The Dynamics of PR

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 38 | Comments: 0 | Views: 368
of 31
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content


EJM
37,1/2
298
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 37 No. 1/2, 2003
pp. 298-328
# MCB UP Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560310454325
Received June 2000
Revised December 2000;
March 2001;
August 2001
The dynamics of public
relations
Key constructs and the drive for
professionalism at the practitioner,
consultancy and industry levels
Carmen Lages
Marketing Group ± Management Department, ISCTE ± Instituto
Superior de Cie Ãncias do Trabalho e da Empresa, Lisboa, Portugal, and
Lyndon Simkin
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Keywords Public relations, Analysis, Professional service firms
Abstract Public relations is variously defined: those within the PR sector tend to view their
activities as having strategic and corporate impact, while many marketers classify PR as little
more than a tactical ingredient of the promotional mix. This contrast is important, given
marketers are heavy users of PR activity. This confusion has hindered the development of the PR
profession and added to the blurring of exactly what constitutes PR. Contributes to this discussion
by identifying the core constituents of public relations and the underlying driving forces. Through
a holistic approach, examines ``PR-ness'' at three different levels. Survey data were gathered from
public relations consultancies in the UK. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor
analysis were used to examine the responses of 297 public relations consultancies in England. As
a result, the many driving forces within the PR domain have been identified and grouped into
nine measurement scales of ``PR-ness''. These findings provide PR practitioners with a set of
issues to address in order to progress the perceived professionalism of their activities and they
offer a framework for assessing subsequent progress in this respect.
Introduction
Public relations (PR) is an ``emerging'' social science discipline (Hazleton and
Botan, 1989, p. 13) currently lacking paradigmatic and topic diversity and
strongly influenced by practice (Pasadeos et al., 1999; Morton and Lin, 1995).
The paradigm struggle in public relations (Botan, 1993; Hallahan, 1993) is due,
in part, to the lack of any consensus as to what constitutes public relations,
stemming from the diversity of the practice itself and from its constant
adaptation to society's evolutionary change (see MacManus, 1997). PR needs to
develop measurements (Morton and Lin, 1995) which will allow the empirical
assessment of its dimensions and clearly identify its driving forces. Therefore,
attempts to operationalise the constituent elements of public relations as well
as develop measurement scales of those elements should be continued in order
to provide empirical evidence about the phenomena of public relations. This
paper utilises survey data and analysis to examine what constitutes ``PR-ness''
and how these themes are inter-related. Core management objectives, working
practices, evolving client needs, competitive pressures, training and qualities of
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
The dynamics of
public relations
299
personnel, performance measures and standards within the PR industry, are
just some of the fundamental issues nowforming the shape of PR.
Theoretical background
On-going conceptualisation of public relations
Public relations academics conceptualise public relations as a management
discipline, which is a change from the traditional view of public relations as
mainly a communication activity. Grunig and Hunt (1984, p. 6) define public
relations as the ``management of communication between an organisation and
its publics''; and emphasise: ``this definition equates public relations and
communication management''. Cutlip et al. (1999, p. 6) define PR as ``the
management function that identifies, establishes and maintains mutually
beneficial relationships between an organisation and the various publics on
whom its success or failure depends''. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) summed
it up by defining public relations as ``relationship management''. This implies
that the focus of public relations is the management of an organisation's
relationships with its publics through the four-step management process of
analysis, planning, implementation and evaluation. In this context public
relations uses communication strategically.
Corporate public relations and marketing public relations
In addition to its corporate dimension, another domain of practice can be
identified when considering public relations: marketing public relations (e.g.
Goldman, 1995; Kitchen and Papasolomou, 1997). When defining marketing,
McCarthy (1960) argued that its basic task was to combine four main elements
into a marketing programme to facilitate the market exchange, known as the
marketing mix: product, price, place and promotion. Likewise, promotion was
traditionally divided in four elements, known as the promotional mix:
advertising, sales promotion, personal selling and public relations. In recent
times, this promotional mix has been extended to include direct mail,
sponsorship and the Internet (see Dibb et al., 2001). In this context, public
relations is seen as a communication tool that will be co-ordinated with the
others (such as advertising) to achieve a previously defined marketing
objective. Therefore, when seen in relation with marketing, public relations is
incorporated within its aims. The marketing mix defines marketing objectives
in terms of satisfaction of a customer's needs and sales volume. In the words of
Goldman (1984, p. xi) ``while all public relations is concerned with strategy,
marketing-orientated PR is concerned with marketing strategy ± with the
development of means and ends directly related to buying and selling''.
Public relations academics trying to build a specific theoretical framework
for the discipline reject marketing PR as a limited and misleading view of the
practice. Public relations academics consider that when deployed solely as a
marketing tool, public relations is reduced to a short-term, non-strategic
technical task, far from its managerial potential (Grunig, 1992). Most underline
that marketing and public relations are completely different managerial
EJM
37,1/2
300
functions (Cutlip et al., 1999). Marketers, conversely, often ridicule the notion of
public relations being anything other than a tactical component of the
promotional mix (see Dibb et al., 2001). There is no doubt, however, that once
the domain of ex-journalists, public relations has increasingly pushed itself to
the fore of many clients' promotional mixes (Caywood, 1996; Dibb et al., 2001;
Kitchen, 1997). Perhaps it is the case that marketers' scoping of PR is too
narrow when compared with the PR remit as viewed by the leading PR
exponents, who value public relations way beyond its tactical marketing mix
role (Dibb et al., 1996). Additions to the theoretical discipline of PR, as
suggested in this paper, may well encourage marketers to reconsider and
acknowledge the longer-termstrategic input possible frompublic relations.
Forces shaping the public relations industry
Previous studies (for example Arber, 1986; Simkin and Dibb, 1998; Kitchen,
1993; MacManus, 1997; Moss et al., 1997; Dibb et al., 1996; White and Blamphin,
1995) have examined the underlying trends and core issues concerning
practitioners in leading public relations consultancies. These earlier studies
identified various drivers in the PR industry prompting the use of PR in
commerce to continue to expand:
.
businesses (clients) requiring better employee relations;
.
the growing value placed by industry on corporate and product
branding;
.
continued corporate and environmental crises requiring pre-emptive and
remedial media campaigns;
.
continued change in the EU and Eastern Europe creating commercial
opportunities and threats for PR consultants and their clients;
.
increasing use by the professions of marketing communications;
.
the maturing and increasing professionalismof the PR industry.
Many companies ± the clients of PR firms ± have ``re-engineered'', introduced
new IT, or down-sized, all of which are operational changes that cause internal
turmoil and employee concern (Crandall and Menefee, 1996). The need for
effective internal communication under such conditions is of great value and
companies often turn to the professional PR adviser for guidance (George, 1990;
Lings and Brooks, 1998; Reynoso and Moores, 1996). It is generally accepted
that businesses are placing increasing importance on the support and
promotion of their corporate name and key pillar brands (Jefkins and Yadin,
1998; Varey, 1997). This is particularly true in the services sector where often
brand name is the principal differentiating factor in the minds of the targeted
customers (Dibb et al., 2001).
GM foods or BSE-style crises, pollution alerts or faulty products,
unfortunately occur despite the best endeavours, or occasional ignorance, of
those organisations involved. Businesses or public bodies faced with such
The dynamics of
public relations
301
crises reassure the public and set the record straight (Wybrew, 1995) via the
use of public relations, which in such crisis management situations is an
essential ingredient of the communications mix (Jefkins and Yadin, 1998). The
ever-changing regulatory and political environments in the EU and in Eastern
Europe bring forth opportunities for trade, difficulties in communication to
overcome and the need to create corporate and product awareness in once alien
territories. Deregulation of the use of marketing communications in the legal
and medical professions, plus growing commercialisation of higher education
encouraged greater deployment of public relations activities in these sectors. In
commerce in general, many clients have witnessed the growth of public
relations throughout the 1990s and, as with the Internet and direct marketing,
more routinely included these promotional mix ingredients in their marketing
communications programmes (Dibb et al., 2001). These are just some of the
commercial reasons that were identified as encouraging the proliferation of
public relations throughout the 1990s. The professional exponents of PR felt
their industry was set for further growth and increasing challenges.
The studies in the 1990s encouraged public relations practitioners to reveal
the strategic and tactical concerns that required tackling in order for PR to
progress as a profession and its value within the promotional mix to expand.
The leading public relations consultancies cited a mix of internal and external
business issues (Dibb et al., 1996; Grunig et al., 1998; White and Blamphin,
1995):
.
internationalism;
.
competition and specialisation;
.
personnel development and recruiting;
.
strategic expertise;
.
the ``grey'' area with advertising and fit within marketing
communications;
.
evaluation of PR effectiveness;
.
adoption of newtechnology.
Internationalism has been cited as a key business trend for two decades
(Keegan, 1995; Kinnick and Cameron, 1994; MacManus, 1997). For most public
relations practitioners, the message was clear: pan-European brands and client
operations necessitate a pan-European marketing communications capability,
including the support bought-in from PR advisers. There was a belief, though,
that while pan-European branding and positioning can be very effective, the
tactical PR support work must be handled locally owing to the nuances of the
local media and PR contacts. The leading PR consultancies pushed their clients
to adopt globally usable branding and promotional messages, supported
locally through customised PR personnel and media (Simkin and Dibb, 1998).
