Perspectives on Public Relations Research

Danny Moss, Dejan Vercic, Gary Warnaby

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• Print ISBN: 9780415316187
• eBook ISBN: 9781134603299
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

The practice and study of public relations has grown significantly within Europe over the past decade, yet as a discipline, it remains a relatively unexplored field. This volume of papers brings together contributions from some of the leading international public relations academics and practitioners who provide valuable insights into the theories underpinning current public relations thinking and practice, and illustrate the diversity of perspectives that characterize this evolving area. Key issues discussed include:-

* the contribution of public relations to strategic management in organizations
* the feminization of public relations
* the function of rhetorical study in our understanding of modern corporate dialogue
* international perspectives of public relations.

A valuable aid to both students and practitioners, this fascinating book challenges some of the traditional assumptions about public relations practice.

Part I
Public relations and management theory

1
The origins of public relations theory in economics and strategic management

Dejan Ver

i

and James E. Grunig

Introduction

Most definitions of public relations included in textbooks and professional literature state that public relations is an integral part of management, and that the function of public relations in management is different from other management functions such as marketing or human resources (e.g. Cutlip et al. 1994; J. Grunig and Hunt 1984). However, most scholars and practitioners of public relations have failed to make the theoretical connections to theories of economics and management that are necessary to explain the contributions that the management of public relations makes to the overall management of organizations.

Because public relations is part of management, this chapter argues that it is necessary to study public relations within that framework. Only in this way can those characteristics of public relations that developed from the management environment of the discipline be identified, thereby exposing the real value of public relations concepts. This does not mean other academic disciplines do not contribute to our understanding of public relations. Instead, it means that we have to be clear about the phenomenon of public relations and its place in social reality.

We maintain, however, that if public relations practitioners and researchers are to explain and demonstrate the utility of public relations concepts and practices, they have to do it within the home ground of management – in theories of economics and management and in the application of these theories in managerial practice. Even further, as we try to explicate in this chapter, it is precisely via social science theories, such as public relations theory, that economic and managerial theories can gain practical relevance for everyday applications, a relevance that they often miss.

Microeconomics, management and public relations

Mintzberg (1983) traced the origin of management theory to neoclassical microeconomics, a theory based on the assumption of a rational, economic man (women did not exist in classical theory) who maximized some criterion important to him – utility in the case of consumers and profits in the case of entrepreneurs. In the first sentence of the first chapter of his book Microeconomics and Behavior, titled “Thinking like an economist,” Frank said, “Microeconomics is the study of how people choose under conditions of scarcity” (1994:3). To make such decisions, he added, people compare the costs and benefits of their choices and, by doing so, maximize their self-interest by making choices that produce the greatest benefits for the least cost.

J. Grunig opened his 1966 monograph ‘The role of information in economic decision making’, therefore, with a statement on the centrality of decision making to economic theory:

The process of decision making is a central feature of most economic analyses. Assumptions about the way in which economic actors make basic decisions underlie theories of the firm, consumer demand, welfare economics, market structure, location, and other basic economic theories.

(1966:1)

It does not take much of an effort to identify a progression from the two central components of neoclassical microeconomic theory, the theory of consumer demand and the theory of the firm, to today’s theories of marketing, which assume an exchange relationship,¹ and to theories of management decision making.

Both sets of problems, the behavior of consumers and the behavior of managers, are related to two core theoretical problems in public relations – the behavior of publics and the contribution of public relations to management decision making. Although public relations theory is connected to these two core economic theories that developed into contemporary theories of marketing and management, public relations theory adds another dimension to those theories – the social and political dimensions of management. Our central focus at the beginning of this chapter will be on management theory, but we shall also discuss the relationship of theories of publics and markets to economic theory.

