelihood method

68

has been the predominant estimation method as it produces unbiased, consistent, and
efﬁcient estimation under the assumption of multivariate normality of the data (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988). While parameter estimates with maximum likelihood are robust
against a moderate violation of multivariate normality with a moderate sample size, ML
estimate to violation of this assumption can inﬂate the chi-square statistic value and
underestimate some ﬁt indexes and standard errors of the parameter statistics (Nevitt &
Hancock, 2001). Therefore, when the data shows a gross departure from the multivariate
normality, other estimation techniques, such as bootstrapping, can assess the model ﬁt
more accurately (Bollen & Stine, 1992).

While all of the variables included did not depart far from the univariate
normality, the multivariate normality test suggested that the data did not meet the
multivariate normality (Mardia’s multivariate normality test for items of public relations
roles = 457.87, critical ratio = 39.26; Mardia’s multivariate normality test for items of
public relations model = 242.77, critical ratio = 33.97). In general, a critical ratio value of
greater than three is considered an indication of multivariate non-normality. Therefore,
the bootstrapping approach with the maximum-likelihood (ML) estimation was used to
assess the model ﬁt, which does not require a distributional assumption (N evitt &
Hancock, 2001). Bootstrapping provides adjusted parameter estimates, standard errors of
parameter estimates, and signiﬁcance tests for individual parameters (N evitt & Hancock,
2001).

Assessment of global fit. Before assessing the model against the ﬁt criteria, any
sign for model speciﬁcation errors or identiﬁcation problems (e.g., negative error

variances, correlations greater than one) was checked. When there was no such a sign,

69

joint cut-off criteria employing multiple ﬁt indexes were applied in order to assess the
global ﬁt of the CF A models as suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). Fit indexes, such as
the chi-square statistic, the Comparative Fit Index (CF I), and the Root-Mean-Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR), were examined. A model has a satisfactory ﬁt when p-value of the chi-square
statistic is greater than .05; CF I exceeds .96; RMSEA is less than .06; and SRMR is less
than .10 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Because the data did not meet the multivariate normality
assumption, Bollen—Stine’s adjusted p-value for chi-square statistic produced from
bootstrapping was evaluated. The adjusted chi-square statistic has been shown to have
more reliable standard errors when the distributional assumptions are not met (Hu &
Bentler, 1995).

Assessment of local ﬁt. Because the global ﬁt measures assess the overall
adequacy of the model, it does not provide information about the tenability of the internal
structure of the model. It is possible that a certain part of the model is poorly modeled,
even though the overall model is satisfactory. Therefore, it is essential to inspect the
internal structure with several assessment criteria. The criteria that are commonly used
are: indicator reliability (squared multiple correlations) greater than .30; standardized
factor loading greater than .60 with signiﬁcant t-value; average variance explained (AVE)
greater than .50; composite construct reliability greater than .60, modiﬁcation indices
smaller than 10 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fomell & Larcker, 1981).

Canonical Correlation Analysis (C CA)
Rationales for using C CA. Canonical correlation analysis is a statistical technique

used to explore the relationships between two sets of variables. One advantage of

70

canonical correlation is that CCA makes it possible to examine the complex reality by
allowing for simultaneous tests among the variables (Sherry & Henson, 2005). A
phenomenon is usually expressed by a combination of complex multivariate relationships,
rather than a univariate relationship between a single cause and an effect.

The other advantages of canonical correlation is that it can capture the
dimensionality of variables while exploring the relationships between sets of variables
taking into account the relationships among variables within a set. While multivariate
multiple regression also allows examining multiple independent variables and dependent
variables simultaneously, this approach does not provide information concerning
dimensionality among variables. An organization’s public relations behavior could be
explained by complex relationships between and within an organization’s public relations
practices and public relations roles. Therefore, using CCA is deemed as an appropriate
statistical analysis.

Assessment of C CA statistics. In order to assess the existence of relationship
between public relations roles and public relations models, ﬁrst, the statistical
signiﬁcance of the full canonical model and its effect size was examined with multiple
index. In particular, Wilks’ X represents the amount of variance not shared between the
variable set, thus by taking 1 — k inform of an overall effect size for the full model
(Sherry & Henson, 2005).

Second, canonical functions produced by CCA will be assessed. The canonical
functions which explain a substantial amount of variance between the variable sets were

retained for interpretation.

71

Next, in order to assess the contribution of each observed variables to canonical
function, structure coefﬁcients of observed variables was examined. Structure coefﬁcient
is a correlation between an observed variable and a canonical variate, which was
extracted from the observed variables in a set. Structure coefﬁcients shows which
observed variable in a set is relevant to the canonical variate. When variables within a set
are highly related, it is possible that their standardized coefﬁcients for canonical function
are small (Sherry & Henson, 2005). In such a case, a canonical function is better
interpreted with structure coefﬁcients. The structure coefﬁcient has utility in informing
which variables contribute to a canonical function.

In addition, squared structure coefﬁcients and canonical communality coefﬁcient
(hz) were reported. The squared structure coefﬁcient (rs2 ) indicates the proportion of

variance shared between an observed variable and a canonical variate. The communality

coefﬁcient reﬂects the amount of variance in each observed variable explained across
canonical functions. It is computed by summing up rs2 across canonical functions

retained for interpretation.

Univariate Multiple Regression

In order to further explore the relationship between public relations roles and
public relations models, univariate multiple regressions was also conducted. While CCA
shows the overall pattern of the relationship between two sets of variables, univariate
multiple regression analyses allows for probing the effects of independent variables on
each of the dependent variables. By employing the regression analysis, the relative effects

of public relations roles on each dimension of a public relations model can be examined.

72

Running univariate multiple regression after canonical correlations analysis is a practice

that is often recommended.

Research Ethics

An application for Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval was submitted and an exemption for the IRB review was obtained before data
collection. The protocol submitted to IRB was as follows.

First, on the cover letter of the survey, participants were informed of 1) the
purpose of the study; 2) potential beneﬁts and costs from participating in the study; 3)
protection for conﬁdentiality of their answers under the laws; 4) assurance that the
participation is voluntary, and their right to skip any question or stop answering questions
at any time; and 5) contact information for the researcher and the IRB ofﬁce.

Second, in order to protect conﬁdentiality of participants’ responses, the
questionnaires did not include any identiﬁable information about the participants, except
for demographic information, such age, sex, and education level. The data ﬁle will be

saved in the researcher’s laptop computer locked with password protection for ﬁve years.

73

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS

Description of Sample
Description of Participating Companies

Among the 226 companies from which participants were drawn, 18 (8.0 %) were
publicly owned and 21 (9.3 %) were foreign afﬁliated private companies. The rest of the
companies (n = 187 or 82.7 %) were classiﬁed as domestic private companies. The
majority of the companies (n = 102, 45.1 %) were in the service industry, which include
hospitality, ﬁnancial, medical, food, etc. Eighty eight (38.9 %) companies served in a
variety of manufacturing businesses (e.g., electronics, furniture, clothes, pharmaceutical,
etc.), and the remaining 36 (15.9 %) companies were in the construction, development,
and engineering industries. Although the companies were all drawn from MK’s top 1000
companies, the organization size in terms of the number of employees varied (Table 4).
About 18% of the companies (n = 42) were small-sized companies with less than 300
employees. Ninety eight companies (43.4 %) were medium-sized with between 300 to
999 employees. The rest of the companies (n = 83, 36.8 %) were classiﬁed as large sized
companies with over 1,000 employees.

Several characteristics of the participating companies’ public relations function
were examined, i.e., the size of public relations function, budget of public relations unit,
and the job rank of the head of the public relations function. As shown in Table 5, about
half of the participating companies (49.1 %) had less than ﬁve public relations

practitioners, while 40 companies (17.7 %) had 10 or more practitioners.

74

Table 4

Company size in number of employees

 

 

 

Number of employees Frequency %

less than 300 42 18.6
300 - 499 41 18.1
500 - 999 57 25.3
1,000 -l,999 34 15.0
2,000 -2,999 23 10.2
3,000 -4,999 11 4.9
5,000 - 9,999 6 2.7
10,000 or above 9 4.0
No response 3 1.2

Total 226 100

 

Table 5

The size of public relations function in the number of public relations practitioners

 

 

 

Number of practitioners Frequency %
1 - 2 37 16.4
3 40 17.7
4 34 15.0
5 27 11.9
6 19 8.4
7 - 9 25 11.1
10 - 19 26 11.5
20 or above 14 6.2
No response 4 1.8
Total 226 100.0

 

In most of the participating companies, the head of the public relations unit was in
a management position (Table 6). The most prominent job rank was director (Bu-Jang) (n
= 90, 39.8%), followed by the executive position (n = 57, 25.2%). In about a third of
participating companies, the public relations heads were associates (Gwa-Jang; n = 33,

14.6%) or senior level managers (Cha-Jang, n = 35, 15.5%).

75

About a half of the participants (n = 108) did not provide information on the
budget of the public relations function (Table 7). For the majority of the companies
whose public relations budget information is given (n = 76, 33.6%), the budget ranged
between $100,000 to $5 million. Four participants answered that their company does not
have any budget set aside for public relations. Finally, about a half of the participants (n =
109, 48.2%) reported their company experienced crises at least once during the recent

three years, which adversely affected the corporate image or public trust.

Table 6

The job rank of the head of public relations function

 

 

 

Job Rank Frequency %
Assistant (Sa-Won) 4 1.8
Assistant manager (Dae-Ri) 2 .9
Associate manager (Gwa-Jang) 33 14.6
Senior manager (Cha-Jang) 35 15.5
Director (Bu-Jang) 90 39.8
Executive 57 25.2
Vice President 5 2.2
Total 226 100.0

 

Table 7

The 2006 budget of public relations unit (WIK = W100,000,000)

 

 

 

Amount Frequency %

No budget 4 1.8

Less than $100,000 (in 1K) 14 6.2
$100,000 ~ $1 million (5.1.: 1 ~10K) 45 19.9
$1 ~ 5 million (W 10 ~50K) 31 13.7

$5 ~ 10 million (43% 50 ~ 100K) 15 6.6

$10 million (W 100K) or above 9 4.0
Don't know/No response 108 47.7
Total 226 100.0

 

76

Description of Participants

Participants were asked to report their gender, age, job rank, experience in public

relations, tenure with the company, work responsibility, the highest level of education,

and education in public relations. The average age of the participants was 33.38 with a

range from 24 to 50 (Table 8). Male was the dominant gender (female: n = 71, 31.4%;

males: n = 155, 68.6%). The respondents were primarily drawn from assistant managers

(Dae-Ri, n = 79, 35%), assistants (Sa-Won, n = 66, 29.2%), and associate managers

(Gwa-Jang, n = 48, 21.2%). The rest of the participants were senior managers or above

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Table 9).
Table 8
Age of the participants

Age Frequency %
20’s 67 29.6
30’s 124 54.9
40’s 34 1 5.0
No response 1 .04

Total 226 100.0
Table 9
T he job rank of the participants

Job Rank Frequency %

Assistants (Sa-Won) 66 29.2
Assistant manager (Dae-Ri) 79 35.0
Associate manager (Gwa-Jang) 48 21.2
Senior manager (Cha-Jang) 12 5.3
Director (Bu-Jang) 20 8.8
Executives 1 0.4

Total 226 100.0

 

77

On average, participants have worked for their company for 5.48 years and had

4.78 years of experience in public relations (Table 10). About 64.0% of the participants

had practiced public relations for more than three years. Approximately half of the

participants (n = 108, 47.8%) answered that they oversee the public relations function of

their companies. Most of the participants held at least a bachelor’s degree (96.0%) and

25.0% of the participants earned or were pursuing graduate degrees. Among them 16.0%

of the participants (n = 36) had earned bachelor’s degree in public relations and 87

participants had taken at least one undergraduate public relations class. A solid majority

of the participants (n = 138, 61.1%) have received public relations education from private

educational institutions or public relations associations. Thirty three participants were

members of professional public relations associations.

Table 10.

Respondents’ experience in public relations

 

 

 

Years Frequency %
Less than 1 year 20 8.8
1~3 years 61 27.0
3~5 years 60 26.5
5~9 years 51 22.6
More than 5 years 33 14.6
No response 1 0.4

Total 226 100.0

 

78

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

This section reports the results of conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CF A) for public
relations roles and public relations model.
Roles of Public Relations Unit

The ﬁrst research question was to explore the factor structure of public relations
roles. In order to assess the factor structures, the measures were submitted to a CPA
model.

.4

Global ﬁt. A CFA model was constructed with 63 items that tapped the nine !.
theoretically drawn public relations roles and four administrative/technician roles. The 3
initial model had identiﬁcation problems indicated by non-positive factor covariance
matrix. There was no sign of negative variance/residual variance, or a correlation greater
or equal to one between the latent variables. Instead, a multicollinearity problem, a linear
dependency among latent variables, was suspected involving the factors of planner,
administrator, technician, and media relations roles. These factors were highly correlated
(r > .90) with advocate role and expert prescriber role. For example, the administrator
role was related to expert prescriber role, with r = .98. This indicates that the roles of
planner, administrator, technician, and media relations are possibly redundant or

subsumed under the advocate role and expert prescriber role. In other words, those four

 

roles may possibly reﬂect the activities that could be entailed with the enactment of
advocate role and expert prescriber role, rather than a distinct role that is equivalent to
other roles in the conceptual hierarchy. Given the multicollinearity and conceptual issues,

planner, administrator, technician, and media relations were dropped.