The PR industry is growing rapidly and is very permeable to new entrants,
as PR is perceived as an easy start-up. Competition represents a threat when
EJM
37,1/2
302
stemming from the increasing ability of advertising, sales promotion and
management agencies to offer PR skills (White and Mazur, 1995). The issue of
competing, or even surviving, through specialisation is a major challenge
facing the executives of many PR consultancies. The expectation was that to
succeed there was only one option, but in two guises: niching either for smaller
PR firms concentrating on narrowly defined market sectors, such as health or
agrochemicals, or the large PR consultancies creating specialist teams or
departments within their firms. In addition, the growth in specialisation is a
symptomof the maturity of public relations, as it reveals the increasing solidity
of its areas of expertise (Hollis Directories, 1998). As the business environment
becomes more complex, consultancies find it hard to provide consistent quality
in the large range of PR activities, each one demanding increasingly specialised
knowledge.
Linked with this, PR practitioners were very aware of the need to improve
the qualities of their personnel: better recruitment, skills, training, assessment,
motivation (see Nessmann, 1995; Panigyrakis, 1994). Consultancies still resist
recruiting graduates. Many practitioners seem to believe that PR cannot be
taught and that the most important traits are the personal abilities the
individual is born with. Most are concerned with recruiting people with good
communications skills and a ``bright, enthusiastic personality''. Public relations
education is a tool that can help achieve the professional status to which
practitioners aspire (L'Etang and Pieczka, 1996).
Perhaps one of the more contentious assertions made by the majority of
surveyed senior PR practitioners was their relevance as strategic management
consultants. Their belief was that as advisers in corporate branding and in crisis
management, PR consultancies generally are well informed about their clients'
board level policies and plans, and frequently work alongside the senior
decision-makers and planners in their clients' businesses. PR advisers perceived
they were, therefore, well placed to assist their clients in corporate strategy
development and long termbusiness planning (Simkin and Dibb, 1998).
There was a significant ``grey'' area, too, with the growing use by many
companies of infomercials and advertorials ± mini-documentary style, lengthy
advertisements or plugs (Shannon, 1996). Were these the responsibility of
advertising agencies or PR consultancies? It was not only the media outputs of
public relations and advertising that were evolving. Technology was changing
the way businesses operated. In marketing, desktop publishing, database
management, telesales, the Internet, direct marketing and sales management
have all benefited from tremendous changes in technological support,
availability and cost. For PR, the dominant issue was the Internet
(Wiesendanger, 1994). The expectation was that as more businesses utilised the
Internet to target and communicate with customers and suppliers, and as more
members of the buying public accessed the Internet, the PR industry had to
accept the Web as an opportunity and a threat. Potentially, ease of
communication between suppliers and buyers could exclude PR advisers and
negate clients using professional consultants. On the other hand, the
The dynamics of
public relations
303
communication must still be professional and well managed and PR advisers
have a role still to play. Perhaps more significant is the perceived usefulness of
technology assisting in the development of global networks as clients strive to
``internationalise'' (Bickerton et al., 1996).
The conflict between client and advertising agency is a well documented
struggle (Simkin and Dibb, 1998), with disagreement about who should
resource and be responsible for effectiveness research, be it at the
developmental, confirmatory or evaluative stages of producing and running a
campaign. Where there is no disagreement is the issue of the need for
developing techniques to objectively assess the effectiveness of advertising.
The same issues are prevalent in public relations (Dibb et al., 1996; Grunig et
al., 1998), with leading PR practitioners acknowledging the need for PR to
defend more robustly its output and contributions through evaluation. This
combines with the increasingly competitive PR marketplace, growing
complexity of technology, more demanding clients, the blurring of
responsibility between the different marketing communications disciplines,
plus the desire to become more professional, to place greater responsibility in
the hands of PR consultancy decision-makers to organise their businesses on a
more commercial footing.
Conceptual framework
The public relations literature (see Baskin et al., 1997; Dozier, 1992; Hunt and
Grunig, 1994; Kitchen, 1997; Pasadeos et al., 1999) discusses the public relations
industry and the practice of public relations at one of three levels: the industry
as a whole, the organisational level, and the individual PR practitioner (whether
she/he is an in-house or external consultant practitioner). The growth of formal
training in PR perhaps adds a fourth dimension: academic PR. However, in this
instance, the academic perspective of PR largely reiterates the three key
dimensions highlighted in Figure 1 and indeed is integral to the development of
public relations at these three levels (Dibb et al., 1996; Grunig, 1992; Nessmann,
1995).
Industry level. The PR industry consists of the people and activities involved
in providing PR services; while its forces consist of all the structural elements
of the PR industry that affect these people and PR activities. White and
Blamphin (1995) identified priorities for research into public relations practice
Figure 1.
Public relations: a
holistic view
EJM
37,1/2
304
in the UKthrough a Delphi study including practitioners and academic experts.
The study concluded that the chief priorities for further research were:
.
PR measurement and evaluation; and
.
the definition of public relations.
The study also included in the final list of priorities, the need for more strategic
planning for public relations, the improvement of professional skills in public
relations, the management of expectations of users of public relations, and the
utilisation of ethical decision-making in PR practice. Professional associations
± Public Relations Consultants' Association (PRCA) representing consultancy
(agency) practitioners and the Institute of Public Relations (IPR) traditionally
representing individual in-house practitioners ± have a vital role in the
development of the industry. Professional credibility depends on the IPR and
PRCA requiring those who wish membership meet acceptable standards of
practice, as well as developing initiatives to promote professional standards to
the rest of the industry. According to Wilcox et al. (1995, p. 133) there is no
consensus among practitioners to whether PR is ``a craft, a skill, or a developing
profession''. In their opinion, ``at its present level, PR does not qualify as a
profession in the same sense that medicine and law do. PR does not have
prescribed standards of educational preparation, a mandatory period of
apprenticeship, or state laws that govern admission''. Ethical and professional
conduct regulations exist but are not able to prevent misuse.
Consultancy level. Williams and Woodward (1994) broadly defined the
concept of consultancy as, ``a process in which a consultant provides a service
to a client (i.e. an organisation or an individual acting on behalf of an
organisation or a unit within that organisation) for the purpose of meeting the
client's needs''. In this definition, service implies paid expertise. Schultz and
Ervolder (1998) provided a description of public relations agencies as
contrasted to management consultancies, advertising and corporate design
agencies by describing PR as, ``agencies which offer services predominantly in
corporate image-building to various external constituencies''. Dibb et al. (1996)
presented an overview of the most important trends in the public relations
sector and how public relations consultancies were dealing with these key
issues of intensifying and diversifying competition, specialisation of PR
activity and client bases, quality, recruitment and control of PR personnel, PR's
involvement in strategic thinking and the evaluation of PR effectiveness.
Practitioner level. Baskin et al. (1997) defined public relations practitioners
as, ``individuals who help others establish and maintain effective relationships
with third parties''. Practitioner roles are the most empirically researched in
public relations (Pasadeos et al., 1999). In 1982, Broom's research identified four
types of public relations roles: expert prescriber; communication facilitator;
problem-solving process facilitator; and communication technician (Broom,
1982; Broom and Dozier, 1978; Broom and Smith, 1979). Dozier (1992) later
concluded these four roles could be reduced to two: the manager and the
technician. The manager and technician typologies were confirmed in
The dynamics of
public relations
305
subsequent research (Toth and Grunig, 1993). Although some studies (see Belz
et al., 1989) found somewhat different roles or even challenged the traditional
dichotomy of roles (Leichty and Springton, 1996), they are generally agreed in
the public relations literature. The manager role is attributed to practitioners
who are involved in policy decisions while the technician role refers to
practitioners dealing with the technical aspects of communications (Dozier,
1992). The managers plan and direct communication programmes while the
technicians execute these decisions by writing, editing and contacting the
media (Hunt and Grunig, 1994).
With some exceptions (e.g. Piekos and Einsiedel, 1990; Chen and Culbertson,
1996; Moss et al., 1997), most research in public relations looked at the Northern
American reality and collected data from the perspective of professional
association members, public relations students, journalists, or in-house
practitioners. External consultants ± the ``invisible players'' influencing many
organisations and shaping PR practice ± have never been examined per se.
Little is known, therefore, about how public relations dynamics develop in the
PR industry.
Although the PR literature examines these three varying levels of PR
activity and involvement, it tends to do so by concentrating on only one of them
at a time. There is common ground, though, with confusion about the
definition, role and scope of PR, its core constructs and the assessment of its
value. Undoubtedly, the PR industry has witnessed significant changes in
terms of client needs and expectations, working practices and professionalism,
its role and toolkit, plus its competitive set. It was evident in the studies of the
mid-1990s that while there was growing awareness of these concerns and
commercial dilemmas, many senior PR practitioners had not yet conceptualised
their scope or ramifications for their daily operations or longer termplanning.
The study reported in this paper attempts to determine how these issues are
manifesting themselves and how the three principal constituents of PR
(practitioner, industry and consultancy) are addressing these underlying
forces. This paper examines the results of a study of around three hundred
leading PR practitioners in the UK. The findings from this study have enabled
the understanding of underlying driving forces in the domain of public
relations to be brought up to date, while also enabling measures for
determining ``PR-ness'' to be devised. These constructs of PR are discussed,
advancing the conceptualisation of public relations and its components.
Method
An exploratory study based on 15 in-depth interviews with senior PR
practitioners gathered preliminary data about the dynamics of the public
relations industry. The sample included male and female practitioners across a
variety of consultancy sizes and specialities. The following issues emerged
from the preliminary findings as the most relevant to the respondents: the
nature of public relations activity; public relations research and evaluation
(knowledge and costs); its integration with other communications disciplines;
EJM
37,1/2
306
practitioners' business skills; agencies' in-house training; clients' needs and
perceptions of public relations; public relations professionalism; the
contribution of trade bodies; practitioners' relationship with academia
(knowledge transfer); recruitment of public relations graduates; and
competition from other industries (e.g. marketing and advertising). These
preliminary findings follow White and Blamphin's (1995) results on priorities
for research, sharing many key topics. The emerging issues can be grouped
into three units of analysis: public relations consultants, public relations
consultancies and the public relations industry. This provides a holistic view of
public relations, by looking at the same problemfroma variety of angles.
