- Email: [email protected]
Revisiting fundraising encroachment of public relations in light of the theory of donor relations
Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 566–568
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Research in brief
Revisiting fundraising encroachment of public relations in light of the theory of donor relations William Swanger a,∗ , Shelly Rodgers b,1 a b
Department of Communications, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870, United States 140-A Walter Williams Hall, School of Journalism, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 26 June 2012 Received in revised form 9 April 2013 Accepted 15 April 2013
a b s t r a c t No research has examined whether Kelly’s (1991, 1998) reconceptualization of fundraising as a public relations specialization, partly advanced as protection against fundraising encroachment of public relations, has been accepted or implemented. This study found that the rate of fundraising encroachment has not changed substantially in 20 years, that practitioners accept Kelly’s concept but prefer separate-but-equal departments for the two functions, and that Kelly’s theory of donor relations should be revisited to incorporate contingency theory. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Kelly (1991, 1998) wrote extensively about fundraising encroachment of public relations, the assignment of a fundraising practitioner to manage public relations. These leaders tend to practice public relations as they define it, favoring the donor public and leaving the organization susceptible to crises involving ignored publics. Partly in response, Kelly reconceptualized fundraising as a public relations specialization within her theory of donor relations. No previous research has answered Kelly’s call for study of practitioner acceptance of her reconceptualization or whether practitioners believe it would protect organizations from encroachment.
2. Method The study conducted semi-structured depth interviews with 16 senior public relations (n = 8) and fundraising (n = 8) practitioners in charitable organizations across the United States. The discussion guide focused on organizational structure, encroachment, excellence theory (Grunig, 1992)—on which donor relations theory partly was based—and elaborations of excellence theory to incorporate contingency theory (Cameron, 1997). Data were analyzed using comparative analysis technique and recorded separately for public relations and fundraising practitioners.
∗ Corresponding author at: 2203 Hastings Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055, United States. Tel.: +1 717 795 0308; fax: +1 717 795 0453; mobile: +1 717 579 9913. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (W. Swanger), [email protected] (S. Rodgers). 1 Tel.: +1 573 882 4213. 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.04.005
W. Swanger, S. Rodgers / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 566–568
567
3. Findings With a goal of determining acceptance of Kelly’s theory of donor relations, the following research questions were examined: RQ1: Is fundraising encroachment occurring within charitable organizations? Kelly’s (1994) quantitative research found fundraising encroachment in 23% of the non-profit organizations studied (n = 175). Her earlier qualitative study of 19 charitable organizations documented fundraising encroachment in 37% of participating organizations (as cited in Kelly, 1994). The present study found fundraising encroachment in 31% of participating organizations. Public relations reported to fundraising in five of the 16 organizations; the remaining 11 had separate-butequal departments. While these results represent a slight decrease from Kelly’s qualitative findings—referenced for similarity of participant numbers—they suggest that fundraising encroachment remains an issue. RQ2: What organizational structure do practitioners believe represents the “ideal” for public relations and fundraising, particularly to protect against encroachment? While Kelly (1991) cautioned that CEO decision could easily end separate-but-equal departments and thus prompt encroachment, 11 of the 16 participants (68.75%) advocated separate departments, with the remainder preferring various integrated models. Only one of the eight fundraisers advanced a combined unit in which public relations is subordinate to fundraising, although most said a public relations goal is to support fundraising. One organization had used the model advanced by Kelly—fundraising as a public relations specialization—but that structure had been discontinued in favor of separate-but-equal departments, because the fundraiser advocated a direct-reporting relationship with the organization’s CEO. Three public relations and two fundraising executives said that for an integrated unit to operate as Kelly envisioned, its leader must have, foremost, a strong public relations background to ensure emphasis on all organizational relationships. One practitioner said that without a leader focused on all publics and not just donors, “there’s a danger of the integrated department being communications as the handmaiden of the fundraisers.” RQ3: Do practitioners accept or not accept the postulate that