- Email: [email protected]
A social capital approach to improving public relations’ efficacy: Diagnosing internal constraints on external communication
Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
A social capital approach to improving public relations’ efficacy: Diagnosing internal constraints on external communication Erich J. Sommerfeldt a , Maureen Taylor b,∗ a b
Towson University, United States University of Oklahoma, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 31 May 2010 Received in revised form 2 March 2011 Accepted 12 March 2011 Keywords: Social capital Relationship management Network analysis
a b s t r a c t This article extends Heath’s (2006) concept of fully functioning society theory (FFS) and argues that public relations can be used as a force to enhance collective social capital in communities. To serve this purpose, however, the effectiveness of an organization to serve its external publics is often dependent on the status and relationships the public relations function has developed within the organization. This paper provides a network analysis of a government agency in Jordan that illustrates the relationship between internal organizational social capital and the potential problems for establishing external relationships with publics. Implications for public relations research methods and theory are also discussed. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction While research in public relations has traditionally been concerned with the practice as related to business (Holtzhausen, 2000; Karlberg, 1996), some scholars have advocated for a larger role for public relations in society to recreate community (Kruckeberg & Stark, 1988), allow for a fully functioning society (Heath, 2006) and facilitate and sustain civil society and social capital (Taylor, 2009). Public relations scholars have approached social capital vis-à-vis internal public relations (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006), as an improvement on relationship management (Ihlen, 2005), and as organizational participation in civil society (Taylor, 2009). Such research has primarily viewed social capital as a collective or group outcome that public relations can help to achieve in a community or society. However, social capital must first be acquired or made accessible to individual actors in the form of personal networks and resources before it can be expended or achieved (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Halpern, 2005; Lin, 2001). Social capital is thus a process and an outcome, and is relevant to the success of an individual actor at the micro level, an organization at the meso level, and to an entire community or society at the macro level. Consequently, a public relations department or practitioner must have access to or reserves of social capital before it can be expended in either internal or external communications aimed at building a collective social capital. The purpose of this paper is two fold. First, we seek to contribute to the emerging body of research that positions public relations in the social capital formation process. To that end, this study pays particular attention to how the internal social capital of an organization – and more specifically the social capital of the public relations unit(s) of the organization – may affect the organization’s ability to participate in building collective social capital via external communication efforts. A second goal of this paper is to provide a methodological contribution to public relations research that will allow scholars and practitioners to measure internal relationships. We believe that the method proposed here to study social capital provides
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Taylor). 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.007
198
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
conceptual and diagnostic tools that extend our understanding of the concept of relationships (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Ferguson, 1984; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). The first part of the paper provides an overview of social capital theory and public relations. To show how the relationships and processes inherent in organizational social capital may help or hinder actors, the second section of the paper provides a case of a network analysis of a decade-old government agency in Aqaba, Jordan that is charged with the economic, social, and cultural development of the community. After 10 years of operation, the government agency struggles to provide the most basic services to the community. Local residents accuse the decisions of organization’s leaders “to be against the local people’s interest” (Abu Al-Haija & Al-Faqih, 2009, p. 154). The government organization–public relationship is characterized by a lack of trust, lack of responsiveness, and an overall weak capacity of the organization to serve public needs. This paper seeks to understand why the organization–public relationship is weak. The case provides a diagnostic example of why internal relationships must be forged first, before the public relations functions can help make the organization capable of participating in a fully functioning society. 2. Social capital theory As Chen (2009) described it, social capital research is “in vogue in contemporary social sciences” (p. 193). Within the past twenty years, social capital has achieved distinction as a theoretical perspective that explains – at both a micro and macro level – social relations, individual and collective behaviors, chances of economic growth and political participation. Social capital theory thus serves to help explain the relationships that are the basis of a successful democratic society (Putnam, 2000). On the other hand, recent events in the Middle East show that low social capital may increase the potential for civil unrest and violent demonstrations against government. Bourdieu (1984), Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1993, 2000) – who are largely acknowledged as leading authors in social capital research – conceived of social capital as the norms, cultural values and trust intrinsic to groups, organizations or communities. Their writings lead social capital researchers to be concerned with questions of how groups or communities “develop and maintain their social networks and enhance their collective interests and identity” (Hsung & Breiger, 2009, p. 5). As Putnam (2000) described it, “social capital makes us smarter, healthier, safer, richer, and better able to govern a just and stable democracy” (p. 290). At a more concrete level, Chen (2009) suggested that social capital is a “certain kind of capital that can create advantages for individuals or groups pursuing their own ends” (p. 194). Indeed, social capital is largely understood as a special case of “regular” capital, which Lin (2001) defined as the “investment of resources with expected returns in the marketplace” (p. xi). Lin posited that the notion of capital could be and has been extended to considerations of social relations. Examination of relationships between actors “evokes structural constraints and opportunities as well as actions and choices on the part of the actors” (Lin, 2001, p. 3). Social capital can thus be understood as the social relationships between actors that involve the exchange of resources. As Castiglione (2008) explained, “social capital is understood to mean all those resources that an actor can mobilize and/or profit from because of his [sic] embeddedness in a network of relations with other actors” (p. 23). Accordingly, social capital is the sum of resources acquired through relationships that help to facilitate the successful actions of an individual or corporate actor. 2.1. Organizational social capital At the organizational level, social capital has been defined as “the ability that organizations have of creating, maintaining, and using relationships to achieve desirable organizational goals” (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006, p. 322). Organizational relationships themselves can be thought of as mechanisms for acquiring, exchanging, or consuming resources. Consequently, the amount and quality of organizational relationships help to facilitate organizational cohesiveness, and ultimately the success of organizational actions. As Monge, Heiss, and Margolin (2008) explained: Organizations invest resources such as people, time, money, and expertise to create relationships and linkages that provide other resources. . . .they expend economic or human capital in order to build their social capital, that is, their connections to the network, from which they hope to profit. (p. 455) Organizations benefit from high levels of social capital in several ways. Social capital has been shown to reduce organizational turnover (Dess & Shaw, 2001), manage organizational uncertainties and promote free enterprise (Chung & Gibbons, 1997), enhance an organization’s capacity for action (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), and ultimately benefit organizational survival (Pennings, Lee, & Witteloostujin, 1998). Indeed, high levels of social capital may be among the best indicators of organizational success, for as Putnam (1993) found, social capital may be the independent variable that affects the dependent variable of organizational effectiveness. 2.2. The public relations function and social capital Ihlen (2005) suggested that as the public relations literature has become more relationship-centered, the quantity and quality of the relationships an organization possesses should now be perceived as the social capital of an organization. Social capital is thus a central concern for internal and external public relations, for as Kennan and Hazleton (2006) have argued,
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
199
“public relations practitioners are those with the capacity to cultivate, maintain and expend social capital on behalf of their organization” (p. 325). Fostering social capital in the organization’s environment is public relations’ raison d’être because it creates and maintains collaborative relationships between an organization and its publics. Public relations practitioners accomplish this when they perform what Daft (1983) termed the boundary spanning function. According to Daft (1983), the boundary spanning function serves to link the organization with elements in the environment, most often by exchanging information with key people and organizations. By engaging in information transfer with other actors in the environment, boundary spanners help to coordinate activities and reduce uncertainty. Thus, boundary spanning better equips the organization to adapt to the needs and expectations of the environment, and may help the environment adapt to the organization. Daft noted that while boundary spanning most often internalizes and produces information for the organization, the function often also includes the transfer or distribution of resources to the environment such as services, materials, and money. Boundary spanners – public relations practitioners – are the individuals or units best positioned with an organization to facilitate the exchange of resources between the organization and the environment. Public relations can help to build social capital outside of the organization as well as providing access to the linkages that allow the organization to benefit from a network of resources available in the community at large. Consequently, a public relations unit or practitioner’s access to capital is an important consideration in how public relations can help to create or benefit from social capital elsewhere. The location of a public relations unit within the hierarchy of an organizational network has been shown to influence the efficacy, power, and influence of public relations (Grunig & Grunig, 1992; Plowman, 1998). Public relations scholars have long maintained that public relations must be a part of or have access to the dominant coalition of an organization, or the organization’s central decision-making body. Membership in the dominant coalition empowers public relations to help organizations make better decisions (Berger, 2005). Further, the extent to which practitioners are connected with other actors in an organizational network is likely to be related to the influence of public relations on the organization (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006). Kennan and Hazleton suggested that “excellent public relations are best conceptualized by understanding the nature of social capital accessible by the organization, including the practitioner, and the manner in which available social capital is expended to achieve important goals and objectives” (p. 325). For public relations to influence or affect social capital, a unit or practitioner must have access to social capital both drawn from the organization at large, and from its individual social capital. However, a desire to participate in the building of internal or external social capital, does not necessarily indicate the capacity to do so. Many organizations – and by extension a public relations practitioner or public relations department – lack the structural and communication networks to help create social capital. Kennan and Hazleton (2006) pointed out that the social capital a public relations unit itself possesses, in the form of connections to influential actors and resources, is necessary before a public relations unit can attempt to build capital elsewhere. Further, Ihlen (2002) noted that organizations require access to significant resources to launch campaigns, and that a large, competent, well-connected and knowledgeable public relations staff increases the likelihood of the proper management of an organization’s relationships with its environment. As such, the concept of social capital helps to explain why certain actors, such as a public relations department, may have difficulty in affecting a collective social capital, for social capital theory “constitutes both an aid in accounting for different outcomes at the level of individual actors and an aid toward making micro-to-macro transitions” (Coleman, 1988, p. 101). If individual or micro-level social capital can affect macro-level social capital, efforts to examine the failure of public relations to generate social capital in the community may look inward to the organization. Krishna (2008) held that the differences or problems within a group could have significant consequences “for the results that groups achieve in practice. What happens within the group influences achievements in the world outside” (p. 440, emphasis original). Consequently, the best way for an organization to engage in the creation of social capital is to have public relations unit that has access to and significant reserves of social capital. 