Public Relations, Values and Cultural Identity
Summary
The published research shows the profession is facing crucial changes: the existence of new organisational structures better aligned with social demands; the emergence of new techniques for interacting with organisations in a more trustworthy manner; and growing pressure by social groups acting both for and against particular social values, ideas and identities.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Contents
- Introduction: A New Era of Understanding for Public Relations Theory and Practice
- Part 1 Strategic Public Relations, Public Values, and Cultural Identity: Overview
- From Integration to Legitimacy: Values and Publics in Public Relations
- A History of the Future: Concepts for Telling the Story of Online PR
- Talking with or at Stakeholders? An Empirical Investigation of Architectures of Listening and Structures for Dialogue in the Social Web Build up by Organizations
- Part II Grassroots Influence and Community Engagement
- Graduate Education in Public Relations: A Key Strategy for Professional Affirmation in Portugal
- Perspectives on Citizens’ Crisis Communication Competence in Co-Producing Safety
- Participative Public Relations: An Integrative Approach to Participating in PR
- Empowered Spaces: The Political and Everyday Life
- Part III Cultural, National and Global Issues
- The Impact of Competitions’ Success or Failure on the Online Reputation of Sport Teams: A Tool of Analysis
- Communicating Public Values in a Young Democracy: Successes and Failures of Western Donors to Support Ukrainian Independent Media
- Strategic Public Relations versus Public Values? The ‘Swarming’ of German Defense Minister Zu Guttenberg
- Part IV Organizational Polices and Public Issues
- The Challenge of Improving the Public Representation of Mental Illness: A Case Study of Crime Reporting, and a Call for Radical Change
- Turkish Universities’ Adoption of Social Media for Dialogic Communication
- Social Media and Juridical Constraints: Possibilities and Limitations of Digitized Governmental PR in Germany
- Alzheimer’s Disease Health Literacy: A Challenge for Communication Professionals
- Part V Public Opinion and Networks, Public Sphere, and Agenda Building
- A Reputation Measurement Model for Online Stakeholders: Concepts, Evidence and Implications
- Panacea for the Public Sphere? The Use of Social Media in the Public Sector in the UK
- Digital Communication Strategies: The Example of the Portuguese PR Consultancies Websites
- New Modes of Participation in Online-PR: Understanding Texto-Material Networks
- Part VI Strategic Public Relation: Organizational Roles and Functions
- Public Relations and the Use of Interactivity in Digital Press and in Social Media: A Comparative Analysis
- Can PR Practitioners Build Positive Journalist Relationships Via Social Media?
- Social Media Meet Dialog? Analyzing the Communication Activities of Companies on Facebook
- Strategic and Tactical Role of Public Relations: A Framework Proposal
- Contributors
From Integration to Legitimacy
Values and Publics in Public Relations
Nuno, ESCS, Portugal
ESCS, Portugal
1. Public Relations: The Organizational Political Function
Public Relations planners are in a privileged position in that they interact with organisational publics frequently: their job is to manage and facilitate the communication between the organisation and its publics, sometimes in conjunction with colleagues from elsewhere in the organisation. (Gregory, 2001: 39)
Public Relations provides a strategic role in the organization’s core business, through its influence on the decision-making process and monitoring the environment – Public Relations practitioners must therefore be permanently aware of the knowledge, dispositions and behaviours of their publics. Therefore Public Relations is not only a product-promoting function – but it can adopt that function and Public Relations can also encourage Marketing activity. Besides that, all the legitimacy that Public Relations brings to organizations also helps to promote it (Porto Simões, 1991).
Nowadays the Public Relations function cannot only be seen as a “(…) management function which identify, establish and maintain mutually beneficial relationships between the organization and their publics, form whom depend their success” (Cutlip et al., 1985: 4). The emphasis should be on the strategic role that Public Relations can perform, going beyond the operational role, to occupy a more central place in the organizational core business, allowing the legitimization of the organization’s life in the society.
Therefore it’s urgent to rethink the concept of Public Relations beyond management relations, but also the construction of that same relations and not only the process optimization from a systemic viewpoint – thus, ← 19 | 20 → we refer to a strategical level to allow decisions so the organization can be recognized by a larger number of people. Public Relations as a management function is something that by itself does not allow the organization’s legitimacy we also need to build that legitimacy.