To explore the issues stemming from the face-to-face interviews, a mail
survey was sent to 1,000 managers of public relations consultancies in the UK.
These were selected through stratified random sampling from a total sample
frame of 2,308 (Hollis Directories, 1998). Stratified sampling was used to ensure
full geographic coverage and at the 95 per cent confidence level, 212 responses
were required, proportioned spatially. The questionnaire's item generation for
the scales relied on both preliminary research results and theoretical notions of
public relations practice (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). Five PR executives helped to
refine the questionnaire that was piloted with 15 consultancies, before rolling
out into the full sample. The final version of the questionnaire included the
following sections: public relations activity; links between public relations and
other communications disciplines; professionalism and professional
associations; training; competition; academia; research and evaluation; clients;
the agency's profile and the respondent's profile. Three-hundred-and-two
questionnaires were received, 297 of which were fully completed,
corresponding to a response rate of 29.7 per cent. A chi-square goodness of fit
test demonstrated that the resulting sample was deemed adequate to represent
the population under study (Gorsuch, 1997): for an alpha level of = 0.010, X
2
(7, n =297) =20.52, is higher than the critical value of 18.48.
The dependent variable can be said to be the ``existence'' of public relations.
A dependent variable such as effectiveness was not used because this
particular study is not addressing issues of causality. The aim of the study is
exploratory and to rectify a gap in the conceptual PR literature. Therefore, the
intention is to identify key variables and to develop measurement scales. The
sample comprised practitioners working in public relations consultancies in the
UK. Most respondents held a senior position and were aged in their 40s (34 per
cent) or 50s (28 per cent). Many were graduates (44 per cent) and 42 per cent of
respondents were female. The majority were small sized consultancies, with up
to six employees (65 per cent) and up to ten clients in the UK(58 per cent) with a
turnover below £500,000 (67 per cent). Overall, 86 per cent of public relations
agencies had up to three directors (41 per cent of agencies had one director).
Most were business-to-business public relations consultants (47 per cent) and
offered generalist services (55 per cent). A total of 73.5 per cent of these PR
companies were created after the 1980s.
The dynamics of
public relations
307
Data analysis and results
Athree-step approach to the data analysis was adopted in this study:
(1) exploratory factor analysis;
(2) reliability analysis; and
(3) confirmatory factor analysis.
Churchill's (1979) traditional approach to scale development was used. With the
aim of producing a set of items which reflect an underlying construct (or
factor), exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and coefficient alpha were deployed.
Churchill's (1979) and Peter's (1979, 1981) approaches to scale development
have been expanded by Gerbing and Anderson (1988), with the use of
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA was used to assess the measurement
properties of the proposed scales. First, exploratory factor analysis was
conducted to examine the component structure of the data for the construction
of scales. Second, the reliability of the emerging components was evaluated to
further refine the scales. Third, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed in order to give a robust estimation of reliability and formally test
the unidimensionality (a group of measures representing a unique construct) of
the scales. Data for multivariate analysis were scrutinised to meet its
assumptions. They were checked for outliers and missing data. When the
normality or linearity assumptions were violated, variables were transformed
by being inverted, or their square root or logarithms were taken when
appropriate (Hair et al., 1992).
First step: exploratory factor analysis (data simplification)
A factor loading of greater than or equal to 0.50 was used to determine the cut-
off point for assigning variables to components (Hair et al., 1992). When an item
failed to have a high loading on any existing components, it was removed and
the factor analysis was re-computed to improve the overall factor solution
(Floyd and Widaman, 1995). The latent root criterion (eigenvalues greater than
1) was then employed, owing to the exploratory nature of the study and the
number of variables being between 20 and 50 (Hair et al., 1992). A 14-factor
solution was achieved and is presented in Tables I and II. As components 13 and
14 are single factors, they were excluded fromfurther analysis (Table II; part 2).
There were 12 emergent components from the exploratory factor analysis
(see Table III). These accounted for 61 per cent of the variance in the data,
which is an acceptable level (Hair et al., 1992):
(1) Component 1 was named ``managerial public relations''. It is made up of
six items concerning activities typically carried out at the managerial
level:
.
setting quantifiable objectives;
.
setting strategic goals;
.
deciding on communications policy;
EJM
37,1/2
308
Table I.
Exploratory factor
analysis (part 1) ±
principal component
analysis with varimax
rotation (Kaiser
normalization)
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
i
a
l
P
R
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
2
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
c
e
o
f
j
o
b
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
3
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
4
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
n
e
e
d
s
f
r
o
m
c
l
i
e
n
t
s
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
5
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
P
R
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
6
T
r
a
d
e
b
o
d
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
7
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
c
1
c
_
a
3
e
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
q
u
a
n
t
i
f
i
a
b
l
e
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
0
.
7
8
8
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
2
6
±
0
.
0
2
0
0
.
0
2
3
0
.
0
1
6
0
.
0
6
5
c
1
a
_
a
3
b
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
g
o
a
l
s
0
.
7
7
2
±
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
6
1
±
0
.
1
2
7
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
9
1
0
.
0
8
3
c
1
f
_
a
3
i
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
d
e
c
i
d
i
n
g
o
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
o
l
i
c
y
0
.
7
4
9
±
0
.
0
0
9
±
0
.
0
6
0
±
0
.
1
5
2
±
0
.
1
8
1
0
.
0
2
5
0
.
0
5
9
c
1
b
_
a
3
d
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
0
.
6
9
4
±
0
.
0
1
2
0
.
0
2
0
0
.
0
8
2
0
.
1
3
2
0
.
0
2
8
±
0
.
0
2
4
c
1
e
_
a
3
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
m
a
k
i
n
g
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
6
3
2
±
0
.
0
7
1
±
0
.
0
9
6
0
.
0
6
0
±
0
.
0
9
6
0
.
0
1
3
0
.
0
0
8
c
1
d
_
a
3
f
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
c
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
0
.
5
8
3
±
0
.
0
5
6
0
.
0
6
9
0
.
0
9
0
±
0
.
0
0
5
±
0
.
1
8
2
±
0
.
0
8
4
c
2
b
_
k
4
Y
e
a
r
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
y
±
0
.
0
2
4
0
.
9
1
2
±
0
.
0
1
7
0
.
0
7
4
±
0
.
0
2
2
0
.
0
3
1
±
0
.
0
3
7
c
2
c
_
k
5
Y
e
a
r
s
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
o
l
e
±
0
.
0
8
2
0
.
8
7
4
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
5
4
0
.
0
1
9
0
.
0
7
8
0
.
0
0
3
c
2
a
_
j
4
A
g
e
n
c
y
'
s
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
±
0
.
0
1
2
0
.
7
6
7
±
0
.
0
2
3
0
.
0
6
0
0
.
0
5
5
0
.
0
3
3
±
0
.
0
9
9
c
2
d
_
k
8
Y
e
a
r
s
i
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
±
0
.
0
7
6
0
.
6
8
0
±
0
.
1
0
7
0
.
1
6
8
±
0
.
1
0
9
±
0
.
1
1
7
0
.
0
5
2
c
3
b
_
f
2
b
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
/
p
e
o
p
l
e
0
.
0
6
3
±
0
.
0
2
4
0
.
8
0
9
0
.
0
9
8
0
.
0
3
9
±
0
.
0
1
4
0
.
0
5
8
c
3
d
_
f
2
e
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
s
a
l
e
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
/
p
e
o
p
l
e
±
0
.
0
2
2
±
0
.
0
4
6
0
.
8
0
4
0
.
0
7
8
±
0
.
0
5
3
±
0
.
0
4
5
±
0
.
0
8
7
c
3
a
_
f
2
a
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
/
p
e
o
p
l
e
0
.
0
1
9
±
0
.
0
5
6
0
.
7
5
7
0
.
0
7
8
0
.
0
4
0
±
0
.
0
8
8
0
.
1
3
2
c
3
c
_
f
2
d
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
/
p
e
o
p
l
e
±
0
.
0
5
2
0
.
0
4
0
0
.
7
0
3
±
0
.
1
1
6
±
0
.
0
3
0
0
.
2
4
4
±
0
.
1
2
7
c
4
e
_
g
4
e
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
±
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
0
3
6
0
.
0
8
1
0
.
6
8
8
0
.
1
0
2
0
.
1
9
1
0
.
0
7
0
c
4
c
_
g
4
c
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
±
0
.
0
5
2
0
.
0
1
3
0
.
0
7
0
0
.
6
8
5
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
6
2
0
.
1
0
6
c
4
d
_
g
4
d
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
k
i
l
l
s
±
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
0
7
8
0
.
0
3
0
0
.
6
7
5
0
.
0
7
1
±
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
4
6
c
4
a
_
g
4
a
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
s
k
i
l
l
s
0
.
1
3
8
0
.
0
5
5
0
.
1
4
3
0
.
6
6
7
±
0
.
0
2
5
0
.
0
5
9
±
0
.
0
0
3
c
4
b
_
g
4
b
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
s
k
i
l
l
s
±
0
.
0
1
2
0
.
0
4
9
±
0
.
1
3
0
0
.
5
2
1
±
0
.
0
2
8
0
.
0
2
9
±
0
.
0
2
0
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
The dynamics of
public relations
309
Table I.