2.3. Measuring social capital While many scholars seem certain about the value of social capital for societies, groups and individuals, how social capital manifests itself remains more uncertain. A common critique of social capital is that it is not easily measured, as it takes no one particular form or dimension. Social capital, at the organizational and societal level, sees relationships and the resources (e.g. wealth, power, status) that can be acquired via those relationships as facilitating outcomes such as collaboration and growth. Social capital thus consists of intangible assets that can be accrued for the benefit of the individual actor and the entire network, which Van Deth (2008) called “accumulated wealth” (p. 151). Coleman (1988) stressed the measurement of social capital by its functions, writing “they all consist of some aspect of social structure” (p. 302), and Putnam (1993) suggested that social capital refers to “features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks” (p. 167). The public relations function in any organization must access, share, and make sense of different types of information. The public relations function’s relationships with other organizational units has a significant influence on whether the public relations function is effective in building external relationships. The organization of interest for this study is the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority. The Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority (called the Authority herein) is a government body in charge of managing the Aqaba Special Economic Zone (called the Zone herein). The Zone is located on the southernmost tip of Jordan and includes all 26 km of coastline for the Kingdom on the Red Sea. The Zone was created by the Jordanian parliament in 2001. The Authority has complete autonomy over the zone’s regulatory powers – distinguishing it from the government offices in the rest of Jordan (Kardoosh,
200
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
2005). As the Kingdom’s only seaport, Aqaba occupies a key position in Jordan’s economy and has the potential to attract business and tourism to the region. The development of Aqaba may affect the overall stability of the region (particularly in Egyptian/Jordanian/Iraqi relations), but it is vulnerable given the past and current tumultuous happenings in the Middle East. Jordan has seen exponential growth over the past decade, yet the Kingdom has also suffered from high foreign debt, high unemployment, with much of the population living below the poverty line. King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his government in February 2011, bowing to public pressure to initiate economic and political reforms. These and other measures have, so far, helped to spare Jordan from much of the civil unrest present in neighboring countries. That said, the Aqaba area in particular remains a relatively undeveloped part of the Kingdom. The Authority was created to oversee the development of Aqaba given its geographic, and potentially geo political importance. The stated vision of the Authority is to improve the overall quality of life for the Aqaba community. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also participated in the development of the area by establishing the Aqaba Zone Economic Mobilization (ASEM) to build the capacity of the governing bureaucracy of the Authority. There are low levels of trust and social capital in Aqaba. Al-Husseini (2007) noted the relationship between the Aqaba community and the Authority is defined by a lack of trust. “Tensions exist as ASEZA is perceived to be focusing on attracting investors and creating a favorable environment for investors with less emphasis on improvement of conditions for the residents of Aqaba” (Al-Husseini, 2007, p. 24). In 2008, King Abdullah called on the Authority to “involve local communities in Aqaba in the decision-making process” and provide “better services for residents of the area” (Petra News Service, paragraphs 1, 2). Building relationships with the community and effectively managing communication has become a priority for the Authority. The Media and Public Relations Directorate (MPRD) and the Local Community Development Directorate (LCDD) are charged with managing public relations and community relationship building. The MPRD was created to serve media relations, event planning, speeches, development of organizational materials, and promote the people and businesses in the Zone. The LCDD was created to work with community groups, NGOs, donors, and businesses to create the cultural capital of the Zone. These two directorates of the Authority serve most clearly as boundary spanners, yet both are understaffed and under-resourced. There is a disconnect between the Authority’s mission and its capacity to follow through in serving the community. This research sought to understand how this disconnect might affect the Authority’s ability to communicate with and serve its publics. Our hope is to go backwards to examine the internal relationships and issues that hinder the Authority from engaging in beneficial relationships with the public. By going backwards to see the gaps in internal relationships, we can help the Authority to strategically address its problems and enhance its capacity to participate in what Heath (2006) termed a fully functioning society Three general research questions guide this study: RQ1: How are the boundary spanning units of the Authority positioned in the hierarchical network of the organization? RQ2: What levels of trust exist between the boundary spanning units and the other units in the Authority? RQ3: What levels of support exist between the boundary spanning units and the other units in the Authority? The next section of this article details a network analysis that examined the internal social capital of the boundary spanning functions. The findings of the study will provide both methodological and theoretical directions for future public relations research in OPR and civil society. 3. Methodology The internal problems plaguing the Authority have direct consequences on the organization’s ability to make Aqaba a fully functioning society. By virtue of the social capital perspective, this study argues that a lack of internal trust, support and a poor network structure may be hindering the Authority’s progress in building relationships with the community and affecting a collective social capital. There are many ways to measure the organization–public relationship. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) and other relationship management scholars have studied relationships through surveys, focus groups, and in-depth interviews. These methods are valuable for understanding public perceptions of the organization and they can provide examples of the positive and negative aspects of relationships. Yet, these methods cannot go inside the organization to look at the a priori relationships that create the internal social capital that, in turn, influences the formation of community social capital. One methodology, network analysis, can achieve this goal. 3.1. Network analysis The prevailing research strategy of social capital is network analysis (Lin, 1999). Networks are typically conceived of as a set of actors, objects, or “nodes” that are tied together through relationships, which are usually called links or ties (Monge et al., 2008). Lin (2001) linked resources, and thereby social capital, in part to the position of an actor within a network. Lin tied the access of social capital to three factors that were adopted for this study: (1) the position of an actor within the hierarchical structure of an organization, (2) the nature of the ties or relationships between actors, and (3) the location of the ties within the overall network.
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
201
The Authority is a bureaucratic organization with a Chief Commissioner, a Board of Commissioners, and 31 directorates that provide all of the services required of a county or municipal government (city services, licensing, roads, schools) plus the import/export procedures required by the port (inspection, customs, duty collection). The Authority is always hiring and losing members but the researchers established that the core number of employees is about 1,400 people. Of those, approximately 400 serve in managerial or supervisory roles (N = 400). Each directorate was asked to identify the supervisors and managers who have inter department communication requirements (must communicate and coordinate with people in other directorates). The Authority members were released (at different times) from their duties over a three-day period in July 2009 to participate in the network survey. No Authority member was forced to take the survey and the researchers noticed that many participants were pleased that someone was asking their input about working with other directorates. To maintain anonymity, no demographic data was collected beyond the name of the respondent’s directorate of employment. The network survey was administered to a sample of mangers and supervisors (N = 101) (approximately 25% of all members in supervisory or management positions) from 27 of ASEZA’s 31 directorates. The four directorates not included in the survey were unavailable to participate at the time of the research but their names were listed on the roster of units. As Lin (2008) prescribed, measurement of social capital depends in part on access to capital. Access to social capital, he argued, can be measured using a name-generating methodology. Consequently, to identify the hierarchical and interaction structure of the Authority, participants were asked to name the five directorates they interacted with most frequently. Then, further questions were asked about the characteristics of the named directorates, which helped to describe the nature of the relationships (ties) among directorates (actors or nodes). 3.2. Operationalization of variables 3.2.1. Trust Of the many social characteristics discussed and employed in social capital research, trust may be the most prevalent (Fukuyama, 1999; Halpern, 2005; Jin, 2010; Putnam, 2000). Kennan and Hazleton (2006) positioned trust as the primary relational feature of social capital in organizations. Accordingly, trust may be the most relevant and heuristically rich variable of study in public relations research on social capital, as trust is often included as a key characteristic in definitions of organization–public relationships (Grunig, Grunig, & Ehling, 1992; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Huang, 1997). Trust was assessed via the question “I trust the information I receive from this directorate.” All trust questions were measured via a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scores for each directorate on the trust measures were added together and averaged to create a composite trust score between the directorate and the other directorates at the Authority. 3.2.2. Support The location of an actor in a network also influences the likelihood and ability of the actor to access support, which, in turn, improves the ability to act (Lin, 1999). Supportive relationships are key indications of the ability of an actor to succeed in any enterprise. Exchanges of support are dependent on the nature of the network in which the supportive ties are embedded (Cote, Plickert, & Wellman, 2009). Those with larger networks will able to gain more relationships, and as a consequence, more ties that provide support and resources. Support can include receiving instrumental assistance from other actors in accomplishing tasks (Cote et al., 2009) or in solving problems (Lochner, Kawachi, & Kennedy, 1999). Indeed, the ability of a group to come together in solving problems is indicative of strong network ties (Uzzi, 1996) and of the extent to which a group can operate as a cohesive unit (Bowles & Gintis, 2002). High levels of social capital foster the cultural will and a sense of responsibility to solve problems collectively (Wilson, 1997). Support was chosen as a measure of interest as supportive relationships are indicative of the social capital of individual actors and their ability to accomplish tasks, and the overall capacity for the organizations to solve problems. Support was measured by the question “I receive the appropriate level of support from this directorate to solve problems.” All responses were measured via a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scores for each directorate on the support measure were added together and averaged to create a composite support score for the relationships among the directorates. It is important to note that directorates could send several managers to the survey location and mean scores for trust and support were calculated for every relationship identified between directorates. Members of the same department might identify different units as important to them or in some cases, the members identified the same departments. A cut-off point of 3.75 out of the possible score of 5.0 was used to indicate a trusting relationship or a relationship that provides support between directorates. 3.3. Network measures Social capital can also be assessed by an actor’s location in a network and the location of the ties within the network (Lin, 2001). Borgatti, Jones, and Everett (1998) provided a number of location measures and statistics that may be used in the study of social capital. Size/degree refers to the number of nodes an ego (an actor or node of interest in network analysis) is connected to. In-degree centrality is the number of actors who say they are connected to an ego and out-degree centrality refers to the number of actors the ego claims to be connected to. Closeness is the total graph theoretic distance from one ego to all nodes in a network. Larger values indicate greater distance to other nodes whereas smaller values indicate a tighter proximity to other nodes. Betweeness is the number of times an ego falls along the shortest path between two actors. Actors
