- Email: [email protected]
Creating a model to measure relationships: U.S. Army strategic communication
Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Creating a model to measure relationships: U.S. Army strategic communication Kenneth D. Plowman ∗ Brigham Young University, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 5 February 2011 Received in revised form 10 June 2013 Accepted 3 July 2013 Keywords: Relationships Public Relations Strategic Communication Measurement
a b s t r a c t Strategic Communication is receiving much credence for public relations planning in the U.S. Army, (Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 2010. The Office of the Chief of Public Affairs for the U.S. Army, has a Strategic Communication Division and it is home to the last vestiges of former Secretary of, Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s ill-fated attempt to create such an office at the Department of Defense, (DoD) level. In 2009, Major General Mari K. Eder, deputy director of the U.S. Army Reserve, wrote of, the tragic lack of a comprehensive strategic communication focus across DoD levels, let alone at the, Army level. A “Deep Dive” Conference sponsored by the Army during the summer of 2006 focused on, measuring outcomes of its public affairs programs. In spite of the conference objectives, the Army was, not able to define strategic communication completely nor was it able to come up with adequate, operational measurement tools for measuring relationships with key publics or stakeholders within, strategic communication. It was able to produce some measurable and motivational objectives as well, as measurable process tools for media relations, but it still lacked the ability to measure quantitative or, qualitative relationships with key stakeholders. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Measuring relationships is a recent phenomenon in public relations, and measuring relationships in the context of a strategic communication campaign for the U.S. Army is unheard of. In the U.S. Army strategic communication are the latest buzzwords for public relations planning. In fact, the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report upon which the Army relies for a definition of strategic communication simply describes strategic communication as a process to access the effects of signals and actions on perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs to formulate messages. The Department of Defense (DoD) is awaiting further guidance from the Obama Administration on the topic. An Army-sponsored a “Deep Dive” Conference, held in the summer of 2006, focused more specifically on measuring outcomes for Army communication programs. The Army has not been able to define strategic communications completely nor has it been able to develop adequate measurement tools for measuring relationships within strategic communication. The conference was able to produce some measurable and motivational objectives, along with measurable process tools for media relations, but the Army still lacks the ability to measuring quantitative or qualitative relationships with key stakeholders. This paper proposes a definition of strategic communication for the Army realizing that the Army will rely on the DoD for its official definition. The definition proposed here is the management of communications between the organization and its key stakeholders on a long-term basis to meet measurable objectives in a realistic timeframe. This definition is based on the Grunig and Hunt (1984) definition of
∗ Tel.: +801 422 6493; fax: +801 422 0160. E-mail address: kenneth [email protected] 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.001
550
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
public relations, as the management of communication between an organization and its publics. It intimates the concept of relationships as Grunig and Hunt did when specifying “between an organization and its publics.” It is also strategic when using “management of communications,” “long-term,” and “measurable objectives.” The Army uses the term strategic when considering a theater and above level of operation, for example Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan or Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq. This paper, then, proposes a converged relationship measurement tool within strategic communication based on a model developed by the leaders of the “measuring relationships” section of the “Deep Dive” Conference as well as models developed by academics: Grunig and Grunig (2001), Hon and Grunig (1999), Huang (2001), Hung (2002), and Bruning and Ledingham (1999).
2. Literature review This section first clarifies the current status of the term strategic communication in the Army, DoD, and throughout the U.S. federal government. Then it examines the academic literature that looks at measuring relationships as well as strategic communication or communications planning in the field of public relations. Finally, it will differentiate the military and civilian definitions of strategic communication into a more operational or measurable definition of strategic communication for the U.S. Army. It will conclude with the matrix model that will combine measuring relationships both quantitatively and qualitatively used while conducting a campaign in public relations for the Army.
2.1. Strategic communication from a military perspective One of the main issues at the top levels of the DoD and the Federal government has been the lack of a common definition of the term, strategic communication. Jones (2007), former director for Strategic Communication and Information on the National Security Council recently defined strategic communication as the “Synchronized coordination of statecraft, public affairs, public diplomacy, military information operations and other activities, reinforced by political, economic, military, and other actions to advance U.S. foreign policy interests.” This definition reinforces a view of delineation among the various entities of strategic communication. In the latest Report of the Defense Science Board on Strategic Communication (2008), strategic communication was defined as “a sustained and coherent set of activities that include understanding, advising, engaging, influencing, and measuring. These activities are elements in a continuous, dynamic, and interactive process that begins with choices among strategic priorities and deep comprehension of attitudes and cultures.” Unlike the above definition, the DoD’s definition is much less operational in its nature. Before that discussion is continued, however, it is important to note how some terms are used in their military sense. The term strategic in a military sense is usually referring to the highest levels of command. The term operational is a specific military action to accomplish a specific objective, as in taking a city or piece of ground. The term tactic is usually used in reference to the specific actions of smaller military units in accomplishing an operational objective. Whereas in the traditional public relations or public affairs sense in the academic or civilian world, communications planning or strategic communication is considered as acting at all three of the military levels of strategic communication at the same time–strategic, operations and tactical. Ideally, it would occur at the highest levels of an organization and be carried out down through the lowest or tactical levels. Strategic communication sets measureable communication goals and considers the long-term effects on key publics or strategic stakeholders while constantly scanning the organizational environment for issues that might affect the organization. Recent events such as 9/11 and the continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have accentuated the increased need for strategic communication across all levels of the military and the federal government as well. The February 2010 release of the DoD’s Quadrennial Defense Review Report calls for strengthening key support capabilities for strategic communication: As part of the U.S. government’s integrated civilian-military efforts to interact effectively with a variety of audiences and stakeholders, DoD will continue to improve key capabilities that support strategic communication. . . Effective strategic communication also requires the orchestration of multiple lines of operation. Chief among these are policy implementation, force employment, information operations, public affairs, civil affairs, and public diplomacy and engagement. . . The President’s forthcoming report to Congress on U.S. government strategic communication will outline a common vision of interagency collaboration in this area and define the Administration’s position on this issue (p. 26). As can be seen from this recent statement on strategic communication, DoD views information operations, public affairs (relations), and public diplomacy differently and considers them all part of strategic communication (see also Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2006). Information operations includes information technology, cyber-warfare, and psychological operations. It could be compared to the two-way asymmetrical communication of Grunig and Hunt (1984). Public affairs is more the traditional public relations in the civilian world and could be compared to the public information and two-way symmetrical models of Grunig and Hunt. Public diplomacy also envelops those latter two models but is concerned primarily with the DoD/State Department confluence. As stated in the last sentence of the quote, DoD is waiting for further guidance from President Obama’s administration. The 2010 report also states that DoD will “examine capabilities to better access and produce knowledge on complex social communication systems and on the perceptions, attitudes and beliefs, and we will
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
551
