- Email: [email protected]
Maximizing public relations with the organization–public relationship scale: Measuring a public's perception of an art museum
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 437–439
Short communication
Maximizing public relations with the organization–public relationship scale: Measuring a public’s perception of an art museum Stephen A. Banning ∗ , Mary Schoen Bradley University, Slane College of Communications and Fine Arts, 1501 West Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 61625, United States
Abstract This study employed the organization–public relationship scale to measure member perceptions of an art museum. Analysis shows member perceptions of the museum–public relationship differentiated members likely to continue their membership from those likely to discontinue their membership with the museum. This study confirms the appropriateness of using the organization–public relationship scale with museums. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Organization–public relationship; Museum public relations; Nonprofit public relations
1. Introduction An emerging paradigm within strategic management centers on relationship management as a public relations theory (Ledingham, 2003). According to Ehling (1992), the shift from changing publics’ beliefs to building and maintaining relationships indicates a change in the mission of public relations. Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) suggested that with this change comes a perceived change in definitions. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) responded by defining a relationship as “the state which exists between an organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the economic, social, cultural or political well being of the other” (p. 62). Another important advance in relationship management theory was the development of relationship measurement strategies. According to Ledingham (2003), “organization–public relationships mimic the 10 phases of the coming together and the coming apart of interpersonal relationships” (p. 10). Ledingham and Bruning (1998) created a scale that consists of three components: personal relationship, community relationship, and professional relationship. The scale’s three components are measured by a bank of 15 items that revolve around the public relations issues of reciprocity, mutual legitimacy, and mutual understanding (Bruning & Galloway, 2002). This study employed the organization–public relationship scale to measure member perceptions of an art museum.
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 309 677 2362; fax: +1 309 444 3852. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.A. Banning).
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.08.001
438
S.A. Banning, M. Schoen / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 437–439
2. Methods The subject for this study was a museum of arts in a mid-sized southern city, and the population was the museum’s membership consisting of 673 members, ranging from student members to endowment society members. The researchers utilized Bruning and Ledingham’s (1999) organization–public relationship scale. Following Ledingham’s (2001) government-community study, the questionnaire for this study listed five statements for each of the three types of relationship under study: personal, community, and professional. In keeping with Dillman’s (2000) and Kanso’s (2000) recommendations, the survey for this study was included in a packet with a cover letter and a pre-addressed, pre-stamped return envelope mailed to each participant. The museum’s letterhead was on the envelope and cover letter to help provide credibility. Of the 673 questionnaires mailed out, 286 were returned by museum members resulting in 248 completed questionnaires. The response rate was 42.5% with a completion rate of 36.8%. 3. Findings
Hypothesis 1. The organization–public relationship scale will be reliable in the museum context. With regard to reliability, the personal relationship Cronbach alpha was .91, the community relationship Cronbach alpha was .90, and the professional relationship Cronbach alpha was .88. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported in that the organization–public relationship scale achieved robust reliability in the museum context. This is conceptually significant in that an organization–public relationship scale has not been tested previously in a non-profit context. Hypothesis 2. The tenets of relationship management theory apply in the museum context. (This can be broken down into the two tenets of relationship management theory below.) Hypothesis 2a. Tenet1: Organization–public relationships have antecedents and consequences and can be analyzed in terms of relationship quality, maintenance strategies, relationship type, and actors in the relationship. The ANOVA results for age, household income, education, home ownership, and marital status showed no significant differences by relationship types (personal, community, and professional). Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Hypothesis 2b. Tenet 2: The continuation of organization–public relationships is dependent on the degree to which expectations are met. For Hypothesis 2b, a regression analysis revealed a linear relationship between overall relationship satisfaction and the three relationship types of (1) personal relationship [R2 (1, 253) = .47, p < .001], (2) community relationship [R2 (1, 238) = .38, p < .001], and (3) professional relationship [R2 (1, 247) = .25, p < .001]. Hypothesis 3. Respondent perceptions of the organization–public relationship will differentiate members who say they are likely to continue their memberships with the museum from members who say they are likely to discontinue their memberships. Test results revealed approximately 31% of the variance of the personal variable was accounted for by the linear relationship with the relationship duration variable [R2 (1, 251) = .31, p < .001]. Approximately 36% of the community variable was accounted for by the linear relationship with the relationship duration variable [R2 (1, 237) = .36, p < .001], and 30% of the professional variable was accounted for by the linear relationship with the relationship duration variable [R2 (1, 247) = .30, p < .001]. These results indicate participants who rated the items high on the three relationship variables, tended to rate their overall relationship with the subject museum as long term. In other words, as the relationship duration became more long-term, member perceptions of the museum–public relationships became more favorable.
