See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322567510

Relationship Management: The Core Focus of Public Relations

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS
4 19,483

1 author:

John A. Ledingham
Capital University
37 PUBLICATIONS 3,455 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John A. Ledingham on 18 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Relationship Management Comment [FH1]: Can we come out a more appealing title?

The Core Focus of Public Relations

by:

John A. Ledingham, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus
Capital University
U.S.A.

and

Flora Hung-Baesecke, Ph.D. Comment [FH2]: I also added my new last name.

Senior Lecturer
Massey University
New Zealand

Public relations means the actual relationship of the company to the people and that
relationship involves more than talk. The company must act by performing good deeds. – Ivy Lee

Abstract
 Ferguson’s (1984) suggestion that relationships are the central focus of public relations led
to the management of organization-public relationships (OPRs) and the emergence of the theory
of relationship management. The theory and relevant research are reviewed with a discussion of
the implications for public relations scholarship and practice. The notion of stakeholder
engagement also is reviewed and discussed.

Introduction

The notion of relationship management is the basis for a major change in the way public
relations is conceptualized and practiced. Traditional public relations is being replaced by the
concept that public relations is the management of the relationship between an organization and
interacting stakeholder groups. At least part of the reason for the growing popularity of relationship
management is that it offers solutions to many of the practices that have plagued traditional public
relations such as confusing tactics and strategy, engaging in one-way communication, and not
having the ability to justify expenditures in ways understood by others within the organization.

Relationship management holds that organization-stakeholder relationships (OSRs) function

best when they are grounded in common interests and shared goals and when they generate
understanding and benefit both for an organization and stakeholder groups. Moreover, the
relational paradigm supports determination of real behavioral change, rather than accepting
outputs as evidence of the worth of the initiative. The thesis advanced here is that “when public
relations is viewed as the management of the OPR (OSR), the effectiveness of that management
can be measured in terms of relationship building, and that, further, ratings of those relationships
can act as a predictor of public behavior” (Ledingham, 2001, P. 286).

Today, relationship management is the basis for a major stream of scholarship, and is the
subject of two edited collections, numerous book chapters, and dozens of journal articles, as well
as reports in industry publications. It is also at least a portion of public relations courses at both
the undergraduate and graduate level. With the coming of relationship management, public
relations has completed the evolution from a tactical craft to an integral part of an organization’s
management, a strategic function accountable for documenting the return on investment for public
relations initiatives. And, as a member of management, there are greater opportunities for public
relations to interact with the coalition that sets policy and decides the direction of the organization.

This chapter reviews the theory of relationship management including the emergence of
relationships as the central focus of public relations, the concept of managing relationships, de-
construction of organization-stakeholder relationships, construction of instruments to determine
relationship state, and the implications of relationship management theory. In addition, the notion
of stakeholder engagement is reviewed as an interesting aspect of OSRs.

Relationships: Not Communication

The first step in understanding relationship management is to recognize that relationships

have replaced communication as the central focus of public relations.

The impetus can be traced to 1984, when Ferguson presented the results of a review of the
abstracts of scholarly public relations articles over a 10-year span. Based on the review, Ferguson
recommended that relationships with publics offers the best opportunity to build theory within the
discipline. Within a year following Ferguson’s presentation, Broom introduced the notion of
relationship management in the popular text, Effective Public Relations.

As the central focus of public relations moved to relationships, Broom and Dozier (1985)
noted that the change meant communication assumed a new role, that of a tool in the management
process. As Ledingham and Bruning later noted: “goals are developed around relationships (and)
communication is used as a strategic tool in helping to achieve those goals” (1998a, p. 63,
emphasis added). Ferguson offered a number of reasons for the recommendation, including that
the change provides a better grasp of both organizational and public relationships. Moreover, the
new perspective alters the focus from the people involved so that the relationship itself is the
“prime issue”. Relationships also involve different units of analysis than those used in analyzing
communication. Ferguson further suggested that focusing on relationships may support a domain
that would encourage students of public relations to share assumptions they usually do not share.
In addition, Ferguson noted that the new unit of analysis (relationships) allows researchers to
pursue issues as broad or as narrow as they like. Moreover, Ferguson expected that a focus on
relationships, rather than communication, might also tend to “legitimatize” public relations (see
Sallot , Lyon, Acost-Alzary & Jones, 2003, p. 32). For practitioners, viewing relationships as
central to public relations no doubt helps focus scholarship and the practice on relationship
outcomes instead of building initiatives around communication outputs.