formulate and deliver timely and culturally attuned messages” (p. 26). It neglects goal setting, environmental scanning and long-term relationship building that is evident in the civilian and academic fields. 2.2. Strategic communication and measuring relationships in academe The genesis of relationships as a focus of public relations research is attributed to a paper presented by Mary Anne Ferguson at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications convention in 1984. She recommended that scholarship concerning public relations focus on the relationship or interactions between organizations and their publics. That idea developed further as a core of public relations when it was incorporated in Cutlip, Center, and Broom’s (1987) textbook. The relationship management literature emerged further in the 1990s when Ledingham and Bruning (1998) identified the field of managing the organization-public relationship as “relationship management.” Their definition of relationship management is “the process of public relations professionals creating mutually beneficial relationships with a variety of publics.” Broom and Dozier (1990) subsequently identified a co-orientation approach, identifying the issue as being the amount of agreement between and organization and its publics. It is not enough to ask the organization or the publics about the relationship, but to find out what their level of agreement is on an issue. In 1997, Ledingham, Bruning, and Lesko developed the notion of relational loyalty to assess the degree of commitment of publics to an organization. This concept of commitment came from Meyer and Allen’s (1997) book on commitment. These authors showed that both affective and continuance commitment were responsible for building trust and positive relationships between parties. In 1984, 1989, and 1992, Grunig tied long-term relationships to the two-way models and conflict resolution as did Plowman in 1996. Grunig, Grunig, and Ehling (1992) and Plowman (1998) also proposed that trust was an important component in these relationships. By 2000, Ledingham and Bruning were calling for relationship management to be a strategic communication function. In 1990, Broom and Dozier realized there was a problem measuring the intangibles in public relations, and by 1999, Hon and Grunig had developed a measurement scale for assessing the levels of control mutuality, trust, commitment, and satisfaction between an organization and its publics. This quantitative measurement scale with agree/disagree questions and proven reliability factors is widely available for public relations practitioners on the Institute for Public Relations Research website. Also available is a qualitative follow-up by Grunig and Grunig (March, 2001) that they developed for the U.S. Department of Energy. Other authors who have contributed recently are: Kim (2000), who developed a scale measuring the dimensions of trust, commitment, satisfaction, community, and reputation; Kim and Jo (2002) and their study of the effects of relationships on satisfaction, loyalty, and future behavior; and Triese, Weigold, Walsh-Childers, and Friedman (2002) with their research concerning relationships as an outcome of a public campaign. As specified by Hon and Grunig (1999), the four major cultivation strategies, as. Grunig now labels them (personal conversation, 2007), are: • Control mutuality – the degree to which parties in a relationship are satisfied with the amount of control they over the relationship. • Trust – the level of confidence that both parties have in each other and their willingness to open themselves to the other party. • Commitment – the extent to which both parties believe and feel the relationship is worth spending energy on to maintain and promote. • Satisfaction – the extent to which both parties feel favorably about each other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced. Reliability of indices for the indicators or cultivation strategies for five organizations using Chronbach’s Alpha are (anything above a .80 is very reliable): • • • •
Control Mutuality – .87 for a 5-item scale Trust – .86 for a 6-item scale Commitment – .85 for a 5-item scale Satisfaction – .89 for a 5-item scale
Conversations with several individuals in Army public affairs, because of an increased focus by the chain-of-command, and academe confirmed the addition of transparency as an indicator or cultivation strategy. Hereafter these strategies are referred to as relationship strategies based on the emphasis of measuring relationships in this paper. Rawlins (2007) recently developed a stakeholder measurement instrument of organizational transparency. It included the quantitative tools of factor analyses, structural equation models, and reliability alphas to indicate the three transparency reputation traits of integrity, respect for others, and openness as well as the four transparency efforts of participation, substantial information, accountability, and secrecy. The reliability alphas for each of these factors ranged from .93 to .78, all within the range for measurement of unique factors. For the purposes of this paper, these factors will be reduced to information, participation and accountability, the more commonly known variables in the literature.
552
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
The most recent confirmation of these relationship strategies has come from Hibbert and Simmons (2005) when they applied them to a study of the Australian Defence Force’s Military Public Affairs Branch (ADF MPA) and the Australian political and specialist defense media during the 2003 Iraq war. Unlike many other international media, the Australian media were not allowed to embed with Australian forces. Hibbert and Simmons conducted one-on-one interviews with representatives from both the media and the military. The results showed that the media were less satisfied with the defense-media relationship, and there were mixed levels of trust felt by both parties even though both were committed to what they described as an important relationship. These five relationship strategies then have been established and can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Based on a workshop at the PRSA national convention held in Salt Lake City, November 2006, put on by Angela Sinickas of Sinickas Communications Inc., these five relationship strategies were placed in the left column of a matrix to measure these strategies in a modified strategic communications campaign. The term control mutuality was changed to mutual influence to comply with federal government mandates that public affairs in government not use undue influence on publics. Rather, information campaigns lay out the facts for different publics to decide issues on their own. The abbreviated campaign for this paper was based on a Wilson and Ogden (2005) strategic communications matrix and a definition of strategic communications developed by Plowman (2006) for the 96th Regional Readiness Command, U.S. Army Reserve, while serving as the public affairs officer for that command. That definition of strategic communications is “the management of communications between an organization and its key stakeholders on a long-term basis to meet measurable objectives in a realistic timeframe.” The DoD definition that the Army has complied with from the 2006 Quadrennial Review Report is: (DOD) focused United States Government (USG) efforts to understand and engage key audiences in order to create, strengthen or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of USG interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all elements of national power. In a January 2007 interview, Lieutenant General David Petraeus (commander of forces Iraq at the time) elaborated on strategic communications by saying it depends on its consequences. No matter who the spokesperson or what level of the organization that person is speaking from, if there are consequences at the strategic level (the DOD definition above), then the communication is strategic. In both academic and military definitions, note the similarities of terms, as in stakeholders or target audiences. The author includes the term long-term because that helps guarantee that stakeholders will remain loyal in a win/win relationship. The author’s definition assumes that strategic communications is a communications plan that includes themes, messages, and products. It also includes objectives that are measurable so they can be evaluated in a certain timeframe. Strategic communications in this instance does not include the controversy over mixing the Army’s information operations, public affairs, civil affairs, or psychological operations. Strategic communications is simply the communications plan as espoused by the Defense Information School at Ft. Meade, MD. Steyn (2007) agreed with General Petraeus and accorded a higher role to strategic communications and does not equate communication management to strategic communications. In fact, she says that public relations assists an organization to adapt to its stakeholder environment by serving both the organization and the public interest. By acting socially responsible and building mutually beneficial relationships to meet its objectives, an organization gains trust and builds a good reputation with its stakeholders. Steyn describes several functions of strategic communications but describes operationalizing public relations strategy as deliberate, and she combines several elements of planning. This is a process that, among other elements, emphasizes drawing a stakeholder map, thinking through the consequences of organizational goals on those stakeholders, and addressing those consequences by deciding what should be communicated (themes) and what should be achieved by this communication (setting deliberate objectives). Likewise, Chia (2005) and Rawlins (2007) agreed with Steyn in that outcomes and planning should be part of relationship planning, but of course, that planning is not part of the relationship itself. It is rather a tool, characteristic, and metric to help gauge the state of that relationship. As Chia said, “Measurement might be more appropriately focused on outcomes. . . after public relations intervention has taken place” (p. 5). This matrix then includes an adaptation of Hon and Grunig’s (1999) criteria for successful relationship strategies with the addition of transparency on the left and typical communications campaigns on the top. Influence is the degree to which parties in a relationship are satisfied with the amount of influence or power they have over the relationship. Trust is the level of confidence that both parties have in each other and their willingness to open themselves to the other party specifically for the factors of integrity, dependability, and competence. Transparency (adapted from Rawlins, 2007) is the attempt to make available all legally releasable information to enhance the participation of stakeholders and hold organizations accountable for their actions in the relationship. Satisfaction is the extent to which both parties feel favorably about each other because each is taking positive steps to maintain the relationship. Commitment is the extent to which both parties spend energy to engage in cooperative problem-solving to maintain and promote the relationship. In a typical communications campaign a benchmark of stakeholder perceptions and their expectations for the relationship of both parties must be established to be able to measure change in that relationship at a later point in time. Along with a stakeholder benchmark, measurable objectives must be set that are achievable within a reasonable amount of time