The microeconomic approach to management was a simple one: a rational, economic actor made decisions that would maximize one goal, profitability, of a firm. The assumption of one actor and one goal quickly ran into theoretical difficulty, however (Mintzberg 1983). Firms obviously consist of more than one decision maker, so important questions arose: Who is the actor? and How do multiple actors come together to produce a single decision?² Likewise, both economists and sociologists objected to the idea that profit is the only goal of firms. Thus management theory developed from the idea that a single economic decision maker pursued a single goal, to the idea that multiple actors pursue multiple goals or even no goals at at all. (When there are no goals, the organization becomes a complete political arena.)

Mintzberg summarized the transition in this way:

Management theory, in particular the theory about the goals of the business firm, has done a complete about-face in the last three decades or so, from a reliance on classical economic theory to an increasing attention to newer sociological themes, from the notion of given organizational goals to that of fluid power in and around the organization with no set goals, from an organization devoid of influencers to one in which virtually everyone is an influencer, from the view of the organization as society’s instrument to that of it as a political arena.

(1983:8)

Today, in fact, pure theories of rational behavior in management continue only in operations research – normative management theory that specifies with a great deal of mathematical and statistical detail how, for example, firms can maximize profits, minimize the costs of transportation, or identify the optimum location for plants or distribution centers (J. Grunig 1966). However, as we shall see below, theories of monopoly in the microeconomic theory of market structure have surfaced in reverse in contemporary theories of strategic management.

Even though economic theories of management decision making have been challenged and revised extensively, they still provide the core concepts of management theory. If we can trace the origins or connections of key concepts of public relations theory to economic theory, therefore, we can identify the connection between public relations theory and management theory. And in doing so we can identify the unique contribution that public relations makes to management.

American cultural biases in management and public relations

Before beginning a search for the origins of public relations concepts in economics and management, it is necessary to address a possible American ethnocentrism in our quest for theory, and to discuss the constraints and advantages of an American bias in both bodies of theory. Historically, management has been an American concept; and so has public relations (Sriramesh and White 1992). Both terms, for example, cannot be translated easily into other languages – even into British English. The American aspect of the term ‘management’ has already been mentioned by Drucker (1993). As Thurley and Wirdenius noted in their book Towards European Management, “Until this century there was no special concept of management used in European languages” (1989:25).

For public relations, the problem is even more obvious and acute. In Slavonic languages, the introductory literature on the subject uses the term in its original form (e.g. for Slovenian usage see Gruban et al. 1990; for Serbian usage see -Duric

1992; for Czech usage see Nemec 1993). In Germanic languages the term had been translated, but the original is being used more widely (e.g. Avenarius and Armbrecht 1992). In romance languages, such as French or Italian, it has been possible to translate the term in words close to the original (relations publiques, pubbliche relazioni). Nevertheless, the translation has not eliminated problems in explaining the meaning of public relations (e.g. Boiry 1989; Roggero 1993). Dunn (1988) even complained that the British misunderstand the term public relations and even confuse it with advertising. Finally, as we will see later, public relations has an ambiguous and changing meaning even in American English.

If we are to understand public relations in its full potential, we have to think beyond two historical accidents that are misleading. First, Bernays’ (1923) claim that public relations counsels are the heirs of publicists from the previous century. Second, the location of the public relations curriculum in US universities and its arrangement primarily within schools and colleges of journalism (see Hess et al. 1986).

The American concept of public relations is the only global concept of public relations available currently (see Ver

i

et al. 1995). So, to criticize public relations on the conceptual level, we have to criticize the American conceptualization of public relations. This is not a claim that other conceptualizations are not possible or even emerging. It is a simple but accurate statement that other conceptualizations have not yet been developed to a level that allows disciplined criticism.

Our search for the origins of public relations theory in economics and manageme...

Table of contents

• Routledge Advances in Management and Business Studies
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I Public relations and management theory
• Part II Contemporary perspectives of public relations
• Part III International perspectives of public relations
• Part IV Historical-German perspectives of public relations
• Subject index
• Author index