Tennessee Tech University: Applying Grunig's relationship measures

Published on March 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 10 | Comments: 0 | Views: 87
of 6
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Tennessee Tech: Grunig’s Relationship Measures Applied Running Head: TENNESSEE TECH: GRUNIG’S RELATIONSHIP MEASURES APPLIED

1

Tennessee Tech University: Applying Grunig’s relationship measures

Dewayne Wright University of Memphis

July 1, 2009

[APA 5th]

Tennessee Tech: Grunig’s Relationship Measures Applied Tennessee Tech University: Applying Grunig’s relationship measures

2

Introduction This paper will examine how to measure the corporate relationships involving Tennessee Tech University and its publics. First, it will present definitions of corporate reputation from the literature. It will then briefly examine concerns about the corporate reputation construct as well as suggest how to apply Grunig’s (1999) measurements to Tennessee Tech.

Corporate reputation Fombrun & van Riel (1998) defined corporate reputation as “a collective representation of a firm’s past actions and results that describes the firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders. It gauges a firm’s relative standing both internally with employees and externally with its stakeholders, in both its competitive and institutional enviroments” (p. 230). Fombrun has called identity “the backbone” of reputation. Balmer & Greyser (2003), in their introduction to Fombrun & van Riel’s article, “The Reputational Landscape,” note the similarities between corporate identity, image, and reputation, calling each of the concepts “contiguous” in that each, when considered individually, is “narrowly conceived,” but they exist in relation to each other. The authors identify two distinct characteristics of reputation within the literature. Reputations are formed over time and are based on the organization’s past accomplishments and its behavior. Concerns about reputation The benefits of a good corporate reputation are often cited as a reason for examining this concept (Greyser 1999, Hon & Grunig 1999). Greyser (1999) states that a positive reputation

Tennessee Tech: Grunig’s Relationship Measures Applied directly impacts preference to do business with an organization when products or services are similar in quality and price amongst organizations. While there continues to be interest in the concept of corporate reputation based on the

3

amount of academic and practitioner articles (as well as the number of professional public relations agencies offering reputation management services), there is a concern about the validity of the construct: Is corporate reputation truly a new concept, encompassing all that has come before it and expanding the model to include new dimensions, or is it, as Hutton et al. (2001) write, “further complicat[ing] what [is] already a serious identity crisis, in terms of public relations’ ability or willingness to define itself in a consistent manner” (p. 248). Reputation Measures Hutton et al. (2001) directly question the validity of reputation measures, which have been criticized as both unstable (e.g., too much variance from one year’s study to another) and invalid (e.g., the measurements lack statistical validity). Hon & Grunig (1999), looking at ways to measure relationships between an organization and its publics, identify six indicators of the relationship that exists (control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship, communal relationship), developed a methodology for obtaining quantitative data through the use of a questionnaire that includes a series of Likert-scale questions (strongly disagree/strongly agree). The scales used in this instrument were found to be highly reliable, except for the exchange scale, which was found to be acceptable in its reliability. The authors acknowledged the problem of measuring reputations with a sample of the general population because many of those in the sample may not have much involvement with the organizations they were asked about. Hon and Grunig feel that a better approach would be to use respondents that are known to be in the organization’s publics.

Tennessee Tech: Grunig’s Relationship Measures Applied Application of Grunig’s method to Tennessee Tech Tennessee Tech University is a Master’s/Comprehensive four-year public institution. It is organized with a central administration and seven academic colleges and schools. While it has experienced record enrollment for the last eight years, breaking the 10,000-student mark in 2006. Like most universities, Tennessee tech interacts with numerous publics and creates relationships

4

with each. Some of the obvious publics are prospective students, current students, faculty and staff, alumni, and the institution’s governing body. Other publics include government officials, peer institutions, the mass media, and donors. Tennessee Tech, by having a clearly defined set of publics to create a sample group, would be able to follow Grunig’s “better approach” in administering a survey to the various publics. Prospective students could be culled from the Office of Admissions; alumni from alumni records; current students from current enrollment records, for instance. Using Hon & Grunig’s (1999) methodology, the university would develop a questionnaire that could be administered to various sample groups. The questions would be tested to ensure reliable scales for each question and for each of the six elements of existing relationships. The researchers state that the questionnaire should also be administered to senior managers to get their ideas about a relationship with a specific public. This allows a practitioner to get a “more complete picture of the relationship” (p. 28). I think this is a strong idea, and could be easily accomplished within the university’s administrative structure by utilizing groups such as the Executive Advisory Council, which includes the president and cabinet members only. In analyzing the responses, Tennessee Tech would be able to establish quantitative results for each of the six elements. By looking at each sample group (e.g., current students) separately,

Tennessee Tech: Grunig’s Relationship Measures Applied the university, over time, would be able to identify weaknesses and strengths in its relations with its publics.

5

Conclusion While the reputation construct is difficult to measure, I think that a single organization, such as a university, could create a standard methodology to measure its reputation with its oublics. By using a standardized questionnaire, sampling procedure, and analysis techniques, an effective long-term measure can be established for use to see if the organization is accomplishing its strategic objectives. Grunig (1993) writes: For public relations to be valued by the organization it serves, practitioners must be able to demonstrate that their efforts contribute to the goals of these organizations by building long-term behavioral relationships with strategic publics – those that affect the ability of the organizations to accomplish its mission (p.219). By creating an established measure, public relations practitioners within an organization are able to demonstrate the value of their efforts by showing the long-term effects of all of the organization’s public relations efforts.

Tennessee Tech: Grunig’s Relationship Measures Applied References Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (2003). Corporate image and reputation. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 173-185). London:Routledge.

6

Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (1998). The reputational landscape. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 223-233). London:Routledge. Greyser, S. A. (1999). Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 234-242). London:Routledge. Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 204-222). London:Routledge. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations. Gainesville, FL:Institute for Public Relations. (Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/guidelines_measuring_relationships/) Hutton, J. G., Goodman, M. B., Alexander, J. B., & Genest, C. M. (2001). Reputation management: the new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations Review 27, 247261.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close