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
553
in a strategic communication campaign. After that the self-interests of both the organization and its stakeholder should be determined so that they might be combined in a short message design tied to a slogan that can be applied to many stakeholders. Specific communication products or tactics can then be determined to reach these publics through various communication channels. Finally, metric or evaluation criteria that restate the benchmark objectives can be measured as a post-test to assess the amount of change after the specified time of the original objectives. Those benchmark objectives can then be used to reassess the amount of change that has occurred among the five relationship factors for the stakeholder perceptions and expectations. A 1–10 scale could be used for many of these cells, with 10 being high, to measure the relationship. The research question for this paper, then, is: Does this proposed metric tool to measure relationships in a strategic communications campaign work for both U.S. Army public affairs personnel involved with strategic communication as well as academics in public relations involved with attempting to measure relationships with key publics or stakeholders? The method will critique or act as a qualitative test of the proposed instrument. 3. Method This study, then, was framed in the interpretative paradigm, using detailed semi-structured interviews that were directed by the responses of the interviewees. Qualitative research design was selected because of the exploratory nature of the topic. 3.1. Participants For the purpose of this study, opinion leaders were chosen in public affairs leadership in order for the U.S. Army to attain the views of these leaders on creating a reasonable model. This made sense since research through the Army led to its own questioning of measuring relationships in communications planning campaigns. Relationship measurement models developed in the academic field of public relations led to interviews conducted with some of the principal authors of those models. Some six interviews were conducted with academics in public relations and 10 interviews were conducted with Army public affairs personnel. The strength of interviewing as a qualitative method lies in asking how and why questions and, in this case, receiving in-depth answers about communications models that can only come from seasoned practitioners of public relations and academics steeped in communications planning and relationship measurement. The weakness, of course, is that findings cannot be generalized to a population. However, such findings could be replicable – the standard for quality in similar circumstances. In any case, the findings are generalizable to theory as in good case study research (Yin, 2009). Since this model was developed out of theory and verification of the reliability of the quantitative variables, it is with confidence by the researcher, that this model, once refined, can be used to measure the relationships in subsequent strategic communications or public relations campaigns. Bias in this study was controlled for by triangulation. Triangulation of theory occurred in the literature review. Triangulation of patterns and themes used constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1994) among the various interviewees. 3.2. Procedure Collection of data has been covered to a degree in this paper already. The actual interviews began with brief introductions and then a conversation about the research project, moving toward questions about the developed matrix. Most interviews began by asking participants about the problem of measuring relationships in the U.S. Army, in practice and in academia. Additional questions were then based on the responses of interviewees in order to capture the perspective of the interviewee and to keep the interviewer from directing the interview (Broom & Dozier, 1990; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Civilian interviews were conducted with: Dr. James Grunig, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland Dr. Lauri Grunig, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland Dr. Elizabeth Toth, Professor at the University of Maryland Dr. Carl Botan, Professor at George Mason University Dr. Brad Rawlins, Assistant Professor at Brigham Young University Susan Walton, Associate Professor at Brigham Young University Army interviews were conducted with: Stephanie Hoehne, Principal Deputy Chief of Army Public Affairs, Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (OCPA), U.S. Army Col. Hyrum Bell, Director of the Plans Division, OCPA Rebecca Wriggle, Deputy Director of the Plans Division, OCPA Col. Jayson Sawyer, Assessment and Analysis Team Chief, Plans Division Lt. Col. Michael Kiser, Deputy Chief, Assessment and Analysis Team Jennifer E. Sardum, Contractor, Assessment and Analysis Team
554
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
Joseph K. Curtin, Senior Strategic Communications Strategist, OCPA Col. Parcel L. Holliday, Section Chief, Plans Division George Polich, Civilian Chief, Army Public Affairs Center 3.3. Analysis The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method of thematic analysis. The data were also compared with the notes and observations of the researcher that were collected during the interviews. Each interview was analyzed to identify themes and relationships discussed by the interviewee. The transcripts were then compared against one another to glean and categorize all information into appropriate and comprehensive categories for analysis. The coding process incorporated an examination of metaphors, themes, case examples, and relationships mentioned in the interviews (Wimmer & Dominick, 2009). 4. Findings Several patterns emerged in the interviews that caused re-thinking of the relationship/strategic communications matrix. Those revolved around the mutual influence strategy for measuring relationships, the transparency strategy, the usefulness of separate categories for stakeholder perceptions and stakeholder expectations, and the placement of the initial measurable objectives. In the interview with Dr. James E. Grunig, he argued for retention of the term control mutuality, in that the term does not mean control over other parties in the relationship but rather control in the relationship itself. The principal deputy chief of the Army Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (OCPA), Stephanie Hoehne and the deputy director of the Plans Division Rebecca Wriggle were put off by the term mutual influence because it connotes undue influence over stakeholders, the opposite of DoDs creed to simply inform key audiences by providing truthful, credible, accurate, and timely information. Ms. Wriggle, in fact said: Our strategic communications efforts are not to have the same kind of influence on the American public as perhaps a brigade combat team in Afghanistan or Iraq. . .. There is a difference in influence in a foreign enemy context than in a domestic American public context. However, she continued, “It would be disingenuous of us not to want an outcome from our relationship with the American public.” She explained that among other things, the Army would want a positive commitment between the public, Soldiers and the Army, “transparency for the sake of trust and confidence. Even with the Army’s policy of being honest and accurate and of releasing information with “maximum exposure and minimum delay,” there is a desired positive outcome. Her point of view also applied to the relationship strategy of trust. She agreed with Grunig, in that if there is mutual influence for the relationship and not just manipulation then it would be a positive rather than a negative factor. Stephanie Hoehne reinforced Ms. Wriggle’s comments with the assertion that “you can influence behavior through the simple transmission of information.” However, several other interviewees, and most specifically the director of the Plans Division, COL Hyrum Bell, also asserted that providing information does influence stakeholder groups so why not call it influence. It was apparent from the interviews that there was concern over the perception of the term mutual influence, but the predominant pattern was the term was acceptable. Transparency, as an addition by the investigator, was overwhelmingly accepted by all the interviewees. Transparency is another buzzword in Army public affairs and was even invoked in the recent controversy over the quality of housing at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Public affairs guidance to the field from LTC Wayne Shanks, director of the Media Relations Division of OCPA, about the issue on March 5, 2007 includes: Message to all PAOs In light of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center ongoing situation, the public affairs community must be “painfully transparent” as a matter of course, but especially as it pertains to Army medical care. All public affairs professionals should immediately contact their local medical facilities to determine if they may have any issues which may draw media attention given the current media environment involving WRAMC. You must be willing to answer the hard questions in your lane while kicking those not in your lane to OCPA or MEDCOM, in compliance with any guidance coming from your command. Also, please alert OCPA, through the most expeditious means possible, if you have any possible medical care issues with your unit/installation which may attract negative national media attention. Please use the following as over-arching medical talking points: • Soldiers are the heart of our Army and the quality of their medical care is non-negotiable. • We are committed to outstanding professional medical care for Soldiers and their families.