S.A. Banning, M. Schoen / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 437–439
439
4. Discussion The organization–public relationship scale was found to have reliability in the museum context, essential information to museum curators and administrators looking for means to quantitatively understand their membership. The three relationship sub-scales within the organization–public relationship scale can be used to help quantify museum–public relationships; museum public relations and marketing practitioners could use it to tailor programs to specific public needs and measure their effectiveness. The organization–public relationship scale also helped indicate those likely to withdraw membership. On an applied level, this could help museum administrators and administrators of other profit and not-profit organizations identify their at-risk members. The information gained in the use of the three relationship sub-scales can help practitioners reinforce successful programs or change ineffective public relations initiatives, rather than simply measure the amount of communication produced in a newspaper or magazine. On a theoretical level in regard to the relationship management theory (Ledingham, 2003) functioning in the museum context, there were mixed results. The first tenet of relationship management theory holds that organization–public relationships can be analyzed by relationship types (personal, community, and professional) and by the actors in the relationship. This first tenet of the relationship management theory was not supported in the museum context. However, support was found for the second tenet of relationship management which holds that the continuation of the organization and public relationship depends on the degree to which expectations are met. There are limitations to this research. This study, like many previous studies, focused on the public side or the organization management system and did not investigate aspects such as organizational managers and employees. Additional studies are needed to further explore this area. There are also limitations in regard to scope. This study focused on one organization and its members, limiting direct generalization to other organizations. Its findings may be case specific, more appropriately generalizable to nonprofit organizations or more specifically nonprofit museums. A variety of profit and nonprofit organizations should be researched and results compared. While this study cannot address the need for definitive support for organization relationship management theory, it does supply a metaphorical brick in the foundation of cases supporting the appropriateness of organizational relationship management. References Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2002, May). Expanding the organization-public relationship scale: Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29, 309–319. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999, Summer). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ehling, W. P. (1992). Establishing the value of public relations and communication to an organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 616–638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kanso, A. (2000). Mail surveys: Key factors affecting response rates. Journal of Promotion Management, 5(2), 3–16. Ledingham, J. A. (2001, Summer). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27, 285–295. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181–198. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management and public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65.
Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 437–439
Short communication
Maximizing public relations with the organization–public relationship scale: Measuring a public’s perception of an art museum Stephen A. Banning ∗ , Mary Schoen Bradley University, Slane College of Communications and Fine Arts, 1501 West Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 61625, United States
Abstract This study employed the organization–public relationship scale to measure member perceptions of an art museum. Analysis shows member perceptions of the museum–public relationship differentiated members likely to continue their membership from those likely to discontinue their membership with the museum. This study confirms the appropriateness of using the organization–public relationship scale with museums. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Organization–public relationship; Museum public relations; Nonprofit public relations
1. Introduction An emerging paradigm within strategic management centers on relationship management as a public relations theory (Ledingham, 2003). According to Ehling (1992), the shift from changing publics’ beliefs to building and maintaining relationships indicates a change in the mission of public relations. Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) suggested that with this change comes a perceived change in definitions. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) responded by defining a relationship as “the state which exists between an organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the economic, social, cultural or political well being of the other” (p. 62). Another important advance in relationship management theory was the development of relationship measurement strategies. According to Ledingham (2003), “organization–public relationships mimic the 10 phases of the coming together and the coming apart of interpersonal relationships” (p. 10). Ledingham and Bruning (1998) created a scale that consists of three components: personal relationship, community relationship, and professional relationship. The scale’s three components are measured by a bank of 15 items that revolve around the public relations issues of reciprocity, mutual legitimacy, and mutual understanding (Bruning & Galloway, 2002). This study employed the organization–public relationship scale to measure member perceptions of an art museum.
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 309 677 2362; fax: +1 309 444 3852. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.A. Banning).
