Content uploaded by James E. Grunig
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James E. Grunig on Mar 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011) ISSN1899-5101
11
Public relations and strategic management:
Institutionalizing organization–public relationships
incontemporary society
James E. Grunig
UNIVERSITY OFbMARYLAND, USA
ABSTRACT: Public relations is acritical profession incontemporary society, which is characterized by
global interaction, relationships, and responsibility. Unfortunately, public relations has been institu-
tionalized as asymbolic-interpretive activity that organizations use toexert their power over publics
and todisguise theconsequences oftheir behaviors from publics, governments, and themedia. is
article discusses analternative role for public relations as astrategic management rather than ames-
saging activity. It presents amodel ofpublic relations instrategic management and examines research
that elaborates segments ofthe model: environmental scanning, stakeholders and publics, issues and
crises, scenario building, cultivating and evaluating relationships, tracing thee ect ofrelationships
onreputation, planning and evaluating communication programs strategically, and how digital media
can be used tofurther thestrategic management process. It concludes that research is needed onhow
public relations can be empowered and institutionalized as astrategic management activity.
KEYWORDS: strategic management, publics, relationships, reputation, digital media
INTRODUCTION
In June 2010, theGlobal Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Man-
agement, an association of national public relations associations, issued a set
ofprinciples for public relations professionals to“administer on asustained basis
and toa rm throughout theprofession, aswell asto management and other rele-
vant stakeholder groups” (p.1). ese Stockholm Accords resulted from the“col-
laborative e ort ofleaders ofthe global public relations profession from 32 coun-
tries” (p.1). eStockholm Accords a rm that public relations should play amajor
role inorganizational governance and management aswell asin communication
programs for internal and external publics and that its value comes from increasing
theorganization’s sustainability “across theeconomic, social, and environmental
‘triple bottom line’ ” (p.2).
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 11CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 11 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
James E. Grunig
12
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
Similarly, three years earlier, theU.S.-based Arthur W. Page Society (2007),
anassociation ofsenior corporate public relations o cers, issued areport that con-
cluded that “CEOs are looking for their Chief Communications O cers totake
amore strategic and interactive role within thesenior leadership ofthe company”
(p.2). ereport said that CCOs ofthe future should exercise leadership inde ning
and instilling company values, building and managing multi-stakeholder relation-
ships, enabling theenterprise with “new media” skills and tools, and building and
managing trust, inall its dimensions.
Both reports argued that contemporary society requires public relations profes-
sionals who can deal with global interactions, relationships, and responsibilities and
who can manage relationships among organizations and stakeholders in aglobal,
digitalized world where issues and crises related topoor organizational governance
have become commonplace. However, if one were to ask journalists or people
ingeneral if they believe thepublic relations profession delivers such value tosoci-
ety, most would express surprise that such adescription is what public relations is
all about. Likewise, if one also were tomonitor thetypical discussions among pub-
lic relations practitioners intrade media and online discussions, he or she would
nd much more talk about messaging, publicity, media relations, media monitor-
ing, and marketing support than about theroles and responsibilities ofpublic rela-
tions inorganizational governance. Inthe minds ofmost people, public relations
has become institutionalized as amessaging activity whose purpose is tomake or-
ganizations look good inthe media or tosell products, usually through devious
means, rather than as amanagement activity that improves relationships among
stakeholders and organizations.
Organizational theorists de ne institutionalization as aprocess that occurs
when actions are repeated and are given similar meanings both by oneself and by
others (Hatch & Cunli e, 2006, p.86). Organizations and individuals repeat actions
and share meanings toreduce uncertainty by conforming towhat they believe are
the expectations ofothers. us, because most people (including many clients
ofpublic relations practitioners) believe public relations is amessaging activity,
public relations practitioners typically supply what they believe is thedemand for
their services.
roughout my career ofover 40 years as apublic relations scholar and practi-
tioner, Ihave worked with colleagues and students todevelop acomprehensive set
oftheories articulating astrategic role for public relations that meets thedemands
for theprofession described inthe Stockholm Accords and by theArthur W. Page
Society. Although this theory has been implemented by public relations practition-
ers who possess theknowledge todo so (see, e.g., evidence ofits implementation
inthe Excellence study by L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002), it has not been in-
stitutionalized asthe norm for theprofession inthe minds oflarge numbers ofprac-
titioners, journalists, and managers. It also has been questioned by many public
relations scholars who take acritical, rhetorical, persuasion, or marketing approach
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 12CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 12 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
13
topublic relations and whose expectations for what public relations is and does do
not match mine (see, e.g., thevolume edited by L’Etang & Pieczka, 2006).
ese di erent expectations for public relations can be explained by di erent
approaches totheory taken by social, organizational, and communication scholars.
Intheir book onorganizational theory, Hatch with Cunli e (2006) described mod-
ernist, symbolic-interpretive, and postmodernist perspectives on theory. e
modernist perspective views reality asobjective and management as aset of ra-
tional activities designed toachieve organizational objectives. esymbolic-inter-
pretive perspective sees concepts such asorganizations themselves, their environ-
ments, and thebehavior ofmanagers assubjective enactments ofreality — enactments
whose meanings can be negotiated through communication. Postmodernists also
embrace subjectivity, but they reject general theories and strategies and prefer
to“deconstruct” theories todetermine whose interests are served and whose way
ofthinking has been incorporated into them.
Elements ofthese three approaches toorganizational theory can be found intwo
competing ways inwhich Ibelieve public relations scholars and practitioners, man-
agement scholars and practitioners, and people ingeneral think about public rela-
tions: thesymbolic, interpretive paradigm and thestrategic management, behavioral
paradigm. esymbolic-interpretive paradigm ofpublic relations is based almost
exclusively onthe subjective assumptions ofinterpretive and postmodern organi-
zational theories, whereas thestrategic-management approach incorporates ele-
ments ofall three approaches. ose who embrace thesymbolic paradigm gener-
ally assume that public relations strives to in uence how publics interpret
thebehaviors oforganizations a er they occur and that its purpose is tosecure
thepower ofthe decision-makers who chose those behaviors. ese cognitive in-
terpretations typically are embodied insuch concepts asimage, reputation, brand,
impressions, and identity. Practitioners who follow theinterpretive paradigm em-
phasize messages, publicity, media relations, and media e ects, which they believe
create animpression inthe minds ofpublics that allow theorganization tobu er
itself from its environment, touse thewords ofvan den Bosch and van Riel (1998),
which were originally used by W. Scott (1987). Such organizations believe favorable
impressions created by public relations can obscure their decisions and actions and,
inturn, that they can behave inthe way themanagers with power want without
interference from publics.