202
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
with high betweeness scores link together actors who are otherwise unconnected. Eigenvector centrality is the extent to which an ego is connected to nodes that are high in centrality, that is, they are well connected in the network. Density is the proportion of pairs of actors in the network that are connected. While closeness and eigenvector centrality scores are more difficult to interpret than the other measures, all of the measures defined above help to quantify the importance of a node within a network of nodes. In terms of their relevance to public relations research, each of these statistics describe different aspects of the structure of relationships among actors, thus providing a set of diagnostics of the strengths and weaknesses of an particular actor’s relationship network and the network as a whole. 4. Results Using UCINET 6 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002), several relationship networks of the Authority were constructed. Based on the overall interaction network of the Authority, trust and support networks were created, and the network measures that diagnose the strength and weakness of relationships were calculated. The findings of these measures are delineated below. 4.1. Hierarchical structure Lin (2001) noted that social capital can be assessed by the position of an actor within the structure of an organization. The first research question inquired as to where the two boundary spanning units of the Authority were located in the hierarchical network of the organization. Their location in the internal organizational network helps to explain how easily these units can call upon other units to help them to achieve their goals. Based on their organizational and boundary spanning roles, the Media and Public Relations Directorate (MPRD) and the Local Community Development Directorate (LCDD) should ideally be at the center of the relationship structure of the Authority. That is, they should be connected to as many units as possible in the organization, as such connections enhance the likelihood for resource acquisition and the capacity for successful public relations actions that can serve the Aqaba community. In the multidimensional scale model shown in Fig. 1, both boundary spanner functions are on the outskirts of the interaction structure of the Authority and are distanced from the key directorates responsible for the delivery of community services. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) is a technique for the analysis of proximity data to reveal the hidden structure underlying the data, and the structure of relations between entities (Steyvers, 2001). The size of the nodes in the figure is representative of the degree centrality of the unit – the larger the node, the more connections the unit has in the Authority’s network. The figure helps to illustrate the poor connectivity of each of the boundary spanning units and how far removed they are from the central actors of the Authority. Fig. 1 shows the LCDD and MPRD relationships (or lack thereof)
Fig. 1. The MDS network structure of ASEZA. Note: The size of the nodes indicates the degree centrality of each directorate. The larger the node, the greater its degree centrality.
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
203
Table 1 Network measures of social capital. MPRD
In-degree centrality Out-degree centrality Closeness Betweeness centrality Eigenvector centrality Density
LCDD
ASEZA
Structure
Trust
Support
Structure
Trust
Support
Trust
Support
2.00 5.00 115.00 0.47 0.05 –
2.00 1.00 120.00 0 0.06 –
1.00 1.00 126.00 0 0.05 –
10.00 7.00 105.00 8.88 0.08 –
4.00 4.00 118.00 4.57 0.10 –
3.00 2.00 124.00 2.52 0.08 –
– – – – – 33.09%
– – – – – 50.18%
with units including the Board of Commissioners (the dominant coalition) and city services (responsible for delivering most public and business services). Table 1 lists the network measures used to assess the position of the boundary spanning units in the Authority. All metrics indicate a poor interconnection of LCDD and MPRD to the other units. The LCDD ranks poorly in both in-degree and outdegree centrality measures, with only 10 units claiming to interact with LCDD and LCDD representatives only cited seven units they interact with. MPRD also measures poorly on in-degree (2) and out-degree (5) centrality. These measures show that neither directorate has a large number of relationships within the organization from which to benefit. MPRD ranks very high in closeness score at 115 and very low in its betweeness score at .47, indicating it is relationally distanced from most of the other nodes in ASEZA’s network. LCDD fared a little better with a closeness score of 105 and a betweeness score of 8.88, indicating a slightly better relational position within the network. However, neither unit is strategically located along relationship paths in the network. Eigenvector centrality measures, or how well the units are connected to other actors who are themselves well connected in the network, are also comparatively low at .033 for MPRD and .081 for LCDD. In other words, not only are the boundary spanning units poorly connected with the network, they do not have relationships with well-connected units. The MPRD and LCDD are well outside the central network of relationships in the Authority. 4.2. Nature of ties While structure and the position of an actor in a network is an important social capital consideration (Coleman, 1988), social capital may also be assessed by the nature of the ties or relationship between actors. Quality relationships are an indication of the strength of relationships, increasing the likelihood that resources may be exchanged (Lin, 2001). The MPRD and the LCDD need high quality relationships to gain the internal resources and support necessary to accomplishing their mission of serving the community. The second and third research questions determined the quality of relationships in the Authority based on two measures of social capital: trust and support. 4.2.1. Trust The second research question inquired about the levels of trust that exist between the boundary spanning units and the other units in the Authority. Table 1 presents the network measures for trust. The overall trust network at the Authority is low at 33 percent, which indicates that only a third of the possible relationship ties in the entire network can be seen as trusting. MRPD has the lowest out-degree and in-degree centrality scores for the entire Authority network, trusting only one other unit (out of 31) and only two units claim to trust MPRD. With a closeness score of 120 and a betweeness score of 0, MPRD is among the most removed actors in the Authority’s trust network. The LCDD fares little better than MPRD, with low in-degree (4) and out-degree (4) scores. LCDD’s scores for closeness, betweeness and eigenvector centrality place it outside the dense central network of trusting relationships in the organization. The network measures for trust indicate that the boundary spanning units poorly positioned in the relational network and they are not trusted by the units with which they currently have relationships. 4.2.2. Support The third research question inquired about the levels of support that exist between the boundary spanning units and the other units in the Authority. Table 1 presents the complete scores for support for MPRD and LCDD. The overall support network of the Authority is moderate with a 50% density, meaning half of the possible ties in the network can be seen as providing the support necessary for the organization to solve problems. The major tasks of the LCDD and the MPRD are devoted to helping to resolve organizational and community problems. Once again, MPRD ranks among the lowest scores in in-degree and out-degree centrality, with only one unit citing MPRD as providing the support needed to solve problems collectively. MPRD sits at the outskirts of the support network, with a high closeness score of 126 and a low betweeness score of zero. Three units gain support from LCDD, and LCDD receives support from two actors. The data shows that LCDD does not receive support from the majority of the relationship ties it already has, nor does it lend support to most of the units in its relationship structure. LCDD’s scores for betweeness, closeness, and eigenvector centrality once again put it outside the central network of support in the Authority. It appears that the two boundary spanners units charged with serving the
204
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
public and promoting the Authority, LCDD and MPRD, have minimal internal relationships that can help them to engage other units in resolving community problems. The implications of the low social capital are discussed next. 5. Discussion This study positioned public relations in the social capital formation process. Two findings in particular are valuable for public relations researchers who study either organizational–public relationships or the role of public relations in a fully functioning society. First, this study provides an additional method for measuring and diagnosing internal relationships. Second, we delve into the connection between societal levels of trust and organization–public relationships. Each finding is discussed below. 5.1. Network analysis provides another way to measure and diagnose relationships Network analysis provides a clear means to measure the concepts or nature of relationships, such as trust, support, or any other relational factor of interest to researchers. The content of the relationship affects the consequences of relationships (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997). A significant consequence of successful relationships is goal achievement (Grunig & Huang, 2000). Network analysis ties in well with the relationship management model developed by Broom et al. (1997). If organizational units such as the MPRD and LCDD are not accomplishing set objectives, their failure to produce outcomes such as goal achievement may in part be dependent on the poor relationship structure and content of their relationships. Network analysis provides one more methodological tool for public relations researchers to measure relationships and their consequences, because the structure of networks and the resources and attributes that flow through them are entirely dependent on the existence and quality of relationships. Unlike other methodologies, which focus on the study of individual actors, network analysis identifies the perceptions of every actor in a network. There is also a diagnostic value in this type of study. Organizations prioritize publics when creating communication campaigns or responding to a crisis. Key stakeholders emerge depending on the situation and the organization rightly targets its communication to those most relevant and influential publics. In one situation, employees might be a key public for communication efforts. In another situation, an external group such as consumers or regulators may become most crucial. The same is true for understanding internal organizational relationships. From a public relations perspective, strategic structural relationships among key internal units need to be developed, and trust and support among those units should be cultivated. For example, while the MPRD claimed to have a relationship with the Board of Commissioners (what might be described as the Authority’s dominant coalition), this relationship was not reciprocated, meaning that little attention is paid to public relations by the decision-makers