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
i
a
l
P
R
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
2
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
c
e
o
f
j
o
b
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
3
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
4
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
n
e
e
d
s
f
r
o
m
c
l
i
e
n
t
s
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
5
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
P
R
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
6
T
r
a
d
e
b
o
d
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
7
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
c
5
c
_
i
3
c
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
f
o
r
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
0
.
0
9
8
±
0
.
0
2
8
0
.
0
5
7
±
0
.
0
2
6
0
.
7
5
3
0
.
0
7
1
0
.
0
4
1
c
5
d
_
i
3
d
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
f
o
r
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
-
b
a
s
e
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
0
.
0
0
9
±
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
8
7
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
7
4
9
0
.
0
5
7
±
0
.
1
1
5
c
5
a
_
i
3
a
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
a
g
e
n
c
y
t
o
g
e
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
±
0
.
1
2
7
±
0
.
0
8
9
±
0
.
0
8
7
0
.
1
2
0
0
.
7
1
1
±
0
.
0
9
1
0
.
0
4
7
c
5
b
_
i
3
b
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
y
o
n
d
P
R
±
0
.
0
8
8
0
.
0
9
8
±
0
.
0
8
2
0
.
0
3
5
0
.
6
9
6
±
0
.
0
7
7
0
.
0
5
0
c
6
a
_
d
2
T
r
a
d
e
b
o
d
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
0
.
0
1
1
0
.
0
7
3
±
0
.
0
4
5
0
.
1
3
5
±
0
.
0
6
5
0
.
7
9
8
0
.
1
6
5
c
6
c
_
d
4
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
P
R
t
o
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
m
±
0
.
0
5
6
0
.
0
5
5
0
.
0
4
2
0
.
1
9
7
±
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
7
4
2
0
.
1
9
0
c
6
b
_
d
3
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
R
C
A
t
o
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
m
0
.
0
3
5
±
0
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
1
4
0
.
0
7
6
0
.
0
4
0
0
.
7
3
0
0
.
0
7
0
c
7
a
_
c
2
e
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
h
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
0
.
0
3
2
±
0
.
0
5
0
0
.
0
2
8
0
.
0
7
2
±
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
8
4
0
.
8
4
9
c
7
c
_
c
2
d
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
h
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
c
o
d
e
o
f
e
t
h
i
c
s
0
.
0
3
8
0
.
0
2
6
0
.
0
3
6
±
0
.
0
0
1
±
0
.
0
2
2
0
.
2
7
2
0
.
8
2
6
c
7
b
_
c
2
c
P
R
h
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
b
o
d
y
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
0
.
0
1
7
±
0
.
0
5
0
±
0
.
0
3
6
0
.
0
8
7
0
.
0
1
6
0
.
0
3
1
0
.
6
4
7
N
o
t
e
:
A
l
l
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
m
e
a
n
EJM
37,1/2
310
Table II.
Exploratory factor
analysis (part 2) ±
principal component
analysis with varimax
rotation (Kaiser
normalization)
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
8
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
'
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
i
a
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
9
P
R
f
i
r
m
s
i
z
e
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
0
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
1
A
g
e
n
c
y
'
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
2
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
3
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
4
c
8
a
_
c
1
a
P
R
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
'
s
k
i
l
l
s
i
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
0
.
9
2
4
±
0
.
0
6
3
±
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
1
8
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
1
4
0
.
0
3
8
c
8
b
_
c
1
b
P
R
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
'
c
r
e
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
d
v
i
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
b
o
a
r
d
l
e
v
e
l
0
.
9
0
4
0
.
0
4
3
0
.
0
0
8
±
0
.
0
5
1
±
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
6
0
0
.
0
2
6
c
9
b
_
j
7
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
l
i
e
n
t
s
G
B
±
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
9
2
6
±
0
.
0
4
2
0
.
0
1
9
0
.
0
3
3
±
0
.
0
6
5
±
0
.
0
5
8
c
9
c
_
j
1
0
a
A
g
e
n
c
y
t
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
±
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
5
4
6
0
.
0
6
0
0
.
0
5
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
1
4
6
0
.
0
1
5
c
9
a
_
j
6
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
±
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
5
3
1
0
.
0
1
6
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
0
1
4
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
3
c
1
0
b
_
h
6
b
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
0
.
0
4
7
0
.
0
8
2
0
.
8
8
2
0
.
0
4
1
0
.
0
2
5
0
.
0
5
6
0
.
0
4
2
c
1
0
a
_
h
6
a
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
±
0
.
0
3
9
±
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
8
6
3
0
.
0
5
9
0
.
0
1
1
±
0
.
0
2
4
±
0
.
0
2
1
c
1
1
b
_
e
2
b
M
y
c
o
h
a
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
e
n
t
r
a
n
t
s
±
0
.
0
2
3
0
.
0
5
2
0
.
0
5
2
0
.
7
9
7
0
.
0
0
9
±
0
.
0
1
3
0
.
0
2
3
c
1
1
a
_
e
2
a
M
y
c
o
h
a
s
a
c
l
e
a
r
c
a
r
e
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
±
0
.
0
1
2
0
.
0
6
7
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
7
6
6
0
.
0
7
6
±
0
.
0
2
2
0
.
0
1
7
c
1
2
a
_
c
3
F
o
r
m
a
l
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
p
u
l
s
o
r
y
±
0
.
0
2
9
±
0
.
0
3
4
±
0
.
1
1
1
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
8
9
2
±
0
.
0
2
6
±
0
.
0
3
3
c
1
2
b
_
g
2
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
P
R
0
.
0
2
7
0
.
0
8
1
0
.
1
3
4
0
.
0
8
9
0
.
7
5
3
±
0
.
0
4
5
0
.
0
4
0
c
1
3
a
_
i
1
f
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
s
0
.
0
8
5
0
.
1
2
1
0
.
0
2
7
±
0
.
0
4
5
±
0
.
0
7
1
0
.
9
1
5
±
0
.
0
3
2
c
1
4
a
_
i
1
b
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
m
a
d
e
a
w
a
r
e
o
f
P
R
'
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
0
.
0
6
5
±
0
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
1
8
0
.
0
3
9
0
.
0
1
1
±
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
9
8
1
N
o
t
e
:
A
l
l
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
m
e
a
n
The dynamics of
public relations
311
Table III.
Exploratory factor
analysis statistics
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
t
e
m
s
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
i
z
e
(
T
o
t
a
l
n
=
2
9
7
)
M
e
a
n
S
D
E
i
g
e
n
v
a
l
u
e
%
o
f
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
(
T
o
t
a
l
=
6
1
.
2
%
)
A
l
p
h
a
(
s
c
a
l
e
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
=
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
i
a
l
P
R
4
.
2
4
1
1
0
.
8
1
4
1
c
1
c
_
a
3
e
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
q
u
a
n
t
i
f
i
a
b
l
e
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
8
9
3
.
7
5
0
.
9
8
c
1
a
_
a
3
b
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
g
o
a
l
s
2
9
2
3
.
9
6
0
.
8
6
c
1
f
_
a
3
i
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
d
e
c
i
d
i
n
g
o
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
o
l
i
c
y
2
9
0
3
.
7
6
0
.
9
6
c
1
b
_
a
3
d
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
2
8
6
3
.
9
7
0
.
8
5
c
1
e
_
a
3
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
m
a
k
i
n
g
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
9
0
3
.
5
7
0
.
9
4
c
1
d
_
a
3
f
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
c
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
2
8
6
3
.
8
8
0
.
8
6
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
2
=
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
c
e
o
f
j
o
b
3
.
7
6
9
.
8
0
.
8
4
0
1
c
2
b
_
k
4
Y
e
a
r
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
y
2
9
2
2
.
9
6
1
.
2
1
c
2
c
_
k
5
Y
e
a
r
s
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
o
l
e
2
9
4
2
.
9
3
1
.
2
6
c
2
a
_
j
4
A
g
e
n
c
y
'
s
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
2
9
5
2
.
9
1
1
.
1
5
c
2
d
_
k
8
Y
e
a
r
s
i
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
9
6
3
.
0
6
1
.
2
0
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
3
=
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
3
.
3
3
8
.
7
0
.
7
7
9
8
c
3
b
_
f
2
b
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
/
p
e
o
p
l
e
2
9
3
3
.
3
6
0
.
8
8
c
3
d
_
f
2
e
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
s
a
l
e
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
/
p
e
o
p
l
e
2
9
4
2
.
5
8
1
.
0
6
c
3
a
_
f
2
a
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
/
p
e
o
p
l
e
2
9
3
3
.
1
0
0
.
9
7
c
3
c
_
f
2
d
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
/
p
e
o
p
l
e
2
9
1
2
.
4
1
1
.
0
9
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
4
=
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
P
R
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
2
.
4
4
6
.
4
0
.
7
7
2
3
c
4
e
_
g
4
e
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
7
2
.
9
5
0
.
8
1
c
4
c
_
g
4
c
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
2
0
5
2
.
9
9
0
.
8
8
c
4
d
_
g
4
d
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
k
i
l
l
s
2
0
3
2
.
6
8
0
.
7
7
c
4
a
_
g
4
a
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
s
k
i
l
l
s
2
1
0
2
.
9
4
0
.
8
8
c
4
b
_
g
4
b
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
'
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
s
k
i
l
l
s
2
0
4
3
.
2
4
0
.
7
3
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
EJM
37,1/2
312
Table III.
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
t
e
m
s
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
i
z
e
(
T
o
t
a
l
n
=
2
9
7
)
M
e
a
n
S
D
E
i
g
e
n
v
a
l
u
e
%
o
f
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
(
T
o
t
a
l
=
6
1
.