In contrast, thebehavioral, strategic management paradigm focuses onthe par-
ticipation ofpublic relations executives instrategic decision-making so that they can
help manage thebehavior oforganizations rather than only interpret it topublics.
Van den Bosch and van Riel (1998) de ned this type ofpublic relations as abridging,
rather than abu ering, function. Public relations as abridging activity is designed
to build relationships with stakeholders. e strategic management paradigm
ofpublic relations emphasizes two-way communication ofmany kinds toprovide
publics with avoice inmanagement decisions and tofacilitate dialogue between
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 13CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 13 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
James E. Grunig
14
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
management and publics both before and a er decisions are made. estrategic
management paradigm does not exclude traditional public relations activities, such
as media relations and the dissemination of information. Rather, it broadens
thenumber and types ofcommunication activities and ts them into aframework
ofenvironmental scanning, research, and listening. As aresult, messages re ect
theinformation needs ofpublics aswell asthe advocacy needs oforganizations.
Public relations has value inthis perspective because it brings adi erent set
ofproblems and possible solutions into thestrategic management arena. Public re-
lations gives voice toand empowers publics inorganizational decision-making
(apostmodern perspective). Public relations executives identify and communicate
with strategic publics tounderstand their problems and interests and toconvey
their views to senior management. ey counsel members of top management
about thelikely consequences ofpolicy decisions onpublics.
e strategic approach also accepts thepresence ofsubjectivity inboth theoriz-
ing and communicating, thecentral assumption ofthe symbolic-interpretive ap-
proach. However, it goes beyond theuse ofcommunication innegotiating meaning
toenhance thepower oforganizations and managers and also plays arole innego-
tiating thebehavior ofboth organizations and publics. Public relations educates and
persuades publics by advocating corporate interests, but it also negotiates with pub-
lics when acollision ofinterests arises.
In this article, Iattempt tocontribute tothe reinstitutionalization ofpublic rela-
tions as astrategic management function rather than as apurely interpretative func-
tion by conceptualizing its role instrategic management and organizational govern-
ance, presenting amodel toelaborate that role, and by summarizing research by
public relations scholars todevelop concepts and tools that professionals can use
toexplain and guide their strategic role.
IDENTIFYING THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT ROLE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
ere has been a great deal ofdiscussion among public relations scholars about
whether my strategic management approach topublic relations represents amod-
ern or postmodern approach tomanagement. Critical scholars such asL’Etang and
Pieczka (1996) and Leitch and Neilson (2001) and postmodern scholars such
asHoltzhausen and Voto (2002) have claimed that thestrategic management the-
ory is modernist — that it only helps organizations control their environment rather
than provide publics inthat environment abridge tothe organization and avoice
inmanagement decisions. Incontrast, Ibelieve that public relations departments
that are empowered as astrategic management function rather than only asan in-
terpretive function represent more of apostmodern approach tomanagement than
amodern approach. Knights and Morgan (1991) and Knights (1992) have described
postmodern strategic management as asubjective process inwhich theparticipants
from di erent management disciplines (such asmarketing, nance, law, human re-
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 14CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 14 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
15
sources, or public relations) assert their disciplinary identities. Public relations has
value inthis perspective because it brings adi erent set ofproblems and possible
solutions into thestrategic management arena.
I believe that public relations provides organizations with away togive voice
toand empower publics inorganizational decision-making (apostmodern per-
spective). At thesame time, public relations bene ts organizations by helping them
make decisions, develop policies, provide services, and behave inways that are ac-
cepted and sought out by their stakeholder publics — thus increasing theorganiza-
tion’s revenue, reducing its costs, and reducing its risk (asemi-modernist perspec-
tive). us, thestrategic management theory ofpublic relations contains elements
ofboth modernism and postmodernism, although Ido not adhere rigorously tothe
assumptions ofeither approach.
Both theExcellence study (L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002) and Yun’s (2006)
research onpractitioners ofpublic diplomacy showed that two principles ofexcel-
lence related tostrategic management (participating instrategic management and
theknowledge topractice public relations strategically) were thevariables that most
distinguished excellent from less-excellent public relations departments. Since
thecompletion ofthe excellence study, scholars have continued toconduct research
to develop and test concepts and ideas that public relations professionals can use to
participate instrategic decision processes. As aresult, it is possible toexplain how
public relations practitioners contribute tostrategic management and toidentify
tools they can use inthe process.
Strategic management theorists distinguish between two kinds ofenvironments
— the economic, or task, environment and thesocial-political, or institutional, en-
vironment. etask environment consists ofsuch groups asconsumers, competi-
tors, suppliers, and creditors. ey provide theorganization with necessary re-
sources and purchase or use theorganization’s products and services. esocial or
institutional environment consists ofstakeholder publics that want tohelp deter-
mine themission ofan organization — such asgovernments, communities, stock-
holders, employees, and activist groups.
In acomprehensive overview oftheories oforganizational environments, Ring
(1989) pointed out that researchers have paid more attention tothe task environ-
ment than “to thecategories and components ofthe external environment that do
not t within thescope ofthe task environment” (p.56). He added that “historians,
political scientists, and economists, among others, regularly chronicle changes
inthese [non-task] components ofthe external environment. Only rarely, how-
ever … do they focus onthe impact that these changes have onthe strategies ofspe-
ci c rms, or onhow rms attempt toadapt tothese changes” (p.71).
Originally, scholars ofstrategic management conceptualized theenvironment
innegative terms — as aconstraint onan organization’s decisions and mission. Por-
ter (1990), however, argued that theenvironment can provide astrategic advantage
toan organization. For example, he pointed out that corporations pressured by the
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 15CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 15 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
James E. Grunig
16
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
government or customers toimprove thequality and safety ofproducts or toreduce
pollution have anadvantage inother countries because they know how towork
with publics that constrain their competitors. Verčič and J. Grunig (2000) extended
Porter’s idea toinclude relationships with stakeholder publics inthe institutional
environment. For example, we explained that acorporation that successfully solves
its pollution problems, usually when pressured by environmental publics, gains
anadvantage over competing organizations that refuse tocollaborate with environ-
mental activists tosolve their pollution problems.
