Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
guide
Citation preview
The changing dynamics of relationship management in
contemporary public relations practice.
Dr Joy Chia
Senior Lecturer
University of South Australia
School of Communication
Magill Campus, SA, 5072
Tel: 61 08 83024322
2
Abstract
Managing relationships between clients and public relations practitioners and between public
relations practitioners and journalists is becoming increasingly complex. This paper’s focus is
on the impact of new media on relational exchanges, specifically email communication and
how it is affecting relationships. Reference is also made to the way relationship management
is affected by work demands, deadlines and work pressure. These demands contribute to
relational complexity making relationships challenging and sometimes strained. It is argued
that some aspects of relationships can be managed but total relationship management with
clients or journalists is becoming very difficult. Clients and journalists engage in many
relationships online and offline so that diverse relational exchanges take place each day with
many parties and individuals.
This paper points to two Australian qualitative studies; the primary relationship management
study examines the relationships of 16 public relations consultants and 16 of their clients, and
a 2006 pilot study of 8 public relations practitioners and 8 journalists explores these
practitioners communication to the public and how their relationships are affected by constant
pressure in their daily work environments.
This paper suggests that in order to conduct effective relationships public relations
practitioners must constantly adapt to clients’ and journalists’ changing needs. Even so,
relationships are now multilayered, multifaceted making relationship management
challenging and demanding. This paper contends that public relations relational theory needs
to reflect the volatile nature of relational exchanges in contemporary public relations practice
thereby advancing relational theory in line with this complexity.
Introduction
Recent public relations relationship management research points to some scholars (Jahansoozi,
2006; Philips, 2006; Hung, 2005) recognising relational complexity. These scholars point to the
need to conduct further qualitative research to understand the dynamics of effective relational
exchanges in public relations practice. As Jahansoozi (2006, p.91) puts it ‘current research has
ignored qualitative approaches, creating a major gap, and therefore future research should initially
focus on qualitative approaches before further replication of the multiple dimension organization
public scales is done in other sectors and cultural contexts’. This was the premise for the author’s
(Chia, 2005) relationship management study that developed relational parameters for best practice.
Chia’s study to be reported later in this paper was developed after a review of relationship
management research (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000, 1998; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Taylor,
2004; Grunig & Hon, 1999; Grunig & Huang, 2000). These public relations scholars were guided
by the early research of Ferguson (1984) as cited by Broom, Casey and Richey (2000):
3
Ferguson (1984) pointed to the need for the definition and measurement of
relationships between organizations and their publics. Her suggested
approaches, however, mix characteristics of relationships with perceptions of
the parties in relationships as well as constructs based on the reports of those in
relationships (p.5)
The understanding of relationships and what they are and how they might be managed has
been developing since Ferguson’s early work. There is increasing emphasis on the relational
context of public relations practice as scholars (Taylor, 2004; Kent, Taylor & White, 2002,
2003; Kent, 2001; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999, 2000a, 2000b and Grunig & Hon, 1999)
point to the emergence of a relational perspective and emphasise that public relations is a
profession where maintaining and building quality relationships is important to effective
practice. Yet, even though scholars are ‘increasingly pointing to relationships as key
indicators of successful public relations’ (Grunig & Huang, 2000, p.24), more in-depth
understanding about relational exchanges and fluctuations needs to be developed, especially
as it applies to online relationship management. The author (Chia, 2006) found that many
relational studies have been concerned about measurement and defining relationship
characteristics before an understanding of relationship management was established. Even
though Grunig and Huang (2000) contend that ‘the concept of relationships is implicit in the
term public relations and both scholars and practitioners regularly use the term in explaining
public relations’ (p.25) these scholars have given little attention to the impact of new media
on relationships and the demands of work environments on relationship maintenance and
development.
Managing relationships online
Interpersonal and organisational relationships are very complex (Duck, 1984; 1986; Duck &
Glimour, 1981; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988 and DuBrin, 2000) as they are affected by
peoples’ emotions, personality factors, political factors and time pressure so that a
relationship might stagnate because there was no time to deal with relational differences.
Relationships change with organisations, with changing circumstances and with changes in
personnel in partnerships. Communication between, and among relational partners, is
complex as new media demands are changing the way that teams, clients and organisational
team members and managers respond to each other (Daniels, Spiker, & Papa, 1997).
Disciplines such as psychology and organisational management provide substantial guidance to
public relations relational scholarship pointing to the multiple relational interactions,
interpretations and understandings (Duck & Gilmour, 1981; Carr, 1991; Hinde, 1981; Giovagnoli,
Carter-Miller, 2000; Devito, 1997, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988) that take place in
interpersonal and organisational relationships. As so much communication now takes place online,
4
Giovagnoli, Carter-Miller (2000, p. 21) suggest that relationship development can be enhanced
through new media, by email, for example, being a ‘valuable supplement’ to regular
communication exchanges where information can be updated and relational partners share
experiences. Other scholars such as Clampitt (2005, p. 107) point to the need to build relationships
on ‘rich channels’ or channels that provide the most appropriate means of communication.
Managing relationships by leaders and managers or between employees is intense where many
communication exchanges are taking place, some online to supplement other communication, but
where all communication takes places in constantly changing environments. Inter-organisational
and interpersonal relationships similarly evolve, or decline with everyday conflict integral to this
process.
In the same way that ‘online interpersonal relationships are on the increase’ (Devito, 2008, p.233)
organisational relationships are often managed through online communication. These online
relationships take place where:
The American worker is exposed to more messages in one year than a person living in
1900 was in his or her entire life. The average employee now receives more than 50 e-
emails daily. And in one day the average manager sends and receives more than 100
documents (Devito, 2008, p.11).