2
%
)
A
l
p
h
a
(
s
c
a
l
e
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
5
=
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
c
l
i
e
n
t
s
2
.
0
1
5
.
2
0
.
7
3
5
8
c
5
c
_
i
3
c
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
f
o
r
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
2
9
3
2
.
8
8
0
.
9
5
c
5
d
_
i
3
d
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
f
o
r
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
-
b
a
s
e
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
2
9
1
2
.
4
4
0
.
9
2
c
5
a
_
i
3
a
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
a
g
e
n
c
y
t
o
g
e
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
2
9
4
3
.
4
8
0
.
8
9
c
5
b
_
i
3
b
C
l
i
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
y
o
n
d
P
R
2
9
6
3
.
4
6
0
.
8
6
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
6
=
T
r
a
d
e
b
o
d
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
1
.
7
6
4
.
6
0
.
7
6
7
7
c
6
a
_
d
2
T
r
a
d
e
b
o
d
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
2
9
2
2
.
7
3
1
.
1
2
c
6
c
_
d
4
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
P
R
t
o
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
m
2
7
7
3
.
0
5
0
.
9
5
c
6
b
_
d
3
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
R
C
A
t
o
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
m
2
5
2
2
.
6
7
0
.
9
9
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
7
=
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
1
.
7
0
4
.
4
0
.
7
2
8
7
c
7
a
_
c
2
e
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
h
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
2
9
1
2
.
4
7
0
.
9
3
c
7
c
_
c
2
d
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
h
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
c
o
d
e
o
f
e
t
h
i
c
s
2
9
3
2
.
8
8
1
.
0
3
c
7
b
_
c
2
c
P
R
h
a
s
c
l
e
a
r
b
o
d
y
o
f
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
2
9
1
3
.
1
8
0
.
8
8
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
8
=
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
'
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
i
a
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1
.
5
6
4
0
.
8
3
3
0
c
8
a
_
c
1
a
P
R
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
'
s
k
i
l
l
s
i
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
2
9
2
3
.
0
8
0
.
9
8
c
8
b
_
c
1
b
P
R
p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
'
c
r
e
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
d
v
i
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
b
o
a
r
d
l
e
v
e
l
2
9
2
3
.
1
0
0
.
9
5
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
9
=
P
R
A
g
e
n
c
y
s
i
z
e
1
.
3
2
3
.
4
0
.
4
2
1
3
c
9
b
_
j
7
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
l
i
e
n
t
s
G
B
2
8
8
2
.
8
5
1
.
1
1
0
.
7
5
3
3
i
f
d
e
l
e
t
e
d
c
9
c
_
j
1
0
a
A
g
e
n
c
y
t
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
2
8
6
0
.
1
4
0
.
2
1
c
9
a
_
j
6
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
2
9
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
4
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
The dynamics of
public relations
313
Table III.
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
t
e
m
s
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
i
z
e
(
T
o
t
a
l
n
=
2
9
7
)
M
e
a
n
S
D
E
i
g
e
n
v
a
l
u
e
%
o
f
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
(
T
o
t
a
l
=
6
1
.
2
%
)
A
l
p
h
a
(
s
c
a
l
e
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
0
=
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
1
.
2
4
3
.
2
0
.
8
6
1
9
c
1
0
b
_
h
6
b
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
2
7
0
1
.
6
6
1
.
3
9
c
1
0
a
_
h
6
a
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
2
7
2
1
.
5
4
1
.
2
8
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
1
=
A
g
e
n
c
y
'
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
.
1
4
2
.
9
0
.
7
7
3
8
c
1
1
b
_
e
2
b
M
y
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
h
a
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
e
n
t
r
a
n
t
s
1
7
6
3
.
2
1
1
.
0
8
c
1
1
a
_
e
2
a
M
y
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
h
a
s
a
c
l
e
a
r
c
a
r
e
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
1
8
8
3
.
4
5
1
.
0
0
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
1
2
=
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
.
0
2
.
7
0
.
6
5
2
7
c
1
2
a
_
c
3
F
o
r
m
a
l
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
p
u
l
s
o
r
y
2
9
3
2
.
8
8
1
.
2
7
c
1
2
b
_
g
2
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
P
R
2
9
3
3
.
1
6
1
.
0
1
EJM
37,1/2
314
.
assessing progress periodically;
.
making presentations; and
.
co-ordinating resources.
These activities, in which respondents are involved when practising
public relations, were grouped as the strongest component. Component 1
explained 11 per cent of the total variance.
(2) Component 2 was called ``permanence of job''. All four of its items relate
to the length of time spent in public relations practice:
.
years working in present agency;
.
years in current role;
.
number of years agency has existed; and
.
number of years in public relations.
(3) Component 3, ``competition'', grouped four items representing
competitors of public relations consultancies:
.
competition frommarketing agencies/people;
.
competition fromsales promotion agencies/people;
.
fromadvertising; and
.
frommanagement consultancies/people.
(4) Component 4 was named ``quality of PR graduates'' as its five items
related directly to a range of public relations graduate students' skills.
These include:
.
public relations graduates' overall preparation for work in the public
relations industry;
.
graduates' strategic thinking;
.
graduates' management skills;
.
graduates' writing skills; and
.
graduates' speaking skills.
(5) Component 5, ``strategic needs from clients'', is represented by four items
for which clients ask PR consultancies:
.
evaluation of programmes;
.
research-based programmes;
.
client strategic planning; and
.
communications additional to public relations.
(6) Component 6, ``trade body contribution'', refers to public relations
professional associations' contributions to industry. This regards trade
body membership benefits, contribution of the PRCA (Public Relations
The dynamics of
public relations
315
Consultants Association) to ``professionalism'' and the contribution of
the IPR (Institute of Public Relations) to the ``professionalism'' of PR.
(7) Component 7 was named ``industry standards'', as the three items appear
to be criteria for assessing PR's integrity. The variables are:
.
the public relations industry has a clear standard of performance;
.
the public relations industry has a clear code of ethics; and
.
public relations has a clear body of knowledge.
(8) Component 8, ``practitioners' managerial ability'', linked two items:
.
public relations practitioners' skills in communications strategic
thinking; and
.
public relations practitioners' credibility in providing
communication advice at Board level.
(9) Component 9, ``PR agency size'', presents three items that measure size:
.
number of clients;
.
UKturnover; and
.
number of directors.
(10) Component 10, ``research expenditure'', has two items:
.
research expenditure; and
.
evaluation expenditure.
(11) Component 11, ``company training'', has two items:
.
the PR consultancy has a clear career structure; and
.
the PR consultancy has training programmes for newentrants.
(12) Component 12 was named ``importance of qualifications'' as it refers to
the importance of academic training for public relations and to formal
qualifications being compulsory.
Second step: reliability analysis (coefficient alpha)
At the second stage of the analysis, the coefficient alpha was computed to
assess the reliability of the components and of each item within the
components, for further refinement of the scales. Looking at the results, in the
last column of Table III, it can be seen that 11 of the 12 components have a
coefficient alpha greater than 0.700, as recommended by Murphy and
Davidshofer (1988) and Nunnally (1978). Robinson et al. (1991) suggested it
could decrease to 0.600 in exploratory research.
The reliability of the component 9, ``PR agency size'', improved from an
alpha value of 0.4213 to 0.7533 by deleting the item ``number of clients in the
UK'', and thus the scale was reduced to 39 items (see Table III). However,
reliability is a necessary statistical measure but not a sufficient condition for
EJM
37,1/2
316
the development of a scale (DeVellis, 1991). Hence the use of confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA).
Third step: confirmatory factor analysis (scale definition)
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is more rigorous and more parsimonious
than the traditional forms of EFA, coefficient alpha and item-total correlation
and thus provides more rigorous conclusions about the acceptability of a scale
(Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). CFA also provides a better estimation of
reliability than coefficient alpha (Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1991). While
coefficient alpha assumes that different indicators have equal component
loadings and error variances, CFA takes into account the differences between
the existing indicators (Styles, 1998). Despite the popular use of CFA as a truly
``confirmatory'' approach to test pre-specified theoretical models, it can also be
used for exploratory purposes (Gerbing and Hamilton, 1997). As stated by
Gerbing and Anderson (1988, p. 189), ``exploratory factor analysis can be a
useful preliminary technique for scale construction, but . . . subsequent
confirmatory factor analysis would be needed to evaluate, and refine, the
resulting scales''.
While EFA is guided to a certain extent by intuition and ad hoc rules, CFA
tests the quality of the factor solution (Kelloway, 1998). Confirmatory factor
analysis tests the unidimensionality of a scale initially developed by EFA
(Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1991). When using EFA, each component is defined
as a weighted sumof all observed variables. Thus, the emerging components in
EFA do not correspond directly to the constructs represented by each set of
indicators. Therefore, the construction of scales based on the analysis of the
size of the factor loadings does not allow an evaluation of unidimensionality
(Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; JoÈreskog and SoÈrbom, 1993). Unidimensionality
refers to the existence of a single construct underlining a set of measures
(Hattie, 1985; McDonald, 1981). As Nunnally (1978, p. 274) stated, ``items within
a measure are useful only to the extent that they share a common core ± the
attribute which is to be measured''.
A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were estimated with the
program LISREL 8.3 (Joreskog et al., 1999) for measuring validation (Bagozzi et
al., 1991; Bollen, 1989). Three CFA models were run to identify the most reliable
items (R
2
> 0.5). The 39 items from the EFA (see Table III) would require a
huge sample to produce one LISREL model, so three CFA models were created
(see Table IV), based on the ideas that emerged from the series of preliminary
exploratory interviews. These views were translated into the three levels of
analysis: practitioner, consultancy and the PR industry.