79

After dropping the roles, the model was converged without an identiﬁcation
problem, but showed a poor ﬁt, )8 (998) = 2254.75, Bollen-Stine p < .001, CFI = .84,
RMSEA = .075 [90% CI = .71 to .79], SRMR = .061. By examining modiﬁcation
indices, items which had factor loading smaller than .05 and were inconsistently loaded
on several other factors or errors were identiﬁed. It was found that the items of internal
communicator role were also highly loaded on the liaison role. Because it was
theoretically plausible to see internal communicator role as an aspect of liaison role, those
two factors were merged. Errors were allowed to be correlated among items for external
liaison and internal liaison respectively. The modiﬁcation indices also indicated that the
items for the disturbance handler factor were inconsistently loaded on several other
factors, including expert prescriber role and advisor role. This possibly indicates that the
contents of issue handler role reﬂect a functional area of public relations, i.e., issue
management, rather than a distinct role of a public relations unit. Therefore, the
disturbance handler role was dropped. Through the modiﬁcation procedure, seven role
factors were retained with ﬁve items for advisor, four items for coordinator and liaison
roles, and three items for expert, activist, advocate, and monitor roles. The ﬁnal items are
provided in Table 11. This modiﬁed model showed a satisfactory ﬁt: [2 (231) = 374.18,
Bollen—Stine p > .05, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .046 [90% CI = .036 to .056], SRMR = .04.

The seven-factor model was tested against the ﬁrst-order one-factor model, which
presumes all items in this study are measuring the same role, rather than measuring
distinct roles respectively. A test for the ﬁrst-order one-factor model showed a poor ﬁt
indicating that the items are not measuring the same construct, f (275) = 701, Bollen-

Stinep < .001, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .083 [90% CI = .075 to .09], SRMR = .055. This

80

result again conﬁrms that the measures in the model are indeed capturing distinct public
relations roles.

Local ﬁt. The local ﬁt of the model was also satisfactory. Factor loadings were
signiﬁcant with values greater than .60 and showed individual item reliabilities (squared
multiple correlations) greater than .30, except for one item for liaison. For most of the
factors, the average variance explained (AVE) were acceptable (i.e., greater than .50),
while AVE for liaison role (.40) was somewhat lower. Finally, all measures for each role
demonstrated the acceptable level of composite reliability (CR) (i.e., greater than .60) and
internal consistency i.e., (Cronbach’s or > .70). The internal model ﬁt is presented in
Table 12.

In summary, the CF A results to answer the ﬁrst research question suggest a
seven-factor model of public relations.

Public Relations Model

The second research question explores the relationship between public relations
roles and public relations model. Before examining the relationship, it is also necessary to
assess the measure of a public relations model, thus a CFA was conducted.

Global ﬁt. A CF A model was constructed with 37 items that measure the seven
factors along four dimensions of public relations models. The initial model had an
identiﬁcation problem with non-positive latent factor covariance. A potential
multicollinearity involving the symmetry dimension was suspected as factor correlations
greater than one were found between the symmetry factor and the ethical factor and

between the symmetry factor and the interpersonal communication factor. The symmetry

81

Table 1 1

Items retained from CFA of public relations roles

 

Roles Items

Prescriber [PSI] Diagnose public relations problems of the company.

[P82] Take responsibility for the success of the company’s public
relations programs.
> [PS3] Make the communication policy decisions of the company.

Advisor [AVl] Advise management on a variety of important stakeholder issues.
[AV2] Advise management on the PR/communication implications of any
strategic decisions of the company.

[AV3] Advise management on a regular basis about relevant
communication issues and challenges of the company.

[AV4] Operate as a catalyst in management’s decision making.

[AVS] Recommend top management courses of action for solving public
relations problems.

Activist [AC1] Persuade organization members to support a change in a
company’s practices in order to deal with an emerging public relations
problem.

[AC2] Challenge the company’s practices in public relations that are no
longer appropriate.
‘ [AC3] Advocate for the best interests of key publics within the company.

Coordinator [CD1] Explain public relations problems to others in the company.
[CD2] Collaborate with members in other work groups to diagnose public
relations problems.

[CD3] Resolve the organization’s public relations problems in

coordination with members in other work groups in the company.

[CD4] Coordinate a variety of communication-related activities by other
_ work groups for consistency.

Advocate [ADI] Speak for corporate interests to multiple publics.

[AD2] Deliver a favorable image of the company to the key publics.
[AD3] Represent the company's economic or social perspectives to the
,, ‘ ,.--publics__;. V. WWWW W _

Liaison [LSl] Inform organization members of new developments (e.g., new
business decisions, changes in policies) within the company.

[LS2] Provide communication channels and programs that help
communication among organization members.

[LS3] Create opportunities for management to hear the views of the
company’s publics.

[LS4] Diagnose communication problems between the organization and
various publics.

Monitor [M01] Track social issues that may affect the company's political
situation.

[M01] Monitor external trends that might affect the company.
[M01] Analyze external intelligence relevant to the company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

Table 12

Local ﬁt index for public relations roles

 

 

Factor Items Factor Item AVE CR Cronbach’s
Loading Reliability or

Prescriber PSI .81 .66 .59 .81 .80
PS2 .73 .53
PS3 .73 .54

Advisor AVl .78 .61 .62 .89 .89
AV2 .80 .64
AV3 .81 .66
AV4 .75 .57
AVS .77 .59

Activist AC1 .68 .47 .48 .73 .73
AC2 .69 .47
AC3 .70 .49

Coordinator CD1 .80 .64 .62 .87 .87
CD2 .83 .69
CD3 .67 .45
CD4 .87 .75

Advocate ADl .83 .69 .61 .82 .82
AD2 .74 .55
AD3 .76 .58

Liaison LSl .53 .28 .40 .73 .75
LS2 .61 .37
LS3 .67 .45
LS4 .72 .51

Monitor M01 .75 .56 .58 .81 .80
M02 .79 .63
M03 .75 .56

 

Note. AVE: Average Variance Explained; CR: Composite Reliability.

83

factor was also highly correlated with two-way communication (.95). In the current
sample, it seems that companies which do public relations with symmetric intention also
utilize ethical, two-way, and interpersonal communication. In this case, the symmetry
dimension would be captured by these three other dimensions, thus the symmetry
dimension was dr0pped in order to obtain the solution.

After dropping the symmetry dimension, the initial model converged without an
identiﬁcation problem but the model ﬁt was not satisfactory, )(2 (419) = 985.89, Bollen-
Stine p < .001, CFI = .84, RMSEA = .077 [90% CI = .071 to .084], SRMR = .069. Thus,
by examining modiﬁcation indices, items which were inconsistently loaded on several
other factors or errors were identiﬁed and dropped. Through the modiﬁcation procedure,
three items were retained for asymmetry, ethical, one-way, interpersonal, and mediated
communication, while four items were retained for two-way communication. The ﬁnal
items are provided in Table 13. This modiﬁed model showed a satisfactory ﬁt: 12 (136) =
215.28, Bollen-Stinep > .05, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .038 to .063], SRMR =
.047.

Local ﬁt. The local ﬁt of the model was assessed with the same criteria used for
the CFA model of the public relations role. Factor loadings were all signiﬁcant and
satisfactory in general. Two items included in the ethical dimension and one-way
dimension had factor loadings slightly smaller than .60. All individual item reliabilities
(squared multiple correlations) were greater than .30. AVE was acceptable for the
dimensions of asymmetry, one-way, interpersonal, and mediated communication, while

the two-way and ethical dimension showed a relatively low AVE (.40). The composite

84

reliability and internal consistency was also generally adequate. The internal model ﬁt is

presented in Table 14.

Table 13

Items retained ﬂom CFA of public relations model

 

Roles

Items

 

Asymmetry

' Ethics

Two-way ” ' ‘

One-way ,. .. .. .

u___.A_a.b9.ut.encompass;.

[ASl] We do public relations in order to change the behaviors of
publics.

[AS2] We do public relations in order to change the attitudes of
publics.

[AS3] We do public relations programs to persuade publics to be

w._ friendly moutcompanr ”A.

[ETl] We disclose our purpose when conducting communication
programs.

[ET2] In our public relations activities, we disseminate accurate
information, regardless of whether it is favorable or not.

[ET3] We examine any possibility of negative consequences of the

,,.¢.om_pan>"s public relations activities

[TWl] We promote communication from the publics to management.
[TW2] Obtaining information about publics is one of the primary
activities of our public relations.

[TW3] We conduct research to understand how the publics feel about
certain issues.

[TW4] We conduct research to understand how the publics think

 

[0W1] Our company's public relations activities primarily focus on
disseminating information.

[0W2] The public relations department ﬁrnctions as more of a
disseminator of information than a mediator between management and
publics.

[0W3] The primary activity of our public relations is to disseminate
information about the company.

 

Interpersonal

[1P1] We use face-to-face communication.
[1P2] We communicate in person with the public.
[1P3] We make informal contact with the public.

 

Mediated

[MEI] We distribute news releases.

[ME2] We use mass media, such as television and radio broadcasts,
newspapers, or magazines.

[ME3] We offer information and news brieﬁngs.

 

85

Table 14

Local ﬁt index for public relations model

 

 

Factor Items Factor Item AVE CR Cronbach’s
Loading Reliability or

Asymmetry AS] .77 .59 .60 .82 .82
AS2 .78 .57
AS3 .79 .62

Ethic ETl .57 .32 .40 .66 .66
ET2 .56 .3 1
ET3 .75 .56

Two-way TWl .72 .52 .52 .81 .83
TW2 .77 .59
TW3 .72 .52
TW4 .68 .46

One-way OWl .72 .51 .40 .66 .71
0W2 .57 .33
0W3 .59 .35

Interpersonal IPl .65 .43 .49 .74 .74
1P2 .70 .50
1P3 .73 .54

Mediated MEI .80 .64 .57 .80 .79
ME2 .75 .56
ME3 .71 .50

 

Note. AVE = Average Variance Explained; CR = Composite Reliability

As the modiﬁed CF A model for public relations roles and public relations model
showed acceptable global and local ﬁts, the items for each construct were averaged to
produce composite measures. The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among

variables are presented in Table 15.

86

.60:S-0>5 1.52 S. 05 8 882.2:me 08 macaw—oboe =< ._.

 

we. 8. 8. 8. 2.. me. on. an. 8. 3.. 8. mm. 8. 88 8882.2
8. 8. 2.. 8. we. we. no. .8. 8. 8. 8. 2.. 8.8. 883.2
mm. 8. G. G. S. 8. an. 8... an. 8. 8. 8.8 3833.:

2.. 8. S. 8. mm. 8. 8. en. a... 8. $8. .3802

me. 8. R. R. G. 3.- 8. 8. 8. :4». 88.808 .8

8- a... 8n. 8. 8. 8. we. 8. «mm “883.8

2.. R. 8. me. 8.. on. 8.. «a... 8383:

.8. S. R. 8. 8. 8. 88 888028

2.. m... 8. 8. 8. 2.... 8.808358

8.. 8. S. 8. :8 8355.4

9.. no 8. 8.... 8368.8

R. R. an 8.8. .~

8.8.8 88885.“
8 z 2 a 8 e e n v m a H on :82

WSQCQNNKKQQ meukOikaN 323 %DCWCBNM. maftgzbhmq

2 033.

87

Testing the Construct Validity against the Nomological Network

In order to test the construct validity of the seven public relations roles against the
nomological network, multivariate and univariate multiple regressions were conducted
controlling for other organizational characteristics. A multivariate multiple regression
was conducted with seven public relations roles as dependent variables and
organizational characteristics as independent variables, which include experience of
organizational crisis, management philosophy, and perceived uncertainty of an
organization’s environment along with control variables such as organizational culture,
company types, organization size, number of public relations practitioners in the
organizations, job rank of the head of the public relations unit.

The multivariate statistics suggested that control variables that include
organizational demographic variables, i.e., company types [Wilks’s l. = .922, F (14, 404)
= 1.19, p = n.s.]; organization size [Wilks’s it = .983, F(7, 202) = 2.50, p = n.s.]; number
of public relations practitioners in the organizations [Wilks’s 1. = .974, F (7, 202) = .78, p
= n.s.]; job rank of the head of the public relations function [Wilks’s it = .972, F (7, 202)
= .83, p = n.s.], do not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence enactment of seven public relations roles.
Only participative organizational culture had signiﬁcant inﬂuence on enactment of public
relations roles [Wilks’s 1. = .897, F (7, 202) = 3.31, p < .01]. Participative organizational
culture had a positive effect on most of the roles of the public relations units, with a
marginal effect on advocate role, F (1, 208) = 3.67, p = .057.

The second research question (RQ2) asked the relationship between uncertainty of
companies’ environment and enactment of public relations roles. Signiﬁcant multivariate

effects of uncertainty of companies’ environment were found, Wilks’s it = .902, F (7, 202)

88

= 3.128, p < .01. As expected, companies’ environments inﬂuenced public relations roles
such that the more uncertain a company’s environment the more likely that boundary
spanning roles were enacted: advocate, F (1, 208) = 10.11, p < .01; liaison, F(1, 208) = 6,
p < .05; monitor, F(1, 208) = 10.12,p < .01. The rest of the roles did not show any
signiﬁcant relationship with crisis experience.

The third research question (RQ3) explored the relationship between management
philosophy and public relations roles. Overall, top management’s management
philosophy had signiﬁcant effects on enactment of public relations roles, Wilks’s 1.
= .926, F (7, 202) = 2.32, p < .01. Public relations units whose top management had an
institution-oriented management philosophy (i.e., those who are socially oriented or low
enterprise-oriented) were more likely to function as an activist, F (1, 208) =5.28, p < .05.
The inﬂuence of management philosophy on the liaison role also approached signiﬁcance,
F (1, 208) = 3.56, p = .061. Furthermore, the management philosophy was also positively
related to the rest of the roles, i.e., advisor, expert prescriber, coordinator, and monitor
(See Table 16). It seems that top management’s philosophy nurtures all seven roles of
public relations.

The fourth research question (RQ4) asked the relationship between companies’
prior crisis experience and public relations role enactment. Signiﬁcant multivariate
effects were found for experience of organizational crisis, Wilks’s it = .92, F (7, 202) =
2.50, p < .05. In companies that had experienced organizational crisis at least once in last
three years, the public relations unit was more likely to play a role as an expert prescriber,

F(1, 208) = 8.50,p < .01, and as an advocate for the company, F(1, 208) = 8.91,p < .01.