Public Relations as a Management Function

Ferguson’s paper eventually led to a re-conceptualization of public relations as a strategic

management function and to the emergence of the notion of relationship management.

According to Dozier, L. A. Grunig and J. E. Grunig (1995) the management aspect of

relationship management came about because of relationships. As they noted, the paradigm shift
that places relationships at the core of the discipline repositions public relations as “a strategic
management function (that helps) manage relationships with key publics that affect organizational
mission, goals and objectives” (p. 85). Ledingham (2001) agreed, arguing that the
reconceptualization of public relations “tore the study and practice from its historic moorings in
journalism” (p. 287) and challenged public relations practitioners to adopt processes from
management. Further, proponents of relationship management saw the opportunity for the
industry to move from validation by clip counting and other forms of output measurement to
behavior-centered evaluation outcomes (Broom and Dozier, 1990). In the same way,
reconceptualization began the process of replacing the technician as the head of public relations
departments with a public relations manager, proficient in analysis, planning, implementation and
evaluation (Broom & Dozier, 1990).

Furthermore, the proliferation of the MBA degree --- from 26,490 degrees in 1970 to
93,544 degrees in 1996 alone -- brought an increased focus on management principles to the
American business system, and increased pressure on public relations to adopt management
processes. And, as part of that pressure, to communicate within an organization in ways
understood and appreciated by senior managers (Dozier & Broom, 1995).

As the notion of relationship management grew into a major stream of academic inquiry,
it became apparent that Ferguson’s analysis of the state of public relations had initiated a
transformation in pubic relations concept and practice.
 Definitions of Relationship Management

Among the many factors which gave impetus to the popularity of relationship management
is an edited collection of chapters entitled Public Relations as relationship management: A
relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (Ledingham and Bruning, 2000).
The book contains chapters by Broom, et al., J. Grunig, both Ledingham and Bruning, Coombs,
and others, and set the stage for an explosion of interest in relationship management.
In their chapter, Broom, et al. again raised the matter of definitions, specifically bemoaning
the lack of a universally-accepted definition of “relationships” (2000). Definitions bring clarity to
an understanding of a concept by specifying the relationship between that which is being defined
and the outcomes associated with the subject.
Moreover, an OSR was being defined in a number of ways. For example, Ledingham,
Bruning, Thomlison and Lesko (1997) offered the following definition:

“[An organization-public relationship] is the state which exists between an organization

and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the economic, social, cultural
or political well being of the other” (p.62).
And Huang (1998) penned the following definition:

“An organization–public relationship is the degree that the organization and its publics trust
one another, agree on one has rightful power to influence, experience satisfaction with each
other, and commit oneself to one another.”
Then, in the 2000 article, Broom, Casey, and Ritchey defined an OPR as follows:
“Organization-public relationships are represented by the patterns of interaction,
transaction, exchange, and linkage between an organization and its publics. These
relationships have properties that are distinct from the identities, attributes, and perceptions
of the individuals and social collectivities in the relationships. Through dynamic in nature,
relationships can be described at a single point in time and tracked over time” (p. 18).

For our part, we find that while there still is not a universal definition of an OSR, there are
enough elements of agreement concerning other aspects of relationship management -- the need to
identify OPR dimensions, the use of two-way communication, and the importance of trust and
openness in the OSR -- that further explication is not greatly impeded, as we see in the section on
theory.