Data were analysed under the exploratory aim of the research through a
rigorous reliability and validity test of the proposed measurement scales. Table
IV presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis for measure
validation. Components 8 (practitioners' managerial ability), 10 (research
expenditure) and 11 (company training) were rejected by CFA: these scales
were deemed insufficiently reliable or valid. Furthermore, 13 items also
The dynamics of
public relations
317
Table IV.
Confirmatory factor
analysis ± method of
estimation: maximum
likelihood
Indicator
reliability
(R
2
)
Standardised
factor
loadings t-values
Recommended value 0.5 0.7 1.96
Group 1: Practitioner
Component 1 = Managerial PR
a
a3b ± frequency setting strategic goals 0.66 0.81 16.02
a3e ± frequency setting quantifiable objectives 0.61 0.78 15.21
a3i ± frequency deciding on communications policy 0.56 0.78 14.17
*a3d ± frequency assessing progress periodically 0.46 0.68 12.49
*a3f ± frequency co-ordinating resources 0.28 0.53 9.29
*a3h ± frequency making presentations 0.35 0.75 10.54
Component 2 = Permanence of job
a
K4 ± years in present agency 0.93 0.96 21.30
K5 ± years in current role 0.73 0.85 17.71
*j4 ± agency's years of existence 0.48 0.70 13.34
*k8 ± years in public relations 0.40 0.63 11.78
Group 2: Consultancy
Component 5 = Strategic needs from clients
b
i3a ± clients ask agency to get involved in their strategic
planning
0.65 0.81 14.27
i3b ± clients ask for communication beyond PR 0.60 0.78 13.64
*i3c ± clients ask for evaluation of program 0.28 0.53 8.92
*i3d ± clients ask for research-based program 0.29 0.54 9.03
Component 9 = PR agency size
b
j6 ± number of directors 0.62 0.79 8.41
j10a ± agency turnover 0.89 0.94 8.94
Group 3: Industry forces
Component 3 = Competition
c
f2a ± competition from advertising agency/people 0.62 0.79 15.03
f2b ± competition from marketing agency/people 0.81 0.90 17.95
*f2d ± competition from management agency/people 0.31 0.55 9.72
*f2e ± competition from sales promotion agency/people 0.46 0.68 12.44
Component 4 = Quality of PR graduates
c
g4c ± graduates' strategic thinking 0.50 0.71 12.65
g4d ± graduates' management skills 0.56 0.75 13.47
g4e ± graduates' overall preparation 0.57 0.75 13.63
*g4a ± graduates' writing skills 0.35 0.59 10.15
*g4b ± graduates' speaking skills 0.09 0.29 4.64
Component 6 = Trade body contribution
c
d2 ± trade body membership benefits 0.66 0.81 14.89
d4 ± contribution of IPR to professionalism 0.68 0.82 15.14
*d3 ± contribution of PRCA to professionalism 0.34 0.58 10.04
(continued)
EJM
37,1/2
318
presented unacceptable ``standardised factor loadings'' (lower than 0.7) and
``indicator reliability'' values (lower than 0.5) (see Table IV) and were thus
eliminated fromthe scales (see Hair et al., 1992).
CFA is used to test three validity dimensions: convergent, discriminant and
nomological validity (Chau, 1997; Eriksson and Sharma, 1999), and results in
this study for each were:
(1) Convergent validity refers to the homogeneity of the constructs, i.e. the
extent to which each measure correlates with other measures of the
same construct. When using LISREL, JoÈreskog and SoÈrbom (1993)
suggest assessing validity at several levels: convergent validity through
Table IV.
Indicator
reliability
(R
2
)
Standardised
factor
loadings t-values
Component 7 = Industry standard
c
c2e ± industry has clear standard of performance 0.64 0.80 14.40
c2d ± industry has clear code of ethics 0.83 0.91 16.64
*c2c ± PR has clear body of knowledge 0.25 0.50 8.54
Component 12 = Importance of qualifications
c
c3 ± formal qualifications should be compulsory 0.69 0.83 10.08
g2 ± importance of academic training for PR 0.64 0.64 8.69
Items which did not load
Component 8 = Practitioners' managerial ability
d
c1a ± PR practitioners' skills in communication strategic
thinking
e e e
c1b ± PR practitioners' credibility providing
communication advice to the board level
e e e
Component 10 = Research expenditure
d
h6a ± evaluation expenditure
e e e
h6b ± research expenditure
e e e
Component 11 = Company training
d
e2a ± my company has a clear career structure
e e e
e2b ± my company has training programme for new
entrants
e e e
Notes:
a
Group 1 = managerial PR (component 1) and permanence in job (component 2)
Chi-square = 101.81; df = 34; p = 0.000; CFI = 0.95; IFI = 0.95; NFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.94
b
Group 2 = strategic needs from clients (component 5) and PR firm size (component 9),
Chi-square = 440.74; df = 209; p = 0.000; CFI = 0.90; IFI = 0.90; NFI = 0.89, GFI = 0.93
c
Group 3 = competition (component 3); quality of PR graduates (component 4); trade body
contribution (component 5); industry standard (component 6); and importance of
qualifications (component 12), Chi-square = 247.17; df = 109; p = 0.000; CFI = 0.91; IFI =
0.91; NFI = 0.86, GFI = 0.91
d
R
2
below the recommended level of 0.5
e
Rejected by CFA because they did not load
The dynamics of
public relations
319
t-values (larger than 2.58), and through the level of significance (p < 0.01)
of the factor loadings. Convergent validity was verified: most items had
significant standardised loadings (i.e. between 0.7 and 1) of each item in
its construct (t >1.96) (Hair et al., 1992).
(2) Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which the measure of a
construct does not correlate with measures of other constructs. It is
achieved when an item correlates more highly with items that measure
the same construct than with items that measure different constructs.
Discriminant validity was also verified, based on the correlation
estimates between any two constructs. No correlation includes the value
of 1 and the highest correlation was 0.47 for ``trade body'' and ``industry
standard''.
(3) Nomological validity refers to the validity of the entire model (Chau,
1997; Eriksson and Sharma, 1999). It compares chi-square results with
degrees of freedom to measure the distance between the data and the
model. In practice it is more useful to regard chi-square as a measure of
fit rather than as a test statistic. In this context, chi-square is a measure
of overall fit of the model to the data. It measures the distance between
the sample covariance (correlation) matrix and the fitted covariance
(correlation) matrix. Chi-square is a ``badness-of-fit'' measure in the sense
that a small chi-square corresponds to a good fit and a large chi-square
to a bad fit. Zero chi-square corresponds to a perfect fit (JoÈreskog and
SoÈrbom, 1993, p. 122).
There is an on-going discussion regarding which measures provided by CFA
should be used (Bollen and Long, 1993). Several goodness-of-fit measures were
used to assess nomological validity: comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit
index (IFI), goodness of fit index (GFI), normed fitted index (NFI), which are
functions of chi-square but eliminate dependence on sample size (JoÈreskog and
SoÈrbom, 1993, p. 122). All these indices should lie between 0 and 1 (see notes to
Table IV), which was the case for this analysis.
Figure 2 presents the nine proposed final scales. Out of the 39 tested items,
CFA revealed that 19 were not reliable (see Table IV). The 20 constituents of
the nine proposed final scales (see Figure 2) present desirable levels of
composite reliability (0.7 CR 1) (Bagozzi, 1980) and variance extracted (0.5
VE 1) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Some of the low values (critical ratios)
are justified because this is an exploratory study in an emerging area where
solid conceptualisation is still emerging.
Discussion
All the components are inescapably grounded in the public relations
phenomena: the emergent components were based on, first, an exploratory
questionnaire totally constituted of public relations items ± these items were
identified in the preliminary interviews with PR practitioners and from the
EJM
37,1/2
320
review of the PR literature ± and, second, on a sample exclusively comprising
public relations practitioners working in PR consultancies.
The objective of this work was to open up new possibilities for further
research by presenting measurement scales and helping to conceptualise the
constructs of public relations. Despite an extensive literature review, in-depth
interviews and the testing of the main questionnaire, additional variables may
have been overlooked. It should be acknowledged that owing to restricted
research resources, the results reflect exclusively the perceptions of public
relations practitioners in the UK. Nevertheless, the perceived failure of public
relations to establish itself as a credible business discipline ± rather than a
tactical tool of marketing communications ± and the paucity of studies
attempting to conceptualise the discipline require some attempt to identify key
drivers and scales within the domain of PR.
The contention is that until it can be agreed on what is meant by public
relations practice and how to measure its constituents, findings from any
studies of PR will add only at the margins to the development of this discipline.
A first step is the conceptualisation and measurement of PR's constructs,
followed by the validation of scales and consequent refinement for use across
various research settings. This paper proposes nine measurement scales. The
study was able to identify statistically constructs that relate to the three core
Figure 2.
Resulting scales
(after EFA and CFA)
The dynamics of
public relations
321
recognised levels of public relations practice: industry, consultancy and
practitioner (see Figure 2), and implicitly also to the academic PR perspective:
(1) At the practitioner level, two constructs were revealed:
.
managerial PR activities; and
.
permanence of job.
Managerial public relations is the strongest construct. This study's
results confirm previous research that highlighted the manager's role in
the practice of public relations. Although the technical role did not
emerge from the factor analysis of the data available, descriptive data
revealed that the two most frequent activities of respondents are writing
and contacting the media. The second construct ± practitioner's
permanence of job ± is the ``years of employment in the present PR firm''
and ``years of employment in current role''. The PR industry is faced
with over capacity in terms of the numbers of firms, but there is a
shortage of quality personnel, leading to frequent moves by well-
regarded practitioners.