89

l
g

 

However, the advisor, coordinator, monitor, and activist roles were not related to crisis
experience. The results are summarized in Table 16.

Next, the relationships between public relations roles and outcome variables, i.e.,
the public relation unit’s inﬂuence in a company’s decision making (RQS) and self-
assessment of public relations’ value to the company as criterion variables (RQ6), were
explored. A correlational analysis showed that all public relations roles are positively
related to public relation units’ inﬂuence in the decision making process and the value of
the public relations unit to the company. In order to explore the relative effect of each
public relations role, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted with
organizational demographics, i.e., organization size, crisis experience, job rank of the
public relations head, and ntunber of public relations practitioners, as control variables.

The results showed that, controlling for the covariates and other public relations

roles, the advisor role had a positive effect on the public relations unit’s inﬂuence in the
company’s decision making process, 3 = .28, t = 2.48, p < .05. Rest of public relations

roles did not signiﬁcantly contribute to the public relations unit’s inﬂuence in the
company’s decision making process.

Multiple regression using the value of public relations to organizations suggested

that the advocate role had the strongest effect, P = .35, t = 4.13, p < .001 , followed by the

activist role, 5 = .18, t = 2.03, p < .05. The results with two outcome variables are

summarized in Table 17.

90

Table 16

Inﬂuence of organizational characteristics on the roles of public relations function

 

 

 

 

 

91

. IVs Multivariate F DVs F *
Company types Wilks' Lamda = .922, Activist a 1.65
(Public vs. F(14,404) = 1.191, . b
Domestic private vs. p = .278 Advrso: 405*
Foreign afﬁliated private) Expert 493’”

. d
Coordrnator 3.1 1 *
Advocate e 1.19
Liaisonf 1.52
_ Monitor g 1.45
Organization size Wilks' Lamda =.983, Activist 0.94
(Number of employees) F (7,202) =.504, Advisor 0.81
p= .831 Expert 1.13
Coordinator 0. 14
Advocate 0.17
Liaison 0.00
Job rank of the head of Wilks' Lamda =.972, Activist 0.62
public relations F (7,202) =.833, Advisor 1.67
practitioners p = .561 Expert 2.28
Coordinator 0.56
Advocate 0.40
Liaison 1.06
Participative Wilks' Lamda =.897, Activist 9.70**
organizational culture F (7,202) = 3.312, Advisor 14.07***
p = .002 Expert 15.07***
Coordinator 19.43***
Advocate 3.67
Liaison 1 1.40“
Monitor 11.50“
Number of public Wilks' Lamda =.974, Activist 0.00
relations practitioners F (7,202) =.782, Advisor 0.82
p = .603 Expert 0.32
Coordinator 0.21
Advocate 0.75
Liaison 0.15
Monitor 0.04

 

Table 16 — Continued

 

 

 

"‘ Signiﬁcant at the level of .05.
** Signiﬁcant at the level of .01.
*** Signiﬁcant at the level of .001.

a. R Squared = .220 (Adjusted R Squared = .187).
b. R Squared = .307 (Adjusted R Squared = .277).
c. R Squared = .313 (Adjusted R Squared = .283).
d. R Squared = .268 (Adjusted R Squared = .236).
e. R Squared = .338 (Adjusted R Squared = .309).
f. R Squared = .234 (Adjusted R Squared = .200).
g. R Squared = .294 (Adjusted R Squared = .263).

h. The degree of freedom for F statistics is df= (1, 208) except for organization type df=

(2, 208).

92

IVs F(7,202) DVs Fh
Crisis experience Wilks' Lamda = .920, Activist 0.43
(Yes/No) F (7,202) = 2.501, Advisor 1.06
p = .017 Expert 850’”
Coordinator 0.92
Advocate 8.91 **
Liaison 0.16
_ Monitor 1.14
Management philosophy Wilks' Lamda =.926, Activist 5.28*
F (7,202) = 2.316, Advisor 6.93**
p = .027 Expert 7.89"
Coordinator 839’”
Advocate 12.32**
Liaison 3.56
. _, Monitor 449*
Environmental uncertainty Wilks' Lamda =.902, Activist 2.61
of a company F (7,202) = 3.128, Advisor 2.28
p = .001 Expert 0.19
Coordinator 0.18
Advocate 10.1 1* *
Liaison 6.00*
Momtor 10:12.?"

‘f' m‘uni‘nnx—u-I
J

t" “ .‘u‘r
..

doc—5-3 $32 5. 05 8 E85288 08 macaw—oboe 890-83 =< 8.52

 

 

 

 

 

«2. 8:: 2... S. 81w. 8.: 8.1 8. .882
S n. we. 8. av. w H H. hm. H 3. en. dong
8:. 2d. mm. an. 9:. «m4 Na. Ne. EOE
mun. H. T SF an. cum. 8. no. 3.. .58—5880
«3. we. a 2. mm. ham. 801 3V 3.. Enum—
hwm. hm. 8. 3. :9. «Wm an. mm. .5833
36. 8d a H. ﬂ n. :2. Hm- H NH. 3. 83304
9005
mbuoE—RE— adage 0:
8m- 8. 8. :8. 3.: 8.: 83388058888.
3ng .59»
«aa— 05 E emigre”. «:68
2%. 8V vcf So. 8&1 «a... cinema. 3:059"...—
3385 Each m 8.:
8H. 8.4 8. 8:. 8A 2. 8888.5 auto
gooﬁng-m macaw—on
v2. and 2. N2. 84 NH. gag—EOE
Quake—nacho 38:56
2%. 901 ET Huh. emf 8F 2.8 dog
302m
edgy—woo down—25
E 0295 .Q bounce—0N R 0255 Q o 526.03
.3388 05 8 9.030.— omaE—mo on; wan—S: deﬁne". 5 £505..“ MEMO 3:255

 

833.23. 85836 to 83a .8823me visage 3&9 was

2 033.

93

Canonical Correlations

In order to explore the relationship between public relations roles and public
relations models (RQ7), a canonical correlation was conducted using six dimensions of
public relations and seven public relations roles. It is possible that several organizational
characteristics, such as management philosophy, participative organizational culture,
crisis experience, top management’s support for public relations, and an organization’s
environment uncertainty, have an inﬂuence on both public relations roles and public
relations models, thus producing spurious relationships between them. In order to control
these covariates, the variables of public relations roles and public relations models were
regressed on the covariates, and the residuals obtained from this procedure were used in
the analysis.

The analysis yielded six canonical functions with squared canonical correlation
(R3) of .532, .261, .073, .034, 006, and .001, respectively. The full model across all
functions was statistically signiﬁcant, Wilks’s I. = .307, F(42, 983.75) = 6.71 , p < .001.
The full model effect size yielded from taking 1— I. was .693, indicating that 69.3% of

the variance was shared between the variable sets. According to the report of dimension
reduction analysis, which tests the hierarchical cumulative effect of functions for
statistical signiﬁcance, the cumulative effect of Function 2 to 6 was also signiﬁcant, F (30,
842) = 3.12, p < .001. Given the squared canonical correlation of the functions and their
cumulative effects, the ﬁrst two canonical functions were retained for further analysis.

In order to interpret the canonical functions, standardized canonical function

coefﬁcients and structure coefﬁcients (rs ) were examined. Table 18 provides the

statistics along with the squared structure coefﬁcients (r52) and the communalities (hz)

94

across the two functions for each variable. Looking at the structure coefﬁcients for the

ﬁrst function, all dimensions of public relations model were highly related to the ﬁrst

canonical variate of public relations models: asymmetry (rs = .71), ethical (rs = .76),
two-way (rs = .82), one-way (rs = .57), interpersonal (r5 = .68), and mediated (rs

= .63). Therefore, the ﬁrst canonical variate produced reﬂects a two-way mixed-motive
public relations model.
Examining the side of the public relations roles, a similar pattern was found. The

structure coefﬁcients for all seven public relations roles were greater than .70: activist

.4; meQ—a-‘j

(rs = .75), advisor (rs = .71), expert prescriber (rs = .81), coordinator (rs = .61),
advocate (rs = .74), liaison (rs = .81), and monitor (rs = .79). Therefore, the ﬁrst

canonical variate reﬂects balanced enactment across all public relations roles. Because
the sign of the structure coefﬁcient for public relations roles were all positive, they were
all positively related to the ﬁrst canonical variate of public relations model.

Taken together the structure coefﬁcients for the ﬁrst canonical function from both
variable sets, the ﬁrst canonical function reﬂects a positive relationship between high
level of enactment across seven roles and two-way mixed-motive public relations models.
In other words, in companies practicing two-way mixed-motive public relations models
(i.e., higher level of activities across all the dimensions of the public relations models),
the public relations units were more likely to enact all seven roles.

The second canonical function provides a more interesting picture about the
relationship between public relations roles and public relations model. From the side of

public relations model, the dimensions that were highly relevant to the second canonical

variate: asymmetric (rs = .37), two-way (rs = —.41), interpersonal (rs = -.32) and

95

mediated (rs = .61). The sign of the coefﬁcient provides an insight to the nature of the

second canonical variate of the public relations model. Asymmetric, one-way, and
mediated communication dimensions were positively related to the second variate, while
ethical, two-way, and interpersonal communication were negatively related. This ﬁnding
suggests that the second canonical variate of the public relations model reﬂects the one-
way asymmetric public relations model.

From the side of public relations roles, the second canonical variate were highly

related to liaison (rs = —.49), advocate (rs = .46), and advisor ( rs = -.43). The

structure coefﬁcients were positive only for expert prescriber and advocate roles.
Therefore, this second canonical covariate of public relations roles seems to reﬂect
advocate-oriented role enactment.

When the structure coefﬁcients from both variable sets are taken together, the
second canonical function suggests that companies practicing the one-way asymmetric
public relations model are more likely to have public relations units that play a role as an
advocate for the companies, but are less likely to act as an advisor, coordinator, liaison,

or activist.

96

Table 18

Canonical correlation between public relations roles and public relations model

 

 

 

 

Function 1 Function 2
Variable C oef rs r52 C oef "s r32 h2
(%)
(%) (%)

Public Relations

Model
Asymmetric .170 .713 .508 .584 .374 .140 .648
Ethical .333 .761 .579 —.066 —.101 .010 .589
Two-way .429 .818 .669 -.579 -.413 .171 .840
One-way .083 .569 .324 —-,070 .161 .026 .350
Interpersonal .087 .675 .456 —,423 —,3 15 .099 .555
Mediated .266 .633 .401 .683 .605 .366 .767

Public Relations

Roles
Activist .224 .753 .567 .030 —.1 17 .014 .581
Advisor -.096 .706 .498 —.459 -.430 .135 .633
Prescriber .23 5 .814 .663 .3 87 .048 .002 .665
Coordinator .017 .607 .368 —,286 —-,287 .082 .451
Advocate .261 .740 .548 .687 .456 .208 .756
Liaison .328 .809 .654 —,753 ——,491 .241 .896
Monitor .304 .787 .619 .331 —,067 .004 .624

r2 .532 .261

C

 

Note. Coef= standardized canonical function coefﬁcient; rs = structure coefﬁcient; rs

squared structure coefﬁcient; h2 = communality coefﬁcient.

97

2:

Univariate Multiple Regression Analysis

As CCA showed the overall pattern of the relationship between public relations
roles and public relations models, univariate multiple regression analyses were conducted
in order to further probe the relationships. From the CCA reported above, it became clear
how the roles of the public relations ﬁmction differently for companies practicing the
two-way mixed-motive model and those practicing the one-way asymmetry model. On
the other hand, CCA failed to produce a canonical function that captured the two-way
asymmetry model. The one-way asymmetry model also could be either the press agentry
model or the public information model depending on practices of ethical communication.
A canonical function, which distinguishes two different one-way models, however, was
not produced. Examining the public relations roles with respect to each dimension of the
public relations models will allow for making inferences for other public relations models,
which did not emerge in CCA.

A series of hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with each public
relations dimension as a dependent variable. Control variables included were
organization size, job rank of public relations head, management philosophy,
participative organizational culture, crisis experience, top management’s support for
public relations, and an organization’s environmental uncertainty. There was no serious
multicollinearity as VIF values among seven public relations roles were smaller than four.
The results are summarized in Table 19.

After controlling for the control variables, the public relations role which had the

strongest effect on the asymmetry dimension was the advocate role (3 = .39, p < .001),

followed by the activist role (B = .18, p < .05). The effect of the expert prescriber role

98

also approached signiﬁcance (,8 = .18, p = .056). Enactment of advocate, activist, and
expert prescriber role were positively related to asymmetric communication practices.
As for the ethical communication practice, the roles of monitor, expert activist,

and activist contributed. The more activist (B = .18, p < .05), monitor (,6 = .21, p < .01),

expert prescriber (B = .18, p < .05) roles public relations units played, the more likely

their organizations were to practice ethical communications.
Two-way communication dimension was only related to enactment of the liaison

role. Enactment of the liaison role was the strongest predictor of a companies’ two-way
communication practices (3 = .37, p < .001) controlling for enactment of other roles.

As for the one-way communication dimension, the advocate role was the sole
predictor. When public relations units were more likely to act as an advocate for the
company, their company was more likely to practice one-way communication (,6 = .23, p
< .015).

The practice of mediated communication was strongly and positively related to
the advocate role (B: —.26, p < .01) and the monitor role (,6: .39, p < .001). Acting as
an expert prescriber also had a positive effect on a company’s practice of mediated

communication (5 = .19, p < .05). Meanwhile, advisor role enactment was negatively

related to the practice of mediated communication (6 = —.26, p < .01).

Finally, the interpersonal communication dimension was strongly related to

liaison role enactment such that the greater liaison role enactment by public relation units,

the greater the company’s interpersonal communication practices (5 = .36, p < .001).