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
555
As evidenced from this e-mail message, U.S. Army Public Affairs is committed to the concept of transparency. Hoehne added that “transparency also insures that our secondary communicators are helping to ripple the information outside the Beltway.” The aim is to communicate effectively across a broad spectrum of key stakeholders without going through the filter of the external press. This transparency would be evident to primary stakeholders, not just intervening publics. Joe Curtin, senior strategic communications advisor, also thought that credibility with such intervening publics as the media was key in the strategic relationship factor of transparency. As the former head of the Media Relations Division of OCPA he said it took him two years to build that credibility with the media, largely through transparency to help build another relationship strategy, that of trust. He and the media were then more satisfied and committed to the long-term relationship (two other proposed relationship strategies). Initially, the separate terms stakeholder perceptions and stakeholder expectations began simply as one term, stakeholder. Through preliminary interviews, a pattern emerged that this term should at least be stakeholder perceptions, and that term evolved into stakeholder imperative and then the use of two terms, adding the second–stakeholder expectations. The rationale from the academic interviewees was that a benchmark for current perceptions of the relationship of a stakeholder with an organization should be established. At the same time, that stakeholder should have an idea of where that relationship should be going, as an expectation through the five relationship strategies. The Army, as part of its strategic communications, has defined three main goals, one of which is to “maintain public support.” It has further segmented general public, into an initial list of: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Congress American Public Office of the Secretary of Defense/Sister Departments and Services General Officers, Senior Executive Service Civilians, Commander of Major Commands etc. Internal Army Think Tanks and Pundits Allies International Audiences Joint Staff/Command/Service Schools Federal Agencies Industry Veteran’s Organizations Military Service Organizations Government Agencies
As can be seen from this list, it is very broad and encompassing, and includes internal and external key stakeholders. It could be segmented further in increasingly detailed levels. The critical question here would be at what level of detail would it be productive to measure relationships and at what level of strategic communications campaigns would it be productive? That might only be answered by actually conducting a campaign with the relationships in mind. Given this possible level of detail, some thought might be given to collapsing these two stakeholder categories back into one as originally conceptualized. That leads to the last major pattern of objectives. It might seem obvious here that specific objectives should be constructed that incorporate the relationships. So, instead of an objective reading such as: “Increase positive attitudes toward the Army by 5 percent in one year,” it might read: “Increase the level of commitment between Veteran’s organizations and the Army by 5 percent in one year,” thus measuring one relationship strategy. The latter objective, of course, begs the question of whether the objective includes the stakeholder in it? Under this matrix the stakeholder is all ready named, so it may not be necessary. Also, if the objective comes before the stakeholder on the matrix, then the relationship objective would predominate. If it comes after, then the objective might be perceived as subordinate to the stakeholders. The great consensus of interviewees was that the relationship objective should come first, if only to guide the perceptions or expectations of the stakeholder toward the relationship. 5. Conclusion and recommendations The matrix model, then, as conceptually defined previously in this paper, should be modified before being applied to an actual strategic communication campaign. Influence should stand as it is as one of the relationship strategies. Transparency should be included as a relationship strategy as well. It is unclear if the communications plan steps of stakeholder perceptions and stakeholder expectations should be collapsed together at this point and how a single step should be defined. The initial establishment of objectives should be switched from after the stakeholder steps to before so that the objectives are not affected by any one stakeholder group before being delineated. This will mean the objectives will come more purely from the issues and goals of the campaign rather than from the perspective of specific stakeholders. This approach helps ensure the academic and practical understanding that public relations is the management of strategic long-term relations “. . .away from the manipulation of public opinion and toward a focus on building nurturing and maintaining organization-public relationships” (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999, p. 158). It focuses the purpose of the practice of public relations on mutual and not just organizational benefit (Bruning, Castle & Schrepfer, 2004) and because relationships
556
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
Relationship Matrix for a Strategic Communication Campaign Relationship Stakeholder Stakeholder Perceptions Expectations Strategies
Influence
Measurable Message Objective Design
Tactics
Metric or Evaluation of Objective
Rating 1-10
Trust Transparency Satisfaction Commitment
Fig. 1. Relationship matrix for a strategic communication campaign.
may provide a better focus for the Army and other organizations that deal with a variety of communication campaigns and their antecedent objectives and methods. Organizations are trying to carry out such strategic communication campaigns while struggling to even define the concept of strategic communications and its value to the organization. Hon and Grunig (1999) said the effectiveness of organizations is linked to their ability to select objectives that are worthwhile both to the organization and its strategic stakeholders. They argue that in order to even select appropriate objectives, organizations need to understand their relationships with their key publics or stakeholders. With the refined matrix below (see Fig. 1), may be the organization can achieve both campaign objectives and relationship objectives at the same time, with relationship objectives potentially even being part of a campaign or having the same objectives in a campaign. Relationship and communication campaigns could be closely integrated, and that integration could have the most powerful and longest-term impact on the Army and any organization. According to Chia (2005), the downside of incorporating such detail in any communications campaign may be the complexity of managing such a campaign. She lobbies for “parameters of best practice” to be able to deal with the volatile nature of relationships in an environment of constant change. The matrix of relationship/campaign measurement could provide such parameters. It will have to be applied several times in real strategic communications campaigns before we can know its efficacy with any certainty. Before getting to the final matrix for this study, it should be stated that a limitation was access to the top key decisionmakers in the U.S. Army. However, this author was still able to interview many key players who realized the importance of metrics and measurement of relationships that have not been looked into extensively in the private, civilian sector or among the U.S. military establishment. This matrix, then, in this study then is a tool that needs to be tested in future studies, both civilian-wise and militarily to test the usefulness of the tool to ensure long-term positive relationships with key stakeholders (Fig. 1). It is recommended that the Army use this tool in pre- and post-measurement of the effectiveness of its public affairs campaigns, particularly when relationships with key stakeholders are paramount in the campaign. References Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Bruning, S., & Ledingham, D. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170. Bruning, S., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2004). Building relationship between organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization–public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavior intent. Communication Studies, 55(3), 435–446. Chia, J. (2005). Measuring the immeasurable? Retrieved on February 21, 2007 from http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal Files/Evaluation Issue/CHIA ARTICLE.pdf#search=%22%20joy%chia%20measuring%20%the%20immeasurable%22 Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1987). Effective Public Relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Eder, M. K. (2009). The missing element strategic communication. United States Naval Institute Proceedings, 135(2), 28–33. Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships. In Paper presented to the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Gainesville, FL, August. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2001). Guidelines for formative and evaluative research in public affairs. A report for the Department of Energy Office of Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. March. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hibbert, Z., & Simmons, P. (2005). War reporting and Australian defence public relations, an exchange. Australia: Praxis. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
557