Out ofthis framework, thecontribution ofpublic relations tostrategic manage-
ment and, as aresult, toorganizational e ectiveness becomes clear. Public relations
contributes tostrategic management by building relationships with publics that it
a ects or is a ected by. Organizations plan public relations programs strategically,
therefore, when they identify thepublics that are most likely tolimit or enhance
their ability topursue themission ofthe organization and design communication
programs that help the organization manage its interdependence with them.
esenior public relations person brings theproblems and views ofpublics — both
employee publics and external publics — to theattention ofother managers when
crucial decisions are made. esenior public relations person is able topoint out
theconsequences that adecision such asclosing amanufacturing plant, introducing
anew product, or changing labor relations will have onpublics. epublic relations
department then makes it possible, through communication programs with pub-
lics, for thepeople a ected by these consequences tobe aware ofthem and todis-
cuss them formally or informally with management before adecision is made so
that they have anopportunity toin uence the nal decision that a ects them.
Public relations practitioners identify consequences ofdecisions and thepres-
ence ofpublics by engaging inenvironmental scanning and issues management.
Environmental scanning means that they do research and talk tocommunity lead-
ers, leaders ofactivist groups, or government o cials to nd out who thepublics
are and what problems these publics are experiencing. ey then help theorganiza-
tion solve these problems and manage potential issues by communicating person-
ally or through the media with thepublics who experience them.
In the Excellence study (L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002), we found that
themost e ective public relations departments participated inthe making ofover-
all strategic decisions. Less e ective departments generally had theless central role
ofdisseminating messages about strategic decisions made by others inthe organiza-
tion. By participating inorganizational decisions, excellent public relations depart-
ments were in aposition toidentify thestakeholders who would be a ected by or-
ganizational decisions or who would a ect those decisions. Once they had identi ed
stakeholders, excellent public relations departments strategically developed pro-
grams tocommunicate with them. ey conducted formative research toidentify
potential issues and de ne objectives for programs tocommunicate with thestake-
holders, they speci ed measurable objectives for thecommunication programs, and
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 16CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 16 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
17
they used both formal and informal methods toevaluate whether theobjectives had
been accomplished. Less excellent departments conducted no formative or evalua-
tive research and generally had only vague objectives that were di cult tomeasure.
Fig. 1 depicts theroles ofexcellent public relations at two organizational levels,
theorganizational and theprogram levels — how thesenior communication ex-
ecutive participates inthe overall strategic management process ofan organization
and thestrategic management ofpublic relations programs. ecentral concepts
inFig. 1 are Management decisions at thetop, Stakeholders and Publics onthe right,
and Relationship outcomes onthe le . Connecting management and publics are
theconsequences that thebehavior ofeach has onthe other — the interdependence
between anorganization and its environment that creates theneed for public rela-
tions.
e double arrows between management decisions and stakeholders at the
upper right ofFig. 1 show that strategic decision-makers ofan organization should
interact with stakeholders through thepublic relations function because their deci-
sions have consequences onpublics or because theorganization needs supportive
relationships with stakeholders inorder tomake responsible decisions aswell asto
implement decisions and achieve organizational goals. Stakeholders also might seek
arelationship with anorganization inorder toattain aconsequence from theor-
ganization tosolve aproblem it recognizes — such asan environmental group that
seeks areduction inpollution from achemical plant or nuclear laboratory or acom-
munity that seeks additional jobs for its residents. us theconsequences of or-
Fig. 1. Model of strategic management of public relations
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 17CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 17 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
James E. Grunig
18
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
ganizational decisions (and behaviors resulting from those decisions) de ne
thestakeholders ofan organization and, therefore, thestakeholders with whom
theorganization needs arelationship.
I de ne stakeholders asbroad categories ofpeople who might be a ected by
management decisions or who might a ect those decisions — such asemployees or
community residents. When astrategic public relations manager scans theenviron-
ment, therefore, his or her rst step should be tothink broadly interms ofstake-
holder categories. en he or she should use atheory ofpublics (e.g. J. Grunig’s,
1997, situational theory ofpublics, or Kim, J. Grunig & Ni’s, 2010, situational the ory
ofproblem solving) toidentify and segment active, passive, and latent publics from
thenonpublics that might also be present inthe stakeholder category. It is impor-
tant torecognize that thepublics that are segmented are not permanent or stable.
Rather, they come and go assituations and organizational consequences change.
us, a public relations manager typically must continually resegment publics
asorganizational decisions and consequences change (see also Self, 2010).
It is especially important tosegment active publics, because active publics actu-
ally have relationships with organizations and typically make issues out ofthe con-
sequences oforganizational decisions when theorganization fails tocommunicate
with them. ebehavior of apublic may be individual or it may be collective —
when members ofpublics organize into activist groups. Sometimes publics react
negatively toharmful consequences ofan organization’s behaviors — such aspollu-
tion or discrimination. At other times, they act positively totry tosecure abehavior
from anorganization that has useful consequences for them — such as acommu-
nity public that wants cleaner rivers and streams or ahealth-related public that
might want apharmaceutical company toproduce anunpro table, orphan, drug.
At still other times, publics collaborate with organizations tosecure consequences
ofbene t toboth.
One ofthe most frequent criticisms ofmy theory ofpublics is that it is “crisis
focused and [assumes that] active publics are purely reactive” (Jahansoozi, 2006,
p.65) because ofits emphasis onthe role ofconsequences increating publics. Ja-
hansoozi added that thetheory is “preoccupied with ‘active’ publics who are di-
rectly concerned with anorganization’s activities” (p.65). Kruckeberg and Vujnovic
(2010) claimed that thetheory assumes that “the world is evil, and thereby theor-
ganization must be protected from theinherently threatening and potentially harm-
ful publics” (p.120). ey went onto argue that intoday’s global society the“only
truly strategic public that can be identi ed with any certainty is thegeneral public”
(p.124). ese criticisms are based either on amisunderstanding or amisrepresen-
tation ofthe theory.
First, my theory ofpublics does not assume that consequences must be nega-
tive. ey can be positive aswell. Organizations generally seek todo good (i.e.
produce positive consequences) aswell asprotect themselves from negative con-
sequences ofbad actions. Second, thetheory does not assume that organizations
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 18CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 18 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
19
should respond topublics only when there are issues or crises. It emphasizes that
organizations should seek out publics before decisions are made and before issues
and crises occur tobuild relationships with thepeople who actually are a ected by
anorgan ization’s behavior or who want tosecure abehavior from anorganization.
Failing toengage publics before decisions are made may produce subsequent
issues, crises, and poor relationships; but thesocially responsible organization tries
toavoid these negative outcomes by producing more positive consequences than
negative ones. ird, it may be true that organizations must be concerned about
society-at-large, which Kruckeberg and Vujnovic (2010) equate with a“general
public.” However, Ido not consider “society-at-large” tobe apublic. It is acollec-
tion ofpublics. Every person onEarth cannot be concerned about every organiza-
tion onEarth. us, Ibelieve organizations contribute themost tosociety-at-large
when they work with thepeople they actually a ect and solve theproblems with
which they are involved. ecumulative e ect offocusing on“ ‘active’ publics who
are directly concerned with anorganization’s activities” (Jahansoozi, 2006, p.65)
is that each organization attends toproblems it can solve tocontribute tothe over-
all good ofsociety.