99

Acting as an activist was also positively related to interpersonal communication (B = .36,

p = .05).

Table 19

Univariate Regression Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asymmetry Ethical Two-way
IVS B p B p ,6 p
Activist .18* .026 .18* .029 .12 .093
Advisor -.17 .089 .11 .276 .04 .638
Prescriber .18 .056 .22* .017 .01 .940
Coordinator -.02 .793 .01 .917 .04 .536
Advocate .39*** .000 .01 .992 .06 .432
Liaison .02 .796 .02 .793 .37*** .000
Monitor .12 .111 .21 ** .008 .12 .082
R2 change .240 (p <.001) .258 (p <.001) .276 (p <.001)
One-way Mediated Interpersonal
IVS B p H p B p

Activist .17 .077 .07 .346 .16* .050
Advisor —.06 .612 -.26** .006 -.06 .548
Prescriber .12 .289 .19* .031 .01 .876
Coordinator .02 .796 -.05 .524 .06 .416
Advocate .23* .015 .39*** .000 .09 .232
Liaison .01 .930 —.02 .851 .36*** .000
Monitor .12 .217 .24** .001 .01 .963
R2 change .158 (p <.001) .204 (p <.001) .187 (p <.001)

 

Note. Variables in the ﬁrst block include: organization size, job rank of public relations
head, management philosophy, participative organizational culture, crisis experience, top
management’s support for public relations, and organization environmental uncertainty.

100

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION

The purposes of this study were to elaborate the concepts of public relations roles
at the level of public relations unit and to test the utility of the elaborated concepts of
public relations roles. Survey research was conducted with public relations practitioners
at 226 companies that are among South Korea’s top 1,000 companies.

To assess the factor structure of public relations roles drawn from the literature, a

conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. After obtaining a satisfactory factor

g‘JIA-‘1

T

model of public relations roles, the relationships of public relations role enactment with s. -
several antecedent and outcome variables were explored in order to test the utility of the
new conceptualization of public relations roles in explaining the public relations process
in organizations. Additionally, a canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and a series of
univariate multiple regression was conducted to explore the relationship between public
relations roles and public relations models.
This chapter ﬁrst summarizes the important ﬁndings of this study and interprets
the ﬁndings in a broader context of public relations research. Next, the theoretical and L
practical implications of the study are provided. Finally, limitations of the study and in

directions for future research are discussed.

 

Discussion
Factor Structure of Public Relations Roles
This study identiﬁed seven roles of public relations units in South Korean

companies. Originally, nine roles, which were deemed to represent an aspect of the public

101

 

relations manager role, were proposed. The factor structure of nine public relations roles
was assessed along with four additional roles concerning administrative and technical
activities. CF A, however, did not identify administrative and technician roles as distinct
public relations roles, and the Mplus output signiﬁed linear dependency of those roles on
the advocate and expert prescriber roles. Two of the nine roles proposed, i.e., disturbance
handler and internal communicator roles, did not emerge as distinct roles. The items for
internal communicator roles were also loaded to liaison roles, suggesting that the internal
communicator role, in fact, should be seen as a special case of the liaison role, i.e., liaison
role between top management and employees. The disturbance handler role also did not
emerge as a distinct factor, implying that the content of the disturbance handler role may
reﬂect a speciﬁc domain of the public relations function rather than a role itself. As a
result, seven public relations roles were retained as distinct roles that occur in public
relations units. The seven roles included: activist, advocate, advisor, expert prescriber,
liaison, monitor, and coordinator. The seven-role model provided an acceptable level of
global and internal ﬁt.

In addition, four roles concerning the administrative and technician roles did not
emerge as unique public relations roles. The results of CFA suggest that technician and
administrative roles are not located in the same conceptual hierarchy with the other roles,
as they showed linear dependency with other public relations roles. This ﬁnding supports
the argument that task activities that do not reﬂect public relations purposes should not be
treated the same as other public relations roles. As Bivins (1989) argued, a role should be
conceptualized in light of the purposes of activities. I argued earlier that the concept of

technician and administrative roles does not directly connote purposes of the role

102

activities for an organization’s public relations, whereas role activities of other roles, such
as advisor, expert prescriber, and advocate roles, manifest purposes for an organization’s
public relations. To any public relations practitioner (or public relations unit), producing
brochures or pamphlets or editing written materials itself would not be a purpose, while it
could be so for a professional graphic designer. For a public relations practitioner, the
technical activities are the means to reach the end results, rather than the end results
themselves. Depending on the purpose of their roles, public relations practitioners could
be involved in such tasks in order to achieve the purposes of their roles. For example, if a
public relations practitioner’s role is to advocate for the organization, he/she may write a
news release in order to advocate the organization’s behaviors. Similarly, if a practitioner
acts like an activist for the organization’s publics, he/she still may engage in technical
writing in order to inform the publics of potential risks involving the company’s products
and to protect consumers’ rights. Similar logic applies to the administrative and planner
roles. These roles would be better positioned as activities that are basic to running a
public relations unit and are accompanied by enactment of any type of public relations
role. In summary, the present study suggests that the concept of public relations roles
should be distinguished from the task activities that are accompanied by enactment of
public relations roles.
Antecedents and Outcomes of Public Relations Role Enactment

The present study revealed a strong inﬂuence of organizational characteristics and
contexts on the types of public relations roles enacted by public relations units. The
relationships of role enactment with antecedent variables, such as experience with

organizational crisis, environmental uncertainty, and top management’s philosophy were

103

mostly consistent with the literature. Previous experience of organizational crisis led
companies’ public relations units to play the roles of advocate and expert prescriber more
frequently, compared to the other roles. Companies’ environmental uncertainty was also
likely to stimulate roles concerning boundary spanning, such as advocate, liaison, and
monitor. Meanwhile, top mangement’s philosophy and organizational culture had an
inﬂuence across most of the public relations roles. Public relations units were more likely
to play a role as activist, advisor, expert prescriber, coordinator, and monitor, when their
top management exhibited an institution-oriented management philosophy and
encouraged participative organizational cultures. The results suggest that, depending on
organizational characteristics and contexts, different types of public relations roles would
be demanded by organizations. Meanwhile, most of the organizational demographic
factors, i.e., size of the company, number of public relations practitioners in the company,
job rank of the top public relations manager, and company types, were not related to
enactment of public relations roles.

The seven public relations roles also contributed differentially to the outcome
variables, i.e., public relations units’ inﬂuence in the organizational decision making
process and evaluation of the performance of public relations units. Although the
correlational analysis showed that all seven roles are positively associated with these
criterion variables, the regression analyses showed their relative contribution: controlling
for the effect of other public relations roles, enacting the advisor role had a positive effect
on public relations units’ inﬂuence in the decision making process, and enacting the

activist and advocate role was positively related to the self-assessed value of public

104

relations units to companies. These ﬁndings suggest that, depending on which roles are
enacted, different outcomes could be obtained.
The Relationship between Public Relations Roles and Public Relations Models

CCA revealed the critical role of public relations units in an organization’s public
relations practices. The results suggest that, depending on the type of public relations
roles enacted, an organization’s public relations model would differ. Speciﬁcally, as
public relations units enact all seven public relations roles, their companies also were
more likely to practice all dimensions of public relations model (i.e., two-way mixed-
motive model). On the other hand, when public relations units have more focus on the
advocate role while having less focus on the liaison, coordinator, and advisor roles,
companies’ public relations practices were more likely to be oriented toward asymmetric,
one-way, and mediated communication compared with two-way, interpersonal, and
ethical communication (i.e., one-way asymmetric public relations model).

In this study, only two canonical functions that captured the two-way and one-
way public relations model were produced. Therefore, the difference in public relations
roles between two-way mixed motive model vs. two-way asymmetry model, and between
press agentry model vs. public information model could not be inferred. It might be
because the companies in the sample are not diverse enough to capture such subtle
difference in their public relations practices. However, from the results of regression
analysis, it was possible to infer which roles would be critical in distinguishing the two-
way asymmetric model from the two-way symmetric or mixed-motive model, and the

press agentry model from the public information model.

105

ll
.
..
u

. M

 

The regression analysis provided information about the relative contribution of
each public relations role to each public relations model dimension. Controlling for
organizational characteristics, the asymmetry dimension was most strongly related to
advocate role enactment, followed by the activist role. Ethical dimension was
signiﬁcantly related to monitor, expert prescriber, and activist roles. Liaison role
enactment was the sole predictor of two-way communication, as was advocate role
enactment for one-way communication. Mediated communication was negatively related
to advisor role while being positively related to monitor, advocate, and expert prescriber
role. Finally, enactment of the liaison and advocate roles contributed to the use of
interpersonal communication.

The difference in public relations roles between the two-way symmetric model
and the two-way asymmetric model seems likely to arise from activist and monitor role
enactments. Although J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (1996) and J. E. Grunig and White
(1992) stated that the asymmetric public relations model could be either ethical or
unethical, they also argued symmetric communication is inherently ethical. In fact, the
data in this study suggests that symmetry dimension is highly correlated to the ethical
dimension. Therefore, if a company’s public relations practices are low on the symmetry
dimension while high on the asymmetric dimension, the company will be rated low on
the ethical dimension as well. The activist and monitor roles were positively related to the
ethical dimension, thus we could expect that the asymmetric public relations model
would be negatively related to the activist and monitor role enactments. The public
information model and the press agentry model are also primarily distinguished by the

ethical dimension: organizations practicing the public information model disseminate

106

factual information but, with the press agentry model, organizations try to get their
publics’ attention by any means. Therefore, it is expected that the difference in public
relations roles between those who practice the press agentry model and those who
practice the public information model would be found in the activist and monitor role
enactment.

Summary

The results concerning the antecedent and outcome variables revealed the utility
of the elaborated concept of public relations roles as well as suggesting the criterion
validity of the constructs. This study showed that the antecedents and consequences for a
particular public relations role are different, thus using the elaborated concept of public
relations roles would have better exploratory and predictive power in explaining
phenomena in public relations management than using the broad concept of manager role.

This study suggests that the advocate role is an important and critical public
relations role. Regardless of a company’s public relations model, two-way mixed motive
model or one-way asymmetric model, the advocate role seemed an essential element of
public relations units’ activities. Enactment of the advocate role was also the strongest
predictor of the value of public relations units to their companies.

On the other hand, this study suggests that the other six public relations roles also
play a distinctive part in the organization’s public relations process. Enacting the
advocate role alone was not sufﬁcient to practice excellent public relations, as suggested
by those public relations units whose companies practicing two-way mixed-motive model
actively pursued other roles, such as activist, advisor, expert prescriber, coordinator,

liaison, and monitor. While the advocate roles had a positive effect on both the two-way

107

mixed motive model and the one-way asymmetric model, the patterns of association of
activist, advisor, coordinator, liaison, and monitor roles with those public relation models
were different. That is, the activist and coordinator roles positively contributed to the
two-way mixed-motive model, but contributed little to the one-way asymmetric model.
The liaison, advisor, and monitor roles were most often enacted in companies that
practiced the two-way mixed-motive model, but were negatively related to the practice of
the one-way asymmetry model. Furthermore, the activist role was an important
contributor to the value of a public relations unit to companies, while the advisor role was
critical for public relations units’ inﬂuence in organizational decision making processes.
These ﬁndings suggest that the advocate role alone is not enough and the roles, such as
the activist or liaison, would have more signiﬁcance to an organization’s ethical and

excellent public relations.

Implications

Theoretical Implications

The present study has several theoretical implications for public relations research.
First, by elaborating the concepts of public relations roles, the present study is expected
to facilitate public relations role research. By examining the relationships between the
elaborated concept of public relations with other antecedents and outcomes, the present
study showed the utility of the proposed concept of public relations roles. The role
research has been dominated by the manager-technician dichotomy. The contents of
manager roles have been limited to advisor role, expert prescriber, and liaison. These

three roles were combined into the manager role, thus, their unique aspect in an

108

organization’s public relations process has not been fully explored. Rather than drawing
conclusions that playing a manager role contributes to excellence in public relations, this
present study provides a foundation for sophisticated theorization of public relations roles.
This study showed how organizational contexts would interact with the roles played by
public relations unit and the relative contribution of each role in regard to several public
relations outcome and process variables. As such, future studies will beneﬁt by
incorporating the concepts of public relations roles proposed in this study.

Second, this study conceptualized public relations roles at the work unit level
rather than at the individual level, thus allowing for an exploration of the relationships
between public relations roles and organization level constructs. This approach prevents
potential confounding of the effects of public relations roles with the effects of
practitioner characteristics, such as practitioners’ job rank, public relations education, and
tenure with the organization. As public relations evolves as a management function,
major companies have public relations units that comprise a number of practitioners.
Therefore, exploring the role of public relations units as a whole is necessary in order to
understand how public relations inﬂuences an organization’s management practices.

Third, this study contributes to public relations theory building by probing the
relationship between public relations roles and public relations models. This study
showed that the types of public relations roles enacted are different when comparing the
two-way mixed-motive model and the one-way asymmetric model. While previous
research argued that manager role enactment is more closely related to the two-way
model than the one-way model, this study suggests that considering certain aspects of the

manager role is beneﬁcial. For example, previous studies failed to identify the differences

109

in public relations roles between the two-way symmetric model and the two-way
asymmetric model (Fabiszak, 1985; McMillan, 1984; Pollack, 1986, as cited in Lauzen &
Dozier, 1992), but this study suggests that roles such as activist and monitor would be
critical aspects of public relations roles in differentiating the symmetric model from the
asymmetric model.