Brief Review of Relevant Research

On-going research helped shape relationship management in ways that add to its value.

For example, Ballinger (1991) is credited as the first to respond to Ferguson’s call for
relationship research. While still a graduate student, Ballinger constructed a model of public-
organizational relationships based on six variables: intimacy, trust, control, perceptions,
communication behaviors, plus relational outcomes (in Hung, 1991). The importance of Comment [FH3]: I am not sure which reference is this. Can you
please check?
Ballinger’s contribution is found in the ability of the model to help people understand a concept,
Flora: Glen first published this in 1997. Then, when I siolicited a
Moreover, Ballinger’s model and variables served as the foundation for much of the subsequent contribution from Glen for the 2000 book, he "up-dated" (his word)
the study for thebook.
JOHN
work of Broom and his colleagues. In effect, both the model and the idea of relationship variables
set the direction of OSR research for several years.

Six years later, Broom, Casey and Ritchey (1997) used Ballinger’s scholarship as the basis
for a model of an OSR, complete with antecedents, maintenance processes and outcomes. A
similar model was developed by Grunig (2000), helping to conceptualize and visualize the
relationship process. These contributions served as a further foundation for OSR inquiry.

Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) offered strategies for maintaining organization–public

relationships based on a review of the literature of several disciplines. The strategies included
access, positiveness, openness, assurance, networking, and the sharing of tasks. In addition, they
suggested control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, and commitment as organization–public
relationship outcomes. In subsequent application of those dimensions, numerous scholars found
them to be important in helping practitioners manage relationships.

The same year, Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison and Lesko (1997) also conducted a multi-
discipline review which produced 18 dimensions, reduced to five dimensions and operationalized
through focus groups with stakeholders. The dimensions are Trust, Openness, Involvement,
Investment and Commitment. They were operationalized as follows: Trust was described as
“Doing what you say you will do.” Openness was “Sharing Your plans for the future.”
Involvement meant “Being involved in the welfare of the community.” Investment referred to
“Investing in the things of interest to the community,” while Commitment refers to “Long-term
service to the community” (p. 62). The following year, Ledingham and Bruning (1998) used the
dimensions in a survey of stakeholders in what is apparently the first quantitative test of an OSR
scale.

The stakeholder survey recorded different ratings for each of the dimensions, and could
serve as the basis for strategies intended to maintain a quality relationship. For example, if ratings
for Trust were lower than those of the others, additional attention might be warranted to making
certain the organization actually is “doing what it says that it will do,” and also making certain
stakeholders know of that commitment. This is many times more efficient than guessing.

In addition, Bruning and Ledingham (1999) then isolated three types of relationships based
on a cluster analysis of survey data: Professional Relationships, Personal Relationships, and
Community Relationships. The Professional Relationships indicated how the organization was
performing in terms of professional services; the Personal Relationship revealed how the
organization was performing in terms of personal interaction with stakeholders; and, the
Community Relationship has to do with how good a corporate citizen the organization is thought
to be. Again, the stakeholder ratings for each of the three underscores which cluster needs more
attention than the others.

Scholars also applied the relational perspective to media relations. To do so, they moderated
discussion with groups of media relations practitioners to identify particular behaviors the media
planners thought were most important, as well as those thought by the media planners to be most
important to journalists. This was followed by a survey of those journalists to determine their views
as to the performance of the media planners with regard to those behaviors. Coorientation analysis
led to the development of a list of “best practices” for the organization to follow in initiating and
maintaining relationships with journalists (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998b). Comparing the two sets
of scores provided the media planners with a clear indication if where they need to focus their
attention.
Additional research (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000a) also found that business-to-business
relationships function more or less the same in as they do in the context of organizations and
publics. These findings suggest a consistency that, whereas interpersonal and organization-
stakeholder relationships are intrinsically different, the attributes, behaviors and consequences of
both types of relationships operate similarly whatever the context. Clearly, this finding would be
of substantial help in an agency-client relationship.