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.08.001
438
S.A. Banning, M. Schoen / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 437–439
2. Methods The subject for this study was a museum of arts in a mid-sized southern city, and the population was the museum’s membership consisting of 673 members, ranging from student members to endowment society members. The researchers utilized Bruning and Ledingham’s (1999) organization–public relationship scale. Following Ledingham’s (2001) government-community study, the questionnaire for this study listed five statements for each of the three types of relationship under study: personal, community, and professional. In keeping with Dillman’s (2000) and Kanso’s (2000) recommendations, the survey for this study was included in a packet with a cover letter and a pre-addressed, pre-stamped return envelope mailed to each participant. The museum’s letterhead was on the envelope and cover letter to help provide credibility. Of the 673 questionnaires mailed out, 286 were returned by museum members resulting in 248 completed questionnaires. The response rate was 42.5% with a completion rate of 36.8%. 3. Findings
Hypothesis 1. The organization–public relationship scale will be reliable in the museum context. With regard to reliability, the personal relationship Cronbach alpha was .91, the community relationship Cronbach alpha was .90, and the professional relationship Cronbach alpha was .88. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported in that the organization–public relationship scale achieved robust reliability in the museum context. This is conceptually significant in that an organization–public relationship scale has not been tested previously in a non-profit context. Hypothesis 2. The tenets of relationship management theory apply in the museum context. (This can be broken down into the two tenets of relationship management theory below.) Hypothesis 2a. Tenet1: Organization–public relationships have antecedents and consequences and can be analyzed in terms of relationship quality, maintenance strategies, relationship type, and actors in the relationship. The ANOVA results for age, household income, education, home ownership, and marital status showed no significant differences by relationship types (personal, community, and professional). Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Hypothesis 2b. Tenet 2: The continuation of organization–public relationships is dependent on the degree to which expectations are met. For Hypothesis 2b, a regression analysis revealed a linear relationship between overall relationship satisfaction and the three relationship types of (1) personal relationship [R2 (1, 253) = .47, p < .001], (2) community relationship [R2 (1, 238) = .38, p < .001], and (3) professional relationship [R2 (1, 247) = .25, p < .001]. Hypothesis 3. Respondent perceptions of the organization–public relationship will differentiate members who say they are likely to continue their memberships with the museum from members who say they are likely to discontinue their memberships. Test results revealed approximately 31% of the variance of the personal variable was accounted for by the linear relationship with the relationship duration variable [R2 (1, 251) = .31, p < .001]. Approximately 36% of the community variable was accounted for by the linear relationship with the relationship duration variable [R2 (1, 237) = .36, p < .001], and 30% of the professional variable was accounted for by the linear relationship with the relationship duration variable [R2 (1, 247) = .30, p < .001]. These results indicate participants who rated the items high on the three relationship variables, tended to rate their overall relationship with the subject museum as long term. In other words, as the relationship duration became more long-term, member perceptions of the museum–public relationships became more favorable.
S.A. Banning, M. Schoen / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 437–439
439
4. Discussion The organization–public relationship scale was found to have reliability in the museum context, essential information to museum curators and administrators looking for means to quantitatively understand their membership. The three relationship sub-scales within the organization–public relationship scale can be used to help quantify museum–public relationships; museum public relations and marketing practitioners could use it to tailor programs to specific public needs and measure their effectiveness. The organization–public relationship scale also helped indicate those likely to withdraw membership. On an applied level, this could help museum administrators and administrators of other profit and not-profit organizations identify their at-risk members. The information gained in the use of the three relationship sub-scales can help practitioners reinforce successful programs or change ineffective public relations initiatives, rather than simply measure the amount of communication produced in a newspaper or magazine. On a theoretical level in regard to the relationship management theory (Ledingham, 2003) functioning in the museum context, there were mixed results. The first tenet of relationship management theory holds that organization–public relationships can be analyzed by relationship types (personal, community, and professional) and by the actors in the relationship. This first tenet of the relationship management theory was not supported in the museum context. However, support was found for the second tenet of relationship management which holds that the continuation of the organization and public relationship depends on the degree to which expectations are met. There are limitations to this research. This study, like many previous studies, focused on the public side or the organization management system and did not investigate aspects such as organizational managers and employees. Additional studies are needed to further explore this area. There are also limitations in regard to scope. This study focused on one organization and its members, limiting direct generalization to other organizations. Its findings may be case specific, more appropriately generalizable to nonprofit organizations or more specifically nonprofit museums. A variety of profit and nonprofit organizations should be researched and results compared. While this study cannot address the need for definitive support for organization relationship management theory, it does supply a metaphorical brick in the foundation of cases supporting the appropriateness of organizational relationship management. References Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2002, May). Expanding the organization-public relationship scale: Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29, 309–319. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999, Summer). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ehling, W. P. (1992). Establishing the value of public relations and communication to an organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 616–638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kanso, A. (2000). Mail surveys: Key factors affecting response rates. Journal of Promotion Management, 5(2), 3–16. Ledingham, J. A. (2001, Summer). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27, 285–295. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181–198. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management and public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65.