If anorganization communicates e ectively with publics before decisions are
made or during theimplementation ofdecisions, issues and crises may never occur
and good relationships and reputation should be secured — an outcome depicted
by anarrow from Communication programs toRelationship outcomes inFig. 1. is
gure shows, however, that publics that cannot stop theconsequences that harm
them or secure theconsequences that bene t them generally make issues out ofthe
consequences. Issues, inturn, can become crises if they are not handled well. When
issues or potential issues are discussed and negotiated with publics through com-
munication, however, theresult should improve relationships with publics.
At thecenter ofthe strategic processes described inFig. 1 is anoval representing
communication programs — programs to cultivate relationships with publics.
Communication with potential publics is needed before decisions are made by stra-
tegic decision-makers, when publics have formed but have not created issues or
crises, and during theissue and crisis phases. Communication programs at thelat-
ter two stages are generally termed issues management and crisis communication by
public relations practitioners. What Fig. 1 illustrates, however, is that communica-
tion with publics before decisions are made is most e ective inresolving issues and
crises because it helps managers tomake decisions that are less likely toproduce
consequences that publics make into issues and crises.
e center oval inFig. 1 depicts thestrategic management ofpublic relations
programs themselves. ese programs are developed from strategies tocultivate
relationships with publics, anew concept we have used toreplace the models
ofpublic relations and tointegrate theconcepts ofdirection (one-way or two-way),
purpose (symmetrical or asymmetrical), mediated or interpersonal, and ethical or
unethical (L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002, Chapter 8; Hung, 2007). Commu-
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 19CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 19 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
James E. Grunig
20
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
nication programs should begin with formative research, then develop achievable
and measurable objectives, implement the program, and end with evaluation
ofwhether theobjectives have been met.
e nal path inFig. 1 can be found inthe dotted lines from Management deci-
sions toOrganizational reputation toRelationship outcomes — a path labeled No
consequences. is path depicts theapproach taken by public relations practitioners
who are guided solely by theinterpretive paradigm and believe that positive mes-
sages about management decisions — mostly disseminated through themass media
— can by themselves create apositive organizational reputation. Such apath might
also produce areputational relationship — a relationship based only onsecondary
sources and not based onan actual relationship between theorganization and
apublic (J. Grunig & Hung, 2002) — but such arelationship is less important than
anactual, experiential relationship.
erefore, Ihave labeled thedotted line No consequences because Ibelieve that
organizations have reputational relationships only with people for whom theor-
ganization has no consequences. Such people can be de ned asaudiences because
they are not truly publics. ese audiences have little importance toan organiza-
tion. Assoon asan organization or public has consequences onthe other, it begins
to develop aninvolving behavioral relationship rather than alow-involvement
reputational relationship. It is at that point that agroup ofpeople becomes anactive
and strategic public rather than apassive audience.
TOOLS FOR THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
Fig. 1 provides atheoretical overview ofhow public relations executives should par-
ticipate instrategic management. Nevertheless, these executives need speci c theo-
retical and applied tools tohelp them inthis process. Public relations researchers
have responded by identifying and researching these tools and how public relations
practitioners can use them.
Environmental scanning
Strategic public relations begins with environmental scanning — i.e. with research
designed toidentify stakeholders, publics, problems, and potential issues. rough
environmental scanning, researchers in apublic relations department or inan out-
side rm provide essential information that thesenior communication executive
needs toparticipate instrategic management. Traditionally, public relations man-
agers have scanned theenvironment by monitoring themedia and political pro-
cesses (Sto els, 1994). ese sources are useful, but they are not thebest for envi-
ronmental scanning. By thetime theconsequences of amanagement decision hit
themedia and become political, it is too late toa ect adecision. Public relations
professionals also o en use large-scale public opinion polls for environmental scan-
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 20CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 20 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
21
ning. ey, too, typically identify issues too late. What is better? Based onthe re-
search by Chang (2000) and Sto els (1994), Irecommend thefollowing process
ofenvironmental scanning for public relations managers:
1. Begin environmental scanning by monitoring decisions that theorganiza-
tion’s strategic managers are considering. Ask which stakeholders might be a ected
and what issues they might raise if certain decisions are made.
2. Do qualitative research onactivists and personal contacts. Set up advisory
boards and send employee envoys tomeetings ofkey stakeholders. Systematically
monitor and classify problems, publics, and issues identi ed through these per-
sonal sources.
3. Monitor discussion groups, chat rooms, listservs, social media, and websites
onthe Internet related toproblems and issues ofconcern toyour organization. Set
up your own interactive forum onthe web toallow publics tobring problems and
issues toyour attention.
4. Systematically interview boundary spanners inyour own organization —
managers with frequent contact outside theorganization, other employees with
community contacts, and people indivisions or functions with frequent contact
with stakeholders.
5. Identify thestakeholders and publics most likely tobe a ected by and to
actively do something about theproblems and issues identi ed inthe previous
analysis.
6. Systematically content analyze and categorize all ofthe information and put it
in adatabase — classi ed by type ofmanagement decision, problem, public, and
issue. Use this database asresearch evidence topresent tomanagement during stra-
tegic deliberations and decisions.
7. Monitor themedia and printed sources totrack your e ectiveness indealing
with publics and issues. Inaddition, do research systematically toassess and evalu-
ate your relationships with publics.
Identifying stakeholders
O en theterms stakeholder and public are used synonymously. ere is asubtle
di erence, however, that is important inthe practice ofstrategic public relations.
Ide ne stakeholders asgeneral categories ofpeople who have something at risk
when theorganization makes decisions. Astakeholder, therefore, is “any individual
or group who can a ect or is a ected by theactions, decisions, policies, practices, or
goals ofthe organization” (Freeman, 1984, p.25). Stakeholder categories generally
are thefocus ofpublic relations programs, such asemployee relations, community
relations, investor relations, consumer relations, or government relations. Many
people in acategory ofstakeholders, such asemployees, however, are passive mem-
bers oflatent publics. estakeholders who are or become more aware and active
can be described asaware and active publics.