of the Authority. Optimum relationship structure and quality relationships help to ensure that an organization will function as a cohesive unit. Network analysis provides a roadmap to identifying which units are trusted and support other units in organizations. Gaps in information sharing and inter unit cooperation lead to gaps in the organization’s capacity to participate in a fully functioning society. In general, studies such as this can tell organizations where gaps in communication exist. Specific to this research, the Authority now has a roadmap to improve internal communication. The first of many problems for the directorates of concern is the few formal relationships they have within the organization. Relationship patterns are important indications of the extent to which an actor is embedded in an organizational network (Lin, 2001). If there is no interaction between units, there is no possibility for resource exchange, whether in the form of support or in establishing high levels of trust between organizational actors so that future opportunities for resource exchange might be secured. Further, both boundary spanning units are not positioned to bridge otherwise unconnected directorates in the Authority. Resources can only be acquired through direct network access and through associations such as bridges. Access to resources can provide or create the advantages that facilitate successful actions. Social capital is enlarged solely by means of position within a network (Esser, 2008). Consequently, the MRPD and LCDD lack the internal relationships to gain or access the social capital necessary to effectively engage the community. Relationship structure, however, is not the only problem hindering the boundary spanning units of the Authority. By examining the relationship structure and the quality of those relationships, it becomes apparent that both units lack the support system to solve problems and act efficiently. Problem solving is often at the center of responsibility for public relations practitioners in goal achievement (Dozier, 1992). However, a public relations unit cannot expect to successfully solve problems in the external environment when it has no internal support in the organization from which to draw upon in its efforts. The LCDD in particular is charged with solving problems in the community, but it has weak relationships with other units that have the resources to make the Aqaba community a better place to live. Weak LCDD relationships with City Services means that playgrounds may not get repaired or community improvement projects fall behind schedule. The LCDD has no relationship to motivate other units to improve their service to the community. Yet, it may not solely be the Authority’s fault that low levels of trust inhibit relationship building and social capital formation in Aqaba. 5.2. Levels of national trust may influence organization–public trust Social capital is a capability or capacity that directly arises from the prevalence of trust in a society (Fukuyama, 1999). Jin (2010) has suggested that higher levels of trust and strong network structure might generate collaborative values and
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
205
behavior in organizations and help to establish communal relationships. The low scores on the overall trust network at the Authority and the lack of trust in the Aqaba community appear to be consistent with previous research about community life in Jordan (Al-Husseini, 2007). The scores on a lack of trust within the organization mirror a lack of trust in the general Jordanian society. Data from the 2008 World Values Survey shows that, at a social trust level of 29.1 percent, Jordan ranks well below its Middle Eastern neighbors of Saudi Arabia (53.0%), Iraq (44.0%), and Iran (65.3%). Political events in early 2011 demonstrated that low social capital is prevalent across other nations the Middle East as well. For instance, Egypt had a very low social trust level of 18.5 percent, far below the levels that were found in Jordan. The unraveling of the social order in Egypt and protests against established governments in other Middle Eastern nations are indicators of a lack of trust in the existing hierarchy led by government institutions. People do not trust each other and thus people do not trust organizations. People who trust each other are more likely to take action and engage in their communities, and show a greater level of support for democracy and civic leadership (Rossteutscher, 2008). The lack of trusting relationships within the organization may be a symptom of the low national trust levels in Jordan. Unlike nations with higher trust levels, the Authority can neither benefit nor freeload from the larger societal social capital. This may cause the organization problems as it attempts to build social capital necessary for economic growth in the Zone, and may make establishing trusting relationships in the community all the more difficult. Public relations practitioners and scholars can benefit from this specific finding. The World Values Survey, which publishes new data every few years, can help practitioners understand levels of trust when they prepare for international public relations efforts. For those practitioners who will work mainly in the United States, we have Edelman’s (2010) Trust Barometer that advises organizations to “build a mosaic of trust by cultivating a wide circle of expert spokespeople, communicating through a variety of channels, and partnering with NGOs to advance the common good” (p. 7). The Pew Charitable Trust also conducts regular trust polls on American and international audiences. These national studies provide clear patterns for understanding how much institutions such as government, media, military, doctors, and corporations are trusted. 6. Conclusion In order to successfully build and maintain relationships, practitioners and departments require access to resources and influence within their organizations. The promise of social capital acknowledges that the better the access to embedded organizational resources, the better such resources can and will be utilized in actions by an actor. Social capital requires work and a fully functioning society is not a forgone conclusion in any community. The maintenance of relationships requires investment strategies and the application of resources both within and without organizations. Our attention as public relations scholars should be turned to the relationships within an organization that afford public relations the resources and influence to function effectively. As such, public relations must secure a stable position within an organizational network with access not only to the dominant coalition, but also to influential resource providers within a network. As scholars and practitioners we must see that our own relationships are in order before we can turn to solving the problems in the environment. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for supporting this research. References Abu Al-Haija, A. H., & Al-Faqih, S. S. (2009). Tourism development in Aqaba and human sustainability. In Al-Faqih, S. S. (Eds.), Urban revival in Amman: A city in transition. Retrieved from http://salimalfaqih.com/documents/Book1/Salem08E.pdf. Al-Husseini, D. Z. (2007). Aqaba’s Old Town: Proposed model for community development within the Aqaba Special Economic Zone. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Boston, MA. Berger, B. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows. Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S. P., Jones, C., & Everett, M. G. (1998). Network measures of social capital. Connections, 21(2), 27–36. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Social capital and community governance. The Economic Journal, 112, F419–F436. 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. Castiglione, D. (2008). Introduction: Conceptual issues in social capital theory. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital. Oxford University Press. Chen, C. J. (2009). The distribution and return of social capital in Taiwan. In R. Hsung, N. Lin, & R. L. Breiger (Eds.), Contexts of social capital: Social networks in markets, communities, and families (pp. 193–227). New York, NY: Routledge. Chung, L. H., & Gibbons, P. T. (1997). Corporate entrepreneurship: The roles of ideology and social capital. Group & Organization Management, 22(1), 10–30. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 95–120. Cote, R. R., Plickert, G., & Wellman, B. (2009). Does the golden rule rule? In R. Hsung, N. Lin, & R. L. Breiger (Eds.), Contexts of social capital: Social networks in markets, communities, and families (pp. 49–71). New York, NY: Routledge. Daft, R. L. (1983). Organization theory and design. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
206
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446–456. Dozier, D. M. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations practitioners. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 327–355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Edelman. (2010). Trust barometer. Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/trust/2010/docs/2010 Trust Barometer Executive Summary.pdf. Esser, H. (2008). The two meanings of social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 22–49). Oxford University Press. Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Inter organizational relationships. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Gainesville, FL, Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social capital and civil society. George Mason University: The Institute of Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies and relational outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is and effective organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65–89). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 93–114. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 93–114. Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Hsung, R., & Breiger, R. L. (2009). Position generators, affiliations and the institutional logics of social capital: A study of Taiwan firms and individuals. In R. Hsung, N. Lin, & R. L. Breiger (Eds.), Contexts of social capital: Social networks in markets, communities, and families (pp. 3–27). Routledge: New York, NY. Ihlen, O. (2005). The power of social capital: Adapting Bourdieu to the study of public relations. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 492–496. Ihlen, O. (2002). Rhetoric and resources: Notes for a new approach to public relations and issues management. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 259–269. Jin, B. (2010). Roles of public relations and social capital for communal relationship building: Enhancing collaborative values and outcomes. In Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Singapore. Kardoosh, M. A. (2005). The Aqaba Special Economic Zone, Jordan: A case study of governance. Bonn, Germany. Center for Development Research. Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research: From theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 263–278. Kennan, W. R., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Internal public relations, social capital and the role of effective organizational communication. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 311–338). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Krishna, A. (2008). Social capital and economic development. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 438–466). Oxford University Press. Kruckeberg, D., & Stark, K. (1988). Public relations and community. In A reconstructed theory. New York: Praeger. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge University Press. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Lin, N. (2008). A network theory of social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 50–69). Oxford University Press. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55–65. Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health & Place, 5(1), 259–270. Monge, P., Heiss, B. M., & Margolin, D. B. (2008). Communication network evolution in organizational communities. Communication Theory, 18(3), 449–477. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Pennings, J. M., Lee, K., & van Witteloostujin. (1998). Human capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 425–440. Petra News Service. (August 18, 2008). King urges better services for Aqaba residents. Jordan Times. Retrieved from http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=10112. Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 237–261. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton: University Press. Rossteutscher, S. (2008). Social capital and civic engagement: A comparative perspective. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 208–240). Oxford University Press. Steyvers, M. (2001). Multidimensional scaling. Retrieved from: http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/papers/MultidimensionalScaling.pdf. Taylor, M. (2009). Civil society as a rhetorical public relations process. In R. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 76–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698. Van Deth, J. W. (2008). Measuring social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 150–176). New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, P. (1997). Building social capital: A learning agenda for the twenty-first century. Urban studies, 35(5), 745–760.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