OSRs as a “Value Added”

A study with obvious implications in an increasingly competitive world found that

consumers who rank an organization highly with regard to the relationship dimensions are more
likely to indicate that they would use that organization’s services when making a competitive
choice (Ledingham and Bruning ,1998b). Moreover, public awareness of an organization’s support
for a relationship was found to be linked to a favorable predisposition toward that organization
when the support is known by stakeholders (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Bruning & Ledingham,
1998a). In that way, identifying the interest of a stakeholder group and supporting it can act as a
“value added” that can protect market share, and/or generate favorable predisposition. If the
support is not known by stakeholders, it cannot be a “value added”.

Importance of the Research Findings

In addition to the comments that accompany the reviews of various research finding, it is
important to keep in mind that the research reported herein is not merely for scholars to ponder,
but have very practical applications. Models help us to track the progress of a relationship, to
determine the phase a relationship is in, and, thus, to develop appropriate strategies. Relationship
dimensions can be used to identify difficulties in a relationship, and to know where to place efforts.
The collective research makes clear the type of relationships that are likely to survive and prosper,
and which ones will not.

Relationship Theories

Hon and J. Grunig (1999) posited that there are two distinct kinds of relationships
– exchange and communal. They theorized that in an exchange relationship each party gives
benefits to the other only if the other has provided benefits in the past or will do so in future; while
in a communal relationship, both parties provide benefits not for something in return but for the
welfare of the other. While this is not an empirically-tested theory, the research provides insight
into different types of relationship and offers opportunities for categorization.

Hung (2005) deconstructed the notion of relationships and identified an additional six types
of organization-public relationships: exploitive relationships, manipulative relationships,
symbiotic relationships, contractual relationships, covenantal relationships and mutual communal
relationships (for details, see Hung, 2005). These relationships were, therefore, developed along a
continuum, with one end of the continuum highlighting “concern for self-interest” and the other
end highlighting “concern for others” (Hung, 2005, p. 416). Again, while not strictly a theory, the
notion of the continuum illustrates the range of “self-interest” vs. “concern for others more
realistically than an “either-or” choice.

J. Grunig and Huang (2000) consulted Stafford and Canary’s (1991) cultivation strategies,
management theories for organizational effectiveness, and conflict resolution strategies (Plowman,
1995) in developing a model of organization-public relationships. In addition, they also provided
methods for evaluating relationships in each stage: relationship antecedents, cultivation strategies,
and relationship outcomes. While a model, strictly speaking, is not a theory, one is reminded of
Littlejohn’s (1995) note that a model is an illustration of a theory.

The Theory of Relationship Management

In 2003, Ledingham proposed a Theory of Relationship Management, grounded in

the literature. The theory is seen below:

“Relationship Management is the ethical and efficient management

of an organization-stakeholder relationship, focused over time, on
common interests and shared goals in support of mutual understanding
and mutual benefit” (p. 190).
 The theory holds that a commonality of interests is mandatory if management is seeking
a long-term relationship, and if an organization and stakeholders have different interests, goals or
objectives the relationship likely will be short-term. Similarly, if either an organization or a
stakeholder group comes to believe that the other is receiving benefit from the relationship while
they are not, the relationship will not last. Also, relationships take time to solidify, many years in
some instances (Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson (2000).
In discussing the many advantages of relationship management, Ledingham commented:

The relational perspective is said to define the organizational function of public

relations, clarify the role of communication…and provide a process for
determining the contribution of public relations to organizational goals. …
Moreover, (it) is consistent with the notion that …initiatives should generate
understanding and benefit both for the organizations and publics…Further, the
concept …underscores the need for … practitioners to be conversant with
strategic planning and other managerial processes (and) … with accounting for
program initiatives (p. 182).

,
Relationship management suggests that an organization and stakeholders exist in a kind of
partnership. And, while the benefits may not always be equal, each partner in the relationship
must feel the other is operating in good faith or the relationship will fail. Furthermore, if one entity
tolerates a relationship that is deceitful or unfair because of the rewards involved, again, the
relationship will not last.