Finally, the study provides insight into the evolving roles and practices of public
relations in South Korea. While Kim and Hon’s (1999) study reported that Korean public
relations practitioners primarily play a role as a communication technician, the present
study showed that public relations in South Korea is indeed evolving into a management
function and as a profession with status, showing that public relations units in Korean
companies are playing a role well beyond communication technician. Additionally, in
contrast to Kim and Hon’s report that most of Korean public relations practitioners aspire
to practicing two-way (symmetrical) communication but usually practice one-way
communication, this study showed that many companies, in fact, are practicing two-way
symmetrical public relations practices. While many theorists (e.g., Leitch & Neilson,
2001; L’Etang, 1996) have argued that the two-way symmetric public relations model
might exist as a norm, this study conﬁrmed Grunig’s arguments that public relations
models are positive as well as normative (J. E. Grunig, & L. A. Grunig, 1989; L. A.

Grunig et al., 2002).

Practical Implications
This study provides several practical implications for public relations practitioners

and organizations. First, this study informs public relations practitioners of the types of

110

public relations roles their unit should perform. It is important that practitioners have a
clear idea about public relations roles because professionalism greatly depends on the
way practitioners view themselves and deﬁne their profession (Cameron et al., 1996;
Sallot et al., 1997). By specifying public relations roles at the department level, the study
will help develop public relations role description in organizations.

Second, the study also has practical implications for public relations educators
and students. It has been argued that public relations education does not follow the
deﬁnition of public relations as a managerial function (J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig,
1992). Public relations education focuses primarily on media relations and campaigns,
with little focus on the managerial aspects of public relations. Because education has a
great impact on students’ aspirations for public relations roles as a management function
(Berkowitz & Hristodoulakis, 1999), teaching future practitioners the normative model of
public relations roles will lead to the advancement of public relations practices.

The roles identiﬁed here can serve as a framework for public relations practitioner
job descriptions. In fact, public relations jobs often have been deﬁned and segmented by
publics, such as community relations, investor relations, employee relations, and
consumer relations. This approach to describe public relations jobs is commonly shown
in most public relations textbooks. Although identifying the domain of public relations is
also important in developing job descriptions, it does not tell about the organizational
roles that public relations practitioners should perform. As this study showed the unique
effects of proposed public relations roles, formalizing job descriptions based on this study
and educating practitioners and students in this regard brings signiﬁcant changes to an

organization’s public relations practices.

111

Finally, by showing the relationships between public relations roles and various
processes and outcome variables vital in an organization’s public relations processes, this
study can provide a guide to public relations practitioners. For example, top public
relations managers could focus on activities advising top management in order to increase
the inﬂuence of public relations units in organizations, because the advisor role was far
more important than other types of roles. Practitioners whose companies heavily focus on
one—way asymmetric public relations should attempt to enact advisor, activist; and liaison
roles more frequently, in order to move their public relations units toward the normative

model, symmetric or mixed-motive public relations model.

Limitations

Notwithstanding the contribution of this study to public relations scholarship and
practices, there are several limitations.
Potential Cultural Inﬂuences on the Factor Models

Public relations practices could differ by nations, as could public relations roles.
Practitioners in South Korea may have cognitive schema about the roles of public
relations that are different from practitioners in other countries. If this is the case, the
factors which did not emerged as distinct public relations roles in this study may emerge,
or the factors that emerged as distinct roles in this study could be merged. Meanwhile, the
roles were driven from the Western literature and applied in South Korea, thus the
majority of the factors obtained in this study still could be valid. A replication of the

factor model in other nations is necessary in order to assess its external validity.

112

The factor model of the public relations model was also somewhat different from
the previous studies. In this study, the dimension of symmetry was highly correlated with
ethical, two-way, and interpersonal communication, thus the two-way asymmetry public
relations model was not observed. To obtain the CFA solution, the symmetry dimension
had to be dropped. Because none of the previous studies in South Korea conducted CFA
with public relations models, it is unclear whether this result is an artifact of the sample
or the social context. Because the construct of public relations models lies at the center of
public relations literature, further sophistication and replicated tests of the measurement
are deemed necessary.

Limited Generalization of the Findings to Non-Profit Organizations

The study sample consisted of for-proﬁt organizations only, thus the ﬁndings of
this study may not apply to non-proﬁt organizations such as civic groups or government
agencies. For example, top administrators in government agencies may practice a more
socially-oriented management philosophy than that practiced by top executives in private
companies. Consequently, public relations/communication units in government agencies
may play more of a liaison role, and their value to agencies might be more strongly
related to enactment of the liaison role rather than the advocate role. Meanwhile, the
conceptualization of all seven roles is not speciﬁc to organization type. Therefore, only
the antecedents and outcomes of enactment of each role may differ depending. on the type
of organizations, while the factor structure may remain constant.

Low Construct Validity of Some Latent Variables
The construct validity of some latent variables in this study was relatively low.

Three constructs, i.e., liaison role, ethical communication, and one-way communication,

113

 

 

showed AVE of .40, which were below the recommended level. In particular, the low
construct validity of the measures was not expected for the public relations model factors,
because the measurement items were primarily drawn from previous research (i.e., Huang,
2001; Yun, 2005; Rhee, 2002, L. A. Grunig et al. 2002). It seems that there is still a lot to
be done to enhance the public relations model measures.

Limitations with Criterion Variables

This study explored the relationship between role enactment and several criterion
variables concerning public relations processes and outcomes. These criterion variables
were also measured by practitioners themselves, but it might have been better if the
measures were obtained from a third person, such as the companies’ chief executive
ofﬁcers. Speciﬁcally, the value of public relations to organizations and inﬂuence of
public relations units in decision making were self-assessed, rather than assessed by top
management or other organizational members. Also, the top management’s philosophy
was measured based on practitioners’ perceptions rather than top management members
themselves. Assessment of such criterion variables from multiple sources is more
desirable.

In addition, none of the criterion variables captured the perspectives of publics,
thus providing limited understanding about the effect of public relations roles’ enactment.
Public relations scholars (e. g., Simoes, 1992; J. E. Grunig, 2000; Molleda & Ferguson,
2004) are increasingly calling for attention to the social roles of public relations. Public
relations roles in organizations would ultimately have effects on their publics outside the
organizations, and ultimately society at large. The effect of public relations roles on

publics could be explored using other important criterion variables, such as organization-

114

 

 

public relationship or perceived reputation by primary publics. Exploring the effects of
public relations roles in light of these variables that reﬂect publics’ perspectives would
help provide support for the bottom-line effects of public relations as well as help toward

understanding the social roles of public relations.

Future Studies

Future public relations research will be beneﬁted further by pursuing the
following endeavors. First, public relations research will beneﬁt from exploring the
complex relationship among organizational characteristics, public relations role
enactment, and outcome variables. For example, while advocate and activist roles were
strong predictor of perceived value of public relations units to organizations, the
relationship may depend on the management philosophy and environmental complexity.
Individual practitioners’ behaviors that contribute to public relations units’ enactment of
the public relations roles could be further explored. Exploring such moderating and
mediating relationships among variables will add another level of sophistication to public
relations role theories.

Second, other outcome variables are worthy of further exploration in conjunction
with public relations roles. Another prominent area concerns public relations managers’
leadership. Whether the public relations unit can play a particular role may depend on its
leadership in the organization. For example, whether the public relations unit can
function as an internal activist for their external publics or coordinator of organization’s
communication activities may depend on the extent to which the top public relations

managers can exert leadership in their organizations. While public relations research

115

generally agrees that top management has the strongest effect on an organization’s public
relation practices, the scholarship of public relations leadership takes the opposite view.
Rather than positioning public relations managers as passive subordinates to top
management, leadership studies focus on the active behaviors of public relations
managers (e. g., Aldoory & Toth, 2004; J. Choi & Y. Choi, 2007). By exploring the
relationship between public relations roles and public relations leadership behaviors, the
public relations academy would be able to provide practitioners with practical advice for
their behaviors.

Furthermore, as an outcome variable of public relations role enactment, a variable
from the perspective of primary publics should be explored. It is important to show how
the roles of public relations make a difference in an organization’s behavior and in turn
contribute to the organization’s reputation and performance. The roles of public relations
are expected to be expressed in the organization’s behaviors and ultimately affect
publics’ perceptions and attitudes toward the organizations. By taking into account the
outcome variables from the perspective of publics, such as organization-public
relationship (OPR), perceived responsibility of organizations, or perceived reputation of
organizations, it would be possible to show how public relations roles inﬂuence the
bottom line of the organizations.

Finally, in order to overcome the limitations of the study, replication studies with
different contexts are strongly recommended. Future studies may take into account the
social and cultural factors that inﬂuence the types of public relations roles and the level
of role enactment. Cross-national comparison will help to build a theory that can be

applied generally.

116

 

 

Concluding Remarks

Organizations are members of societies and they should behave as members of
societies. As they have rights to pursue organizational goals, they also should take
responsibility for their behaviors. Public relations should be deemed as a unique
profession and it really is, because it allows an organization to become a real member of
societies by developing and maintaining relationships with social constituents. While
other organizational functions primarily focus on achieving organizational goals, it is the
unique function of public relations to make organizations respectful members of societies.
Notwithstanding the short history of public relations research, empirical evidence
continues to grow that supports the view that public relations has a signiﬁcant inﬂuence
on organization behaviors.

This study, in line with the previous research, suggests that depending on the
types of public relations roles enacted, organization behaviors differ. Public relations is
deﬁned as “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneﬁcial
relationships between an organization and the public on whom its success or failure
depends” (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994, p.2). For public relations to serve as a
management function, an organization’s public relations unit should be able to perform
speciﬁc roles that are required for management of organizations. As organizations are
members of social systems and their behaviors would likely be inﬂuenced by public
relations roles, the enactment of certain public relations roles would also have
signiﬁcance in society at large. Because of their social implications, we should pay more

attention to the roles of public relations.

117

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire in Korean

EFF-13121 Lll SEIPublic Relations) BEE—9.1 9131011 3&1 .01-'1’
9.1-? %9H

“- lélLlD1? Il—E 01/03..t $8401 1313221231 t31031128011 IHPJEPJ 2953551813

1.

E 9:115 39.191 %‘Mi’ﬁll DPS—91 %QQE, Dr. Teresa Mastin 91 IIE OlaH ESCHEIE
EPOIDIl. The Graduate School of Michigan State University El 11%; t£01
DIE—101K131. (Bl-3L“). 5 93-?94 2.98 %EE ELH DIEOHH 32(28 31944311015)
EEEI 912% 23012311 81-“: 319i, $18121 9.1938 0H9?— ZLEPJ Ilﬁi NEE

0n

{—1 OII

l»

1101 r0

C

5 ENE S1’—|6H #EE ”SE-:- QCHE E19011)“ %EEJXI 93’s;- inglli. 31118194 %88
§N|¢i1§9 015:5;2 31 101 $3 JHEEEE PlolLi 91810 Imam 58191 E-E-Oll
91251-3 %8 91% £21 1111

5 ”£5- ZEME 3148191 Ilté‘ER' 3{301011 9.1521 ﬁgi. 9181?:- OJHIEXI OlEIiCE1 501‘!
81013301; £82 4‘— 9.1201 0|501|¢EE 2118' JélEOll Ellét 11121-3 8:82 4‘-
S’l-fs‘LlCl. 4521193 @313 84711334 OIQIOIIE OiIIlPJ EEEE Algilxl 9352’- £841.10

5 ENE- gar/gamut ﬁg 4: 9.15 a 012891 0101221 $1§9¢E LHEolP.
9.111%204. 28181 P1519 32° 912011 CHPJ 0|6H§ E2 -’1‘- 91-2- ﬁcélLlCI. Pl5121
QE—IIE Eé'lgiﬁd 3 84:10111123’3 E‘OIEIMS- ENE 332$ 115—$1011, E
.75/K15 2‘ 30 E- ’SE £92 31ng

84—71011 EHPJ E91A1§l01 52.1% @93- C18-
" @5711 (Jounghwa Choi)

73:31: (Uli‘) 1-517-432*9959

ﬁllﬂll‘éi choijoun@msu.edu

$15$3t2 Department of Advertising. Public Relations, & Retailing.
579 Comm Arts 8 Sci, East Lansing, Ml 48824

hi iHI
1'52
JE
Hll
i9
J!
g
~|>l
2:
ill!
SE
119
E
Q

E 93?:- 0lA|?_t $2101 Institutional Review Boards(lRB)9.l g—a—a— ‘28 EPOIEH
9? growing $118191 53481011013.1 5121319212- 339—. [11% Eit‘li Elf-118% 4*-
$2131.10.

Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Michigan State University's director of Human Research Protection Programs
{Stilt 1—517-355—2180, 34¢: 1-517-432-4503, Elimlgi irb@msu.edu
$842.55.: 202 Olds Hall. East Lansing. MI 48824

5M0" 925.611 $14M EQEE QMEELICL

118

 

 

X £13101 a-E-Ollkl “§§(Pub|lcs)"0|?—J $513.1 £0115 9E3. 9.1— ﬂ 9“. €213, $315.
’él—‘i’JI-El A1§lEtill.II°‘A1§l%—§-E$ E21615- 3H1§21UU§

3% 613 ‘01 SEMI/v1 "PR 01?:1 "3%3311'3—615 “Public Relations"91 §9$01§

ELHMIHE 3361 %E" E Ilé'ElLICl.

 

 

***************************** PART] ****1:*************************

E188 312191 52(‘8 9119443110115) EH01 H + 91E [50110121 magma. 2l74’gl EQE 813
:r‘lAlgl SEﬂ‘E 31%L13110|&) 255101 @013? 2121*!!! I53 8131 211:1! EAIEH i’FQAIQ.

“$EI§E(91%LI91|01E)?E§18

 

3191 6111 838- 1 2 3 4 5 011$ BIOI El

 
        

EES ~2' 3 4 5

     

21%.:

A2. tie éﬁaamlﬂl iii/K1 514 mlﬂaéa .9 01.45.0118
%‘E‘EL

 

A6. §1A101121| 53-1201 E 4‘— E’JE 9.1—?—

A18. axial arias 21:1— 523 gnarl.
BZ.§1A1016H£131111§1 area an: 01.4011 [1ch acacia“ raw.