Australian public relations practitioners face a similar communication overload as increased
communication online is putting strain on relationships and how they are managed (Dougall and
Fox, 2001; Chia, 2003, 2004).
This paper argues that there is a need to understand relationship management within the
context of work demands, especially online demands that make it impossible to respond to a
client’s or journalist’s needs thereby creating relational imbalance and misunderstanding.
Instead of symmetry in relationships, with relational characteristics of satisfaction,
commitment and trust (Grunig &d Hon, 1999; Grunig, J & Huang, 2000) proposed by these
scholars, relationships are constantly changing. Relational exchanges may nurture
relationships, cause their decline or change their characteristics as they take place in chat
rooms, through email, websites, text messages and other new media, as well as face-to-face
exchanges. As Hallahan (2004) contends:
Public relations practitioners today find themselves in a brave, new Internet world.
People develop expectations about organisations and assess an organization’s
performance based upon subtle cues found within the online environment. These
fragile relationships can be damaged when expectations are not met or when
organizations behave badly online (p.256).
5
The challenges and fragile nature of managing public relations through new media have been
recognised by some scholars’ (Hendrix, 2004; Esrock & Leichty, 2000, 1998; Kent, 2001, 2001a,
2001b; Hallahan, 2000; Heath, 1998; Bobbitt, 1995). Other scholars (Phillips, 2001; Marken,
2000, 2002, 2003; Sterne, 2000) have expressed their concern about poorly managed websites and
poorly managed email destroying relationships. Online convenience can also be its demise; ‘e-
mail’s convenience can also be its danger: Misunderstanding-or worse-can arise if one doesn’t
think before posting a message’ (Guth & Marsh, 2003, p.273) and this is even more so because
‘email messages often are sent without the care that goes into crafting a printed message’
(Newsom, Turk & Kruckerberg, 2004, p. 55). The online complexity also means that in sending
email ‘you are interacting with a proactive blend of people and programs’ (Adams and Clark,
2001, p.7) and there are many layers of communication between teams and amongst teams in an
organisation and between organisations or between clients. This requires constant adaptation to
online program needs of many different people.
Although some scholars (Coombs, 2000, 2001; Coombs & Holladay, 2001; Leichty, 1997; Ulmer,
2001; Thomlison, 2000) acknowledge relational volatility and the fact that relationships may not
progress and grow, rather they can fail; these scholars give little acknowledgment to the impact of
new media and the multi-faceted communication exchanges that have a bearing on relational
progress or failure.
This paper reports on public relations practitioners and their clients attempts to manage their
relationships online and in the second study, a work in progress, the delicate nature of practitioner-
journalists’ relationships emerges.
Australian Studies
This paper addresses one component of a qualitative study aimed firstly to ascertain whether
the new relational focus in public relations practice was evident and in what form. A second
aim was to develop an understanding of the management of relationships within new and
traditional media and a third to ascertain the place, or the importance of relationship attributes
in the practitioner-client relationships. This paper focuses on the second aim of the study with
particular reference to the way that email management adds value to a relationship or
devalues the public relations consultant-client relationship. Website management and its
contribution to relationship have previously been addressed by the author (Chia, 2003, 2004).
This paper also points to a recent study where the aim was to ascertain what is reported or
withheld when public relations practitioners’ and journalists’ communicate to the public.
Public relations practitioners reported that their relationships with journalists were
demanding. The second study is a work in progress and adds to the qualitative enquiry and
understanding of relationships even though its focus was not on relationship management.
6
Study1: The sample of 16 consultants was randomly selected from the Registered Consultants
of the Public Relations Institute of Australia and these consultants gave permission for 16 of
their clients to be interviewed. Semi-structured client interviews were integral to the validity
of the research findings as the only way to test the validity of the practitioners’ (semi-
structured interviews were firstly conducted with the consultants) understanding of
relationship management was by comparing consultants’ responses with those of a sample of
their clients. A qualitative approach allowed the researcher to probe ‘the subjective meanings
of the people being studied’ (Frankfort-Nachmias, & Nachmias, D, 1992, p.272) and their
subjective views of relationships. The interpretivist approach allowed the researcher to review
and constantly reflect on the emerging themes and patterns throughout the process of the
research so that the sense making of the lived experiences being explored, of a diverse group
of practitioners and their clients in the government, non-profit and private sector, provided
insight and knowledge of these experiences and what they mean. This process of induction or
inductive reasoning (Mutchnick & Berg, 1996) means that the ‘researcher starts with a set of
findings or results from a study and attempts to generate a theoretical explanation from the
results’ (p.9).
Study 2: Semi structured interviews were conducted with eight practitioners (five public
relations and four journalists) and two focus groups were conducted with three public
relations practitioners and three journalists to explore how these professionals decided what
information could be made public and why they might withhold information. These
practitioners were randomly selected from the database of graduates of the University of
South Australia; their experience ranged from one to eight years in public relations or
journalism practice.
Findings
The research questions in the relationship management study of consultants and their clients
were designed to ascertain how email and website management, was or was not impacting
consultant-client relationships, and ascertain the place of face-to-face communication and
how overall relationships were managed.
There was a significant difference between the responses of the 16 consultants and 16 clients.
The findings about website management, as mentioned earlier, have previously been reported,
but it is important to point out that 14 out of 16 clients were skilled in Web management but
only two public relations consultants were similarly skilled; consultants were still coming to
terms with the importance of the Web as a relationship management tool and most were using
the Web only for promotional purposes.