In Public Relations there’s a management and an optimization of processes that cannot be denied because this is a part of their activity, but this does not allow us to have a comprehensive view of the discipline’s entire function, because Public Relations is not limited to such management and process optimization – they are not a communication engineering, they have a political function: ‘Public Relations activity is the management of the organizational’s political function’ (Porto Simões, 1995: 39).
Our core question is: How can Public Relations have a political role in organizations? In this article we argue that Public Relations is a political function that allows an approach by the different publics to the organizations’ core, their values – the centre of the organizations.
2. From Values to Legitimacy: A Process of Integration
In a society there are a wide number of subsystems and organizations. Organizations are complex, dynamic, and define themselves in different temporal and spatial degrees. Part of their diversity is constituted by the various interpretations made by organizational culture. In this variety of interpretations emerge opportunities or problems for organizations. Thus, the relationship management with different publics is critical to the survival of the organization (Hagen, 2009).
An organization is linked to a system of core values, which forms the central zone of the society from which individuals are positioned and are bonded by shared or conflicting values – society itself is the system. This sharing vs. dispute originate an adaptation of different social elements, as an organization, to their contextual needs, in a dynamic logic of mutation from what is expected of their members. This centre is a key element that combines the dominant values (those which are more fundamental and sacred), and exercises a certain authority over the periphery – the periphery can be understood as the relationship of less integration that you can have with the centre.
The existence of an organization implies much more than an economic, political or territorial system, it implies the existence of certain properties which are not merely a list of groups, layers or individuals with certain characteristics. Based on the notion of society by Edward Shils (1992), we consider that this existence implies the connection of these elements with each other and the integration carried out throughout actions, functions and constitutive and central meanings to the organization. Therefore, we propose a new approach: ← 20 | 21 →
VALUES1
INTEGRATION • LEGITIMACY
The values that compose the centre are regulators of all the activity and the organization’s existence. Thus, when the latter is contested, it’s the centre that is a stake and it’s up to the Public Relations to legitimize it.
‘The center dominates and saturates the periphery – at least this is the goal which it aspires and which reaches to a certain extent. Society is becoming more integrated, from the center to the outside, in belief and action’ (Shils, 1992: 103).
Integration can be understood as the process of the society’s unification that tends to be harmonious, based on the order that exists for their members, assuming not only the annulment of conflict but also the development of solidarity, to be done by linking expectation and achievement.
We are concerned not with the enumeration or ranking but with ties or structures that constitute a society from these parts. Integration is the sum of the structural parts; is what makes the whole of society more than the arithmetic sum of their parts. The integration in the society of different components and partnerships represents conditions linked together by
1. The concept of value, while the characteristic that means how important a thing is, as Rokeach (1973) defines: ‘enduring believes that specific modes of contact or and states of existence’ (p. 5) multiple and complex ways. […] Each of them can be present in varying degrees of strength and effectiveness’ (Shils, 1992: 119).
We can say that the relationship with the centre defines the integration of their members, since an action is involving in the terms that it’s successful in approximate the centre and the periphery, i.e., to legitimize their existence. The centre is the only integral power member, because it regulates and executes the only truly integral power of organizational existence. It’s through the recognized values that the constituents revise themselves in it and feel the organization as part of their own.
Thus, there’s a need to communicate what an organization actually is – disappoint the expectations of an audience will inevitably make this particular audience move away from the centre – this justifies the dissatisfaction of a consumer with a product, rising to an approximation of another centre, i.e., being more tempted to choose a product from a direct competitor of this organization.
Publics are not merely contemplative, they create their own reality, choosing one organization over another. This is the foundation for the idea of Public Relations as legitimacy, approaching the publics to the centre: ← 21 | 22 →
Furthermore, the Public Relations professional will be aware of the attitude towards or behaviour of the various stakeholders (or publics) in relation to the wider issues identified in the environment and towards the organisation itself (Gregory, 2001: 39).
Unlike advertising, which works as push, Public Relations act as pull, i.e. the organization does not impose their values but build a platform where these meanings are recognized as legitimate by different publics – that’s the idea of attracting different publics for the centre of the organization. We argue that the organization is a social construction which inserts within a network of individuals who influence each other and are important because they directly or indirectly influence the legitimacy of the organization – from its values. Therefore organizations can take advantage of building relationships with stakeholders who have not a direct interest in the organization, taking advantage of the influence they have on the remaining public recognition, and also strengthening their business as legitimate by sharing common values.