Huang, Y.-H. (2001). Values of public relations. Effects on organization-public relationships mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 265–301. Hung, C.-J. (2002). The interplays of relationship types, relational cultivation, and relationship outcomes: How multinational and Taiwanese companies practice public relations and organization–public relationship management in China. College Park: University of Maryland (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Joint Chiefs of Staff (February 13, 2006). Joint Publication 3-13 Information Operations. Washington, DC.: I-10. Jones, J. (2007). Strategic communications: A mandate for the United States. Joint Forces Quarterly, (39). www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq%5fpubs/1839.ct Kim, Y. (2000). Measuring the bottom-line impact of corporate public relations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 273–291. Kim, Y., & Jo, S. (2002). The effects of relationships on satisfaction, loyalty and future behavior: A case study of Community Bank. In Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Miami Beach, FL. 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. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Public relations as relationship management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlinson, T. D., & Lesko, C. (1997). The applicability of interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of relational loyalty. A qualitative approach. Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 1(1), 23–43. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(4), 237–262. Plowman, K. D. (2006). Public relations, conflict resolution, and mediation. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges to the next generation (pp. 85–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Brigham Young University: Provo, Utah (Unpublished paper). Steyn, B. (2007). Contribution of public relations to organizational strategy formulation. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 137–172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Triese, D., Weigold, M. F., Walsh-Childers, K., & Friedman, M. (2002). Relationships among important outcomes of science campaigns aimed at the general public. In Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Miami Beach, FL. Wilson, L. J., & Ogden, J. D. (2005). Strategic communications planning: For effective public relations and marketing (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2009). Mass media research: An introduction (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Creating a model to measure relationships: U.S. Army strategic communication Kenneth D. Plowman ∗ Brigham Young University, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 5 February 2011 Received in revised form 10 June 2013 Accepted 3 July 2013 Keywords: Relationships Public Relations Strategic Communication Measurement
a b s t r a c t Strategic Communication is receiving much credence for public relations planning in the U.S. Army, (Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 2010. The Office of the Chief of Public Affairs for the U.S. Army, has a Strategic Communication Division and it is home to the last vestiges of former Secretary of, Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s ill-fated attempt to create such an office at the Department of Defense, (DoD) level. In 2009, Major General Mari K. Eder, deputy director of the U.S. Army Reserve, wrote of, the tragic lack of a comprehensive strategic communication focus across DoD levels, let alone at the, Army level. A “Deep Dive” Conference sponsored by the Army during the summer of 2006 focused on, measuring outcomes of its public affairs programs. In spite of the conference objectives, the Army was, not able to define strategic communication completely nor was it able to come up with adequate, operational measurement tools for measuring relationships with key publics or stakeholders within, strategic communication. It was able to produce some measurable and motivational objectives as well, as measurable process tools for media relations, but it still lacked the ability to measure quantitative or, qualitative relationships with key stakeholders. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Measuring relationships is a recent phenomenon in public relations, and measuring relationships in the context of a strategic communication campaign for the U.S. Army is unheard of. In the U.S. Army strategic communication are the latest buzzwords for public relations planning. In fact, the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report upon which the Army relies for a definition of strategic communication simply describes strategic communication as a process to access the effects of signals and actions on perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs to formulate messages. The Department of Defense (DoD) is awaiting further guidance from the Obama Administration on the topic. An Army-sponsored a “Deep Dive” Conference, held in the summer of 2006, focused more specifically on measuring outcomes for Army communication programs. The Army has not been able to define strategic communications completely nor has it been able to develop adequate measurement tools for measuring relationships within strategic communication. The conference was able to produce some measurable and motivational objectives, along with measurable process tools for media relations, but the Army still lacks the ability to measuring quantitative or qualitative relationships with key stakeholders. This paper proposes a definition of strategic communication for the Army realizing that the Army will rely on the DoD for its official definition. The definition proposed here is the management of communications between the organization and its key stakeholders on a long-term basis to meet measurable objectives in a realistic timeframe. This definition is based on the Grunig and Hunt (1984) definition of
∗ Tel.: +801 422 6493; fax: +801 422 0160. E-mail address: kenneth [email protected] 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.001
550
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
public relations, as the management of communication between an organization and its publics. It intimates the concept of relationships as Grunig and Hunt did when specifying “between an organization and its publics.” It is also strategic when using “management of communications,” “long-term,” and “measurable objectives.” The Army uses the term strategic when considering a theater and above level of operation, for example Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan or Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq. This paper, then, proposes a converged relationship measurement tool within strategic communication based on a model developed by the leaders of the “measuring relationships” section of the “Deep Dive” Conference as well as models developed by academics: Grunig and Grunig (2001), Hon and Grunig (1999), Huang (2001), Hung (2002), and Bruning and Ledingham (1999).
2. Literature review This section first clarifies the current status of the term strategic communication in the Army, DoD, and throughout the U.S. federal government. Then it examines the academic literature that looks at measuring relationships as well as strategic communication or communications planning in the field of public relations. Finally, it will differentiate the military and civilian definitions of strategic communication into a more operational or measurable definition of strategic communication for the U.S. Army. It will conclude with the matrix model that will combine measuring relationships both quantitatively and qualitatively used while conducting a campaign in public relations for the Army.
2.1. Strategic communication from a military perspective One of the main issues at the top levels of the DoD and the Federal government has been the lack of a common definition of the term, strategic communication. Jones (2007), former director for Strategic Communication and Information on the National Security Council recently defined strategic communication as the “Synchronized coordination of statecraft, public affairs, public diplomacy, military information operations and other activities, reinforced by political, economic, military, and other actions to advance U.S. foreign policy interests.” This definition reinforces a view of delineation among the various entities of strategic communication. In the latest Report of the Defense Science Board on Strategic Communication (2008), strategic communication was defined as “a sustained and coherent set of activities that include understanding, advising, engaging, influencing, and measuring. These activities are elements in a continuous, dynamic, and interactive process that begins with choices among strategic priorities and deep comprehension of attitudes and cultures.” Unlike the above definition, the DoD’s definition is much less operational in its nature. Before that discussion is continued, however, it is important to note how some terms are used in their military sense. The term strategic in a military sense is usually referring to the highest levels of command. The term operational is a specific military action to accomplish a specific objective, as in taking a city or piece of ground. The term tactic is usually used in reference to the specific actions of smaller military units in accomplishing an operational objective. Whereas in the traditional public relations or public affairs sense in the academic or civilian world, communications planning or strategic communication is considered as acting at all three of the military levels of strategic communication at the same time–strategic, operations and tactical. Ideally, it would occur at the highest levels of an organization and be carried out down through the lowest or tactical levels. Strategic communication sets measureable communication goals and considers the long-term effects on key publics or strategic stakeholders while constantly scanning the organizational environment for issues that might affect the organization. Recent events such as 9/11 and the continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have accentuated the increased need for strategic communication across all levels of the military and the federal government as well. The February 2010 release of the DoD’s Quadrennial Defense Review Report calls for strengthening key support capabilities for strategic communication: As part of the U.S. government’s integrated civilian-military efforts to interact effectively with a variety of audiences and stakeholders, DoD will continue to improve key capabilities that support strategic communication. . . Effective strategic communication also requires the orchestration of multiple lines of operation. Chief among these are policy implementation, force employment, information operations, public affairs, civil affairs, and public diplomacy and engagement. . . The President’s forthcoming report to Congress on U.S. government strategic communication will outline a common vision of interagency collaboration in this area and define the Administration’s position on this issue (p. 26). As can be seen from this recent statement on strategic communication, DoD views information operations, public affairs (relations), and public diplomacy differently and considers them all part of strategic communication (see also Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2006). Information operations includes information technology, cyber-warfare, and psychological operations. It could be compared to the two-way asymmetrical communication of Grunig and Hunt (1984). Public affairs is more the traditional public relations in the civilian world and could be compared to the public information and two-way symmetrical models of Grunig and Hunt. Public diplomacy also envelops those latter two models but is concerned primarily with the DoD/State Department confluence. As stated in the last sentence of the quote, DoD is waiting for further guidance from President Obama’s administration. The 2010 report also states that DoD will “examine capabilities to better access and produce knowledge on complex social communication systems and on the perceptions, attitudes and beliefs, and we will