(2) At the consultancy level, two constructs emerged:
.
strategic needs fromclients; and
.
PR agency size.
When clients ``ask the PR firm to become involved in their strategic
planning'' and ``ask the PR firmfor communications programmes that go
beyond media relations'', the PR firm is being exposed to the strategic
needs of clients. Clients are central to the activities of PR consultancies,
as employers are central to in-house practitioners. As such, clients'
needs and requests determine PR practice, to a large extent. Over half of
the surveyed firms have been asked by clients to assist with their
strategic planning and do much more than handle media relations. Most
respondents' clients (76 per cent) include communications in their
management agenda, but many (67 per cent) still are unaware of the full
potential of public relations.
PR agency size is an extensively used measure and can be further
improved by including components previously tested, such as the
number of full-time employees. The PR agency size construct stemmed
from ``UK firm turnover'' and ``number of directors''. The bulk of the
sample ± and the UK PR industry ± comprises small or micro PR firms
(65 per cent have up to six employees and 67 per cent have turnover
beneath £500,000). Some of the world's largest PR consultancies are
British and they made up 3 per cent of this sample. Lowbarriers to entry
and often low entry standards for qualifications enable many small
firms to set up with relative ease.
(3) At the industry forces level, five constructs were identified:
.
industry standards;
EJM
37,1/2
322
.
trade body contribution;
.
importance of qualifications;
.
quality of PR graduates; and
.
competition.
Industry standards are still one of the main concerns of practitioners and
academics alike. Data revealed ``ethics'' and ``clear standard of
performance'' as part of these measures. Most respondents (60 per cent)
consider that the PR industry does not have a clear standard of
performance and many (43 per cent) consider that it does not have a clear
code of ethics. Similarly, trade body contribution is of vital importance
for an industry that continues to struggle with issues of professionalism
and an adverse image. The trade body was perceived by practitioners as
having both limited ``membership benefits'' and insufficient ``contribution
to the development of professional standards''. Approximately 62 per
cent of the surveyed sample were not affiliated to the IPR or PRCA.
Interestingly, 13 per cent were affiliated to the Chartered Institute of
Marketing. Professional associations are in a position to promote
practitioners' training and client education regarding the nature of public
relations: a role beyond the individual interests of members.
Respondents do not seem to regard ``academic training'' important for
PR, nor to support ``making formal qualifications compulsory''. Formal
qualifications should not be made compulsory according to half of the
respondents. Practitioners consider experience (83 per cent) and intuition
(54 per cent) to be more fundamental to public relations than research. A
large majority (92 per cent) believe that public relations has a body of
knowledge based largely on practice. Taken together, these findings
confirmthe developing nature of public relations.
Previous studies have identified PR's desire to up-grade the calibre of
its personnel and this study has identified the quality of graduate skills
as being of importance. Recruitment now largely targets quality people,
who in principle should be emerging from a specialised higher education
course, but who are in short supply. Respondents perceive speaking to be
the best graduate skill (25 per cent) and management to be the worst (27
per cent). When recruiting, personal qualities are considered the most
important factor followed by practical experience; academic
qualifications were still some way behind. While the capability of
academic preparation to meet the needs of the industry remains an issue,
there is a contradiction in the stated desire to improve the calibre of
personnel recruited and the limited importance placed on academic
qualifications and skills. Stating a belief is not the same as practising that
belief: several PR agencies claim to value graduate skills but then do not
uniformly recruit graduates.
Competition is part of any dynamic industry. The vast majority of
respondents (84 per cent) indicate that the public relations industry is
The dynamics of
public relations
323
more competitive now than it was ten years ago. Public relations,
however, has to face competitors from outside the field, which include
``marketing'' and ``advertising agency people''. This might relate to the
inherent confusion in clients as to what is public relations and what are
its boundaries. It could also reflect clients' increasingly integrated
approach to communications (FitzGerald and Arnott, 2000). The majority
of respondents (77 per cent) work frequently with other communications
practitioners. Most clients produce all-embracing promotional mixes, not
solely depending on PR.
For those public relations practitioners working in UKPR agencies, the goals of
public relations are relatively clear. Most respondents consider the two ultimate
goals to be to build a favourable reputation (75 per cent) and to obtain mutual
understanding (36 per cent). They consider PR to involve informing an
audience (95 per cent) and counselling management (88 per cent), with PR more
effective at the corporate level (53 per cent) than at the personal level (31 per
cent) or product (27 per cent) level.
Public relations is being positioned as a management discipline. The
argument is that PR is not efficient when practitioners master the technical
skills without the understanding of when and why to use it to make
communication more competent for organisations. The positioning of PR as a
management discipline implies:
.
that PR activity is broader than a communications technique and
broader than specialised PR programmes, such as media relations;
.
an emphasis on overall planning, execution and evaluation of an
organisation's communication with both external and internal publics.
This requires a substantial education and training effort to ensure practitioners
are provided with the necessary strategic and management skills, plus
evaluation and research competencies. Clients and managers in general, in
addition to practitioners, should be educated to comprehend PR's managerial
potential.
It is important to note, however, that many respondents perceive public
relations to be both its own management discipline and, at the tactical level,
part of the marketer's promotional mix. Of the respondents, 74 per cent believe
this overlap to be unavoidable and indeed argue that best PR practice is not
independent from the other communications disciplines. This in part reflects
that 77 per cent of respondents work hand-in-hand with the other promotional
mix tools and experts in these other areas, and that the problems being tackled
by PR activity often necessitate the utilisation of other marketing
communications executions in conjunction with the PR toolkit. Thus, most
practitioners do not agree with the academic stance that the best PR practice is
independent from other communications disciplines, including marketing (see
Grunig, 1992).
EJM
37,1/2
324
Conclusions and implications
Overall, this research constitutes a preliminary attempt to gain a holistic
understanding of public relations. This is still in the early stages of developing
reliable and valid scales of public relations. Clearly, further work that
addresses both conceptual and methodological issues is required. This study
has, though, been able to create and validate a broad measurement scale of
public relations with data from UK public relations consultants. This study has
developed the ``PR-ness'' scale, measuring crucial attributes of the public
relations dimensions at three levels ± practitioner, consultancy and industry ±
as perceived by PR practitioners. Thus, for example, permanence of job relates
to ``experience of the PR practitioner'', PR agency size to the ``consultancy size''
and quality of PR graduates to ``PR graduate skills valued by recruiting
consultancies''. The existing lack of consensus relating to PR's scope and value
implied a need for more empirical studies leading to unified measures of the
various dimensions of PR practice. This study has contributed in part to this
remit through the use of the three measurement models in its CFA, which
validated measures or united variables. This study has also offered a more
holistic approach to examining the core constructs of public relations at the
practitioner (manager), consultancy (firm) and industry (PR) levels.
One of the key research implications is that the complex reality of public
relations can be studied through multiple constituent elements. No single
measure is sufficient to provide a reliable assessment of the reality of public
relations. The advantage of using a combination of readily available items to
capture each sub-dimension of PR helps overcome possible random
fluctuations of any given item. If more studies adopt the three-dimensional ``PR-
ness'' scale, it can be expected that future research findings will be more readily
comparable, particularly across countries. The nine constructs measure
various constituent dimensions of ``PR-ness'' ± here defined as all the elements
that constitute the public relations phenomena ± and operationalised at three
levels: practitioner, consultancy and industry. The constructs provide
empirically based, validated measurements that can be refined and used for
further operationalisation of determining the variables of public relations.
This study has also demonstrated a procedure for scale development using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This procedure can help further research to
develop more reliable scales and provide guidance when assessing the validity
of results. Future studies, building on these initial measures, may contribute to
the advancement of knowledge of the dimensions of PR practice. In order to
refine the constructs presented here, the replication of this study across various
countries is suggested. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) or confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) should show if the factor structure is equivalent with
other samples in other countries. Allowing multiple studies to be compared, it
might bring a better understanding of which factors genuinely affect public
relations. For example, if ``compulsory formal PR qualifications'' is found to
impact on the industry positively across studies in many countries, it could
confidently be stated that this is an important determinant of public relations
The dynamics of
public relations
325
practice around the world. Acquisition of such knowledge would help PR
consultancy decision-makers. Thus, further research should focus on
developing a measurement tool that taps the tested dimensions and levels
identified in this study, but provides the option for additional possible items.
Future studies may also focus on causality in order to understand the
relationships among some of these forces within this industry and at the
consultancy and practitioner levels. The long-run application of measurement
scales of PR practice is likely to result in research that has significant
managerial implications, revealing which forces are at play at the industry,
consultancy and practitioner levels, and directing the development of PR per se.
References
Arber, K. (1986), ``The practice of public relations: a review of the current state of the art'',
International Public Relations Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 36-48.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1980), Causal Models in Marketing, John Wiley, NewYork, NY.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), ``Assessing construct validity in organisational
research'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, September, pp. 421-58.
Baskin, O., Aronoff, C. and Lattimore, D. (1997), Public Relations: The Profession and the Practice,
Brown and Benchmark, Dubuque, IA.
Belz, A., Talbott, A. and Starck, K. (1989), ``Using role theory to discuss cross perceptions of
journalists and public relations practitioners'', in Grunig, J. and Grunig, L.E. (Eds), Public
Relations Research Annual 1, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Bickerton, P., Bickerton, M. and Pardesi, U. (1996), Cybermarketing, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley, NewYork, NY.
