The Applicability of Interpersonal Relationship Dimensions to an Organizational Context: Toward a Theory of Relational Loyalty a Qualitative Approach

Abstract

PUBLIC RELATIONS AS RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT Nowhere one expect to find more central to scholarship and practice of a field than in relations. The term public itself suggests a focus on relationships with a concentration on ways in which organizations and their publics relate to one another and end states that result. More than a decade ago, Ferguson urged that matter of between an organization and its significant publics should be central unit of study of relations researcher (in Grunig, 1993, p. 3). In exploring that line of scholarship, Grunig has advanced notion of relations as a two-way process of continual and reciprocal exchange (Grunig, 1993). Broom and Dozier have suggested a co-orientation approach to conduct of in seeking to better understand nature of those and how organizations and their publics might be brought closer around mutual goals (Broom and Dozier, 1990, 9.82). Moreover, emergence of notion that relations focus on mutually-beneficial has been accompanied in recent years by an increasing emphasis on practicing relations as a management function, meaning it be conducted within four-step management process of (1) analysis, (2) planning, (3) implementation, and, (4) evaluation (Kotler, 1993, pp. 643-645). It is not surprising, then, that authors of a leading relations text define relations as the management function that identifies, establishes and maintains mutually beneficial between an organization and various publics on whom its success or failure depends (Cutlip, Center & Broom, 1985, P. 6). However, it is somewhat surprising to find that literature of relations does not reveal more in terms of a definition of matter of relationships, nor dimensions that comprise relationships. Indeed, with few notable exceptions, that literature contains little for those seeking to explore study and practice of relations from perspective. THE LACK OF RELATIONSHIP MEASURES The absence of a focus on is reflected in Broom and Dozier's concern with difficulty many practitioners have in evaluating program results in terms of management perspective. As they note: Conceptually, relations programs affect between organizations and their publics, but rarely is program impact on themselves measured (Broom and Dozier, p. 82). They report that, to contrary, traditional relationship audits tend to focus on knowledge, predispositions and behavior. Through such audits, researchers seek to identify what publics know about an organization, how those publics feel about organization, and what these publics do with regard to organization. In this way, relations practitioners seek to identify gaps between position desired by organization and those held by publics (Broom and Dozier, p. 36). However, as Broom and Dozier suggest, results of such are essentially one way in nature and serve as basis for programs designed primarily to move publics closer to position of organization. That traditional approach does not contribute to nor reinforce notion of reciprocal, mutually-beneficial relationships. In place of traditional one-way audit, Broom and Dozier have applied Broom's original co-orientation approach (Broom, 1977, pp. 110-119) to develop an audit that is two-way in nature and supports development of mutually-beneficial relationships. Their approach provides a way to not only identify issue position of publics, but those of organization as well. Co-orientation also provides a means for determining levels of agreement between organization and its publics, as well as accuracy with which organizations and publics can predict each other's positions (Broom and Dozier, p. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.