A social capital approach to improving public relations’ efficacy: Diagnosing internal constraints on external communication Erich J. Sommerfeldt a , Maureen Taylor b,∗ a b
Towson University, United States University of Oklahoma, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 31 May 2010 Received in revised form 2 March 2011 Accepted 12 March 2011 Keywords: Social capital Relationship management Network analysis
a b s t r a c t This article extends Heath’s (2006) concept of fully functioning society theory (FFS) and argues that public relations can be used as a force to enhance collective social capital in communities. To serve this purpose, however, the effectiveness of an organization to serve its external publics is often dependent on the status and relationships the public relations function has developed within the organization. This paper provides a network analysis of a government agency in Jordan that illustrates the relationship between internal organizational social capital and the potential problems for establishing external relationships with publics. Implications for public relations research methods and theory are also discussed. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction While research in public relations has traditionally been concerned with the practice as related to business (Holtzhausen, 2000; Karlberg, 1996), some scholars have advocated for a larger role for public relations in society to recreate community (Kruckeberg & Stark, 1988), allow for a fully functioning society (Heath, 2006) and facilitate and sustain civil society and social capital (Taylor, 2009). Public relations scholars have approached social capital vis-à-vis internal public relations (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006), as an improvement on relationship management (Ihlen, 2005), and as organizational participation in civil society (Taylor, 2009). Such research has primarily viewed social capital as a collective or group outcome that public relations can help to achieve in a community or society. However, social capital must first be acquired or made accessible to individual actors in the form of personal networks and resources before it can be expended or achieved (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Halpern, 2005; Lin, 2001). Social capital is thus a process and an outcome, and is relevant to the success of an individual actor at the micro level, an organization at the meso level, and to an entire community or society at the macro level. Consequently, a public relations department or practitioner must have access to or reserves of social capital before it can be expended in either internal or external communications aimed at building a collective social capital. The purpose of this paper is two fold. First, we seek to contribute to the emerging body of research that positions public relations in the social capital formation process. To that end, this study pays particular attention to how the internal social capital of an organization – and more specifically the social capital of the public relations unit(s) of the organization – may affect the organization’s ability to participate in building collective social capital via external communication efforts. A second goal of this paper is to provide a methodological contribution to public relations research that will allow scholars and practitioners to measure internal relationships. We believe that the method proposed here to study social capital provides
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Taylor). 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.007
198
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
conceptual and diagnostic tools that extend our understanding of the concept of relationships (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Ferguson, 1984; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). The first part of the paper provides an overview of social capital theory and public relations. To show how the relationships and processes inherent in organizational social capital may help or hinder actors, the second section of the paper provides a case of a network analysis of a decade-old government agency in Aqaba, Jordan that is charged with the economic, social, and cultural development of the community. After 10 years of operation, the government agency struggles to provide the most basic services to the community. Local residents accuse the decisions of organization’s leaders “to be against the local people’s interest” (Abu Al-Haija & Al-Faqih, 2009, p. 154). The government organization–public relationship is characterized by a lack of trust, lack of responsiveness, and an overall weak capacity of the organization to serve public needs. This paper seeks to understand why the organization–public relationship is weak. The case provides a diagnostic example of why internal relationships must be forged first, before the public relations functions can help make the organization capable of participating in a fully functioning society. 2. Social capital theory As Chen (2009) described it, social capital research is “in vogue in contemporary social sciences” (p. 193). Within the past twenty years, social capital has achieved distinction as a theoretical perspective that explains – at both a micro and macro level – social relations, individual and collective behaviors, chances of economic growth and political participation. Social capital theory thus serves to help explain the relationships that are the basis of a successful democratic society (Putnam, 2000). On the other hand, recent events in the Middle East show that low social capital may increase the potential for civil unrest and violent demonstrations against government. Bourdieu (1984), Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1993, 2000) – who are largely acknowledged as leading authors in social capital research – conceived of social capital as the norms, cultural values and trust intrinsic to groups, organizations or communities. Their writings lead social capital researchers to be concerned with questions of how groups or communities “develop and maintain their social networks and enhance their collective interests and identity” (Hsung & Breiger, 2009, p. 5). As Putnam (2000) described it, “social capital makes us smarter, healthier, safer, richer, and better able to govern a just and stable democracy” (p. 290). At a more concrete level, Chen (2009) suggested that social capital is a “certain kind of capital that can create advantages for individuals or groups pursuing their own ends” (p. 194). Indeed, social capital is largely understood as a special case of “regular” capital, which Lin (2001) defined as the “investment of resources with expected returns in the marketplace” (p. xi). Lin posited that the notion of capital could be and has been extended to considerations of social relations. Examination of relationships between actors “evokes structural constraints and opportunities as well as actions and choices on the part of the actors” (Lin, 2001, p. 3). Social capital can thus be understood as the social relationships between actors that involve the exchange of resources. As Castiglione (2008) explained, “social capital is understood to mean all those resources that an actor can mobilize and/or profit from because of his [sic] embeddedness in a network of relations with other actors” (p. 23). Accordingly, social capital is the sum of resources acquired through relationships that help to facilitate the successful actions of an individual or corporate actor. 2.1. Organizational social capital At the organizational level, social capital has been defined as “the ability that organizations have of creating, maintaining, and using relationships to achieve desirable organizational goals” (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006, p. 322). Organizational relationships themselves can be thought of as mechanisms for acquiring, exchanging, or consuming resources. Consequently, the amount and quality of organizational relationships help to facilitate organizational cohesiveness, and ultimately the success of organizational actions. As Monge, Heiss, and Margolin (2008) explained: Organizations invest resources such as people, time, money, and expertise to create relationships and linkages that provide other resources. . . .they expend economic or human capital in order to build their social capital, that is, their connections to the network, from which they hope to profit. (p. 455) Organizations benefit from high levels of social capital in several ways. Social capital has been shown to reduce organizational turnover (Dess & Shaw, 2001), manage organizational uncertainties and promote free enterprise (Chung & Gibbons, 1997), enhance an organization’s capacity for action (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), and ultimately benefit organizational survival (Pennings, Lee, & Witteloostujin, 1998). Indeed, high levels of social capital may be among the best indicators of organizational success, for as Putnam (1993) found, social capital may be the independent variable that affects the dependent variable of organizational effectiveness. 2.2. The public relations function and social capital Ihlen (2005) suggested that as the public relations literature has become more relationship-centered, the quantity and quality of the relationships an organization possesses should now be perceived as the social capital of an organization. Social capital is thus a central concern for internal and external public relations, for as Kennan and Hazleton (2006) have argued,
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
199
“public relations practitioners are those with the capacity to cultivate, maintain and expend social capital on behalf of their organization” (p. 325). Fostering social capital in the organization’s environment is public relations’ raison d’être because it creates and maintains collaborative relationships between an organization and its publics. Public relations practitioners accomplish this when they perform what Daft (1983) termed the boundary spanning function. According to Daft (1983), the boundary spanning function serves to link the organization with elements in the environment, most often by exchanging information with key people and organizations. By engaging in information transfer with other actors in the environment, boundary spanners help to coordinate activities and reduce uncertainty. Thus, boundary spanning better equips the organization to adapt to the needs and expectations of the environment, and may help the environment adapt to the organization. Daft noted that while boundary spanning most often internalizes and produces information for the organization, the function often also includes the transfer or distribution of resources to the environment such as services, materials, and money. Boundary spanners – public relations practitioners – are the individuals or units best positioned with an organization to facilitate the exchange of resources between the organization and the environment. Public relations can help to build social capital outside of the organization as well as providing access to the linkages that allow the organization to benefit from a network of resources available in the community at large. Consequently, a public relations unit or practitioner’s access to capital is an important consideration in how public relations can help to create or benefit from social capital elsewhere. The location of a public relations unit within the hierarchy of an organizational network has been shown to influence the efficacy, power, and influence of public relations (Grunig & Grunig, 1992; Plowman, 1998). Public relations scholars have long maintained that public relations must be a part of or have access to the dominant coalition of an organization, or the organization’s central decision-making body. Membership in the dominant coalition empowers public relations to help organizations make better decisions (Berger, 2005). Further, the extent to which practitioners are connected with other actors in an organizational network is likely to be related to the influence of public relations on the organization (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006). Kennan and Hazleton suggested that “excellent public relations are best conceptualized by understanding the nature of social capital accessible by the organization, including the practitioner, and the manner in which available social capital is expended to achieve important goals and objectives” (p. 325). For public relations to influence or affect social capital, a unit or practitioner must have access to social capital both drawn from the organization at large, and from its individual social capital. However, a desire to participate in the building of internal or external social capital, does not necessarily indicate the capacity to do so. Many organizations – and by extension a public relations practitioner or public relations department – lack the structural and communication networks to help create social capital. Kennan and Hazleton (2006) pointed out that the social capital a public relations unit itself possesses, in the form of connections to influential actors and resources, is necessary before a public relations unit can attempt to build capital elsewhere. Further, Ihlen (2002) noted that organizations require access to significant resources to launch campaigns, and that a large, competent, well-connected and knowledgeable public relations staff increases the likelihood of the proper management of an organization’s relationships with its environment. As such, the concept of social capital helps to explain why certain actors, such as a public relations department, may have difficulty in affecting a collective social capital, for social capital theory “constitutes both an aid in accounting for different outcomes at the level of individual actors and an aid toward making micro-to-macro transitions” (Coleman, 1988, p. 101). If individual or micro-level social capital can affect macro-level social capital, efforts to examine the failure of public relations to generate social capital in the community may look inward to the organization. Krishna (2008) held that the differences or problems within a group could have significant consequences “for the results that groups achieve in practice. What happens within the group influences achievements in the world outside” (p. 440, emphasis original). Consequently, the best way for an organization to engage in the creation of social capital is to have public relations unit that has access to and significant reserves of social capital. 