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
551
formulate and deliver timely and culturally attuned messages” (p. 26). It neglects goal setting, environmental scanning and long-term relationship building that is evident in the civilian and academic fields. 2.2. Strategic communication and measuring relationships in academe The genesis of relationships as a focus of public relations research is attributed to a paper presented by Mary Anne Ferguson at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications convention in 1984. She recommended that scholarship concerning public relations focus on the relationship or interactions between organizations and their publics. That idea developed further as a core of public relations when it was incorporated in Cutlip, Center, and Broom’s (1987) textbook. The relationship management literature emerged further in the 1990s when Ledingham and Bruning (1998) identified the field of managing the organization-public relationship as “relationship management.” Their definition of relationship management is “the process of public relations professionals creating mutually beneficial relationships with a variety of publics.” Broom and Dozier (1990) subsequently identified a co-orientation approach, identifying the issue as being the amount of agreement between and organization and its publics. It is not enough to ask the organization or the publics about the relationship, but to find out what their level of agreement is on an issue. In 1997, Ledingham, Bruning, and Lesko developed the notion of relational loyalty to assess the degree of commitment of publics to an organization. This concept of commitment came from Meyer and Allen’s (1997) book on commitment. These authors showed that both affective and continuance commitment were responsible for building trust and positive relationships between parties. In 1984, 1989, and 1992, Grunig tied long-term relationships to the two-way models and conflict resolution as did Plowman in 1996. Grunig, Grunig, and Ehling (1992) and Plowman (1998) also proposed that trust was an important component in these relationships. By 2000, Ledingham and Bruning were calling for relationship management to be a strategic communication function. In 1990, Broom and Dozier realized there was a problem measuring the intangibles in public relations, and by 1999, Hon and Grunig had developed a measurement scale for assessing the levels of control mutuality, trust, commitment, and satisfaction between an organization and its publics. This quantitative measurement scale with agree/disagree questions and proven reliability factors is widely available for public relations practitioners on the Institute for Public Relations Research website. Also available is a qualitative follow-up by Grunig and Grunig (March, 2001) that they developed for the U.S. Department of Energy. Other authors who have contributed recently are: Kim (2000), who developed a scale measuring the dimensions of trust, commitment, satisfaction, community, and reputation; Kim and Jo (2002) and their study of the effects of relationships on satisfaction, loyalty, and future behavior; and Triese, Weigold, Walsh-Childers, and Friedman (2002) with their research concerning relationships as an outcome of a public campaign. As specified by Hon and Grunig (1999), the four major cultivation strategies, as. Grunig now labels them (personal conversation, 2007), are: • Control mutuality – the degree to which parties in a relationship are satisfied with the amount of control they over the relationship. • Trust – the level of confidence that both parties have in each other and their willingness to open themselves to the other party. • Commitment – the extent to which both parties believe and feel the relationship is worth spending energy on to maintain and promote. • Satisfaction – the extent to which both parties feel favorably about each other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced. Reliability of indices for the indicators or cultivation strategies for five organizations using Chronbach’s Alpha are (anything above a .80 is very reliable): • • • •
Control Mutuality – .87 for a 5-item scale Trust – .86 for a 6-item scale Commitment – .85 for a 5-item scale Satisfaction – .89 for a 5-item scale
Conversations with several individuals in Army public affairs, because of an increased focus by the chain-of-command, and academe confirmed the addition of transparency as an indicator or cultivation strategy. Hereafter these strategies are referred to as relationship strategies based on the emphasis of measuring relationships in this paper. Rawlins (2007) recently developed a stakeholder measurement instrument of organizational transparency. It included the quantitative tools of factor analyses, structural equation models, and reliability alphas to indicate the three transparency reputation traits of integrity, respect for others, and openness as well as the four transparency efforts of participation, substantial information, accountability, and secrecy. The reliability alphas for each of these factors ranged from .93 to .78, all within the range for measurement of unique factors. For the purposes of this paper, these factors will be reduced to information, participation and accountability, the more commonly known variables in the literature.
552
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
The most recent confirmation of these relationship strategies has come from Hibbert and Simmons (2005) when they applied them to a study of the Australian Defence Force’s Military Public Affairs Branch (ADF MPA) and the Australian political and specialist defense media during the 2003 Iraq war. Unlike many other international media, the Australian media were not allowed to embed with Australian forces. Hibbert and Simmons conducted one-on-one interviews with representatives from both the media and the military. The results showed that the media were less satisfied with the defense-media relationship, and there were mixed levels of trust felt by both parties even though both were committed to what they described as an important relationship. These five relationship strategies then have been established and can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Based on a workshop at the PRSA national convention held in Salt Lake City, November 2006, put on by Angela Sinickas of Sinickas Communications Inc., these five relationship strategies were placed in the left column of a matrix to measure these strategies in a modified strategic communications campaign. The term control mutuality was changed to mutual influence to comply with federal government mandates that public affairs in government not use undue influence on publics. Rather, information campaigns lay out the facts for different publics to decide issues on their own. The abbreviated campaign for this paper was based on a Wilson and Ogden (2005) strategic communications matrix and a definition of strategic communications developed by Plowman (2006) for the 96th Regional Readiness Command, U.S. Army Reserve, while serving as the public affairs officer for that command. That definition of strategic communications is “the management of communications between an organization and its key stakeholders on a long-term basis to meet measurable objectives in a realistic timeframe.” The DoD definition that the Army has complied with from the 2006 Quadrennial Review Report is: (DOD) focused United States Government (USG) efforts to understand and engage key audiences in order to create, strengthen or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of USG interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all elements of national power. In a January 2007 interview, Lieutenant General David Petraeus (commander of forces Iraq at the time) elaborated on strategic communications by saying it depends on its consequences. No matter who the spokesperson or what level of the organization that person is speaking from, if there are consequences at the strategic level (the DOD definition above), then the communication is strategic. In both academic and military definitions, note the similarities of terms, as in stakeholders or target audiences. The author includes the term long-term because that helps guarantee that stakeholders will remain loyal in a win/win relationship. The author’s definition assumes that strategic communications is a communications plan that includes themes, messages, and products. It also includes objectives that are measurable so they can be evaluated in a certain timeframe. Strategic communications in this instance does not include the controversy over mixing the Army’s information operations, public affairs, civil affairs, or psychological operations. Strategic communications is simply the communications plan as espoused by the Defense Information School at Ft. Meade, MD. Steyn (2007) agreed with General Petraeus and accorded a higher role to strategic communications and does not equate communication management to strategic communications. In fact, she says that public relations assists an organization to adapt to its stakeholder environment by serving both the organization and the public interest. By acting socially responsible and building mutually beneficial relationships to meet its objectives, an organization gains trust and builds a good reputation with its stakeholders. Steyn describes several functions of strategic communications but describes operationalizing public relations strategy as deliberate, and she combines several elements of planning. This is a process that, among other elements, emphasizes drawing a stakeholder map, thinking through the consequences of organizational goals on those stakeholders, and addressing those consequences by deciding what should be communicated (themes) and what should be achieved by this communication (setting deliberate objectives). Likewise, Chia (2005) and Rawlins (2007) agreed with Steyn in that outcomes and planning should be part of relationship planning, but of course, that planning is not part of the relationship itself. It is rather a tool, characteristic, and metric to help gauge the state of that relationship. As Chia said, “Measurement might be more appropriately focused on outcomes. . . after public relations intervention has taken place” (p. 5). This matrix then includes an adaptation of Hon and Grunig’s (1999) criteria for successful relationship strategies with the addition of transparency on the left and typical communications campaigns on the top. Influence is the degree to which parties in a relationship are satisfied with the amount of influence or power they have over the relationship. Trust is the level of confidence that both parties have in each other and their willingness to open themselves to the other party specifically for the factors of integrity, dependability, and competence. Transparency (adapted from Rawlins, 2007) is the attempt to make available all legally releasable information to enhance the participation of stakeholders and hold organizations accountable for their actions in the relationship. Satisfaction is the extent to which both parties feel favorably about each other because each is taking positive steps to maintain the relationship. Commitment is the extent to which both parties spend energy to engage in cooperative problem-solving to maintain and promote the relationship. In a typical communications campaign a benchmark of stakeholder perceptions and their expectations for the relationship of both parties must be established to be able to measure change in that relationship at a later point in time. Along with a stakeholder benchmark, measurable objectives must be set that are achievable within a reasonable amount of time