7
Public Relations Consultant Reponses
When the 16 public relations consultants were asked about email management and face-to-face
communication and how their relationships were managed, consultants whose responses clearly
indicated that they preferred meeting with their clients, offered the following reasons for their
preference:
Nine consultants reported that online client management alone was unproductive; meeting face-to-
face was one of many ways consultants managed client accounts. When face-to-face meetings
were arranged with clients, consultants had a greater opportunity, than through email
communication, to understand and respond to clients’ needs.
• These nine consultants reported that face-to-face communication achieved much more
than email communication when interpretation and clarification were required as each
party judged the other’s response more accurately. Therefore, when delicate matters
needed to be addressed, face-to-face communication was more productive, even though
email was more convenient.
• Six consultants reported that meeting face-to-face was critical when setting up
relationships as it was important to begin the relationship with a personal focus.
• Six consultants reported that online communication was at times too confronting and they
said that public relations consultants needed to be less reliant on email communication for
business management.
• Most consultants reported that they needed occasional face-to-face meetings when critical
decisions were made in project or campaign management.
• Most consultants reported that if they only communicated online they lost clients, but this
also depended on the client as some were too busy to meet face-to-face.
• Most consultants preferred most clients to be located conveniently and in close proximity
to the consultancy so that they had greater opportunity to meet face-to-face and visit client
organisations formally and informally. In practice, their client reports indicated that
convenience of location did not change consultants’ apparent preference for email.
• Four consultants reported that email and telephone communication improved
communication and understanding with their clients.
• Four consultants reported that email was inefficient; two of their client relationships were
breaking down.
8
Despite the comments about face-to-face communication it was the least used method of
communication by nine consultants. Further analysis of their responses provides some insight into
this contradiction:
■ Although nine consultants preferred to manage client accounts in their region with clients
whom they said they could meet on a regular or needs basis, they simultaneously said that
clients were busy so they emailed clients anyway.
■ Even when discussing face-to-face communication, comments about email dominated as
email remained the primary medium of communication.
Four of the 16 consultants reported that they had begun to recognise that the same attention to
content and detail they gave to all other written documents and face-to-face meetings should also
be given to email communication management. These consultants emphasised that appropriate
and well managed online and offline communication assisted consultants and clients to develop
their understanding of each other and each other’s business, and was paramount to the
consultancies’ success.
Two of the consultant-client relationships were moving through a difficult phase and declining;
reasons for the decline were described by their clients as poor online skill and lack of personal
intervention at critical points of the relationship.
Client Responses
■ Eleven clients reported that email was a secondary tool of communication.
■ Nine clients reported that consultants needed to realise the potential of each medium of
communication and do so with the client for the benefit of both parties.
■ Nine clients indicated their public relations consultants used email poorly as they lacked
skill in managing and monitoring online messages, often overlooking key edited changes and
additions to documents. Clients therefore suggested that these consultants needed to
intersperse emails with telephone calls and not attempt too much online as it resulted in
misinterpretation and confusion, thereby wasting time in final edits of brochures and
newsletters and causing relationship strain.
■ Nine clients pointed to the early stages of the relationship when they needed more offline
communication as email is an unproductive communication medium when relationships
commence. They reported that face-to face communication happened less often but it was
more productive. These clients said that email was impersonal and too easily misinterpreted
and should only become important in developed relationships, and even then email required
good management.
9
■ The major concern of all clients was that consultants not overuse email as a tool of
convenience despite the fact that email was the main form of communication for day-to-day
business.
■ All clients reported that as clients represented industries from the non-profit, government
and private sector, email could not be managed in the same way in each of these sectors.
Therefore, consultants needed to liaise with each client in order to address specific online and
offline needs of these varied sectors.
■ The core problem for consultants, according to eleven of the sixteen clients, was that they
were insufficiently skilled in managing their clients’ online needs so that all of the above
points raised required increased online skills to be able to achieve clients’ expected outcomes.
■ Four clients reported that email communication needed management around the
circumstances of the client, the type and stage of a contract and according to what was the
most appropriate at each stage of a contract.
Study responses indicated that clients and their public relations consultants had different
perceptions and expectations about email but their responses about the place of traditional forms
of communication in relationship management were similar. Most consultants and their clients
said that face-to-face communication and telephone communication were very important to the
development of understanding between relational partners. Most consultants and clients pointed to
a different understanding between the ways each partner perceived that they were communicating
through email and building relationships.
Eleven clients indicated that they preferred face-to-face communication for the following reasons:
■ Public relations consultants needed to be more skilled online so that until these skills were
developed communication was better managed through face-to-face meetings.
■ Clients said that consultants over-sell and do not deliver well online. (This point is similar
to the first, but a more serious matter as data from this research indicates that consultants
claim to be better online communicators than they are in practice and their overselling of their
supposed skills weakens the relationship.)
■ Face-to-face communication develops relationships and builds trust in a relationship
because of the personal exchange.
■ Similar to consultants, clients wanted a meeting point when partners could get to know
each other personally before launching into online communication exchanges.
10
■ Similar to consultants, clients said that face-to-face meetings were important for
interpretation and checking that consultants understood what was expected in program and
campaign planning.
■ Similar to consultants, clients said that email was sometimes confronting and that face-to-
face exchanges were less so.
■ Clients emphasised the need to intersperse face-to-face meetings with online
communication.