2. The relationship established is hypothetical: it’s never a real relationship, because no one is really on the periphery, since they are always with some degree of integration in the organization.
With the emergence of online communities this situation becomes more clear. Individuals are connected in a decentralized network and can become active just by having contact with content that appeals to their values. Sheldrake (cf. 2011: 23) defines this type of public as netizens, who are public for the simple fact that they are online and willing to act according to his sense of right and wrong and his sense of good and evil. But this description of Sheldrake is a reality that does not exist just on the online. Technology only allows this behaviour, which is part of the genetic code of any society, visible and accelerated in an unprecedented way. For the organization’s legitimacy the public must be better integrated, even those who have no direct interest to the organization, but they are linked by common values. The closer to the centre the more they feel integrated. Only with sharing values we can have a proximity to the center – connection with the concept of “integral action” (Shils, 1992: 146).
On the other hand, when there is recognition. Is the legitimacy that guides the action and it is the origin of the authority of the centre. The action exists because individuals recognize the existence of a legitimate authority representing a recognized power. There are two types of legitimacy that distinguish a politically stable society built on an absolute authority, and a society that originates various authorities that are fighting each other in a public arena of meanings where the action occurs. The first sees the legitimacy raised to a higher level that transcends the will of man and is one that we can find in the United States that are based on a meta-social ← 22 | 23 → greatness. Furthermore, a second legitimacy, after the French Revolution, has its source of legitimacy in human reason, where men are not limited to contemplate an order that includes them, but are themselves creators of laws that yearn to see their will represented in a particular centre.
This second type of legitimacy is the legitimacy typically modern, based on a contractualist vision where the centre represents the will of men and it is legitimized in the image and will of them. In this way the idea is justified that the publics have a political action in the organization. Organizations are not only legitimized by their lawsuits and their legality, nor for their tradition. There is another dimension, which is where the Public Relations act – the legitimacy of the organization, making it charismatic. As long as it becomes further away from the centre, the organization becomes less charismatic to those who recognize certain quality in it.
Concerning the legitimate power, Weber (1979) states that there are three types of power – the traditional, the legal and the charismatic. The first is deeply rooted in social and unanimously behaviours. The second stems from the rules created and legislated (is the power of the law). Finally, charisma enters in the sphere of Public Relations as legitimizing action. This is a source of authority which comes from a transcendental quality manifested by a recognition and reliability of a set of extraordinary qualities. It is a power that exceeds the size of tradition and law, making the organization known for the ability to do extraordinary things that others cannot.
This vital element of charisma is essential for publics to recognize in the organization a ‘license to operate’ in a specific context. The action of Public Relations can be defined by continuous efforts to make an organization socially legitimate, making it charismatic. Public Relations is the political activity of an organization whose function is to legitimize it.
3. Organizations and their Publics: A Relation of Centre and Periphery
Publics are not just passive objects that the organization uses to value, but are themselves embedded in the organization, extending the boundaries of this centre and involving the participation on consensus about the same centre. Organizations are constituted by living publics, in the sense that they decide the fate of the life of the organization, directly or indirectly.
Recognizing each other by internalizing their attitudes is to recognize social cooperation, where the individual is aware not only of their obligations, but also of their legitimate rights (Honneth, 2011). ← 23 | 24 → Organizations are characterized by integrated public and politically active – they exercise their influence directly or indirectly through the roles they play in various situations (Example: the consumer from a competitor affects us indirectly because being a part of our periphery is also being a part of another centre, playing different roles in both organizations).
Effective communication will vary and depend on the recognition that individuals can create different meanings in particular contexts of time and space, and that their interpretations will necessarily differ (Gorjão, 2011: 26).
The role of Public Relations is exactly to seek consensus in conflict resolutions (because there is no society without conflict). Since the conflict itself already presupposes the implicit understanding between members of a social interaction, it’s important to realize that any question of communication must also take into account the need to realize and understand opposite arguments. Therefore it establishes the idea that a society does not mean the absence of conflict, but the establishment of consensus and the dispute of interests and agreements among the citizens.