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 21CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 21 2011-04-20 09:27:442011-04-20 09:27:44
James E. Grunig
22
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
Segmenting publics
As public relations managers develop communication programs for stakeholders, they
can improve their chances for successful communication by segmenting each stake-
holder category into passive and active components. Active publics a ect theorgani-
zation more than passive ones. When they support theorganization, they also support
it much more actively than passive publics. Active publics also are easier tocommuni-
cate with because they seek out information rather than passively wait toreceive it, and
they also actively pass oninformation toothers (Kim, J. Grunig & Ni, 2010). Active
publics are not easy topersuade, however, because they seek information from many
sources and persuade themselves more than they are persuaded by others. Even pas-
sive stakeholders can become active, however, and should not be ignored.
I have developed and used aquantitative survey method toidentify and segment
publics and topredict theprobability that communication programs will a ect
theideas, attitudes, and behaviors ofdi erent kinds ofpublics. Instructions onhow
touse this method can be found in J. Grunig and Hunt (1984, Chapter 7) and
J. Grunig (1997). Other scholars (Aldoory, 2001; Aldoory & Sha, 2007; Kim, 2006;
Kim, J. Grunig & Ni, 2010; Sha, 1995; Sriramesh, Moghan & Wei, 2007; Tkalac,
2007) have also written about thetheory and developed improvements toit.
Issues management and crisis communication
Public relations practitioners o en view issues management and crisis communica-
tion asspecialized public relations programs, rather than asintegral parts ofthe
overall role ofpublic relations instrategic management. Incontrast, Ibelieve that
strategic public relations always involves issues management — at least themanage-
ment ofpotential issues. Public relations professionals identify potential issues by
scanning theenvironment for publics likely tobe a ected by the consequences
oforganizational decisions. en they manage issues by participating inthe man-
agement decisions that create theconsequences that publics seek out or are likely
tomake anissue of. Alarge portion ofall crises are caused by management deci-
sions rather than by accidents or natural disasters. As aresult, most crises occur
because management did not communicate with strategic publics about potential
issues before thepublics created anissue and eventually acrisis.
Based onmy work onmodels ofpublic relations, social responsibility, and rela-
tionships, Ihave developed four principles ofcrisis communication that Ibelieve
can be used inmost crisis situations:
• e Relationship Principle. Organizations can withstand both issues and cri-
ses better if they have established good, long-term relationships with publics who
are at risk from decisions and behaviors ofthe organization.
• e Accountability Principle. Organizations should accept responsibility for
acrisis even if it was not their fault. Johnson and Johnson, for example, accepted
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 22CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 22 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
23
responsibility for the poison placed inTylenol capsules, even though someone else
put thepoison there.
• e Disclosure Principle. At thetime of acrisis, anorganization must disclose
all that it knows about thecrisis or problem involved. If it does not know what hap-
pened, then it must promise full disclosure once it has additional information.
• e Symmetrical Communication Principle. At thetime of acrisis, anor-
ganization must consider thepublic interest tobe at least asimportant asits own.
erefore, theorganization has no choice other than toengage intrue dialogue with
publics and topractice socially responsible behavior when acrisis occurs.
Scenario building
One ofthe key roles of apublic relations executive is tocounsel other senior man-
agers when he or she believes management decisions or actions are likely tocreate
active publics, issues, and crises. O en, however, it is di cult toconvince manage-
ment that it might need tomake adi erent decision or tochange theorganization’s
behavior tobe more responsible or toavoid public opposition. epublic relations
executive, therefore, needs tools that can be used toshow other managers what
publics might emerge, what problems they are concerned about, what issues they
might create, and what crises might develop if di erent decisions are made. Man-
agement scholars have used scenarios for some time as away ofvisioning thecon-
sequences ofdi erent decisions, and public relations executives can use thetech-
nique tohelp other managers they counsel toenvision “alternative futures” and
uncertainties and “re ne their present actions” (Sung, 2007, p.178).
Sung (2004; 2007) reviewed theliterature onscenarios and used these theories
toconstruct anine-step model ofscenario building that public relations executives
can use asthey participate instrategic management:
1. Task analysis. De ne thetime and geographic scope of adecision and analyze
thepresent situation.
2. Environmental in uence analysis. Identify stakeholders through environ-
mental scanning and analyze their interrelationships with other stakeholders.
3. Issue selection and analysis. Select themost critical issues identi ed by there-
view ofthe environment, environmental changes, and strategic plans ofthe or-
ganization.
4. Key uncertainty identi cation. Classify key uncertainties, strategic stake-
holders, and driving forces originating inareas such aspolitics, economics, society,
and technology.
5. Key public identi cation. Use thesituational theory ofpublics toidentify and
segment strategic publics.
6. Scenario plot and component identi cation. Use the outcomes ofenviron-
mental scanning and interviews ofstrategic publics toidentify components ofsce-
narios and combine them into scenario plots.
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 23CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 23 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
James E. Grunig
24
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
7. Scenario development and interpretation. Develop adra ofscenarios and
get feedback from others tomake sure thescenarios are consistent and plausible
and make sense.
8. Final decision scenarios. Check the nal scenarios by anticipating how major
stakeholders would react tothem.
9. Consequence analysis and strategy development. Evaluate the scenarios
based onthe opportunities and risks they suggest and use them todevelop astrat-
egy (Sung, 2007, pp.179–180).
Sung (2004; 2007) evaluated this model in acase study inwhich she worked with
public relations professionals at amajor insurance company toidentify publics and
construct scenarios related toissues. eprofessionals with whom she worked con-
cluded that scenarios improved their ability tocontribute tostrategic organiza-
tional decisions.
Evaluating public relations programs
As Fig. 1 indicates, theultimate goal ofcommunication programs such ascommu-
nity relations, media relations, or employee relations — and even ofspeci c com-
munication activities such asan open house, amedia interview, or anemployee
publication — is aquality relationship with astrategic public. Relationships develop
slowly, however, and aparticular communication activity or short-term program
can be expected only tohave anincremental e ect on the quality of arelationship.
Inmost cases, that incremental e ect will be too small to measure.
In achapter inthe book Public Relations Metrics (J. Grunig, 2008), Iidenti ed
short-term communication objectives that can be attained through discrete activi-
ties and programs. Each can be measured either quantitatively or qualitatively, de-
pending onthe nature ofthe evidence desired toshow thee ect ofthe programs.
Sometimes qualitative evidence is su cient, at other times management or aclient
demands quantitative evidence. Inmost ofthe communication literature, these ob-
jectives are de ned asone-way e ects — as e ects onthe public. ese one-way
e ects also can be measured onmanagement, however, todetermine e ects ofsym-
metrical programs. Over thelong term, successful short-term communication ac-
tivities and programs inthe center oval ofFig. 1 should contribute tothe develop-
ment and maintenance ofquality long-term relationships with strategic publics and
thereputation ofthe organization — the concepts onthe le side ofFig. 1.