Overall responses
Two thirds of the respondents (consultants and clients) reported that the demands of their
work and the need to meet deadlines and manage constant changes in contract demands made
it difficult to manage all aspects of their consultant-client relationships well.
Two thirds of the respondents reported that it was most important that each partner spell out
online and offline expectations so that each party knows what to expect; even then constantly
adjusting to new demands was critical to the success of the business-personal exchange and
relationship within this exchange.
14 out of 16 clients reported that their business and personal relationships could be improved
through skilled, online management.
Study 2: A work in progress
In the pilot study, the second Australian study reported in this paper, questions about public
relations practitioners’ and journalists’ roles pointed to the workplace demands on these
practitioners; most were becoming reliant on email and they found it difficult to arrange face-
to-face meetings with journalists. The sample group included six in-house practitioners and
two consultants, six journalists worked in the city and two in regional areas, and all but one,
in print, radio and television newsrooms. Journalists reported that they were constantly under
pressure to deliver a good story. The key findings of this study were:
■ All public relations practitioners reported that their relationships with journalists were
primarily conducted through email communication; it was the most convenient.
■ All public relations practitioners reported that relationships with young journalists were
strained as these journalists were too eager to make ‘their mark’ on the profession; they were
under pressure to find a good news story. They reported that these journalists seemed to be
more concerned about their promotional prospects than about professional relationships.
■ Six public relations practitioners reported that they were careful about what was and was
not communicated to journalists and they preferred to work only with those with whom they
had established long term relationships. These practitioners gave many examples where the
11
eagerness of journalists to report stories, and do so inaccurately, resulted in relationship strain
and difficulty.
■ All practitioners reported that their relationships with journalists, especially young
graduates, were poor; these graduates did not take enough time to research their material as
they seemed to be constantly under work pressure, and managing deadlines.
■ All journalists reported that relationships with public relations practitioners affected their
reporting; where a relationship with a public relations practitioner had been established they
worked harder to checkout information, but in most cases relationships were not well
established.
■ All journalists indicated that they sometimes felt compromised as adverse reports about
sensitive situations could compromise their relationships with the source of the reports; public
relations practitioners were included in these relationships.
■ All journalists reported that they were often under pressure from senior staff to report
stories, especially when they were reporting about sensitive situations that were considered to
be newsworthy; they were more concerned about internal relationships than their relationships
with public relations practitioners
■ All journalists reported that they preferred face-to-face or telephone contact with public
relations practitioners, but they often did not have the time to follow-up on matters as they
intended. Work pressure meant that these young journalists developed few relationships with
public relations practitioners.
Discussion
The primary finding in the Australian studies reported in this paper was that face-to-face
communication was valued but email as a less valued form of communication, was the main
medium of exchange. However, busy schedules of public relations practitioners, clients and
journalists and the convenience of email is proving to be its demise especially as the studies have
shown that email is often poorly managed. According to Brand (2000, p.187) in Australian public
relations practice ‘there are many stories in the industry of launch plans and company business
plans being sent accidentally to the wrong client-or worse, the news media’ thereby causing many
relationship problems and misunderstandings. Misunderstandings were evident in two thirds of the
client-consultant relationships and in some of the public relations practitioner-journalist
relationships where email communication was managed inappropriately. Seitel (2007, p. 386)
refers to 61% of public relations’ communication to and from journalists being by email and he
refers to email as the ‘dominator’ (p.382). Seitel recognises that emails crowd and overload
receivers making it difficult to work through the clutter of information. Emails are important to
communication between relational parties as they provide real-time information but public
12
relations practitioners are spending 15-19 hours each week online ( Cutlip, Center, Broom, 2006,
p.253) so they need to be skilled in managing email and understand its impact on relationships.
This also means that many short term relationships develop online rather than long term
relationships as there are so many more exchanges with different online audiences that have not
been evident in traditional forms of communication. This was evident in both Australian studies.
Each email needs to be managed effectively to realise the potential of many online relationships.
The studies reported in this paper indicate that this is not happening due to poor online skill, work
demands and reliance on email to manage too many aspects of business relationships.
The relevance of current relational scholarship (Huck, Mucke, 2006, Hall, 2006), the importance
of face-to-face, personal components of relationships and building community relationships for
good business is recognised. The relevance of long-term strategically planned relationships (Li Ni,
2006) is important and necessary to understand relational expectations and management of them.
However, this paper suggests that as relationships in contemporary public relations practice are
likely to include substantial online management and thereby change relational dynamics, that the
convenience of online media will either become the tool for strategic relational management or the
demise that some scholars have suggested (Adams & Clark, 2001). Even then, being strategic
presents some difficulty as public relations practitioners, clients and journalists are communicating
in an overload situation where complexity is the norm and flexibility to manage such complexity,
the challenge. The public relations profession is still coming to terms with online opportunity
(Samsup Jo & Jung, 2005, DTI, IPR, 2003; Richardson. 2002: Wright, 2001; Hachigian &
Hallahan, 2003) requiring online skill to manage strategically.
Email is an efficient tool when used appropriately but the studies reported in this paper show that
increased email communication placed demands on consultant-client, journalists’ relationships
making it difficult to effectively manage all aspects of relational exchanges. There is also a word
of caution from Bates (2002):
Thus, for public relations the explosion of non-traditional outlets means greater
opportunities for publicity and promotion. It also means complications.