Bollen, K.A. and Long, S.J. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Botan, C.H. (1993), ``Introduction to the paradigm struggle in public relations'', Public Relations
Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 107-10.
Broom, G. (1982), ``A comparison of sex roles in public relations'', Public Relations Review, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 17-22.
Broom, G. and Dozier, D. (1978), ``Toward an understanding of public relations roles'', paper
presented at the Public Relations Division Conference, Association for Education in
Journalism, Seattle, WA.
Broom, G. and Smith, G. (1979), ``Testing the practitioners' impact on clients'', Public Relations
Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 47-59.
Caywood, C.L. (1996), The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations and Integrated
Communications, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Chau, P.Y. (1997), ``Re-examining a model for evaluating information centre success using a
structural equation modelling approach'', Decisions Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 309-34.
Chen, N. and Culbertson, H. (1996), ``Guest relations: a demanding but constrained role for lady
public relations practitioners in mainland China'', Public Relations Review, Vol. 22 No. 3,
Fall, pp. 279-96.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), ``A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, February, pp. 64-73.
Crandall, W. and Menefee, M. (1996), ``Crisis management in the midst of labour strife: preparing
for the worst'', SAMAdvanced Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 11-15.
Cutlip, S., Center, A. and Broom, G. (1999), Effective Public Relations, Pearson, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
EJM
37,1/2
326
DeVellis, R. (1991), Scale Development ± Theory and Applications, Vol. 26, Newbury Park, CA,
Sage.
Dibb, S., Simkin, L. and Vancini, A. (1996), ``Competition, strategy, technology and people: the
challenges facing public relations'', International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 116-27.
Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W. and Ferrell, O.C. (2001), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Dozier, D. (1992), ``The organisational roles of communications and public relations
practitioners'', in Grunig, J. (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Eriksson, K. and Sharma, D. (1999), ``Uncertainty in co-operation between service buyers and
sellers'', EMAC CDROMProceedings, Berlin.
FitzGerald, M. and Arnott, D. (2000), Marketing Communications Classics, ITBP, London.
Floyd, F. and Widaman, K. (1995), ``Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical
assessment instruments'', Psychological Assessment, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 286-99.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), ``Evaluating structural equation modelling with unobservable
variables and measurement error'', Journal of Marketing Research, 28 February, pp. 39-50.
George, W.R. (1990), ``Internal marketing and organisational behaviour: a partnership in
developing customer-conscious employees at every level'', Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 20, pp. 63-70.
Gerbing, D. and Hamilton, J. (1997), ``Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to
confirmatory factor analysis'', Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 62-72.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), ``An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25,
May, pp. 186-92.
Goldman, J. (1984), Public Relations in the Marketing Mix; Introducing Vulnerability Relations,
NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL.
Goldman, J. (1995), Public Relations in the Marketing Mix, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL.
Gorsuch, R. (1997), ``Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis'', Journal of Personality
Assessment, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 532-60.
Grunig, J. (Ed.) (1992), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Grunig, J. and Hunt, T. (1984), Managing Public Relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York, NY.
Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. and Vercic, D. (1998), ``Are the IABC's excellence principles generic?'',
Journal of Communications Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 335-56.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hallahan, K. (1993), ``The paradigm struggle and public relations practice'', Public Relations
Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 197-205.
Hattie, J. (1985), ``Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality of tests and items'', Applied
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 9, June, pp. 139-64.
Hazleton, V. Jr and Botan, C. (1989), ``The role of theory in public relations'', in Botan, C. and
Hazleton, V.E. Jr (Eds), Public Relations Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ, pp. 3-15.
Hollis Directories (1998), Hollis UK Press and Public Relations Annual 1998-99, Directories and
Database Publishers Association, Teddington.
Hunt, T. and Grunig, J. (1994), Public Relations Techniques, Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, TX.
The dynamics of
public relations
327
Jefkins, F. and Yadin, D. (1998), Public Relations, Pearson, London.
JoÈreskog, K.G. and SoÈrbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modelling with the
SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
JoÈreskog, K.G., SoÈrbom, D., Du Toit, S. and Du Toit, M. (1999), LISREL 8: New Statistical
Features, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
Keegan, W. (1995), Global Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kelloway, K.E. (1998), Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modelling ± A Researcher's Guide,
Sage Publications, London.
Kinnick, K. and Cameron, G. (1994), ``Teaching public relations management: the current state-of-
the-art'', Public Relations Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 73-88.
Kitchen, P. (1993), ``Public relations: a rationale for its development and usage within UK fast
moving consumer goods firms'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 53-75.
Kitchen, P. (1997), Public Relations: Principles and Practice, ITBP, London.
Kitchen, P. and Papasolomou, I. (1997), ``Marketing public relations: conceptual legitimacy or
windowdressing?'', Marketing Intelligence &Planning, Vol. 15 No. 2-3, pp. 71-84.
Ledingham, J. and Bruning, S. (1998), ``Relationship management in public relations: dimensions
of an organization-public relationship'', Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 55-65.
Leichty, G. and Springston, J. (1996), ``Elaborating public relations roles'', Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 467-77.
L'Etang, J. and Pieczka, M. (1996), ``Public relations education'', in L'Etang, J. and Pieczka, M.
(Eds), Critical Perspectives in Public Relations, International Thompson Business Press,
London, pp. 1-13.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G. and Burton, S. (1990), ``Distinguishing coupon proneness
from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54, July, pp. 54-67.
Lings, I. and Brooks, F. (1998), ``Implementing and measuring the effectiveness of internal
marketing'', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 325-51.
McCarthy, E.J. (1960), Basic Marketing, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
McDonald, R. (1981), ``The dimensionality of tests and items'', British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 34, May, pp. 100-17.
MacManus, T. (1997), ``A comparative analysis of public relations in Austria and the UK'', in
Moss, D., MacManus, T. and Vercic, D.E., Public Relations Techniques: An International
Perspective, ITBP, London.
Morton, L. and Lin, L.-Y. (1995), ``Content and citation analyses of `public relations review''',
Public Relations Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 337-49.
Moss, D., Warnaby, G. and Thame, L. (1997), ``Public relations or simply product publicity?'', in
Moss, D., MacManus, T. and Vercic, D.E., Public Relations Research: An International
Perspective, ITBP, London.
Murphy, K.R. and Davidshofer, C.O. (1988), Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Nessmann, K. (1995), ``Public relations in Europe: a comparison with the United States'', Public
Relations Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 151-60.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.
Panigyrakis, G.G. (1994), ``The public relations managers' role in four European countries'',
EMAC Proceedings, Maastricht, pp. 707-28.
Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, B. and Hanily, M.L. (1999), ``Influential authors and works of the public
relations scholarly literature: a network of recent research'', Journal of Public Relations
Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 29-52.
EJM
37,1/2
328
Peter, J.P. (1979), ``Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent practices'', Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 26, February, pp. 6-17.
Peter, J.P. (1981), ``Construct validity: a review of basic issues and marketing practices'', Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, May, pp. 133-45.
Piekos, J. and Einsiedel, E. (1990), ``Roles and program evaluation techniques among Canadian
public relations practitioners'', in Grunig, J. and Grunig, L. (Eds), Public Relations Research
Annual (2), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 95-114.
Reynoso, J. and Moores, B. (1996), ``Internal relationships'', in Buttle, F. (Ed.), Relationship
Marketing: Theory and Practice, Chapman, London.
Robinson, J., Shaver, P. and Wrightsman, L. (1991), Measures of Personality and Social
Psychological Attitudes, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Schultz, M. and Ervolder, L. (1998), ``Culture, identity and image consultancy: crossing
boundaries between management, advertising, public relations and design'', Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 29-50.
Shannon, J. (1996), ``Building brands on the Internet'', Marketing Week, 19 June, p. 22.
Simkin, L. and Dibb, S. (1998), ``Key business dilemmas and the marketing remit in business-to-
business marketing services'', International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 321-47.
Steenkamp, J.-B. and Van Trijp, H. (1991), ``The use of LISREL in validating marketing
constructs'', International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 283-99.
Styles, C. (1998), ``Export performance measures in Australia and the United Kingdom'', Journal
of International Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 12-36.
Toth, E. and Grunig, L. (1993), ``The missing story of women in public relations'', Journal of Public
Relations Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 153-75.
Varey, R.J. (1997), ``A picture of corporate communications management in the UK'', Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 59-69.
White, J. and Blamphin, J. (1995), ``Priorities for research into public relations practice in the
United Kingdom'', International Public Relations Review, Vol. 3, September, pp. 1-11.
White, J. and Mazur, L. (1995), Strategic Communications Management: Making Public Relations
Work, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.
Wiesendanger, B. (1994), ``Plug into a world of information'', Public Relations Journal, Vol. 50
No. 2, p. 20.
Wilcox, D., Ault, P. and Agee, W. (1995), Public Relations Strategies and Tactics, 4th ed., Harper
Collins College Publishers, NewYork, NY.
Williams, A. and Woodward, S. (1994), The Competitive Consultant, The Macmillan Press Ltd,
London.
Wybrew, J. (1995), ``Brent Spar ± far more than a PR war'', The Institute of Public Relations
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. 21.
Further reading
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), ``Alternative ways of assessing model fit'', in Bollen, K.A.
and Long, S.J. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
O'Malley, L., Patterson, M. and Evans, M. (1999), Exploring Direct Marketing, ITBP, London.
Peterson, R.A. (1994), ``A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 21, September, pp. 381-91.
Schwartz, E.I. (1997), Webnomonics: Nine Essential Principles for Growing Your Business on the
World Wide Web, Broadway Books, NewYork, NY.
Steiger, J.H. (1990), ``Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation
approach'', Multivariate Behavioural Research, Vol. 25, pp. 173-80.

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