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
553
in a strategic communication campaign. After that the self-interests of both the organization and its stakeholder should be determined so that they might be combined in a short message design tied to a slogan that can be applied to many stakeholders. Specific communication products or tactics can then be determined to reach these publics through various communication channels. Finally, metric or evaluation criteria that restate the benchmark objectives can be measured as a post-test to assess the amount of change after the specified time of the original objectives. Those benchmark objectives can then be used to reassess the amount of change that has occurred among the five relationship factors for the stakeholder perceptions and expectations. A 1–10 scale could be used for many of these cells, with 10 being high, to measure the relationship. The research question for this paper, then, is: Does this proposed metric tool to measure relationships in a strategic communications campaign work for both U.S. Army public affairs personnel involved with strategic communication as well as academics in public relations involved with attempting to measure relationships with key publics or stakeholders? The method will critique or act as a qualitative test of the proposed instrument. 3. Method This study, then, was framed in the interpretative paradigm, using detailed semi-structured interviews that were directed by the responses of the interviewees. Qualitative research design was selected because of the exploratory nature of the topic. 3.1. Participants For the purpose of this study, opinion leaders were chosen in public affairs leadership in order for the U.S. Army to attain the views of these leaders on creating a reasonable model. This made sense since research through the Army led to its own questioning of measuring relationships in communications planning campaigns. Relationship measurement models developed in the academic field of public relations led to interviews conducted with some of the principal authors of those models. Some six interviews were conducted with academics in public relations and 10 interviews were conducted with Army public affairs personnel. The strength of interviewing as a qualitative method lies in asking how and why questions and, in this case, receiving in-depth answers about communications models that can only come from seasoned practitioners of public relations and academics steeped in communications planning and relationship measurement. The weakness, of course, is that findings cannot be generalized to a population. However, such findings could be replicable – the standard for quality in similar circumstances. In any case, the findings are generalizable to theory as in good case study research (Yin, 2009). Since this model was developed out of theory and verification of the reliability of the quantitative variables, it is with confidence by the researcher, that this model, once refined, can be used to measure the relationships in subsequent strategic communications or public relations campaigns. Bias in this study was controlled for by triangulation. Triangulation of theory occurred in the literature review. Triangulation of patterns and themes used constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1994) among the various interviewees. 3.2. Procedure Collection of data has been covered to a degree in this paper already. The actual interviews began with brief introductions and then a conversation about the research project, moving toward questions about the developed matrix. Most interviews began by asking participants about the problem of measuring relationships in the U.S. Army, in practice and in academia. Additional questions were then based on the responses of interviewees in order to capture the perspective of the interviewee and to keep the interviewer from directing the interview (Broom & Dozier, 1990; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Civilian interviews were conducted with: Dr. James Grunig, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland Dr. Lauri Grunig, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland Dr. Elizabeth Toth, Professor at the University of Maryland Dr. Carl Botan, Professor at George Mason University Dr. Brad Rawlins, Assistant Professor at Brigham Young University Susan Walton, Associate Professor at Brigham Young University Army interviews were conducted with: Stephanie Hoehne, Principal Deputy Chief of Army Public Affairs, Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (OCPA), U.S. Army Col. Hyrum Bell, Director of the Plans Division, OCPA Rebecca Wriggle, Deputy Director of the Plans Division, OCPA Col. Jayson Sawyer, Assessment and Analysis Team Chief, Plans Division Lt. Col. Michael Kiser, Deputy Chief, Assessment and Analysis Team Jennifer E. Sardum, Contractor, Assessment and Analysis Team
554
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
Joseph K. Curtin, Senior Strategic Communications Strategist, OCPA Col. Parcel L. Holliday, Section Chief, Plans Division George Polich, Civilian Chief, Army Public Affairs Center 3.3. Analysis The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method of thematic analysis. The data were also compared with the notes and observations of the researcher that were collected during the interviews. Each interview was analyzed to identify themes and relationships discussed by the interviewee. The transcripts were then compared against one another to glean and categorize all information into appropriate and comprehensive categories for analysis. The coding process incorporated an examination of metaphors, themes, case examples, and relationships mentioned in the interviews (Wimmer & Dominick, 2009). 4. Findings Several patterns emerged in the interviews that caused re-thinking of the relationship/strategic communications matrix. Those revolved around the mutual influence strategy for measuring relationships, the transparency strategy, the usefulness of separate categories for stakeholder perceptions and stakeholder expectations, and the placement of the initial measurable objectives. In the interview with Dr. James E. Grunig, he argued for retention of the term control mutuality, in that the term does not mean control over other parties in the relationship but rather control in the relationship itself. The principal deputy chief of the Army Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (OCPA), Stephanie Hoehne and the deputy director of the Plans Division Rebecca Wriggle were put off by the term mutual influence because it connotes undue influence over stakeholders, the opposite of DoDs creed to simply inform key audiences by providing truthful, credible, accurate, and timely information. Ms. Wriggle, in fact said: Our strategic communications efforts are not to have the same kind of influence on the American public as perhaps a brigade combat team in Afghanistan or Iraq. . .. There is a difference in influence in a foreign enemy context than in a domestic American public context. However, she continued, “It would be disingenuous of us not to want an outcome from our relationship with the American public.” She explained that among other things, the Army would want a positive commitment between the public, Soldiers and the Army, “transparency for the sake of trust and confidence. Even with the Army’s policy of being honest and accurate and of releasing information with “maximum exposure and minimum delay,” there is a desired positive outcome. Her point of view also applied to the relationship strategy of trust. She agreed with Grunig, in that if there is mutual influence for the relationship and not just manipulation then it would be a positive rather than a negative factor. Stephanie Hoehne reinforced Ms. Wriggle’s comments with the assertion that “you can influence behavior through the simple transmission of information.” However, several other interviewees, and most specifically the director of the Plans Division, COL Hyrum Bell, also asserted that providing information does influence stakeholder groups so why not call it influence. It was apparent from the interviews that there was concern over the perception of the term mutual influence, but the predominant pattern was the term was acceptable. Transparency, as an addition by the investigator, was overwhelmingly accepted by all the interviewees. Transparency is another buzzword in Army public affairs and was even invoked in the recent controversy over the quality of housing at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Public affairs guidance to the field from LTC Wayne Shanks, director of the Media Relations Division of OCPA, about the issue on March 5, 2007 includes: Message to all PAOs In light of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center ongoing situation, the public affairs community must be “painfully transparent” as a matter of course, but especially as it pertains to Army medical care. All public affairs professionals should immediately contact their local medical facilities to determine if they may have any issues which may draw media attention given the current media environment involving WRAMC. You must be willing to answer the hard questions in your lane while kicking those not in your lane to OCPA or MEDCOM, in compliance with any guidance coming from your command. Also, please alert OCPA, through the most expeditious means possible, if you have any possible medical care issues with your unit/installation which may attract negative national media attention. Please use the following as over-arching medical talking points: • Soldiers are the heart of our Army and the quality of their medical care is non-negotiable. • We are committed to outstanding professional medical care for Soldiers and their families.