Whereas in the past practitioners only had to concentrate on a few well-
established venues, they now have to consider hundreds, if not thousands. They
have to be more sophisticated in knowing when and how to use technology
more efficiently and effectively in order to avoid problems such as over-
communicating (going to too many people with too many messages) and adding
unnecessary time and expense to the process. (p.329)
The results of the relationship management study show that clients’ dissatisfaction with the
majority of consultants’ poor online skills was undermining their relationships. This finding
13
confirms other scholars’ (Esrock & Leichty, 2000, 1998; Kent, 2001, 2001a, 2001b; Hallahan,
2000; Heath, 1998; Thomsen, 1996, 1997) observations as these scholars also point to the
challenges of new media and the need for public relations practitioners to manage new technology
effectively so as to be efficient.
Public relations practitioner-client and practitioner-journalists’ relationships reported in this paper
indicated that face-to-face meetings were necessary to manage aspects of the relationships but as
these occurred infrequently, relationships were weakened and some broke down altogether. The
clients in these unsuccessful relationships were frustrated by the persistence to manage their
differences and disappointments online. Phillips (2001, p.151) highlights that ‘the truth is that e-
mail is impersonal and provides little insight into the needs, aspirations and social background or
interests of the person on the other end’ (p.151). Therefore, if relational partners persist in
emailing as the main medium of communication especially when there are relational difficulties,
they are subverting relational development and understanding. Additionally, the demands and
pressures of the work environment seemed to make the relationships more strained for clients and
journalists in the reports in this paper, as there is little time to check out those aspects of relational
exchanges that need clarification, or might have been misinterpreted. These findings echo those of
scholars of psychology, management and marketing (Schlesinger, Eccles, & Gabarro, 1983;
Giovagnoli, Carter-Miller, 2000; Carr, 1991; Blois, 1997; Devito, 1997, 2008; 2000; Dawson,
2000; Kitchen & Pelsmaker, 2004) that point to relationships constantly changing as organisations
communicate to different, diverse audiences.
The results of these studies point to the need to rethink relationship management and what it
encompasses in contemporary public relations practice. Relational theory needs to reflect that
multifaceted relationships make understanding of all parties’ points of view very difficult. This
paper argues that the view of Ledingham & Bruning (2000, p.66) is therefore simplistic when
these scholars assert that ‘organizations that practise relationship management within a model of
two-way symmetry both generate and receive benefits’ since two-way symmetry is rarely
achieved, nor is it necessary in every case. Consultants, clients and journalists that practise
relationship management have to manage constant emails and online exchanges and use a variety
of media to communicate with varied online partners. This paper posits that a flexible approach to
managing relationships is required where sometimes two-way symmetrical communication may
be achievable but at other times relationship differences might not be managed as other
organisational demands take precedence, emails constantly arrive demanding responses that
cannot always be addressed and other parties become involved in managing other aspects of a
relationship. Much of Grunig’s (2001) focus on symmetrical communication as ideal and
excellent, and Ledingham’s (2001, 2003) and Ledingham and Bruning’s (1998, 2000) relational
dimensions begins to look less plausible in the online world where time is of essence and
14
attempting to build trust or dialogue under such conditions is very difficult. If relational theory
exponents put forward arguments for relationship dimensions, and focus on subjective and
interpersonal aspects of relationships (Taylor, 2004; Ledingham et al., 2000), then their theories
must take into account the array of online audiences, the myriad online exchanges and the
diversity of responses, many of which are instantaneous. In this context the limited applicability of
current relational thinking becomes obvious. Overall findings of the studies reported in this paper,
however, support those of Kent, Taylor & White (2003) that public relations practitioners have
been slow to manage new media both technically and as a medium that could benefit clients and
other organisations.
Conclusion
The studies reported in this paper indicated that relationships need to be managed through the use
of both new and traditional media. The author suggested that this can be achieved through
relationship management parameters (Chia, 2006) where clear expectations about agreed
outcomes and the benefits of email (and other appropriate media) are set out for all parties in a
relationship. Even then, email communication is so prevalent that public relations practitioners
need to anticipate that online misunderstandings are part of normal relationships and they need to
be managed. The pressure on journalists will continue as many now access organisations’
websites to garner information quickly, a point followed up in detail in the author’s earlier paper
(Chia, 2004).
In the relationship study, fourteen out of sixteen clients expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction
with the predictable way that consultants continued to use all communication including email. In
the second study the eight young journalists were absorbed in day-to-day demands but they were
uncomfortable about aspects of their public relations practitioner relationships. It seems that the
changing dynamics and convenience of the emails has made it easy for journalists to communicate
but it has also weakened their relationships with public relations practitioners who reported that
they preferred to work with experienced journalists with whom they had developed regular
dialogue and understanding.
This paper argues that because outcomes of poor online management can be detrimental there is
an urgent need for practitioners to address online skills and manage email as integral to
relationship maintenance and development. In Australian public relations ‘it is remarkable how
many practitioners fail to recognise the unique characteristics of email that require specialised
uses’ (Brand & Roald, 2004, p.242) and it seems that journalists are facing similar problems
(Chia, 2004) as they increasingly use email as a tool of exchange not as part of managing a public
relations relationship.
15
It was evident in the relationship management study that clients were more skilled in all areas of
online communication, with only one client having poor online skills and even that client was in
the process of upgrading skills. By comparison, their consultants were so involved with day-to-
day business management that they had very little training in new media and they seemed to do
little else except in their words ‘service clients’ as part of the day-to-day business exchange. As
long as this service culture continues, consultant-client relationship development will be limited in
all areas whether communication is through email, telephone or meetings in a client’s office. In
the second study journalists referred to the public relations practitioners as a source rather than a
relational partner indicating that these relationships are primarily business exchanges for business
benefit only.