Relationships, like communication are not something someone does to someone else.

A Step Further – Stakeholder Engagement

Taylor and Kent (2014) contended that, over the years of research on OPR, new theories had
emerged in explicating the dynamics and the complexity of relationships. Among those theories,
the theory of stakeholder engagement has been on the research agenda. As public relations is about
communication activities in engaging publics and stakeholders, exploring the context and
definition of stakeholder engagement has come into focus. In addition, Greenwood (2007) posited
that, although practitioners and scholars have advocated the importance of stakeholder
engagement, and, with the extensive research on engaging stakeholders for developing mutually
beneficial relationships, no consensus exists as yet on the meanings of this concept and what the
characteristics are (Sloan, 2009).

Some scholars have endeavored to explicate the meaning of stakeholder engagement. For
example, Greenwood (2007) conceptualized it as:

A mechanism for consent, as a mechanism for control, as a mechanism for co-operation,

as a mechanism for accountability, as a form of employee involvement and participation,
as a method for enhancing trust, as a substitute for true trust, as a discourse to enhance
fairness, as a mechanism of corporate governance (p. 318).
Sloan (2009) considered stakeholder engagement to be “the process of involving individuals and
groups that affect or are affected by the activities of a company” (p. 26). Devin and Lane (2014)
posited that stakeholder engagement encompasses community engagement, social media
engagement, employee engagement, and CSR engagement. They also held the view that this
concept should not only be understood as managing stakeholder expectations but as having the
more profound purpose of creating “a network of mutual responsibility through relationships (p.
438).

Taylor and Kent (2014) considered the concept of engagement should go beyond building
relationships. For them, engagement is “an acknowledgement that interactants are willing to give
their whole selves to encounters. Engagement assumes accessibility, presentness, and a willingness
to interact” (p. 387). Therefore, engaging stakeholders means organizations should be fully
devoted to making all the communication means accessible, and to communicating and interacting
with publics. In illustrating the relationship between stakeholder engagement and organization-
public relationships, Men and Tsai (2014) found that stakeholder engagement, with perceived
organizational transparency and authenticity, is a stronger predictor for quality relationship.

Engaging stakeholders should be a comprehensive effort, involving authentic

communication activities with different stakeholders. Taylor and Kent (2014) summarized
research on stakeholder engagement to focus on the following topics: social media engagement
(e.g. Yang & Kang, 2009), employee engagement (Men, 2012), CSR and engagement (e.g. Golob
& Bartlett, 2007), civic engagement and social capital (e.g. Sommerfeldt, 2013), and dialogic
engagement (e.g. Kent & Taylor, 2002). They further contended that the best approach to explicate
engagement is to discuss it from the perspective of dialogue theory, inasmuch as the theory of
dialogue was developed from the ethical views that organizations need to keep publics informed,
will make better decisions by involving publics, and contribute to improving the society.

The discussions above lead us to understand that, for better developing, cultivating, and
managing relationships with the stakeholder, the concept of stakeholder engagement plays a
pivotal role. Public relations scholars and practitioners are reminded that organizations should be
devoted to enhancing the communication channels, encouraging two-way dialogues, and involving
engagement activities in all aspects.

Observations and Conclusions Comment [FH4]: John: thank you for development the
conclusions. But, after reading this manuscript, I am still not clear
how the conclusion is derived from. You discussed a lot in this
manuscript. Maybe you can put some more words to make the logic
The review leads to several conclusions about relationship management, and the advantages it more clear.

offers. It also provides a clear picture of the requirements of the relational approach.
The totality of the research and the explication of the theory leave no doubt that the
advantages of relationship management make it the appropriate perspective of public relations. It
is also clear that the domain of public relations is relationships – not propaganda, not image, nor
reputation – but relationships. In addition, as the scholarship makes clear, relationship Comment [FH5]: I am not sure if we can say this. There are a lot
of scholars who consider public relations is for reputation
management is a management function that meshes well with managerial concepts of management.

accountability, ethics and efficiency.