2.3. Measuring social capital While many scholars seem certain about the value of social capital for societies, groups and individuals, how social capital manifests itself remains more uncertain. A common critique of social capital is that it is not easily measured, as it takes no one particular form or dimension. Social capital, at the organizational and societal level, sees relationships and the resources (e.g. wealth, power, status) that can be acquired via those relationships as facilitating outcomes such as collaboration and growth. Social capital thus consists of intangible assets that can be accrued for the benefit of the individual actor and the entire network, which Van Deth (2008) called “accumulated wealth” (p. 151). Coleman (1988) stressed the measurement of social capital by its functions, writing “they all consist of some aspect of social structure” (p. 302), and Putnam (1993) suggested that social capital refers to “features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks” (p. 167). The public relations function in any organization must access, share, and make sense of different types of information. The public relations function’s relationships with other organizational units has a significant influence on whether the public relations function is effective in building external relationships. The organization of interest for this study is the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority. The Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority (called the Authority herein) is a government body in charge of managing the Aqaba Special Economic Zone (called the Zone herein). The Zone is located on the southernmost tip of Jordan and includes all 26 km of coastline for the Kingdom on the Red Sea. The Zone was created by the Jordanian parliament in 2001. The Authority has complete autonomy over the zone’s regulatory powers – distinguishing it from the government offices in the rest of Jordan (Kardoosh,
200
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
2005). As the Kingdom’s only seaport, Aqaba occupies a key position in Jordan’s economy and has the potential to attract business and tourism to the region. The development of Aqaba may affect the overall stability of the region (particularly in Egyptian/Jordanian/Iraqi relations), but it is vulnerable given the past and current tumultuous happenings in the Middle East. Jordan has seen exponential growth over the past decade, yet the Kingdom has also suffered from high foreign debt, high unemployment, with much of the population living below the poverty line. King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his government in February 2011, bowing to public pressure to initiate economic and political reforms. These and other measures have, so far, helped to spare Jordan from much of the civil unrest present in neighboring countries. That said, the Aqaba area in particular remains a relatively undeveloped part of the Kingdom. The Authority was created to oversee the development of Aqaba given its geographic, and potentially geo political importance. The stated vision of the Authority is to improve the overall quality of life for the Aqaba community. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also participated in the development of the area by establishing the Aqaba Zone Economic Mobilization (ASEM) to build the capacity of the governing bureaucracy of the Authority. There are low levels of trust and social capital in Aqaba. Al-Husseini (2007) noted the relationship between the Aqaba community and the Authority is defined by a lack of trust. “Tensions exist as ASEZA is perceived to be focusing on attracting investors and creating a favorable environment for investors with less emphasis on improvement of conditions for the residents of Aqaba” (Al-Husseini, 2007, p. 24). In 2008, King Abdullah called on the Authority to “involve local communities in Aqaba in the decision-making process” and provide “better services for residents of the area” (Petra News Service, paragraphs 1, 2). Building relationships with the community and effectively managing communication has become a priority for the Authority. The Media and Public Relations Directorate (MPRD) and the Local Community Development Directorate (LCDD) are charged with managing public relations and community relationship building. The MPRD was created to serve media relations, event planning, speeches, development of organizational materials, and promote the people and businesses in the Zone. The LCDD was created to work with community groups, NGOs, donors, and businesses to create the cultural capital of the Zone. These two directorates of the Authority serve most clearly as boundary spanners, yet both are understaffed and under-resourced. There is a disconnect between the Authority’s mission and its capacity to follow through in serving the community. This research sought to understand how this disconnect might affect the Authority’s ability to communicate with and serve its publics. Our hope is to go backwards to examine the internal relationships and issues that hinder the Authority from engaging in beneficial relationships with the public. By going backwards to see the gaps in internal relationships, we can help the Authority to strategically address its problems and enhance its capacity to participate in what Heath (2006) termed a fully functioning society Three general research questions guide this study: RQ1: How are the boundary spanning units of the Authority positioned in the hierarchical network of the organization? RQ2: What levels of trust exist between the boundary spanning units and the other units in the Authority? RQ3: What levels of support exist between the boundary spanning units and the other units in the Authority? The next section of this article details a network analysis that examined the internal social capital of the boundary spanning functions. The findings of the study will provide both methodological and theoretical directions for future public relations research in OPR and civil society. 3. Methodology The internal problems plaguing the Authority have direct consequences on the organization’s ability to make Aqaba a fully functioning society. By virtue of the social capital perspective, this study argues that a lack of internal trust, support and a poor network structure may be hindering the Authority’s progress in building relationships with the community and affecting a collective social capital. There are many ways to measure the organization–public relationship. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) and other relationship management scholars have studied relationships through surveys, focus groups, and in-depth interviews. These methods are valuable for understanding public perceptions of the organization and they can provide examples of the positive and negative aspects of relationships. Yet, these methods cannot go inside the organization to look at the a priori relationships that create the internal social capital that, in turn, influences the formation of community social capital. One methodology, network analysis, can achieve this goal. 3.1. Network analysis The prevailing research strategy of social capital is network analysis (Lin, 1999). Networks are typically conceived of as a set of actors, objects, or “nodes” that are tied together through relationships, which are usually called links or ties (Monge et al., 2008). Lin (2001) linked resources, and thereby social capital, in part to the position of an actor within a network. Lin tied the access of social capital to three factors that were adopted for this study: (1) the position of an actor within the hierarchical structure of an organization, (2) the nature of the ties or relationships between actors, and (3) the location of the ties within the overall network.
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
201
The Authority is a bureaucratic organization with a Chief Commissioner, a Board of Commissioners, and 31 directorates that provide all of the services required of a county or municipal government (city services, licensing, roads, schools) plus the import/export procedures required by the port (inspection, customs, duty collection). The Authority is always hiring and losing members but the researchers established that the core number of employees is about 1,400 people. Of those, approximately 400 serve in managerial or supervisory roles (N = 400). Each directorate was asked to identify the supervisors and managers who have inter department communication requirements (must communicate and coordinate with people in other directorates). The Authority members were released (at different times) from their duties over a three-day period in July 2009 to participate in the network survey. No Authority member was forced to take the survey and the researchers noticed that many participants were pleased that someone was asking their input about working with other directorates. To maintain anonymity, no demographic data was collected beyond the name of the respondent’s directorate of employment. The network survey was administered to a sample of mangers and supervisors (N = 101) (approximately 25% of all members in supervisory or management positions) from 27 of ASEZA’s 31 directorates. The four directorates not included in the survey were unavailable to participate at the time of the research but their names were listed on the roster of units. As Lin (2008) prescribed, measurement of social capital depends in part on access to capital. Access to social capital, he argued, can be measured using a name-generating methodology. Consequently, to identify the hierarchical and interaction structure of the Authority, participants were asked to name the five directorates they interacted with most frequently. Then, further questions were asked about the characteristics of the named directorates, which helped to describe the nature of the relationships (ties) among directorates (actors or nodes). 3.2. Operationalization of variables 3.2.1. Trust Of the many social characteristics discussed and employed in social capital research, trust may be the most prevalent (Fukuyama, 1999; Halpern, 2005; Jin, 2010; Putnam, 2000). Kennan and Hazleton (2006) positioned trust as the primary relational feature of social capital in organizations. Accordingly, trust may be the most relevant and heuristically rich variable of study in public relations research on social capital, as trust is often included as a key characteristic in definitions of organization–public relationships (Grunig, Grunig, & Ehling, 1992; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Huang, 1997). Trust was assessed via the question “I trust the information I receive from this directorate.” All trust questions were measured via a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scores for each directorate on the trust measures were added together and averaged to create a composite trust score between the directorate and the other directorates at the Authority. 3.2.2. Support The location of an actor in a network also influences the likelihood and ability of the actor to access support, which, in turn, improves the ability to act (Lin, 1999). Supportive relationships are key indications of the ability of an actor to succeed in any enterprise. Exchanges of support are dependent on the nature of the network in which the supportive ties are embedded (Cote, Plickert, & Wellman, 2009). Those with larger networks will able to gain more relationships, and as a consequence, more ties that provide support and resources. Support can include receiving instrumental assistance from other actors in accomplishing tasks (Cote et al., 2009) or in solving problems (Lochner, Kawachi, & Kennedy, 1999). Indeed, the ability of a group to come together in solving problems is indicative of strong network ties (Uzzi, 1996) and of the extent to which a group can operate as a cohesive unit (Bowles & Gintis, 2002). High levels of social capital foster the cultural will and a sense of responsibility to solve problems collectively (Wilson, 1997). Support was chosen as a measure of interest as supportive relationships are indicative of the social capital of individual actors and their ability to accomplish tasks, and the overall capacity for the organizations to solve problems. Support was measured by the question “I receive the appropriate level of support from this directorate to solve problems.” All responses were measured via a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scores for each directorate on the support measure were added together and averaged to create a composite support score for the relationships among the directorates. It is important to note that directorates could send several managers to the survey location and mean scores for trust and support were calculated for every relationship identified between directorates. Members of the same department might identify different units as important to them or in some cases, the members identified the same departments. A cut-off point of 3.75 out of the possible score of 5.0 was used to indicate a trusting relationship or a relationship that provides support between directorates. 3.3. Network measures Social capital can also be assessed by an actor’s location in a network and the location of the ties within the network (Lin, 2001). Borgatti, Jones, and Everett (1998) provided a number of location measures and statistics that may be used in the study of social capital. Size/degree refers to the number of nodes an ego (an actor or node of interest in network analysis) is connected to. In-degree centrality is the number of actors who say they are connected to an ego and out-degree centrality refers to the number of actors the ego claims to be connected to. Closeness is the total graph theoretic distance from one ego to all nodes in a network. Larger values indicate greater distance to other nodes whereas smaller values indicate a tighter proximity to other nodes. Betweeness is the number of times an ego falls along the shortest path between two actors. Actors