In the relationship management study clients reported that email communication should not be a
stand alone means of communicating as a follow up telephone call was often more effective.
Consultants concurred that the mobile telephone was becoming more important to day-to-day
management of projects and that it was one of the ways to respond to and manage clients’ requests
and, therefore, maintain a more convivial relationship.
Public relations consultants and journalists were aware that they were not communicating as well
as they could, but they were still coming to terms with how they could effectively manage so
many online exchanges.
This study proposes that consultants’ email management is in urgent need of recognition as a
dynamic tool that requires skilled, strategically managed communication between consultants and
clients and journalists with a view to capitalise on the benefits of email. These benefits will only
be possible if email parameters are delineated from the initial briefing sessions and partners’
online expectations have been spelt out and understood. In this way, the manner in which email is
used, the times when other forms of communication are preferred, along with clients’ preferences,
can be acknowledged and respected. This will require two-way, multi-way communication that
has the potential to build relationships although it seems that the demands of online immediacy
and the savvy, educated publics that some scholars Seitel, 2006, Chipchase & Theaker, 2004)
contend have changed public relations practice, might also make relationships transitory and less
able to be managed.
Scholars, Eyun-Jung Ki & Jae-Hwa Shin (2006) have pointed to the need to conduct further
research to understand the dynamic nature of relationships. More research is required to
understand online relationship management with many different media. The reports in this paper
16
point to public relations relationship management as managing constant communication exchange
where relational goals regularly change as relational parties sometimes lead, at other times advise
and then move out of a relationship allowing others to manage different client and organisational
needs and differences. In this context the public relations practitioner becomes the facilitator and
manager of the most beneficial, effective and appropriate communication fostering many
relational exchanges, many short term, many online, and making these relationships meaningful
for all parties. Relational theory needs to reflect the changing relational context where many
parties make up successful relationships and where much of the communication takes place
online. In this environment flexibility and adaptability are critical to the most effective relational
exchanges but, it is also argued that online communication management will continue to challenge
the effectives of relationship management as the flurry of online activity is increasing in all areas
of public relations management. Perhaps public relations practitioners will be “relational touch
point managers” of the future.
References
Adams, T & Clark, N (2001), The Internet, Effective Online Communication, Harcourt College
Publishers, USA.
Bates, D (2002), Public relations, in Straubhaar, J & LaRose, R (2000), Media Now,
Communications Media in the Information Age, 2nd edition, Wadsworth, USA, pp. 312-
345
Blois, K (1997), Are business-to-business relationships inherently unstable? Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol 13, pp. 367-382.
Bobbitt, R (1995), An Internet primer for public relations, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 40,
No 3, pp. 27-32.
Brand, J & Roald, S (2004), Information and communication technologies, in Johnston, J &
Zawawi, C, Public Relations, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, Allen and Unwin,
NSW, Australia, pp. 232-256.
Broom, G, Casey, S & Ritchey, J (2000), Concept and theory of organisation-public
relationships, in Ledingham, J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship
Management, A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations,
Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
17
Bruning, S & Ledingham, J (1999), Relationships between organizations and publics:
development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale, Public
Relations Review, Vol 25, No 2, pp. 157-170.
Bruning, S & Ledingham, J (2000a), Organization and key public relationships, in Ledingham,
J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach
to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, pp. 159-173.
Bruning, S & Ledingham, J (2000b), Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of
satisfaction: An exploration and interaction, Public Relations Review, Vol 26, No1, pp.
85-96.
Bruning, S (2002), Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes
and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes, Public Relations Review, Vol 28,
pp. 39-48.
Bruning, S & Galloway, T (2003), Expanding the organization-public relationship scale:
Exploring the role of that structural and personal commitment play in organization-
public relationships, Public Relations Review, Vol 29, pp. 309-319.
Bruning, S & Langenhop, A & Green, K (2004), Examining city-resident relationships: Linking
community relations, relationship building activities, and satisfaction evaluations,
Public Relations Review, Vol 30, No 1, pp. 335-346.
Carr, J (1991), Communicating and relating, 3rd edition, USA, WC. Brown Publishers.
Chia, J (2003), Managing clients online and through traditional media, 2nd International
Conference on Multimedia and ICTs in Education, Advances in Technology-Based
Education, Toward a Knowledge-Based Society, Published in conference proceedings,
Badajoz, Spain, 3-6, December, Vol 2, pp. 914-918, ISBN-84-96212-09-2.
Chia, J (2004), Websites challenges and relationship management, Australian Journalism
Review, Vol 26, No. 2, pp. 87-98.
Chia, J (2005), Relationship management: developing relationship management parameters
critical to the effective management of relationships between public relations
consultants and their clients, Thesis (PhD SoSc (Communic.InformatStud), University
of South Australia.
18
Chia, J (2006) Measuring the immeasurable, PRism online journal, Vol. 4 (2).
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/evaluation.html, for PRism Special Edition on Measurement
and Evaluation
Chipchase, J & Theaker, A (2004), Using the Internet effectively in public relations, in
Theaker, A, The Public Relations Handbook, 2nd edition, Routledge, Oxfordshire,
United Kingdom, pp. 256-281.
Clampitt, P (2005), Communicating for managerial effectiveness,. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks,
California, SAGE Publications.
Coombs, W (1998), The Internet as a potential equalizer: New leverage for confronting social
irresponsibility, Public Relations Review, Vol 24, No 3, pp. 209-303.