Relationships
Short-term outcomes ofpublic relations programs and activities have value only if
they can be linked tothe overall value ofpublic relations toan organization by
measuring theextent towhich public relations achieves long-term relationship out-
comes. eExcellence study provided evidence that there is acorrelation between
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 24CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 24 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
25
achieving short-term communication e ects and maintaining quality long-term
relationships (see, especially, Dozier, L. Grunig & J. Grunig, 1995, Chapter 16).
Recently, we have studied theliterature onrelationships inrelated disciplines, such
asinterpersonal communication and psychology, and identi ed four relationship
outcomes (trust, mutuality ofcontrol, satisfaction, and commitment) that de ne
thequality of long-term relationships (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000). We have de-
veloped both quantitative measures ofthese four indicators (Hon & J. Grunig,
1999), and measures tobe used inqualitative research (J. Grunig, 2002). Many pub-
lic relations practitioners have already used these measures inpractice, asdescribed
by J. Scott (2007), who used them as aresearch director for theEdelman and Ogil-
vy public relations rms, and by Paine (2007), who uses them extensively inher
work as apublic relations research consultant and trainer.
Public relations managers can use these measures asindicators ofthe quality
oftheir relationships with strategic publics — such ascommunity members, jour-
nalists, and employees. Although individual communication programs do not usu-
ally produce ashort-term change inthese indicators, communication programs
have acumulative e ect onthe indicators over time. erefore, public relations
professionals should measure these indicators periodically tomonitor thequality
ofthe relationships their organizations have developed with each oftheir publics
and, therefore, thevalue that thepublic relations function has contributed tothe
organization. Ideally, relationships should be measured yearly. Minimally, they
should be measured every three years.
Relationship cultivation strategies
Most ofthe knowledge that public relations professionals possess has something
todo with how tocommunicate with publics tocultivate arelationship with them.
Not all strategies for cultivating relationships are equally e ective, however. ere-
fore, we must recognize that not all public relations strategies, techniques, and
programs are equally likely toproduce quality relationship outcomes. Strategies
that are symmetrical innature generally are more e ective than asymmetrical
ones.
Our research onthe models ofpublic relations and thedimensions that underlie
these models, therefore, has expanded into research onspeci c symmetrical and
asymmetrical strategies that can be used incommunication programs tocultivate
relationships with publics. Public relations professionals should be able tolist sym-
metrical and asymmetrical strategies they have used. Researchers, similarly, have
begun toidentify such strategies and organize them in acatalogue from which prac-
titioners can get ideas touse intheir work.
Hon and J. Grunig (1999) and J. Grunig and Huang (2000) used research by
Sta ord and Canary (1991), Plowman (1995), and Huang (1997) toprovide these
examples ofsymmetrical cultivation strategies:
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 25CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 25 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
James E. Grunig
26
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
•Access. Members ofpublics or community or activist leaders provide access
topublic relations workers. Public relations representatives or senior managers pro-
vide representatives ofpublics similar access toorganizational decision-making
processes.
•Disclosure or openness. Both organizations and members ofpublics are open
and frank with each other, willing todisclose their thoughts, concerns, and prob-
lems aswell astheir satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each other.
•Assurances oflegitimacy. Each party inthe relationship attempts toassure
theother that it and its concerns are legitimate and todemonstrate that it is com-
mitted tomaintaining therelationship.
•Networking. Organizations build networks or coalitions with thesame groups
that their publics do, such asenvironmentalists, unions, or communitygroups.
•Sharing oftasks. Organizations and publics share insolving joint or separate
problems. Examples ofsuch tasks are managing community issues, providing em-
ployment, conducting high-quality research, and maintaining funding, which are
inthe interest ofthe organization, thepublic, or both.
•Integrative con ict resolution strategies. Integrative approaches are symmet-
rical because all parties in arelationship bene t by searching out common or com-
plementary interests and solving problems together through open discussion and
joint decision-making. Integrative strategies are more e ective than distributive
strategies, which attempt toimpose one’s position onto that ofan adversary without
concern for theadversary’s position.
Plowman (2007) studied how public relations professionals use con ict resolu-
tion techniques. Inaddition tointegrative and distributive strategies, he identi ed
two related strategies:
•Be unconditionally constructive. When either apublic or management refuses
tocome toan agreement, practitioners can follow theadvice ofFisher and Brown
(1988) tobehave in away that is good for therelationship, even if theother side
does not reciprocate.
•Win-win or no deal. If there is astalemate in anegotiation, thebest strategy
might be topostpone thenegotiations until theother is willing tolook for asolution
that would bene t both — to agree todisagree until a later time. Covey (1990)
named this strategy win-win or no deal.
Hung (2007) provided another example of arelationship cultivation strategy
from her research onmultinational and Taiwanese corporations inChina:
•Keeping promises. Keeping promises topublics increases trust by demon-
strating dependability and competence (two dimensions oftrust).
Rhee (2007) conducted anextensive case study ofcommunity and employee re-
lationships at theBrookhaven National Laboratory inNew York, aphysics research
laboratory operated for theU.S. Department ofEnergy. She identi ed these addi-
tional cultivation strategies:
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 26CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 26 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
27
•Visible leadership. edirector ofthe laboratory was visible inthe commu-
nity and interacted frequently with community groups and acommunity advisory
council established by thepublic relations department.
•Listening. Listening tocommunity groups and members ofthe advisory coun-
cil and not prejudging their views, even when they disagreed with thelaboratory.
•Responsiveness. Responding tocommunity requests and toissues in atimely
manner.
•Continued dialogue and patience. Continuing towork at the relationship
through open communication, even though disagreement and con ict persist.
Relationship cultivation strategies provide ideas and objectives toplan commu-
nication programs. Inaddition, they can serve asprocess objectives — objectives
that can be used toevaluate programs before speci c relationship outcomes have
occurred. Apublic relations sta can measure these process objectives toprovide
meaningful information inthe short term that their communication programs are
leading todesired long-term e ects.
Reputation
Public relations practitioners and management scholars have paid agreat deal ofat-
tention toan organization’s reputation inrecent years, inthe belief that reputation is
anintangible asset that adds both monetary and nonmonetary value toan organiza-
tion. Our research (J. Grunig & Hung, 2002; Yang, 2005; Yang, 2007; Yang & J. Grunig,
2005) has shown, however, that public relations has agreater long-term e ect onre-
lationships than onreputation and that reputations are largely abyproduct ofman-
agement behavior and thequality oforganization–public relationships. us, attend-
ing torelationships will ultimately improve anorganization’s reputation. Reputation,
however, cannot be managed directly; it is managed through thecultivation ofrela-
tionships.