£61561 9101M §1A121 EEDlE/vl 91% E1111

 

86 FREE $111§6H§6131$1§1 aasjiaau. 1 2 3 4 5

 

119

(Jlﬁ) 9‘1A121 82(‘8 Bi-ﬁL-HIOH!) 55101 901219 P1219-1 I53 813.1. 911211 HAM FEMS.
“—?—EISE(91%L131|OI@)$§18

 

3191 8111 833 1 2 3 4 5 011$ 81018

 

          

. 3 v . 1 31111212431? 12:3, :.1:,:'

B20. :32 014% I""151—1millE0112118H§1A13101§311 %6HOt i111 EDEN}. 1 2 3 4 5

C1.C1E°°"-‘1E1§011311§1A1L1191 A11§ EA *—1(01111H§-E A1EE§.§EE§1 1 2 3 4 5
% E %El}.

c5 PR 223%: 21131512 311213161 1

11,111.

8A1§1§1 EE" §§(Publics)01|31| CHEEEL
haw mm

 

ﬂEﬁED.

 

C19 swaouauownu 3115751012 11115—1319 2212—? Goalsl11 1 2 A 3 4
Objectives); )HEED

 

 

 

120

 

****i************************ PART II .‘..‘..‘. ' """ ‘ .'.:u'..‘..'..'..'..'. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ‘

USS :I'IAIBI ERIE EEIOII UIEI HEEL—IE}.
2I2I9-I EQOI HAIS’J PR ESE EDILI QIIGI RAISID SIEII $38“ $NAI2.

 

ENE—MINES 1 2 3 4 5 DII$§2IEI

 

.UIIIQ-I gag LHaIJI Eon. 5.3-El §IAIE QIMEJ ﬁg EL' @3940" gates are 1 2 3 4 5
4‘- ‘EJE DEOILI DHEEQJ 943% E‘EICI.

D

N

 

4:.
0H
0mg
16%
c
2’3
5'
E”,
g
Q
m
0!
HI
M
g
k
12
)I
I1)
'0
mg
l3;
0H1;
ODII
N
O.)
4;
U!

D .
SOILIOIEI

 

eoaaMPR§§4eweaugdamnéwwmgaAMgmmsVI 1 é’édlls
saAlalE 310“}.

 

    

‘ 5:" {55141 5.3 2:: , : ._1 f .: .-.-..1. . ‘ r . ‘
.C’EI §IAI= EEIPUDIICSIBI HIENEOI EE ‘3 EH}. 1 2 3 4 5
53:13.th at??? W :93 ' ' ' _

  
 
 
   

. 13:2
. "it‘d,”

    
 
  

 

3 °EI §JAI PR %§° J‘4‘) :‘3§(Publics)0| OBI §IAIi ELI °§§12§ 1 2 3 4 5
231133 5— [3| 21D
WEEE' 51h

I “'1‘ I -, :7 I. :. .1
E5. °EI §IAIE EEIPUDIICSIOI °EI §IAIOII CIIBII OISJII l—7)|E XI 0I5II6I3I 1 2 3 4 5
$I6II 5M3 EAIEICI.
_ ’:1%233£;é:i1‘“ﬁ13€1‘¥31

   
     
   
 
 

an :E JIEI §IAI§ *JHSI IE

 
 

E7. $3] §IAIE {E 9
HHEEICI.

~.. ‘f"‘ T
‘- 2-uo ~ a“;

 

EgéaamenéwwmwmmMJQNWEJdg JM%%MM " I 233345
Pngéngggmau.

 

E11. gal §IAIE §IAIOI| EHEI %EIPublicsﬁl E53 tIHUI $I3II 82353 1 2 3 4 5

 
  

 
 

“if”???

~wﬁomww~ﬂ§m WI}-

121

(Jllﬁ) 2194.91 E§OI HMS’J PR I53 301” ﬁlial RMSFD 211:1] SB“ ﬁﬂAIS.

 

aasmmars 1 2 3 4 5 UH$§913

 

F

_.

.10—a élMBI PR E§3§8 CHiHE ENE-$1131 %§(Pub|ics)2§ 31E %E'JS‘ 1 2 3 4 5
%LlﬂlOlEOl %QOID.

 

F

(A)

.29.: ﬁlMOiI/d PRQJ €798 9.132591 c301191511 agau. 1 2 a 4 W 5

 

  

9 HIE§C1

 

        

. PR ﬁgOH AOM'i Til 9.1M: CECHE‘Nface-to-face

 

F9. 5.3—BI §JMQJ FREE—1%.?! 2518 %§(Publics)0| §IA101|CHBH$§§19§ 1 2 3 4 5
@561EE SEEP:- EON}.

 
  

 

     

F11. SP—EJ ﬂME PR #594 $522: 35% 3% (Sig HIQEC

FL‘

   

****************************** PART III ******************************

it 1218 HES HMS! GE (‘8 asuauom) $5M :r‘IM LIIOIIkI HUI'EWB SQQOI 211231011013
ﬂﬂl—IU. C18 215. 0188! an! E'ﬂOII DIE!“ $kl2.

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
DH?- §% 911* 51% 2% 93?) 9.1% 0H?— E‘Jg

 

1) :r‘IM LH DE Sil/WSS %)EB} Ullﬂ 15% UH HA1 32355!" %‘EJEE 01: 73E SLIM?—
2) AHE-E— ’é‘J—US’J E210” ENE} QJAPE‘E‘SOH 9101M WA1§E£§° gE‘ES 01: ’3
3)§1A191 5‘25. %‘E‘Oﬂ 91E SJMé‘ESOH 9101M WM 32.79%“?! ggtae 01
4) kHE-E- @1394 E21011 2101M HA1 82355191 212323 01: {SE 21MB}?—

5) BER HUIA SJ Ilﬁgl DISJOII QACHH 91M SEER—‘19 %E‘EE 01: EE 2114111?—

6) [11% E540“ CHBH E11861! 915(21/42.

 

 

 

Ea %PJERI 93% 1 2 3 4 5 UH$ %Silé,’
:93! Mmwas:PinaisAIIsEE—m.Siaéwu, ‘ 1 2,, 3, .4
$31 §JA1 32.755181 Elli-HEEL 35123 %)E §1A194 35H €§E01l£§lll 1 2 3 4

 

if US £58 HMS-l 85 (lg 31%L13I0ld) 5510!! DIE 5310" 33 2:21:40.

1) 351-2 3 E 539,-?15191 SEEM‘IE $01932 SEE %‘S‘Eﬂﬂﬂ g281§L1D17E§E§€ AI Qﬂlz‘i
fIDI‘éJ)

0 ...... 10 ...... 20 ...... 30 ...... 40 ...... 50 ...... 60 ...... 7o ...... 80 ...... 90 ...... 100% ...... PEEQQ %

122

2) C1% EEE A1%610=1E. 16101 awe

 

 

1 2 8 4 5
%BEG DH?- ‘;=1% 21820 $111 151% $8 ’éiE %EEU 9111 %% %EEG 011—?— %%—1
?1

2-1)%%21311C18 §1A19J SE$MQ1 H1E§11% 1111, A1 %E$A19.1 3.111.151 @348 01$C13.
A 3

$141811: L1D1?

2-2)?1A19—1 C18 %Hﬂ HIE). i!% [H -7'1A101|31| 89—?— k191 BRIE 01E §E31Il o”: 431211.131?

31%EE—k191 011138 3|E9§.?1A101131|%E$A19—1 D1iIE 01E ’éiEELI—l Q14 181§LID1?

 

 

[l

[110

1 011ﬂEC1 0H5?— 1i1% 01|¢1EC1 91.11 521% 01|¢1§§E 011(ﬁEC1°1Z1§% 011C15C1

H88

31! C18 388 “Al-91 anagam HAM SE (‘8 Bi-ﬁl—HIOIE) EH8 @013? 118813 9183011
DIE 3.181LJC1. C18 QEI 0188101 $11. 111101 3121811 35MB.

 

 

n
1.
0k

1 4 5
1%EEC1UH—‘P— 3.1311 8829 9.1 J54311 85 E E‘EEG 94111 EJOI E‘EEU DH?— 9201 1

0! ca

1)?1A1 LH C18 1':— (28 %)%E1 HIE). 31% 1111. -?1A1$13?§%&91 82.35.5101] EHé1 I181 EEE 01E
é‘EBﬁl o”: 4161’e1L1D1?

2) %§% 311 C1% §1A121 51413211; 1111,?1A15JE§%‘E|91 355E011 CHE1 11% ”SEE 01
A0112.181{;1LID1?

11'

2.553131.

if C188 H8131?1A121 EEO" E11811 OIWJI 2151613 21811011 DIE EEEILICL
217-121 H8011 C1181! H8131 $51811: :I'IAH’J S38 RAIN! ENAIE.

 

aI E11
anagram. 1 2 3 4 5 :E1C1.

 

 

#31 mu 3%: gem A1§1’—‘. a111§1A1_1L%% 59.1111 11w“
0161331: 25.01181Il em. 1 101611121311: $018151

          

123

if C188 HA19-1 51113980111318 H6194 $51011 1118 i'ﬂLlCL 21219-1 830111311811 H8131EU1L1
89-18181] EAIBH EQAIQ.

“094911119111 c.3518

 

 

8518916111818 1 2 3 4 5 [111889-1911

 

A1§191 1113131011 CHSH 011111311 941% $1 @3131 91GB 4‘3””:1E1C1.

 

NE 212121 E§OI ﬁﬂ1E1% HA1. ’3'161 BA1813 21811 HAlﬂl $QAIE.

 

1]"? $53111 9A1 1 2 3 4 5 DH?- 5'1’21 HA1

 

 

 

 

[1151-3-91°aI§1A1x'$1§8x'$lCH$-EO|{§§181DIHBHE§§EL1§1 1 2 3 4 5
31i131°'C1IloA"411‘81: 911191 A1§01|E11E1$IEIC118 3m]. 91:1.

i'oaIiIAIOIIAI 1:19—99 8X1°219=I1011°138Ez§¢218 ‘ " 1 2 '3 '4 5
1191:1191 999; 311w 999:1.

cam/1191 §888C1%E3%011E118H2101 HHE1E1C1 1 2 3 4 5
igaIQAIeI 21939891329291 31%;? 91913194919 1.1598 » ' " 1’ 2 '3 4'5”
.DIOI 9:12 9::1.

 

 

 

****************************** PARTIV at-******************************
II £18 52101 DIEM FFNAIS.

1. 2111:“: 13(0) 015 [1(1) 1:149

2. L101: k1|

3.9911992: 1:] (1) AI:

0!

(2) C1131 1:] (3) 31151 [1(4) i1’é1 E] (5) —'-T’-

 

 

(0112 %Eg’g. %E%%. 312132.. $0 "1 .31213‘1791143110115 4‘=‘—A1’é1 %)

H81 1115.101 HA1 %52(31%L|3110|@)3E§191 E|C1(§E:.'§1‘OIL1 8317531)” 01EI 85?- C1% Q8011
CHQSH 2F—éJAIE.

.01

5-1. HA1§E2E§1 BIC-19.1 513%8 $913M)?”

 

5-2. HA1 523551 311391 E38 913%
[:](1) A18 1:](2) C1131 1:](3) 31°
1:117) 3115.1(501915/(119)

:1LID1?
‘1 E] (4) 311531 [3151-8251 D16) 2183 1:](6) 14=’—A12§1

 

6. H8191 39919 219— g2: 15 3H8
7. H6191 E §1A101|k1 IH’SDIDIJS 15 3H3

124

 

.00

9°

u—A

g DDDDDDD ;
1.5

OIl

r l
E“:
:13
91
12
[19
10
1111
02‘.

16H9A1§J 9?: HA1):

:11
121111

01.1 [[9

CH2 )“ESE [3(3 AILIIaIIaLIaIIOIIc: 1:114 )EIIII 3311011)
[116 )31E1 (£101$—A1|E)2)

I29

19! 1D
I?
01 11;

 

m
013
J?!
111’

119
1101

110
U
2
91

111] 0111

MJﬁ‘Mﬂ-‘T—QM

2.1191111

J9.“
o

DDDDDDD
EE-EEEQES
JEJEJEJibfﬁH

2

1>

011

m 2.2—2.2.15

52
1
> 0111

1:1
119
g
01:

319149110115 9&1 "5’— ¢—°:*§ %9- J£01 91-3-
EEEE‘ i1?— ¢Q§ %8 °
§1$01|A131$1L19110115 F.”
'11-?011/11 32$ 1§§ﬂ%
CH QQJOHH 52313.4 *g
CH

€51 501% 51-3-3355-

9190111129: 392-910
DI-g- 991/9491/11mqjlam111$;181:i 99111011192 mas;— #2152

39391332353:

J5

01
M

010

1

111

EXH ELHEJ %EEQ E13191 91:01:11,131?

1:]

(0) 011.12 1:111)0111E.1i11 01-3-2 35101—71918.

 

.?181E QEPREEQE DIEPREFéJOﬂA-i 01%“ :18PRE-E-D193LID1?

1:111) 0111 E12 PR§§JO1|A191§1KAPFU
1:112)01|2012PR§§1011A-19J§1APR)
1313) )O1.L1S£ 3&1L1 §1§ 9% 5:

1:113) 011.19 0151218 91%; $1311 X123Al§

911191 @934 519.191 9111:

 

.?1A19—1 SE1 797L1911O|@)_JE 11913093 fx11EgE§HZ

 

.-'1’1A19—1 521%L191101&)35519—1 2007 L—i‘E 011d“

 

.-7‘1A1E 4331-4 01111011 31°‘OIUIII Q' A'ilEml-r—MEPJ 21% 31115I $13181§§o

1191
NI

1:1
E
10
1:]
2
E9
13
1.9
11°!
1>
1111111
Jﬁ
9
1H
.3:
E9
[E

Q
1110
1111
31
y
2.
g
g:

D

W
2.
111111
1111
_>_
g
111
11:
z
10

1:1
0H
2
119

 

£5011 gﬂliﬁklkl £11861 QNEUU

125

1:112) 9123113121

APPENDIX B: Questionnaire in English
The Roles of Public Relations
Informed Consent Form

You are asked to participate in a doctoral dissertation research by J ounghwa Choi, under
the guidance of Dr. Teresa Mastin at Department of Advertising, Public Relations and
Retailing at Michigan State University. The goal of the research is to identify public
relations roles in organization. Your opinion is very important to the present study.