Coombs, W (2000), Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective, in Ledingham,
J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach
to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, pp. 73-93.
Coombs, W (2001), Interpersonal communication and public relations, in Heath, R (2001),
Handbook of Public Relations, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, USA, pp. 105-114.
Coombs, W & Holladay, S (2001), An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion
of the relational management and symbolic approaches, Journal of Public Relations
Research, Vol 13, No 4, pp. 321-340.
Cutlip, S, Center, A & Broom, G (2007), Effective Public Relations, 9h edition, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Daniels,T, Spiker, B & Papa, M (1997), Perspectives on Organisational Communication,
Boston, McGraw Hill.
Dawson, R (2000), Developing Knowledge-based Client Relationships, the future of
professional services, USA, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Devito, J (1997), Human Communication, the Basic Course, 7th edition, USA, Longman,
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.
Devito, J (2008), Interpersonal Messages. Communication and Relationship Skills, Pearson,
Allyn & Bacon, U.S.A.
Dougall, E & Fox, A (2001), New Communication Technologies and Public Relations, Report
to the Public Relations Institute of Australia, The findings of a national survey
undertaken in December 2000, University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
19
DuBrin, A, (2000), Applying Psychology, Individual and Organizational Effectiveness, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Duck, S & Glimour, R (1981), Personal Relationships 1: Studying Personal Relationships,
London, Academic Press Inc.
Duck, S (1984), Personal Relationships 5: Repairing Personal Relationships, London,
Academic Press Inc.
Duck, S (1986), Human Relationships: An Introduction of Social Psychology, Beverly Hills,
SAGE.
DTI, IPR, Unlocking the Potential of Public Relations: Developing Good Practice (2003), A
report jointly funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Institute of
Public Relations, United Kingdom, European Centre for Business Excellence, pp. 1-78,
Accessed 19 March 2004, from www.ipr.org.uk/unlockpr/index.asp.
Esrock, S, Leichty, G (1998), Social responsibility and corporate Web-pages: Self presentations
or agenda setting? (Special issue: Technology and the Corporate Citizen), Public
Relations Review, Vol 24, No3, pp. 305-319.
Esrock, S & Leichty, G (2000), Organization of corporate Web pages: Publics and functions, Public
Relations Review, Vol 26, No 3, pp. 327-344
Frankfort-Nachmias, C & Nachmias, D (1992), Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 4th
edition, UK, St Martin’s Press Inc.
Giovagnoli, M & Carter-Miller, J (2000), Networlding. Building Relationships and
Opportunities for Success, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Company.
Grunig, J (2002), Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and
publics, University of Maryland, Accessed 13/6/2004, from www.instituteforpr.com.
Grunig, J (2001), Two-way symmetrical public relations, past, present and future, in Heath, R,
Handbook of Public Relations, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, USA, pp. 11-30.
Grunig, J & Grunig, L (1998), The relationship between public relations and marketing in
excellent organization: evidence from the IABC study, Journal of Marketing
Communications, No. 4, pp. 141-162.
Grunig, J & Hon, L (1999), Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations, The
Institute for Public Relations Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation,
University of Florida, Accessed 13/6/2004, from www.instituteforpr.com.
20
Grunig, J & Huang, Yi-Hui (2000), From organisational effectiveness to relationship indicators:
Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes, in
Ledingham, J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A
Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 23-53.
Gustafson, L & Thomsen, S (1996), Merging the teaching of public relations and advertising
onto the information superhighway, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 41, No 1, pp. 38-
42.
Guth, D & Marsh, C (2003), Public Relations, A Values-Driven Approach, Allyn and Bacon,
2nd edition, Pearson Education, Inc,Boston, USA.
Hachigian, D & Hallahan, K (2003), Perceptions of public relations web sites by computer
industry journalists, Public Relation Review, Vol 29, pp. 43-62.
Hallahan, K (2004), Protecting an organization’s digital public relations assets, Public Relation
Review, Vol 30, pp. 255-268.
Hall, M (2006), Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Community Relations: Measuring
Relationship-Building Results, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 18 , 1, pp1-21.
Heath, R (1998), New communication technologies: An issues management point of view,
Public Relations Review, Vol 24, No 3, pp. 273-288.
Hendrix, J (2004), Public Relations Cases, 6th edition, USA, Thompson Wadsworth.
Hersey,P, & Blanchard, K (1988), Management of organizational behaviour. Utilizing Human
Resources, 5th edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Hill, L & White, C (2000), Public relations practitioners’ perception of the World Wide Web as
a communication tool, Public Relations Review, Vol 26, p. 31-51.
Hinde, R (1981), The bases of a science of interpersonal relationships, in S Duck & R Gilmour
(Eds), Personal Relationships 1: Studying Personal Relationships, London, Academic
Press Inc.
Hon, L & Brunner, B (2001), Measuring public relationships among students and
administrators at the University of Florida, Journal of Communication Management,
Vol 6, No 3, pp. 227-238.
Horton, J (2001), Online Public Relations: A Handbook for Practitioners, Quorum books,
Westport CT, USA.
21
Huang, Yi-Hui (2001a), Values of public relations: Effects on organization-public relationships
mediating conflict resolution, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 13, No 4, pp.
265-301.
Huang, Yi-Hui (2001b), OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring
organization-public relationships, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 13, No 1,
pp. 61-90.
Huck, S & Mucke, D (2006), Relationship Management in Strategic Public Relations; How PR
executives build and manage relationships, paper presented for the EUPRERA Annual
Conference, University Lake District, United Kingdom, September 6-9, Strategic
Communication in a Multi-Cultural context.