An additional advantage of the relation-based approach is the use of two-way
communication in fostering a relationship. The review also makes it abundantly clear that
relationship management cannot be successfully practiced without an understanding of
management principles and practices, including the 4-step management process of scan, plan,
implement and evaluate.
Now requirements: One such area of agreement, for example, is the need for a Public
Relations Manager to head the public relations function. Moreover, within the practice of
relationship management, the manager has the tools to determine what is going right and what is
not, and is equipped with the means to make corrections. Part of the difficulty of previous practice
is that results were difficult to quantify in terms of outcomes. Instead, practitioners attempted
accountability by reporting the number of news releases written, or brochures produced, or other
outputs which might better have served to justify the operations of a print shop.
The public relations manager must understand management principles and processes,
while technicians need to handle execution. Moreover, the public relations manager must
understand the rudiments of both qualitative and quantitative research in order to be able to use
relationship management as a diagnostic tool.
However, a public relations manager – instead of a skilled craftsperson – must be in
charge of the public relations function. And that manager must understand how to manage a team
of public relations personnel, and how to represent the team to higher management as well as
knowing how to carry the message of senior management back to the team. The Manager also
must be able to translate organizational goals into RM strategies and tactics.
Also, relationship management, as a way of conducting public relations, cannot be
effective unless the manager, the staff, and the organization at large subscribe to the principles
reviewed in this chapter. Claiming you subscribe, but really do not, will cause more damage than
not doing anything.
For decades, some public relations practitioners claimed that public relations is an “art,” and
not subject to quantification, or that the field deals in “image,” and that the term “management”
implies “control”. Of course these claims are not true, including the notion that management is
restrictive.
The obvious point here is that relationship management offers the opportunity for long-term,
productive, mutually beneficial relationships, as well as providing a means of satisfying the need
for accountability. And, these opportunities have the potential to help public relations better
contribute to achieving organizational goals and objectives through the ethical and effective
management of organization-stakeholder relationships.
Comment [FH6]: I am sorry that I deleted this point. I am not
sure where this point is from.
Implications if the Theory of Relationship Management

The greatest opportunity for public relations gaining the respect of key decision makers is
the degree to which practitioners understand the relative roles of relationships and communication
-- that managing OSRs is the prime function of public relations, and that communication is a tool
used in that process.
The greatest impact that relationship management can achieve, then, is by
continuing to demonstrate the benefits of a change in understanding the core function of public
relations – managing relationships between an organization and its stakeholders.

,
 References

Barllinger,Bart,BC. K. (1997). Industrial firms and the power of mission. Industrial Marketing
Management, 2, 9-18.

Bruning, S.D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics:
Development of a multi-dimension organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations
Review, 25(2), 157-158.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000a). Organization and key public relationships: Testing
the influence of the relationship dimensions in a business to business context. In J. A.
Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A
relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 159–173). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000b). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of

satisfaction: an exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

DeSanto, B. (1988). Public relations journey into management: Building bridges between public
relations and other managerial function. In D. Moss & B. DeSanto (Eds.), Public Relations:
A Managerial Perspective(pp.3-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dozier, D. M. (1984). Program evaluation and roles of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 10
(3), 13-21.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational
relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented at the annual conference of
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.

Gallagher, A. (2006). The muckrakers: American journalism during the age of reform. New York,
NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a difference. New York, NY:
Little, Brown & Company.

Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management:

Contributions to effective organizations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y-H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators:
Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J.
Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A
 relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Hung-Baesecke, C.-J. F. (2015). The Effect of Relationships on Reputation
and Reputation on Relationships: A Cognitive, Behavioral Study. In E.-J. Ki, J.-N. Kim, &
J. A. Ledingham (Eds.). Public relations as relationship management: A relational
approach to the study and practice of public relations (2nd Edition). New York:
Routhledge.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E.
Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management:
Contributions to effective organizations (pp.65-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Harmon, D. (2011, January 12). Who were the muckrakers? Retrieved from
http://suite101.com/a/who-were-the-muckrakers-a331197.