202
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
with high betweeness scores link together actors who are otherwise unconnected. Eigenvector centrality is the extent to which an ego is connected to nodes that are high in centrality, that is, they are well connected in the network. Density is the proportion of pairs of actors in the network that are connected. While closeness and eigenvector centrality scores are more difficult to interpret than the other measures, all of the measures defined above help to quantify the importance of a node within a network of nodes. In terms of their relevance to public relations research, each of these statistics describe different aspects of the structure of relationships among actors, thus providing a set of diagnostics of the strengths and weaknesses of an particular actor’s relationship network and the network as a whole. 4. Results Using UCINET 6 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002), several relationship networks of the Authority were constructed. Based on the overall interaction network of the Authority, trust and support networks were created, and the network measures that diagnose the strength and weakness of relationships were calculated. The findings of these measures are delineated below. 4.1. Hierarchical structure Lin (2001) noted that social capital can be assessed by the position of an actor within the structure of an organization. The first research question inquired as to where the two boundary spanning units of the Authority were located in the hierarchical network of the organization. Their location in the internal organizational network helps to explain how easily these units can call upon other units to help them to achieve their goals. Based on their organizational and boundary spanning roles, the Media and Public Relations Directorate (MPRD) and the Local Community Development Directorate (LCDD) should ideally be at the center of the relationship structure of the Authority. That is, they should be connected to as many units as possible in the organization, as such connections enhance the likelihood for resource acquisition and the capacity for successful public relations actions that can serve the Aqaba community. In the multidimensional scale model shown in Fig. 1, both boundary spanner functions are on the outskirts of the interaction structure of the Authority and are distanced from the key directorates responsible for the delivery of community services. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) is a technique for the analysis of proximity data to reveal the hidden structure underlying the data, and the structure of relations between entities (Steyvers, 2001). The size of the nodes in the figure is representative of the degree centrality of the unit – the larger the node, the more connections the unit has in the Authority’s network. The figure helps to illustrate the poor connectivity of each of the boundary spanning units and how far removed they are from the central actors of the Authority. Fig. 1 shows the LCDD and MPRD relationships (or lack thereof)
Fig. 1. The MDS network structure of ASEZA. Note: The size of the nodes indicates the degree centrality of each directorate. The larger the node, the greater its degree centrality.
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
203
Table 1 Network measures of social capital. MPRD
In-degree centrality Out-degree centrality Closeness Betweeness centrality Eigenvector centrality Density
LCDD
ASEZA
Structure
Trust
Support
Structure
Trust
Support
Trust
Support
2.00 5.00 115.00 0.47 0.05 –
2.00 1.00 120.00 0 0.06 –
1.00 1.00 126.00 0 0.05 –
10.00 7.00 105.00 8.88 0.08 –
4.00 4.00 118.00 4.57 0.10 –
3.00 2.00 124.00 2.52 0.08 –
– – – – – 33.09%
– – – – – 50.18%
with units including the Board of Commissioners (the dominant coalition) and city services (responsible for delivering most public and business services). Table 1 lists the network measures used to assess the position of the boundary spanning units in the Authority. All metrics indicate a poor interconnection of LCDD and MPRD to the other units. The LCDD ranks poorly in both in-degree and outdegree centrality measures, with only 10 units claiming to interact with LCDD and LCDD representatives only cited seven units they interact with. MPRD also measures poorly on in-degree (2) and out-degree (5) centrality. These measures show that neither directorate has a large number of relationships within the organization from which to benefit. MPRD ranks very high in closeness score at 115 and very low in its betweeness score at .47, indicating it is relationally distanced from most of the other nodes in ASEZA’s network. LCDD fared a little better with a closeness score of 105 and a betweeness score of 8.88, indicating a slightly better relational position within the network. However, neither unit is strategically located along relationship paths in the network. Eigenvector centrality measures, or how well the units are connected to other actors who are themselves well connected in the network, are also comparatively low at .033 for MPRD and .081 for LCDD. In other words, not only are the boundary spanning units poorly connected with the network, they do not have relationships with well-connected units. The MPRD and LCDD are well outside the central network of relationships in the Authority. 4.2. Nature of ties While structure and the position of an actor in a network is an important social capital consideration (Coleman, 1988), social capital may also be assessed by the nature of the ties or relationship between actors. Quality relationships are an indication of the strength of relationships, increasing the likelihood that resources may be exchanged (Lin, 2001). The MPRD and the LCDD need high quality relationships to gain the internal resources and support necessary to accomplishing their mission of serving the community. The second and third research questions determined the quality of relationships in the Authority based on two measures of social capital: trust and support. 4.2.1. Trust The second research question inquired about the levels of trust that exist between the boundary spanning units and the other units in the Authority. Table 1 presents the network measures for trust. The overall trust network at the Authority is low at 33 percent, which indicates that only a third of the possible relationship ties in the entire network can be seen as trusting. MRPD has the lowest out-degree and in-degree centrality scores for the entire Authority network, trusting only one other unit (out of 31) and only two units claim to trust MPRD. With a closeness score of 120 and a betweeness score of 0, MPRD is among the most removed actors in the Authority’s trust network. The LCDD fares little better than MPRD, with low in-degree (4) and out-degree (4) scores. LCDD’s scores for closeness, betweeness and eigenvector centrality place it outside the dense central network of trusting relationships in the organization. The network measures for trust indicate that the boundary spanning units poorly positioned in the relational network and they are not trusted by the units with which they currently have relationships. 4.2.2. Support The third research question inquired about the levels of support that exist between the boundary spanning units and the other units in the Authority. Table 1 presents the complete scores for support for MPRD and LCDD. The overall support network of the Authority is moderate with a 50% density, meaning half of the possible ties in the network can be seen as providing the support necessary for the organization to solve problems. The major tasks of the LCDD and the MPRD are devoted to helping to resolve organizational and community problems. Once again, MPRD ranks among the lowest scores in in-degree and out-degree centrality, with only one unit citing MPRD as providing the support needed to solve problems collectively. MPRD sits at the outskirts of the support network, with a high closeness score of 126 and a low betweeness score of zero. Three units gain support from LCDD, and LCDD receives support from two actors. The data shows that LCDD does not receive support from the majority of the relationship ties it already has, nor does it lend support to most of the units in its relationship structure. LCDD’s scores for betweeness, closeness, and eigenvector centrality once again put it outside the central network of support in the Authority. It appears that the two boundary spanners units charged with serving the
204
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
public and promoting the Authority, LCDD and MPRD, have minimal internal relationships that can help them to engage other units in resolving community problems. The implications of the low social capital are discussed next. 5. Discussion This study positioned public relations in the social capital formation process. Two findings in particular are valuable for public relations researchers who study either organizational–public relationships or the role of public relations in a fully functioning society. First, this study provides an additional method for measuring and diagnosing internal relationships. Second, we delve into the connection between societal levels of trust and organization–public relationships. Each finding is discussed below. 5.1. Network analysis provides another way to measure and diagnose relationships Network analysis provides a clear means to measure the concepts or nature of relationships, such as trust, support, or any other relational factor of interest to researchers. The content of the relationship affects the consequences of relationships (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997). A significant consequence of successful relationships is goal achievement (Grunig & Huang, 2000). Network analysis ties in well with the relationship management model developed by Broom et al. (1997). If organizational units such as the MPRD and LCDD are not accomplishing set objectives, their failure to produce outcomes such as goal achievement may in part be dependent on the poor relationship structure and content of their relationships. Network analysis provides one more methodological tool for public relations researchers to measure relationships and their consequences, because the structure of networks and the resources and attributes that flow through them are entirely dependent on the existence and quality of relationships. Unlike other methodologies, which focus on the study of individual actors, network analysis identifies the perceptions of every actor in a network. There is also a diagnostic value in this type of study. Organizations prioritize publics when creating communication campaigns or responding to a crisis. Key stakeholders emerge depending on the situation and the organization rightly targets its communication to those most relevant and influential publics. In one situation, employees might be a key public for communication efforts. In another situation, an external group such as consumers or regulators may become most crucial. The same is true for understanding internal organizational relationships. From a public relations perspective, strategic structural relationships among key internal units need to be developed, and trust and support among those units should be cultivated. For example, while the MPRD claimed to have a relationship with the Board of Commissioners (what might be described as the Authority’s dominant coalition), this relationship was not reciprocated, meaning that little attention is paid to public relations by the decision-makers of the Authority. Optimum relationship structure and quality relationships help to ensure that an organization will