Your participation is voluntary and you do not have to answer any of the questions. You
are free to withdraw your participation in the research at any time. If you do not volunteer
or if your participation is ended for any reason, you will not be penalized in anyway.
Your identity will be kept conﬁdential and your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

There is no more risk involved in participating in this study than you would encounter in
everyday life, and this study might beneﬁt you by providing better understanding of the
dimensions of public relations roles. You consent to participate in this study by
completing the survey. The survey will take approximately 30 minutes.

If you have questions about the study, please contact Dr. Teresa Mastin at (517) 432-

83 77 or mastinte@msu.edu, 576 Comm Arts & Sci, East Lansing, MI 48824; Jounghwa
Choi at phone: (517) 432-9959, email: choijoun@msu.edu, 579 Comm Arts & Sci, East
Lansing, MI 48824. In case you have questions or concerns about your rights as a
research participant, please feel free to contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Michigan State
University’s director of Human Research Protection Programs, by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517)432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Thank you for your participation!

126

 

 

X In this survey, “Publics” may include the media, clients, customers, employees,
stakeholders, regulatory agencies, civic groups, and local communities, who have
relationship with an organization.

X In this survey, “PR” indicates “Public Relations,” which is commonly referred to as
“Hong-Bo.”

 

 

***************************** PART I ***********************~k******
DIRECTION: The following statements describe the activities that a public relations
department may engage in. Please indicate the extent to which your public relation
(communication) department engages in each of the following activities.

“Our public relations(communication) unit

 

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 To a great extent

 

A2. Keep others in the organization informed of what the media report 1 2 3 4 5
h

nd important issues relat d

   
 

 

  

29
A4. Provide an overall direction concerning diverse communication-related I l 2 3 4 5
activities of the company. 1

 
 
 

 

A12. Take responsibility for the success of the company’s public relations 1 2 3 4 5
programs.

 
 
  
 

A14. Advocate for the best interests of key publics within the compa

 

I112, 9m.
A16. ls responsible for dealing with any unexpected events that threaten
the company.

N
w
A
LII

 
 
 

 

   

mmumsatl' “LIP
A18. Analyze external intelligence relevant to the company. L1 2 3 4 5

127

(Continued) Please indicate the extent to which your public relation (communication)
department engages in each of the following activities.

“Our public relations (communication) unit

 

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 To a great extent

B2. Advise the management on a variety of important stakeholder Issues.

    

B4. Play a role as the company’s expert in solving public relations 1 2 3 4 5
problems.

 
   
 

B6. Develop strategies to solve PR problems. 1 2 3 4 5

 

B8. Recommend top management courses of action for solving public 1 2 3 4 5
relations problems.

   

 
   

 

.B. . - - ..
B11. Persuade organization members to support a change in company s
practi in order to deal with an mergin public relations problem.

     
 

B13. Help the company to manage issues arising from conﬂicts with 1 2 3 4 5
external stakeholder groups.

  
 

 
  
 
 
 

B15. Writes public relations materials presenting information on issues
im ortant to the com an

B17. Keep management informed of key publics’ reaction to th
company’s decisions.

 

B 19. Regularly reports about the operation of PR/Communication
division/team to senior management.

 

 

B21. Manage resources and workloads for the PR/Communication 1 2 3 4 5
division/team.

128

(Continued) Please indicate the extent to which your public relation (communication)
department engages in each of the following activities.

“Our public relations (communication) unit .

 

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 To a great extent

C1. Inform organization members of new developments (e.g., new business 1 2 3 4 5
decisions, changes in policies) within the company.

 

._i
N
b)
A
LII

C11. Coordinate communication-related activities with other work groups
within the company.

C17. Coordinate a variety of communication-related activities by other work
groups for consistency

C19. Develop goals and objectives for the PR/Communication
division/team.

 

m.
C21. Monitor performance of the PR/Communication division/team against
targets.

 

129

***************************** PARTII *******************************

DIRECTION: Please indicate the extent to which each of the following statements
accurately describes your company’s public relations practices.

 

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

  
 
  
 

   

 

D4. Obtaining information about publics is one of the primary activities of l 2 3 4 5
our public relations.

   

h .—»a.. 1.. 1119312119. .. :91
D6. In my company, the purpose of public relations is to promote mutual l 2 3 4 5
understanding between the management of the company and its
publics.

 

D10. The purpose of our public relations is quite simply to getting 1 i 2 3 4 5
publicity for the company.

 
  

Ei'ii

 

 
  

E3. The purpose of our public relations is to help the public to see our
company more favorably

. We conduct research to understand how the publics think about our
company. .

  
 
 

 
  

h—‘
N .
w
.1;
u-

E7. We distribute ﬂyers, pamphlets, magazines, or other printed materials
that represent the company.

. We do public relations programs to persuade publics to agree with the
company’s point of view.

130

(Continued) Please indicate the extent to which each of the following statements
accurately describes your company’s public relations practices.

 

 

Strongly Disagree 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

 

 

F1. Public relations programs in my company involve one-way 1
communication from the company to the publics. 1

  
 
 

 

F3. The success of our public relations is determined by the amount of
bl'city

   

 

F5. We offer information and news briefing. l 2 3 4 5

 
 
 

F We use face-to-face communication. 1 2 3 4 5

 

.33...
F9. We do public relations programs to persuade publics to behave to be 1 2 3 4 5
friendly to our company.

    

***'1:************************** PART III *i:****************************

X Following Questions ask how much inﬂuence your public relations units have
inﬂuence in your organization. Please answer the questions using the scale below.

 

l 2 2 4 ;
Very little A little Moderate To some extent To a great extent

 

1) In general, how much inﬂuence would you say your PR function has had in your
company’s decision making over the past three years?

2) In general, how much inﬂuence would your PR function has inﬂuence on the
company’s decision making concerning the following issues?
2-1) Adoption of new organizational procedures. %.
2-2) Strategic direction of the company. %
2—3) Adoption of new policies. %
2-4) Design of customer services or support. %

131

3) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statement.

 

When making decisions, senior management seek for input from 1 2 3 4 5
the public relation unit.
The head of our public relations unit is a part of senior 1 2 3 4 5

management in my company.

 

DIRECTION: Please answer each of the following questions.

1) In the past 3 years, to what extent do you feel your public relations/communication
department has achieved its objectives?

0.....l0.....20.....30.....40.....50.....60.....70.....80.....90.....100%

2) Answer using the following scale.

1 2 3 4 5
Much poorer Somewhat poorer About Somewhat Much greater
than average than average average greater than than average

average

2-1) The overall performance of our public relations/communication department is
when compared to the ones in other ﬁrms in our industry.

 

2-2) The value of our public relations/communication department has in comparison with
a typical other departments in my organization is

 

3) Estimate the value of your public relations/communication department to your
company as a percentage of the department’s budget.

 

O ......... 25 ......... 50.........75 ....... 100 ...... 150 ......... 200............. ?
No value Half the Equal to the cost Twice the As high as you
At all budget department budget want to go

Please indicate the extent to which you believe your top management supports the public
relations or communication function in your company.

1 2 3 4 5
Much less Somewhat less About Somewhat Much greater
than average than average average greater than than average
average

1) When compared to the other departments in my company, the level of support to our
PR function by top management is

2) When compared to the PR function in other firms in our industry, the level of support
to our PR function by top management is

132

DIRECTION: Please indicate how you perceive the environment of your organization.

 

We face a slowly changing 1 2 3 4 5 We face a rapidly changing

regulatory environment . regulatory environment.
' Social demands on our ﬁrm 1 2 3 4 5 Social demands on our ﬁrm
_ rarely change 7 change frequently.
The groups representing 1 2 3 4 5 The groups we deal with on
social concerns to us are the social concerns change
same over time frequently. _
We face a low level of 1 2 3 4 5 We face a high level of
regulation regulation. .
We deal with few regulatory 1 2 3 4 5 We deal with many regulatory
agencies agencies.
We face low leVels of social 1 2 3 4 5 ' We face high levels of social
; interest in our operation interest in our operations.
We deal with few social 1 2 3 4 5 We deal with many social
advocacy groups advocacy groups.

 

DIRECTION: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

 

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

 

Our top management thinks that society has the right to make 1 2 3 4 5
certain demands from a private corporation.

i'iOur t0p management thinks that a corporation has a . 1 2 3 4 5
' responsibility to respond to social change. 7
Our top management thinks that a corporation has a duty to 1 2 3 4 5
adapt its policies and practices in response to social expectation.
Our top management thinks that corporations should bring 1 2 3 4 5
., social responsibility into their day-to- day operations.
Our top management thinks that corporations should make 1 2 3 4 5
social responsibility a part of business decisions.
' Our top management thinks that corporations must set social 1 2 3 4 5

, goals just as they set business goals.

 

DIRECTION: Please indicate the extent to which following statements describe your

 

company.
Strongly Disagree _ ._ 1 2 3 4 5 __ Strongly Agree

Most employees in my company share a common sense of the 1 2 3 4 5

3 company’s mission that most think 18 worth striving to achieve.

3 Most decisions in my Company are made after discussion 1 2 '3 4 5

.. between all peoplewho will be affected in a major way. _ V
Senior managers in this organization care deeply about other 1 2 3 4 5
employees.

7 Senior managers here belieVe in the sharing of power and l 2 3 4 5

_ responsibility withlower-level employees.

133

****************************** PART IV *‘I:*****************************

X Please answer to each of following questions.

1. Gender: D (O)Female El (1) Male
2. Age:
3. Job Rank: [3(1) Staffs I: (2) Assistant Manager [:I (3) Associate Manager
[I (4) Senior Manager [I (5) Director [I (6) Executives El (6) Vice President
D (7) Others (Please specify)

 

 

4. Job Title: 3
5. If you are not the leader of your public relations or communication unit, please

answer to the questions below:

 

5-1) What is the title of the leader of your public relations or communication unit?

 

5-2) What is the job rank of the leader of your public relations or communication
unit?
[3(1) Staffs El (2) Assistant Manager [I (3) Associate Manager
E] (4) Senior Manager CI (5) Director El (6) Executives E] (6) Vice President
[___] (7) Others (Please specify)

 

6. Years of tenure in the company: Year Months

7. Work experience in PR Year Months
8. What is your current responsibility? Please check all that apply.

 

E] (1) Oversee all PR activities [:I (2) Media Relations
E] (3) Internal Communication [:1 (4) Investor Relations
D (5) Social Responsibility [:I (6) Others (Please specify)

 

9. Education [___i (1) High school graduate or below
[:I (2) Junior/community college graduate
D (3) Bachelor's degree
El (4) Master's degree
E] (5) Enrolled for the master's degree

[1(5) PhD.
E] (6) Enrolled for the PhD. degree

*Please check all that apply to you.

10. Education in PR D (1) Have taken a communication course in undergraduate

E] (2) Have taken a PR course in undergraduate

[___] (3) BA in Communication related ﬁeld

E] (4) BA in Public Relations

[:I (5) Have taken a PR course in the graduate school

C] (6) Majored in Public Relations in the graduate school

C] (7) Have taken public relations related courses or participated in
seminars provided by industry associations or private
educational institution.

134

11 Are you a member of any professional public relations associations?

1:] No [I Yes

If yes, which association are you afﬁliated with?

 

12. Are you an accredited as an APR or KAPR?
[___] Yes, Accredited as KAPR
[___] Yes, Accredited as APR
[3 No, but plan to apply for accreditation
[:I No, and do not have a plan to apply for accreditation

13. Numbers of full time employees in your company:

14. The numbers PR practitioners in your company including yourself:

 

15. The 2007 budget of public relations (communication) unit:

 

16. Have your organization gone through a crisis within the past three years?
[___] No [:1 Yes: if yes, how many times?

17. Have your organization gone through a negative publicity situation in the past year?
E] No [:| Yes: if yes, how many times?

18. What is your organization's business area?
[:1 Public [:J Foreign afﬁliated private

19. What is the business area of your company?

 

Thank you so much for your participation!

135

REFERENCES

Acharya, L. (1983). Practitioner representations of environmental uncertainty: An
application of discriminant analysis. Paper presented at the Public Relations
Division, Associate for Education in Journalism.

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2004). Leadership and Gender in Public Relations: Perceived
Effectiveness of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 16(2), 157-183.

Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure.
Academy of Management Review, 2, 217-230.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and
performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3 7(4),
634-665.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
41 1 -423.

Ansoff, I. (1979). The changing shape of the strategic problem. In D. Schendel & C.
Hofer (Eds), Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning
(pp. 30-44). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering
leadership questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for
measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 249-269.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. .
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.

Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reﬂections
on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 1 7(1), 5-28.

Berger, B. K., & Reber, B. H. (2006). Gaining inﬂuence in public relations: The role of
resistance in practice. In. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berkowitz, D., & Hristodoulakis, I. (1999). Practitioner Roles, Public Relations
Education, and Professional Socialization: An Exploratory Study. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 11(1), 91-103.

Bivins, T. H. (1989). Ethical implications of the relationship of purpose to role and
ﬁJnction in public relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(1), 65-73.

Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-ﬁt measures in
structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 205—229.

136

Bowen, S. (2004). Expansion of ethics as the tenth generic principle of public relations
excellence: A Kantian theory and model for managing ethical issues. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 16(1), 65—92.

Bronn, P. S., Roberts, H., & Breunig, K. J. (2004). Intangible assets, communication and
relationships: International Association of Business Communication Research
Foundation.