Hung, Chun-ju, Flora (2005), Exploring Types of Organization –Public Relationships and Their
Implications for Relationship Management in Public Relations, Journal of Public
Relations Research, Vol 17, No.4, pp. 393-425.
Jahansoozi, J (2006), Relationships, Transparency, and Evaluation: The Implications for Public
Relations, in L’Etang & Piezcka (editors) Public Relations. Critical Debates and
Contemporary Practice, Lawrence, Elrbaum, Assoc,Mahwah, New Jersey
Kent, M (2001), Teaching mediated public relations, Public Relations Review, Vol 27, pp. 59-
71.
Kent, M (2001a), Managerial rhetoric as the metaphor for the World Wide Web, Critical
Studies in Media Communication, Vol 18, No3, pp. 359-375.
Kent, M (2001b), Essential tips for searching the Web, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 46, No
1, pp. 26-31.
Kent, M &Taylor, M & White, J (2003), The relationship between Web site design and
organizational responsiveness to stakeholders, Public Relations Review, Vol 29, pp. 63-
77.
Kent, M, Taylor, M & White, J (2002), Toward a dialogic theory of public relations, Public
Relations Review, Vol 28, pp. 21
Kitchen, P & Pelsmacker, P (2004), Integrated Marketing Communications: A Primer,
Routledge, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
Ki, Eyun-Jung & Jae-Hwa, Shin ( 2006), Status of organization –public relationship research from
an analysis of published articles, 1985-2004,Public Relations Review, Vol 32, pp. 194-195.
22
Lan, Ni (2006), Relationships as organizational resources: Examining public relations impact
through it connection with organizational strategies, Public Relations Review, Vol 232,
pp. 276-281.
Ledingham, J (2001), Government-community relationships: Extending the relational theory of
public relations, Public Relations Review, Vol 27, No 3, pp. 285-295.
Ledingham, J (2003), Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public
relations, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol 15, No 2, pp. 181-198.
Ledingham, J & Bruning, S (1998), Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions
of an organization-public relationship, Public Relations Review, Vol 24, No1, pp. 55-
65.
Ledingham, J & Bruning, S (2000), A longitudinal study of organization-public relationship
dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship
management, in J Ledingham & S Bruning (Eds) Public Relations as Relationship
Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations,
Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,
pp. 55-69.
Leichty, G (1997), The limits of collaboration, Public Relations Review, Vol 23, No 1, pp. 47-
55.
Marken, A (2000), CRM…Take a hint from the Internet, redefine customers, Public Relations
Quarterly, Vol 45, No 3, pp. 40-41.
Marken, A (2002), The challenges of international relations in an Internet world, Public
Relations Quarterly, Vol 47, No 3, pp. 28-29.
Marken, A (2003), Following fundamentals builds journalists relationships, Public Relations
Quarterly, Vol 48, No 1, pp. 27-31.
Mutchnick, R & Berg, B (1996) Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Practices and
Applications, USA, Allyn & Bacon.
Newsom, D, Turk, J & Kruckerberg, D (2004), This is PR: The Realities of Public Relations, 8th
edition, Belmont, CA, Thomson Wadsworth, USA.
Phillips, D (2001), Online Public Relations, Kogan Page, London, UK.
Phillips, D (2006), Towards Relationship Management, Journal of Communication
Management, Vol 10, No.2, pp 211-226.
23
Richardson, V (2002), Using new media, in Tymson, C, Lazar, P & Lazar, R The New
Australian and New Zealand Public Relations Manual, 21st century edition, Tymson
Communications, Chatswood, Australia, pp. 460-480.
Samsup, Jo & Jaemin, Jung ( 2005) A cross- cultural study of the world wide web and public
relations, Corporate Communications, Vol, 10, No 1, pp- 24-40.
Schlesinger, L, Eccles, R & Gabarro, J (1983), Managing Behaviour in Organizations: Texts,
Cases, Readings, Japan, McGraw-Hill.
Seitel, F (2007), The Practice of Public Relations, 10th, edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
Prentice Hall, USA.
Sterne, J (2000), Customer Service on the Internet, Building Relationships, Increasing Loyalty,
and Staying Competitive, 2nd edition, New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Taylor, M, Kent, L & White, J (2001), How activist organizations are using the Internet to build
relationships, Public Relations Review, Vol 27, pp. 263-284.
Taylor, M (2004), Exploring public relations in Croatia through relational communication and
media richness theories, Public Relations Review, Vol 30, pp. 145-160.
Theaker, A (2004), The Public Relations Handbook, 2nd edition, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom,
Routledge.
Thomlison, D (2000), An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations, in
Ledingham, J & Bruning, S, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A
Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Mahwah, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 177-203.
Thomsen, S (1996), @work in cyberspace: Exploring practitioner use of the PR forum, Public
Relations Review, Vol 22, No 2, pp. 115-131.
Thomsen, S (1997), Public relations in the new millennium: Understanding the forces that are
reshaping the profession, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol 42, No 1, pp. 11-17.
Ulmer, R (2001), Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships:
Malden Mills as a case study, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol 14, No 4,
pp. 590-615.
Wood, JT (2000), Relational Communication, Continuity and Change in Personal
Relationships, 2nd edition, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
24
Wright, D (2001), The Magic Communication Machine, The Institute for Public Relations,
University of Florida, Funded by WORLDCOM Public Relations Group for the
Institute for Public Relations, Accessed 14/11/2003, from www.instituteforpr.com.
25