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
555
As evidenced from this e-mail message, U.S. Army Public Affairs is committed to the concept of transparency. Hoehne added that “transparency also insures that our secondary communicators are helping to ripple the information outside the Beltway.” The aim is to communicate effectively across a broad spectrum of key stakeholders without going through the filter of the external press. This transparency would be evident to primary stakeholders, not just intervening publics. Joe Curtin, senior strategic communications advisor, also thought that credibility with such intervening publics as the media was key in the strategic relationship factor of transparency. As the former head of the Media Relations Division of OCPA he said it took him two years to build that credibility with the media, largely through transparency to help build another relationship strategy, that of trust. He and the media were then more satisfied and committed to the long-term relationship (two other proposed relationship strategies). Initially, the separate terms stakeholder perceptions and stakeholder expectations began simply as one term, stakeholder. Through preliminary interviews, a pattern emerged that this term should at least be stakeholder perceptions, and that term evolved into stakeholder imperative and then the use of two terms, adding the second–stakeholder expectations. The rationale from the academic interviewees was that a benchmark for current perceptions of the relationship of a stakeholder with an organization should be established. At the same time, that stakeholder should have an idea of where that relationship should be going, as an expectation through the five relationship strategies. The Army, as part of its strategic communications, has defined three main goals, one of which is to “maintain public support.” It has further segmented general public, into an initial list of: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Congress American Public Office of the Secretary of Defense/Sister Departments and Services General Officers, Senior Executive Service Civilians, Commander of Major Commands etc. Internal Army Think Tanks and Pundits Allies International Audiences Joint Staff/Command/Service Schools Federal Agencies Industry Veteran’s Organizations Military Service Organizations Government Agencies
As can be seen from this list, it is very broad and encompassing, and includes internal and external key stakeholders. It could be segmented further in increasingly detailed levels. The critical question here would be at what level of detail would it be productive to measure relationships and at what level of strategic communications campaigns would it be productive? That might only be answered by actually conducting a campaign with the relationships in mind. Given this possible level of detail, some thought might be given to collapsing these two stakeholder categories back into one as originally conceptualized. That leads to the last major pattern of objectives. It might seem obvious here that specific objectives should be constructed that incorporate the relationships. So, instead of an objective reading such as: “Increase positive attitudes toward the Army by 5 percent in one year,” it might read: “Increase the level of commitment between Veteran’s organizations and the Army by 5 percent in one year,” thus measuring one relationship strategy. The latter objective, of course, begs the question of whether the objective includes the stakeholder in it? Under this matrix the stakeholder is all ready named, so it may not be necessary. Also, if the objective comes before the stakeholder on the matrix, then the relationship objective would predominate. If it comes after, then the objective might be perceived as subordinate to the stakeholders. The great consensus of interviewees was that the relationship objective should come first, if only to guide the perceptions or expectations of the stakeholder toward the relationship. 5. Conclusion and recommendations The matrix model, then, as conceptually defined previously in this paper, should be modified before being applied to an actual strategic communication campaign. Influence should stand as it is as one of the relationship strategies. Transparency should be included as a relationship strategy as well. It is unclear if the communications plan steps of stakeholder perceptions and stakeholder expectations should be collapsed together at this point and how a single step should be defined. The initial establishment of objectives should be switched from after the stakeholder steps to before so that the objectives are not affected by any one stakeholder group before being delineated. This will mean the objectives will come more purely from the issues and goals of the campaign rather than from the perspective of specific stakeholders. This approach helps ensure the academic and practical understanding that public relations is the management of strategic long-term relations “. . .away from the manipulation of public opinion and toward a focus on building nurturing and maintaining organization-public relationships” (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999, p. 158). It focuses the purpose of the practice of public relations on mutual and not just organizational benefit (Bruning, Castle & Schrepfer, 2004) and because relationships
556
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
Relationship Matrix for a Strategic Communication Campaign Relationship Stakeholder Stakeholder Perceptions Expectations Strategies
Influence
Measurable Message Objective Design
Tactics
Metric or Evaluation of Objective
Rating 1-10
Trust Transparency Satisfaction Commitment
Fig. 1. Relationship matrix for a strategic communication campaign.
may provide a better focus for the Army and other organizations that deal with a variety of communication campaigns and their antecedent objectives and methods. Organizations are trying to carry out such strategic communication campaigns while struggling to even define the concept of strategic communications and its value to the organization. Hon and Grunig (1999) said the effectiveness of organizations is linked to their ability to select objectives that are worthwhile both to the organization and its strategic stakeholders. They argue that in order to even select appropriate objectives, organizations need to understand their relationships with their key publics or stakeholders. With the refined matrix below (see Fig. 1), may be the organization can achieve both campaign objectives and relationship objectives at the same time, with relationship objectives potentially even being part of a campaign or having the same objectives in a campaign. Relationship and communication campaigns could be closely integrated, and that integration could have the most powerful and longest-term impact on the Army and any organization. According to Chia (2005), the downside of incorporating such detail in any communications campaign may be the complexity of managing such a campaign. She lobbies for “parameters of best practice” to be able to deal with the volatile nature of relationships in an environment of constant change. The matrix of relationship/campaign measurement could provide such parameters. It will have to be applied several times in real strategic communications campaigns before we can know its efficacy with any certainty. Before getting to the final matrix for this study, it should be stated that a limitation was access to the top key decisionmakers in the U.S. Army. However, this author was still able to interview many key players who realized the importance of metrics and measurement of relationships that have not been looked into extensively in the private, civilian sector or among the U.S. military establishment. This matrix, then, in this study then is a tool that needs to be tested in future studies, both civilian-wise and militarily to test the usefulness of the tool to ensure long-term positive relationships with key stakeholders (Fig. 1). It is recommended that the Army use this tool in pre- and post-measurement of the effectiveness of its public affairs campaigns, particularly when relationships with key stakeholders are paramount in the campaign. References Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Bruning, S., & Ledingham, D. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170. Bruning, S., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2004). Building relationship between organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization–public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavior intent. Communication Studies, 55(3), 435–446. Chia, J. (2005). Measuring the immeasurable? Retrieved on February 21, 2007 from http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal Files/Evaluation Issue/CHIA ARTICLE.pdf#search=%22%20joy%chia%20measuring%20%the%20immeasurable%22 Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1987). Effective Public Relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Eder, M. K. (2009). The missing element strategic communication. United States Naval Institute Proceedings, 135(2), 28–33. Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships. In Paper presented to the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Gainesville, FL, August. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2001). Guidelines for formative and evaluative research in public affairs. A report for the Department of Energy Office of Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. March. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hibbert, Z., & Simmons, P. (2005). War reporting and Australian defence public relations, an exchange. Australia: Praxis. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.
K.D. Plowman / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 549–557
557
Huang, Y.-H. (2001). Values of public relations. Effects on organization-public relationships mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 265–301. Hung, C.-J. (2002). The interplays of relationship types, relational cultivation, and relationship outcomes: How multinational and Taiwanese companies practice public relations and organization–public relationship management in China. College Park: University of Maryland (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Joint Chiefs of Staff (February 13, 2006). Joint Publication 3-13 Information Operations. Washington, DC.: I-10. Jones, J. (2007). Strategic communications: A mandate for the United States. Joint Forces Quarterly, (39). www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq%5fpubs/1839.ct Kim, Y. (2000). Measuring the bottom-line impact of corporate public relations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 273–291. Kim, Y., & Jo, S. (2002). The effects of relationships on satisfaction, loyalty and future behavior: A case study of Community Bank. In Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Miami Beach, FL. 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. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Public relations as relationship management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlinson, T. D., & Lesko, C. (1997). The applicability of interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of relational loyalty. A qualitative approach. Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 1(1), 23–43. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(4), 237–262. Plowman, K. D. (2006). Public relations, conflict resolution, and mediation. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges to the next generation (pp. 85–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Brigham Young University: Provo, Utah (Unpublished paper). Steyn, B. (2007). Contribution of public relations to organizational strategy formulation. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 137–172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Triese, D., Weigold, M. F., Walsh-Childers, K., & Friedman, M. (2002). Relationships among important outcomes of science campaigns aimed at the general public. In Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Miami Beach, FL. Wilson, L. J., & Ogden, J. D. (2005). Strategic communications planning: For effective public relations and marketing (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2009). Mass media research: An introduction (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.