To understand the process of legitimizing an organization in an environment where conflict issues arise permanently, we need to move away from what is usually understood as internal and external to an organization. We do not intend to make this assumption in their material sense, but in the sense of the relationship between the organization and their publics. ‘Finding the boundaries of organization has exercised a number of researchers. The ‘hard shell’ that may once have existed to define an organisation has gone’ (Philips, 2009: 62). An organization is a chain of relationships that goes beyond the legal and financial dimensions. She is, by definition, intangible.
In our view, all publics are part of the organization, being integrated at different levels. What we propose is a separation between the organization as a social construction and the organization as their legal, economic or financial dimensions. While Public Relations, we now propose a concept of organization as a social construction and the kind of legitimacy that there emerges is direct responsibility of the communicative action.
Our proposal considers the organization as a set of relationships that orbit the centre that defines it. This happens from the fact that this centre exists inside a social context in which all elements are integrated. The same way Shils indicates that there are no disintegrated companies, since all presuppose a particular type of integration, in which expectations of their members are always dependent on their social position relative to the centre, the same thing can be said for an organization. We can not talk about internal and external organization because there is no state or a situation of disintegration – all are integrated what varies is their role in relation to the centre. ← 24 | 25 →
It’s the relationship with the centre that defines how the members of the organization are integrated, either as employees customers, potential customers suppliers, customers, community, etc. – they are all part of the organization, standing closer to the centre or the periphery. Those in the periphery are themselves a part less integrated of the organization, but they are further integrated into another set of values than those ones of the organization. This set of values can form another centre, such as a competing organization, or just mean an opposition to these values which can aspire to an amendment.
In our opinion, the typologies often used to characterize the audiences are too much focused on socio-demographic issues, away from the elements that define the relationship of an individual with an organization: the values which he shares and recognizes in it. The “Publics of Grunig” is an example of the referred approaches.
We need a proactive approach, which comes from the particular case to the general one, and takes into account how to build the legitimacy of an organization. Organizations, while a set of relationships that form around a centre, cannot fail to consider all those who, even when not connected directly, influence those who are and those who can join if a certain subject become relevant. Consequently, we reject Grunig’s (1984) notion of non-public, since all those who are integrated into a social system are, in fact, publics that assume different roles depending on the subject and context.
Consequently, we share the idea of Gorjão (2011) that the identification and characterization of audiences often used in Public Relations seems to have an excessively sociological connotation, since it studies the behaviour essentially through cultural or geographic variables, and that we should consider publics as social groups or communities, but particularly focusing on its specificities that make them diverge or converge. In this case, what bounds them together, even when there is not a direct relationship, are the values that they share with each other and that define an individual position on the legitimacy of a particular action. Subsequently then, the same group of individuals, formed from a socio-demographic criteria, may not be uniform in what is the most essential element in the relationship with the centre. A typology based on values and levels of proximity allows us to sidestep this limitation and build groups from what really defines the legitimacy that a person gives to another entity.
What we propose is a new approach. One less focused on the demographic categorization and more focused on the relationship that ← 25 | 26 → audiences have with the centre of the organization, an approach that seeks to see the group from the individual and not the individual from the group. What seems core to Public Relations is the relationship that an individual has with that centre. We are interested in knowing who are the key players and how we stand before the inevitability of conflicts. We can summarize this issue in the following question: what makes the centre of an organization legitimate in a given context?
We propose a typology to identify this on the different levels. A typology that is not sealed, that can only be framed in a particular context: where certain values are placed in confrontation.
The first level consists of those who are in direct contact with the centre. They are the ones that control and direct the organization behaviour. They make decisions that can change the centre itself and have direct power over it. At this level we can include the CEO of a company, shareholders with voting rights, directors, etc. They are all those who run the centre. We give them the name of managers (of the centre).
Details
- Pages
- 400
- Publication Year
- 2015
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9782875742513
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783035265279
- ISBN (MOBI)
- 9783035298789
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783035298796
- DOI
- 10.3726/978-3-0352-6527-9
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2015 (April)
- Keywords
- Social Media PR Public Relations
- Published
- Bruxelles, Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2015. 400 pp., 33 graphs, 29 tables
- Product Safety
- Peter Lang Group AG