Digital media
No topic has generated asmuch discussion inpublic relations circles inrecent years
asthe impact that thenew digital, cyber, or social media have had onpublic rela-
tions. Recent books ononline public relations, such asPhillips and Young (2009)
and Solis and Breakenridge (2009) have argued that thedigital media have changed
everything for public relations. Inone sense, Iagree with these assertions. For most
practitioners, digital media do change everything about theway they practice pub-
lic relations. Because ofthe ubiquitous and interactive nature ofdigital media, most
practitioners now nd it di cult topractice theinterpretive paradigm by attempt-
ing tocontrol themessages their publics receive. Many practitioners, however, dog-
gedly use thenew media inthe same way that they used traditional media. From
atheoretical perspective, however, Ido not believe digital media change thepublic
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 27CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 27 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
James E. Grunig
28
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
relations theory needed toguide practice. Rather, thenew media facilitate theap-
plication ofthe strategic management approach and, inthe future, will make it dif-
cult for practitioners around theworld not touse that approach.
In arecent article (J. Grunig, 2009), Iused thestrategic management framework
depicted inFig. 1 todescribe how public relations practitioners can use digital me-
dia at each component ofthe model toscan theenvironment; identify problems,
publics, and issues; and tomeasure and evaluate thee ects ofcommunication pro-
grams aswell asrelationships and reputation. Most ofthe discussion ofdigital me-
dia has focused onhow these new media can be used inthe central oval ofFig. 1
— for communication programs. However, I believe the new media have their
greatest value as aresearch and listening tool rather than as atool for disseminating
messages.
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS AS ASTRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FUNCTION
Anyone who attends atypical meeting of aprofessional public relations society or
reads aprofessional publication seldom can avoid hearing complaints that organ-
izational executives, journalists, and members ofthe general population fail to
under stand thepublic relations function and trivialize its value for organizations
and society. Berger (2007) reported thesame thing a er interviewing 97 successful
public relations executives. Although most ofthe professionals interviewed de ned
public relations as astrategic management process, “Nearly half ofthe participants
[…] also said that thebiggest impediment toempowerment ofpublic relations
intheir organizations was theinaccurate or narrow perceptions ofthe function’s
role and value by other organizational executives” (p.230).
I believe that aprimary research challenge, therefore, is tolearn how toconvert
public relations from abu ering role into thebridging role that modern organiza-
tions need tobe e ective and that societies around theworld need tobecome more
harmonious. At thesame time, there is adanger that institutionalizing public rela-
tions as astrategic management function might ossify its practice asmuch asits
institutionalization asan interpretive function has frozen and limited thepractice.
Iagree, therefore, with L. Grunig (2007), who has said that public relations must
continually evolve as astrategic management function and continually reinstitu-
tionalize itself toadjust tochanges inorganizations, communication technologies,
and societal expectations.
REFERENCES
Aldoory, L. (2001). Making health communications meaningful for women: Factors that in uence
involvement. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 13, pp. 163–185.
Aldoory, L., Sha, B.-L. (2007). esituational theory ofpublics: Practical applications, methodological
challenges, and theoretical horizons. In:Toth, E.L. (ed.). eFuture ofExcellence inPublic Rela-
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 28CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 28 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
Public relations and strategic management
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
29
tions and Communication Management: Challenges for theNext Generation. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 339–356.
Arthur W. Page Society (2007). eauthentic enterprise: AnArthur W. Page Society report. New York.
Retrieved June 26, 2010, from http://www.awpagesociety.com/images/uploads/ 2007Authentic-
Enterprise.pdf.
Berger, B.K. (2007). Public relations and organizational power. In:Toth, E.L. (ed.). eFuture ofExcel-
lence inPublic Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for theNext Generation.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 221–234.
Chang, Y.-C. (2000). Anormative exploration into environmental scanning inpublic relations. Unpub-
lished Master’s esis, University ofMaryland, College Park, Maryland.
Covey, S.R. (1990). eSeven Habits ofHighly E ective People: Restoring theCharacter Ethic. Ne w York:
Fireside.
Dozier, D.M., Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. (1995). Manager’s Guide toExcellence inPublic Relations and
Communication Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fisher, R., Brown, S. (1988). Getting Together: Building a Relationship at Gets to Yes. Boston:
Houghton-Mi in.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: AStakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management (2010, June 15). eStockholm
accords: Acall to action for public relations and communication in aglobal society. Stockholm,
Sweden. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from http://www.wprf2010.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/
Stockholm-Accords- nal-version.pdf.
Grunig, J.E. (1997). Asituational theory ofpublics: Conceptual history, recent challenges, and new
research. In:Moss, D., MacManus, T., Verčič, D. (eds.). Public Relations Research: AnInterna-
tional Perspective. London: International omson Business Press, pp. 3–48.
Grunig, J.E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics.
Gainesville, FL: eInstitute for Public Relations, Commission onPR Measurement and Evalua-
tion. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/qualitative_
methods_assessing/.
Grunig, J.E. (2008). Conceptualizing quantitative research inpublic relations. In:van Ruler, B., Tkalac,
A., Verčič, D. (eds.). Public Relations Metrics. New York, London: Routledge, pp. 88–119.
Grunig, J.E. (2009). Paradigms ofglobal public relations inan age ofdigitalisation. PRism 6(2): http://
www.prismjournal.org/ leadmin/Praxis/Files/globalPR/GRUNIG.pdf.
Grunig, J.E., Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From organizational e ectiveness torelationship indicators: Antece-
dents ofrelationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In:Ledingham, J.A.,
Bruning, S.D. (eds.). Public Relations asRelationship Management: ARelational Approach tothe Study
and Practice ofPublic Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 23–53.
Grunig, J.E., Hung, C.J. (2002, March). ee ect ofrelationships onreputation and reputation onrela-
tionships: Acognitive, behavioral study. Paper presented tothe International, Interdisciplinary
Public Relations Research Conference, Miami.
Grunig, J.E., Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Grunig, L.A. (2007, May). Public relations inthe chaos and change oftransformational societies: epo-
tential ofevolutionary theory. Paper presented at theInternational Communication Association,
San Francisco.
Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E., Dozier, D.M. (2002). Excellence inPublic Relations and Communication
Management: AStudy ofCommunication Management in ree Countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hatch, M.J., Cunli e, A.L. (2006). Organization eory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holtzhausen, D.R., Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from themargins: epostmodern public relations
practitioner asorganizational activist. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 14, pp. 57–84.
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 29CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 29 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
James E. Grunig
30
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1(2011)
Hon, L.C., Grunig, J.E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships inpublic relations. Gainesville, FL:
eInstitute for Public Relations, Commission onPR Measurement and Evaluation. Retrieved June
26, 2010, from http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/guidelines_measuring_relationships/.
Huang, Y.-H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and con ict management strategies.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMaryland, College Park, Maryland.
Hung, C.-J. (2007). Toward thetheory ofrelationship management inpublic relations: How toculti-
vate quality relationships. In:Toth, E.L. (ed.). eFuture ofExcellence inPublic Relations and Com-
munication Management: Challenges for theNext Generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 443–476.
Jahansoozi, J. (2006). Relationships, transparency, and evaluation: eimplications for public rela-
tions. In:L’Etang, J., Pieczka, M. (eds.). Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Prac-
tice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.61–91.
Kim, J.-N. (2006). Communicant activeness, cognitive entrepreneurship, and asiuational theory ofprob-
lem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMaryland, College Park, Maryland.
Kim, J.-N., Grunig, J.E., Ni, L. (2010). Reconceptualizing thecommunicative action ofpublics: Acqui-
sition, selection, and transmission ofinformation inproblematic situations. International Journal
ofStrategic Communication, 4, pp. 126–154.
Knights, D. (1992). Changing spaces: edisruptive impact of anew epistemological location for
thestudy ofmanagement. Academy ofManagement Review, 17, pp. 514–536.
Knights, D., Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: Acritique. Or-
ganisation Studies, 12, pp. 251–273.
Kruckeberg, D., Vujnovic, M. (2010). edeath ofthe concept ofpublics (plural) in21st century pub-
lic relations. International Journal ofStrategic Communication, 4, pp. 117–125.
Leitch, S., Neilson, D. (2001). Bringing publics into public relations: New theoretical frameworks for
practice. In:Heath, R.L. (ed.). Handbook ofPublic Relations. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 127–
138.
L’Etang, J., Pieczka, M. (eds.) (1996). Critical Perspectives inPublic Relations. London: International
omson Business Press.
L’Etang, J., Pieczka, M. (eds.) (2006). Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paine, K.D. (2007). Measuring Public Relationships: eData-Driven Communicator’s Guide toSuccess.
Berlin, NH: KDPaine & Partners.
Phillips, D., Young, P. (2009). Online Public Relations: APractical Guide toDeveloping anOnline Strat-
egy inthe World ofSocial Media. London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Plowman, K.D. (1995). Congruence between public relations and con ict resolution: Negotiation power
inthe organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMaryland, College Park,
Maryland.
Plowman, K.D. (2007). Public relations, con ict resolution, and mediation. In:Toth, E.L. (ed.). eFu-
ture ofExcellence inPublic Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for theNext
Generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 85–102.
Porter, M.E. (1990). eCompetitive Advantage ofNations, New York: Free Press.
Rhee, Y. (2007). Interpersonal communication asan element ofsymmetrical public relations: Acase
study. In:Toth, E.L. (ed.). eFuture ofExcellence inPublic Relations and Communication Manage-
ment: Challenges for theNext Generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 103–
119.
Ring, P.S. (1989). eenvironment and strategic management. In:Rabin, J., Miller, G.J., Hildreth, W. B .
(eds.). Handbook ofStrategic Management. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Scott, J. (2007). Relationship measures applied topractice. In:Toth, E.L. (ed.). eFuture ofExcellence
inPublic Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for theNext Generation. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 263–274.
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 30CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 30 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
Public relations and strategic management
Scott, W.R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. London: Prentice-Hall Inter-
national.
Self, C.C. (2010). Hegel, Habermas, and community: epublic inthe new media era. Int ernational
Journal ofStrategic Communication, 4, pp. 78–92.
Sha, B.-L. (1995). Intercultural public relations: Exploring cultural identity as ameans ofsegmenting
publics. Unpublished Master’s esis, University ofMaryland, College Park, Maryland.
Solis, B., Breakenridge, D. (2009). Putting thePublic Back inPublic Relations: How Social Media is
Reinventing theAging Business ofPR. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Sriramesh, K., Moghan, S., Wei, D.L.K. (2007). esituational theory ofpublics in adi erent cultural
setting: Consumer publics inSingapore. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 19, pp. 307–332.
Sta ord, L., Canary, D.J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and
relational characteristics. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 8, pp. 217–242.
Sto els, J.D. (1994). Strategic Issues Management: AComprehensive Guide toEnvironmental Scanning.
Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier.
Sung, M.-J. (2004). Toward amodel ofstrategic management ofpublic relations: Scenario building from
apublic relations perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMaryland, College
Park, Maryland.
Sung, M.-J. (2007). Toward amodel ofscenario building from apublic relations perspective. In: Toth,
E.L. (ed.). eFuture ofExcellence inPublic Relations and Communication Management: Chal-
lenges for theNext Generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 173–198.
Tkalac, A. (2007). eapplication ofsituational theory inCroatia. In:Toth, E.L. (ed.). eFuture
ofExcellence inPublic Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for theNext Gen-
eration. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 527–544.
Van den Bosch, F.A.J., van Riel, C.B.M. (1998). Bu ering and bridging asenvironmental strategies
of rms. Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 7, pp. 24–31.
Verčič, D., Grunig, J.E. (2000). eorigins ofpublic relations theory ineconomics and strategic man-
agement. In:Moss, D., Verčič, D., Warnaby, G. (eds.). Perspectives onPublic Relations Research,
London: Routledge.
Yang, S.-U. (2005). ee ect oforganization–public relationships onreputation from theperspective
ofpublics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMaryland, College Park, Maryland.
Yang, S.-U. (2007). Anintegrated model for organization–public relational outcomes, organizational
reputation, and their antecedents. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 19, pp. 91–121.
Yang, S.-U., Grunig, J.E. (2005). Decomposing organizational reputation: ee ects oforganization–
public relationship outcomes oncognitive representations oforganizations and evaluations ofor-
ganizational performance. Journal ofCommunication Management, 9, pp. 305–326.
Yun, S.-H. (2006). Toward public relations theory-based study ofpublic diplomacy: Testing theap-
plicability ofthe excellence study. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 18, pp. 287–312.
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 31CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 31 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 32CEJoC 4 1(6) imprim.indb 32 2011-04-20 09:27:452011-04-20 09:27:45