Broom, G. M. (1982). A comparison of sex roles in public relations. Public Relations
Review, 8(3), 17-22.

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1986). Advancement for public relations role models.
Public Relations Review, 12(1), 37-56.

Broom, G. M., & Smith, G. D. (1979). Testing the practitioner's impact on clients. Public
Relations Review, 5(3), 47-59.

Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Lariscy, R. A. W. (1996). Developing standards of
professional performance in public relations. Public Relations Review, 22, 43—61.

Campbell, D. T. & F iske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105

Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A
contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 9(1), 31-63.

Cancel, A. E., Mitrook, M. A., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Testing the contingency theory
of accommodation in public relations. Public Relations Review, 25, 171-197.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.

Choi, J ., & Choi, Y. (2007). Dimensions of leadership in public relations: Exploring an
organization-wide perspective. Unpublished manuscript.

Choi, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2005). Overcoming Ethnocentrism: The Role of Identity in
Contingent Practice of International Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 1 7(2), 171-189.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations:
Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15(5), 439-452.

Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective. In J.
A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds), Relationship management: A relational
approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 73-93). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

137

 

Coombs, W. T., Holladay, S., Hasenauer, G., & Signitzer, B. (1994). A Comparative
analysis of international public relations: Identiﬁcation and interpretation of
similarities and differences between professionalization in Austria, Norway, and
the United States Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(1), 23-39.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis
situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 321-340.

Cornelissen, J. P., & Thorpe, R. (2001). The organisation of external communication
disciplines in UK companies: A conceptual and empirical analysis of dimensions
and determinants. Journal of Business Communication, 38, 413-438.

Culbertson, H. M. (1991). Role taking and sensitivity: Keys to playing and making public
relations roles. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds), Public relations research
annual (Vol. 3, pp. 37-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1985). Effective Public Relations (6th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Cutlip, s. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, o. M. (1994). Effective Public Relations (7th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

D'aprix, R. (1984). Employee Communication. In B. Cantor (Ed.), Experts in Action:
Inside Public Relations (pp. 102-110). New York: Longman.

del Rey-Morato, J. M. (2000). Codigos supranacionales de relaciones publicas
[Supranational codes of public elections]. [Catalog]

DeSanto, B., & Moss, D. (2004). Rediscovering what PR managers do: Rethinking the
measurement of managerial behaviour in the public relations context. Journal of
Communication Management, 9(2), 179-196.

Dozier, D. M. (1984). Program evaluation and roles of practitioners. Public Relations
Review, 10(2), 13-21.

Dozier, D. M. (1990). The innovation of research in public relations practice: Review of a
program of studies. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds), Public relations
research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 3-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dozier, D. M. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations
practitioners. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and
communication management (pp. 327-355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the managerial role in public
relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 3-26.

138

Dozier, D. M., & Grunig, J. E. (1992). The organization of the public relations function.
In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 395-417). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

Dozier, D. M., Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1995). Manager's Guide to Excellence in
Public Relations and Communication Management. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived
environmental uncertainty Administrative Science Quarterly, 1 7(3), 313-327.

Ehling, W. P. (1992). Public relations education and professionalism. In J. E. Grunig
(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 439-
464). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. .

Ekachai, D. G. (1995). Applying Broom's role scales to Thai public relations practitioners.
Public Relations Review, 21(4), 325-226.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments.
Human Relations, 18(1), 21-32.

Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The Relative Performance of Full Information
Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Missing Data in Structural Equation Models.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430-457.

Fitzpatrick, K. R., & Rubin, M. S. (1995). Public relations vs legal strategies in
organizational crisis decisions. Public Relations Review, 21(1), 21-33.

F omell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39-50.

Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clariﬁcation. Social
Networks, 1, 215-239.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitrnan.

Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gordon, C. G., & Kelly, K. S. (1999). Public Relations Expertise and Organizational
Effectiveness: A Study of US Hospitals. Journal of Public Relations Research,
11(2),143-165.

Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D.

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp.
1 201 - 1245). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

139

Grunig, J. E. (1989). Teaching public relations in the future. Public Relations Review,
15(1), 35-38.

Grunig, J. E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core
professional values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research,
12(1), 23-48.

Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the ediﬁce: Ongoing research on public relations as a
strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151-
17 6.

Grimig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Toward a theory of the public relations behavior of
organizations: Review of a program of research. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig
(Eds), Public relations research annual (V 01. 1, pp.27-66). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In
J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 285-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. .

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1996, May). Implications of symmetry for a theory of
ethics and social responsibility in public relations. Paper presented at the Public
Relations Interest Group, International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and
eﬂective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hage, J. (1972). Techniques and problems of theory construction in sociology. New
York: John Wiley and Sons

Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal
contacts to external affairs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 12, 93-114.

Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance From the Margins: The Postmodern
Public Relations Practitioner as Organizational Activist. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 14(1), 57-84.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model ﬁt. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

140

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for ﬁt indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Huang, Y.-H. (2001). Values of public relations: Effects on organization-public
relationships mediating conﬂict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research,
13(4), 265-301.

Jackson, P. (1988). Demonstrating professionalism. Public Relations Journal, 44(10), 27-
31.

J0, S., & Kim, Y. (2004). Media or personal relations? Exploring media relations
dimensions in South Korea. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
81(2), 292—306.

Johnson, D. J ., & Acharya, L. (1982). Organizational decision-making and public
relations roles. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for
Education in Journalism, Athens, OH.

Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations
(6‘h ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Rev. ed.). New
York: Wiley.

Kelleher, T. (2001). Public Relations Roles and Media Choice. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 13(4), 303-320.

Kim, Y., & Hon, L. C. (1998). Craft and professional model of public relations and their
relation to job satisfaction among Korean public relations practitioners. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 10(3), 155-175.

Kim, Y., & Hon, L. C. (2002). Public relations in South Korea: Applying theories and
exploring opportunities Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(2), 263-286.

Lauzen, M. M. (1992a). Public relations roles, intraorganizational power, and
encroachment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4, 61-80.

Lauzen, M. M. (1992b). Supervisor versus practitioner perceptions: When expectations
and reality meet. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 85-102.

Lauzen, M. M. (1993). When marketing involvement matters at the manager level. Public
Relations Review, 19(3), 247-259.

Lauzen, M. M. (1994). Public relations practitioners role enactment in issues
management. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 356-369.

141

Lauzen, M. M. (1997). Understanding the relation between public relations and issues
management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 65-82.

Lauzen, M. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). The missing link: The public relations manager
role as mediator of organizational environments and power consequences for the
function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(4), 205-220.

Lauzen, M. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1994). Issues management mediation of linkages
between environmental complexity and management of the public relations
function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(3), 163-184.

Leitch, S. & Neilson, D. (2001). Bringing publics into public relations: New theoretical
frameworks for practice. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp.
127-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leichty, G. & Springston, J. (1993). Reconsidering public relations models. Public
Relations Review, 19, 327-340.

Leichty, G., & Springston, J. (1996). Elaborating public relations roles. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 467-477.

Leslie, J. B., Dalton, M., Ernst, C., & Deal, J. (2002). Managerial effectiveness in a
global context. Greensboro, North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership.

L’Etang, J. (1996). Corporate responsibility and public relations ethics. In J. L’Etang &
M. Pieczka, (Eds), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 82-105). Boston:
International Thomson Business Press

Leuven, J. V. (1991). Public relations and marketing: An overview. Public Relations
Review, 17(3), 215-217.

Marston, J. (1968). Hallmarks of a profession. Public Relations Journal, 24, 22-27.

Meznar, M. B., Chrisman, J. J., & Carroll, A. B. (1991). Social responsibility and
strategic management: Toward an enterprise strategy classiﬁcation. Business and
Professional Ethics, 10(1), 47-66.

Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffer or bridge: Environmental and organizational
determinants of public affairs activities in American ﬁrms. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(4), 975-996.

Miles, R. H. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Miller, G. R. (1989). Persuasion and public relations: Two “P3” in a pod. In C. H. Botan
& V. Hazleton, Jr. (Eds), Public Relations Theory (pp. 45-66). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

142

Molleda, J. C., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Public Relations Roles in Brazil: Hierarchy
Eclipses Gender Differences. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(4), 327-
351.

Moss, D., & Green, R. (2001). Re-examining the manager's role in public relations: What
management and public relations research teaches us. Journal of Communication
Management, 6(2), 118-132.

Moss, D., Newman, A., & DeSanto, B. (2005). What do communication managers do?
Deﬁning and reﬁning the core elements of management in a public

relations/corporate communication context. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 82(4), 873-890.

Moss, D., Warnaby, G., & Newman, A. (2000). Public relations practitioners role
enactment at the senior management level within UK companies. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 12(4), 277-307.

Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and
asymmetric public relations. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds), Public

Relations Research Annual (Vol. 3, pp. 115-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2006). Mplus user's guide (Version 4). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.

Nevitt, J ., & Hancock, G. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model
test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation
modelling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 353-
377.

Oh, D.-B. (1991). PR Communication Ron [Theories of PR communication]. Seoul,
Korea: Nanarn.

Paluszek, J. (1989). Public relations and ethical leadership. Vital Speeches of the Day, 55,
747-750.

Park, H. S., Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis and
Principal Components Analysis in Communication Research. Human
Communication Research, 28(4), 562-577.

Park, J. (2005). Professional standards in Korean public relations: A comparative
approach between corporate practitioners and public relations agency practitioners.
Korean Journal of Advertising & Public Relations, 7(5), 42-56.

Park, J ., Cameron, G. T., & Cropp, F. (2000, June). Developing standards of professional
performance in public relations: Korean practitioners ’ perception. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication
Association, Acapulco, Mexico.

143

Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, R. B., & Hanily, M. L. (1999). Inﬂuential authors and works of the
public relations scholarly literature: A network of recent research. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 11, 29-51.

Pe’rez-Senac, R. (1998). Relaciones publicas, agente de transformacion social [Public
relations, agent of social transformation]. Proceedings of the second Ibero-
American Forum of Public Relations. Lima, Peru: Universidad de San Martin de
Porres.

Piekos, J. M., & Einsiedel, E. F. (1990). Roles and program evaluation techniques among
Canadian public relations practitioners. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds),
Public Relations Research Annual (Vol. 2, pp. 95-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Porter, L. V., & Sallot, L. M. (2003). The Internet and public relations: Investigating
practitioners’ roles and World Wide Web use. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 603—622.

Pratt, C. B. (1991). Public relations: The empirical research on practitioner ethics Journal
of Business Ethics, 10(3), 229-236.

Reagan, J ., Anderson, R., Sumner, J ., & Hill, S. (1990). A factor analysis of Broom and
Smith's public relations roles scale. Journalism Quarterly, 67(1), 177-183.

Rhee, Y. (2002). Global public relations: A cross-cultural study of the excellence theory
in South Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(3), 159-184.

Ryan, M. (2003). Public relations and the web: Organizational problems, gender, and
institutional type. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 335—349.

Ryan, M., & Martinson, D. L. (1983). The PR ofﬁcer as corporate conscience. Public
Relations Quarterly 28(2), 20—23.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). Social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253.

Sallot, L. M., Cameron, G. T., & Lariscy, R. A. W. (1997). Professional standards in
public relations: A survey of educators. Public Relations Review. 23, 197—216.

Sherry, A., & Henson, R. K. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation
analysis in personality research: A user-friendly primer. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 84(1), 37-48.

Shin, J .-H., Park, J ., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Contingent factors: Modeling generic
public relations practice in South Korea. Public Relations Review, 32, 184-185.

Simoes, R. P. (1992). Public relations as a political function: A Latin American view.
Public Relations Review, 18(2), 189—200.

144

Springston, J. K., & Leichty, G. (1994). Boundary spanning activities in public relations.
Journalism Quarterly, 71(3), 697-708.

Sriramesh, K., Kim, Y., & Takasaki, M. (1999). Public relations in three Asian cultures:
An analysis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(4), 271-292.

Thomas, E. J ., & Biddle, B. J. (1966a). The nature and history of role theory. In B. J.
Biddle & E. J. Thomas (Ed.), Role Theory: Concepts and Research (pp. 3-19).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Thomas, E. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1966b). Basic concepts for classifying the phenomena of
role. In B. J. Biddle & E. J. Thomas (Ed.), Role Theory: Concepts and Research
(pp. 23-45). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Toth, E. L., & Cline, C. G. (1989). Beyond the velvet ghetto. San Francisco: IABC
Research Foundation.

Toth, E. L., & Grunig, L. A. (1993). The missing story of women in public relations.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 5, 153-175.

Toth, E. L., Serini, S. A., Wright, D. K., & Emig, A. G. (1998). Trends in public relations
roles: 1990-1995. Public Relations Review, 24(2), 145-163.

Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in
information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal,
24(2), 289-305.

Van der Meiden, A. (1993). Public relations and “other” modalities of professional
communication: Asymmetric presuppositions for a new theoretical discussion.
International Public Relations Review, 16(3), 8-11.

van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., & Butschi, G. (2004). A ﬁrst look for parameters of public
relations in Europe. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(1), 35-63.

White, J ., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). Public relations and management decision making. In
J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 91-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wright, D. K. (1978). Professionalism and the public relations counselor: An empirical
analysis. Public Relations Quarterly, 23, 26-27.

Wright, D. K. (1995). The role of corporate public relations executives in the future of
employee communications. Public Relations Review, 21(3), 181-198.

Wright, D. K. (1996). Communication ethics. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds), An
integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 519—535).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

145

Wright, D. K., Grunig, L. A., Springston, J. K., & Toth, E. L. (1991). Under the glass
ceiling: An analysis of gender issues in American public relations (V 01. 1). New
York: Public Relations Society of America.

Yun, S.-H. (2006). Toward public relations theory-based study of public diplomacy:

Testing the applicability of the excellence study. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 18(4), 287-312.

146

Illiltigillniiljii‘miii]