Hill, C. W., & Jones, G. R. (2008).Strategic management : An integrated approach. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. The
Institute for Public Relations. Available at: http://www. instituteforpr.
org/research_single/guidelines_measuring_relationships.

Huang, Y-H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization-
public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 61-90.

Josephson, M. (1934). The robber barons: The great American capitalists, 1861–1901, New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations
Review, 28, 21–37.

Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.

Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization–public relationship
and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 1-23.

Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organization-public relationship: A valid and reliable
instrument. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 799-815.
Morris Tim (August 25, 2014). Ivy Lee and the origins of the press release - Behind the Spin,

Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Guidelines to building and maintaining organization-public

relationships. Public Relations Quarterly, 45(3), 44–47.

Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government and citizenry: Extending the relational perspective of public
relations. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 285–295.

Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public

relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181–198.

Ledingham, J. A. (2003b). SMARTS PR: A management process model of public relations.

Business Research Yearbook, 4, 969-973.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management and public relations:
Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55–65.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Introduction: Background and current trends in the
study of relationship management. In J. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public
relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of
public relations (pp. xi–xvii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public

relationship Dimensions: Defining the Role of Communication in the Practice of
Relationship Management. In J. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as
relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public
relations (pp. 55-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. Lesko, C., & Thomlison, D. (1997). The applicability of
interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of
relational loyalty a qualitative approach. Journal of Organizational Culture,
Communication and Conflict, 1(1), 23-43.

Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the perceptions
and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting organization-public
relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2), 167-183.

Lindemann, W. & Lapetina, A. (1981). Management’s view of the future of public relations.
Public Relations Review, 7(3), 3-13.

Lordan, E. J. (1999). Guidelines for implementing new technology in public relations. Public
Relations Quarterly, 44(3), 15–17.

Lordan, E. J. (2003). Essentials of Public Relations Management. Chicago, Illinois: Burnham Inc.
 Management innovation. (2008, December 4). Retrieved from http://managementinnovations.
wordpress.com.

Mayo, E. (1949). Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company: The Social Problems of an
Industrial Civilization. New York: Routledge.

McGinnis, V. J. (1981). The mission statement: A key step in strategic planning. Business, 31(6),
39-43.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. (1994). Communal and Exchange Relationships: Controversies and
Research. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical Frameworks for Personal
Relationships (pp. 29-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Papesh, M. E. (1998, February 14). Frederick Winslow Taylor. Retrieved from

http://www.stfrancis.edu/content/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/bbios/biograph/fwtaylor.htm.

Ryan, B. D. (2009). Leadership, 15(1), 8--. Comment [FH7]: Incompleted

Sallot, L. M., Lyon, L. J., Acosta-Alzuru, C., & Ogata Jones, K. (2003). From aardvark to zebra:
A new millennium analysis of theory development in public relations academic journals.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1), 27-90.

Sashikin, M., & Sashikin, M. G.(2003). Leadership That Matters: The Critical Factors for Making
a Difference in People's Lives and Organizations' Success. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7-23.

Smuts, J. C. (1926/1961/1999). Holism and evolution. (region??): Macmillan and company/

Viking Press/Sierra Sunrise.

Steffens, L. (1904). The Shame of the Cities ( American Century Series). New York: McClure,
Philips & Co.

Steteville, J. (2012). Muckraking in society. Retrieved from indystar.com Comment [FH8]: The http link?

Swedberg, R., & Qgevall, O. (2005). The Max Weber dictionary: Key worlds and central concepts.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tabrizi, B. (2013). New research: what sets effective middle managers apart. Retrieved from Comment [FH9]: Incompleted.

View publication stats