function as a cohesive unit. Network analysis provides a roadmap to identifying which units are trusted and support other units in organizations. Gaps in information sharing and inter unit cooperation lead to gaps in the organization’s capacity to participate in a fully functioning society. In general, studies such as this can tell organizations where gaps in communication exist. Specific to this research, the Authority now has a roadmap to improve internal communication. The first of many problems for the directorates of concern is the few formal relationships they have within the organization. Relationship patterns are important indications of the extent to which an actor is embedded in an organizational network (Lin, 2001). If there is no interaction between units, there is no possibility for resource exchange, whether in the form of support or in establishing high levels of trust between organizational actors so that future opportunities for resource exchange might be secured. Further, both boundary spanning units are not positioned to bridge otherwise unconnected directorates in the Authority. Resources can only be acquired through direct network access and through associations such as bridges. Access to resources can provide or create the advantages that facilitate successful actions. Social capital is enlarged solely by means of position within a network (Esser, 2008). Consequently, the MRPD and LCDD lack the internal relationships to gain or access the social capital necessary to effectively engage the community. Relationship structure, however, is not the only problem hindering the boundary spanning units of the Authority. By examining the relationship structure and the quality of those relationships, it becomes apparent that both units lack the support system to solve problems and act efficiently. Problem solving is often at the center of responsibility for public relations practitioners in goal achievement (Dozier, 1992). However, a public relations unit cannot expect to successfully solve problems in the external environment when it has no internal support in the organization from which to draw upon in its efforts. The LCDD in particular is charged with solving problems in the community, but it has weak relationships with other units that have the resources to make the Aqaba community a better place to live. Weak LCDD relationships with City Services means that playgrounds may not get repaired or community improvement projects fall behind schedule. The LCDD has no relationship to motivate other units to improve their service to the community. Yet, it may not solely be the Authority’s fault that low levels of trust inhibit relationship building and social capital formation in Aqaba. 5.2. Levels of national trust may influence organization–public trust Social capital is a capability or capacity that directly arises from the prevalence of trust in a society (Fukuyama, 1999). Jin (2010) has suggested that higher levels of trust and strong network structure might generate collaborative values and
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
205
behavior in organizations and help to establish communal relationships. The low scores on the overall trust network at the Authority and the lack of trust in the Aqaba community appear to be consistent with previous research about community life in Jordan (Al-Husseini, 2007). The scores on a lack of trust within the organization mirror a lack of trust in the general Jordanian society. Data from the 2008 World Values Survey shows that, at a social trust level of 29.1 percent, Jordan ranks well below its Middle Eastern neighbors of Saudi Arabia (53.0%), Iraq (44.0%), and Iran (65.3%). Political events in early 2011 demonstrated that low social capital is prevalent across other nations the Middle East as well. For instance, Egypt had a very low social trust level of 18.5 percent, far below the levels that were found in Jordan. The unraveling of the social order in Egypt and protests against established governments in other Middle Eastern nations are indicators of a lack of trust in the existing hierarchy led by government institutions. People do not trust each other and thus people do not trust organizations. People who trust each other are more likely to take action and engage in their communities, and show a greater level of support for democracy and civic leadership (Rossteutscher, 2008). The lack of trusting relationships within the organization may be a symptom of the low national trust levels in Jordan. Unlike nations with higher trust levels, the Authority can neither benefit nor freeload from the larger societal social capital. This may cause the organization problems as it attempts to build social capital necessary for economic growth in the Zone, and may make establishing trusting relationships in the community all the more difficult. Public relations practitioners and scholars can benefit from this specific finding. The World Values Survey, which publishes new data every few years, can help practitioners understand levels of trust when they prepare for international public relations efforts. For those practitioners who will work mainly in the United States, we have Edelman’s (2010) Trust Barometer that advises organizations to “build a mosaic of trust by cultivating a wide circle of expert spokespeople, communicating through a variety of channels, and partnering with NGOs to advance the common good” (p. 7). The Pew Charitable Trust also conducts regular trust polls on American and international audiences. These national studies provide clear patterns for understanding how much institutions such as government, media, military, doctors, and corporations are trusted. 6. Conclusion In order to successfully build and maintain relationships, practitioners and departments require access to resources and influence within their organizations. The promise of social capital acknowledges that the better the access to embedded organizational resources, the better such resources can and will be utilized in actions by an actor. Social capital requires work and a fully functioning society is not a forgone conclusion in any community. The maintenance of relationships requires investment strategies and the application of resources both within and without organizations. Our attention as public relations scholars should be turned to the relationships within an organization that afford public relations the resources and influence to function effectively. As such, public relations must secure a stable position within an organizational network with access not only to the dominant coalition, but also to influential resource providers within a network. As scholars and practitioners we must see that our own relationships are in order before we can turn to solving the problems in the environment. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for supporting this research. References Abu Al-Haija, A. H., & Al-Faqih, S. S. (2009). Tourism development in Aqaba and human sustainability. In Al-Faqih, S. S. (Eds.), Urban revival in Amman: A city in transition. Retrieved from http://salimalfaqih.com/documents/Book1/Salem08E.pdf. Al-Husseini, D. Z. (2007). Aqaba’s Old Town: Proposed model for community development within the Aqaba Special Economic Zone. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Boston, MA. Berger, B. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows. Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S. P., Jones, C., & Everett, M. G. (1998). Network measures of social capital. Connections, 21(2), 27–36. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Social capital and community governance. The Economic Journal, 112, F419–F436. 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. Castiglione, D. (2008). Introduction: Conceptual issues in social capital theory. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital. Oxford University Press. Chen, C. J. (2009). The distribution and return of social capital in Taiwan. In R. Hsung, N. Lin, & R. L. Breiger (Eds.), Contexts of social capital: Social networks in markets, communities, and families (pp. 193–227). New York, NY: Routledge. Chung, L. H., & Gibbons, P. T. (1997). Corporate entrepreneurship: The roles of ideology and social capital. Group & Organization Management, 22(1), 10–30. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 95–120. Cote, R. R., Plickert, G., & Wellman, B. (2009). Does the golden rule rule? In R. Hsung, N. Lin, & R. L. Breiger (Eds.), Contexts of social capital: Social networks in markets, communities, and families (pp. 49–71). New York, NY: Routledge. Daft, R. L. (1983). Organization theory and design. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
206
E.J. Sommerfeldt, M. Taylor / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 197–206
Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446–456. Dozier, D. M. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations practitioners. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 327–355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Edelman. (2010). Trust barometer. Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/trust/2010/docs/2010 Trust Barometer Executive Summary.pdf. Esser, H. (2008). The two meanings of social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 22–49). Oxford University Press. Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Inter organizational relationships. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Gainesville, FL, Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social capital and civil society. George Mason University: The Institute of Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies and relational outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is and effective organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65–89). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 93–114. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 93–114. Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Hsung, R., & Breiger, R. L. (2009). Position generators, affiliations and the institutional logics of social capital: A study of Taiwan firms and individuals. In R. Hsung, N. Lin, & R. L. Breiger (Eds.), Contexts of social capital: Social networks in markets, communities, and families (pp. 3–27). Routledge: New York, NY. Ihlen, O. (2005). The power of social capital: Adapting Bourdieu to the study of public relations. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 492–496. Ihlen, O. (2002). Rhetoric and resources: Notes for a new approach to public relations and issues management. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 259–269. Jin, B. (2010). Roles of public relations and social capital for communal relationship building: Enhancing collaborative values and outcomes. In Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Singapore. Kardoosh, M. A. (2005). The Aqaba Special Economic Zone, Jordan: A case study of governance. Bonn, Germany. Center for Development Research. Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research: From theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 263–278. Kennan, W. R., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Internal public relations, social capital and the role of effective organizational communication. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 311–338). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Krishna, A. (2008). Social capital and economic development. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 438–466). Oxford University Press. Kruckeberg, D., & Stark, K. (1988). Public relations and community. In A reconstructed theory. New York: Praeger. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge University Press. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Lin, N. (2008). A network theory of social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 50–69). Oxford University Press. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55–65. Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health & Place, 5(1), 259–270. Monge, P., Heiss, B. M., & Margolin, D. B. (2008). Communication network evolution in organizational communities. Communication Theory, 18(3), 449–477. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Pennings, J. M., Lee, K., & van Witteloostujin. (1998). Human capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 425–440. Petra News Service. (August 18, 2008). King urges better services for Aqaba residents. Jordan Times. Retrieved from http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=10112. Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 237–261. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton: University Press. Rossteutscher, S. (2008). Social capital and civic engagement: A comparative perspective. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 208–240). Oxford University Press. Steyvers, M. (2001). Multidimensional scaling. Retrieved from: http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/papers/MultidimensionalScaling.pdf. Taylor, M. (2009). Civil society as a rhetorical public relations process. In R. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 76–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698. Van Deth, J. W. (2008). Measuring social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 150–176). New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, P. (1997). Building social capital: A learning agenda for the twenty-first century. Urban studies, 35(5), 745–760.