fundraising is a specialization of public relations? Kelly (1991) wrote that “a major problem of the theory of donor relations” (p. 501) was potential lack of acceptance by fundraising practitioners and scholars because they held asymmetrical worldviews and outdated concepts of public relations. The present research found that six of the eight fundraising practitioners (75%) agreed in principle with Kelly’s reconceptualization, although four of those expressed some reservations. Fewer than half of the eight fundraising practitioners (37.5%) agreed with Kelly that fundraisers would reject the reconfiguration. In addition, 75% of the public relations executives agreed that fundraising is a specialization of public relations. Just one of the public relations practitioners (12.5%) believed fundraising executives would accept the reconfiguration; further, she said fundraisers would use the reconfiguration to “institutionalize” encroachment. RQ4: Do recent elaborations or qualifications of public relations excellence theory, such as contingency theory, offer a possible refinement of the theory of donor relations? Kelly (1991, 1998) built her theory of donor relations on public relations excellence theory (Grunig, 1992). However, 14 (87.5%) of the practitioners described Cameron’s (1997) contingency theory as a more accurate representation of actual practice than symmetrical public relations. Findings also posited a potential new contingency theory proscriptive variable for fundraising. 4. Analysis and conclusion Despite revealing practitioner support for Kelly’s theory, findings suggest three issues remain. The first is pressure from organizations to evaluate fundraising in terms of dollars raised, consistent with the asymmetrical approach Kelly (1991, 1998) cited as typical. The second involves organizational structure. Although practitioners expressed support for donor relations theory, a majority advocated separate-but-equal departments as the best defense against fundraising encroachment, although they acknowledged CEO preference could prompt structural change. The third issue arises from practitioners’ stated belief that the integrated department could function as Kelly envisioned only if its leader cultivated relationships with all publics, an ability they said might not be present in leaders trained in fundraising. Because research by Cameron and others (see, e.g., Cancel, Mitrook, & Cameron, 1999, and Pang, Jin, & Cameron, 2007) demonstrated the soundness of contingency theory as an elaboration of excellence theory, this study examined potential refinement of donor relations theory to incorporate contingency theory. To this point, three fundraising practitioners independently identified a situation in which contingency theory seemed to provide theoretical underpinning for a specific stance toward a donor. One practitioner explained: We would never get to a point that, if a donor wanted to do something . . . but [that idea was] contrary to our mission . . . we would accept that gift. Someone wanted to give us a million dollars to build a facility . . . and it was not in our interest . . .. There were other needs [in] which the individual was not interested and we had to say, “No, thank you.” Cameron, Cropp, and Reber (2001) identified six proscriptive variables that can constrain an organization’s ability to accommodate a public: moral conviction, multiple publics, regulatory constraints, management pressure, jurisdictional issues, and legal constraints. Among the 86 contingent variables that can affect organizational stance are the external
568
W. Swanger, S. Rodgers / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 566–568
variable of “the public’s willingness to dilute its cause/request/claim” (Cameron et al., 2001, p. 258) and the internal threat of “economic loss or gain from implementing various stances” (p. 259). These two variables may seem to describe the cited fundraising situations, in which donor negotiations are necessary to create mutually acceptable uses of an otherwise unacceptable gift. In addition, the proscriptive variable of management pressure against “indiscriminate adoption of accommodative public relations” (p. 248) might apply. Yet in situations in which negotiations are not possible because of gift stipulations, it can be argued from current results that rejection of the gift rests not on prohibitions against indiscriminate accommodation or abridgement in donor intent, but on “mission fit”, congruence of the donation and organizational mission or ability to expand that mission in line with the gift. Whether contingency theory is extended to include this proscriptive variable, findings suggest Kelly’s theory be revisited to incorporate contingency theory. Among topics for future research are quantitative studies of a larger sample of fundraising practitioners, undertaken to gain their view on the effects they believe donor relations theory would have on their practice. Research also should examine the suggestion of a fundraising-related contingency theory proscriptive variable of mission congruence. References Cameron, G. T. (1997). The contingency theory of conflict management in public relations. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Norwegian Information Service Oslo, Norway. Cameron, G. T., Cropp, F., & Reber, B. (2001). Getting past platitudes: Factors limiting accommodation in public relations. Journal of Communication Management, 5(3), 242–261. Cancel, A., Mitrook, M., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Testing the contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 171–197. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Communication, public relations and effective organizations: An overview of the book. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fundraising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1994). Fundraising encroachment and the potential of public relations departments in the nonprofit sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(1), 1–22. Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fundraising management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pang, A., Jin, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Contingency theory of strategic conflict management: A decade of theory development, discovery and dialogue. In Paper presented at International Communication Association San Francisco, CA.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Research in brief
Revisiting fundraising encroachment of public relations in light of the theory of donor relations William Swanger a,∗ , Shelly Rodgers b,1 a b
Department of Communications, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870, United States 140-A Walter Williams Hall, School of Journalism, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 26 June 2012 Received in revised form 9 April 2013 Accepted 15 April 2013
a b s t r a c t No research has examined whether Kelly’s (1991, 1998) reconceptualization of fundraising as a public relations specialization, partly advanced as protection against fundraising encroachment of public relations, has been accepted or implemented. This study found that the rate of fundraising encroachment has not changed substantially in 20 years, that practitioners accept Kelly’s concept but prefer separate-but-equal departments for the two functions, and that Kelly’s theory of donor relations should be revisited to incorporate contingency theory. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Kelly (1991, 1998) wrote extensively about fundraising encroachment of public relations, the assignment of a fundraising practitioner to manage public relations. These leaders tend to practice public relations as they define it, favoring the donor public and leaving the organization susceptible to crises involving ignored publics. Partly in response, Kelly reconceptualized fundraising as a public relations specialization within her theory of donor relations. No previous research has answered Kelly’s call for study of practitioner acceptance of her reconceptualization or whether practitioners believe it would protect organizations from encroachment.
2. Method The study conducted semi-structured depth interviews with 16 senior public relations (n = 8) and fundraising (n = 8) practitioners in charitable organizations across the United States. The discussion guide focused on organizational structure, encroachment, excellence theory (Grunig, 1992)—on which donor relations theory partly was based—and elaborations of excellence theory to incorporate contingency theory (Cameron, 1997). Data were analyzed using comparative analysis technique and recorded separately for public relations and fundraising practitioners.
∗ Corresponding author at: 2203 Hastings Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055, United States. Tel.: +1 717 795 0308; fax: +1 717 795 0453; mobile: +1 717 579 9913. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (W. Swanger), [email protected] (S. Rodgers). 1 Tel.: +1 573 882 4213. 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.04.005
W. Swanger, S. Rodgers / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 566–568
567
3. Findings With a goal of determining acceptance of Kelly’s theory of donor relations, the following research questions were examined: RQ1: Is fundraising encroachment occurring within charitable organizations? Kelly’s (1994) quantitative research found fundraising encroachment in 23% of the non-profit organizations studied (n = 175). Her earlier qualitative study of 19 charitable organizations documented fundraising encroachment in 37% of participating organizations (as cited in Kelly, 1994). The present study found fundraising encroachment in 31% of participating organizations. Public relations reported to fundraising in five of the 16 organizations; the remaining 11 had separate-butequal departments. While these results represent a slight decrease from Kelly’s qualitative findings—referenced for similarity of participant numbers—they suggest that fundraising encroachment remains an issue. RQ2: What organizational structure do practitioners believe represents the “ideal” for public relations and fundraising, particularly to protect against encroachment? While Kelly (1991) cautioned that CEO decision could easily end separate-but-equal departments and thus prompt encroachment, 11 of the 16 participants (68.75%) advocated separate departments, with the remainder preferring various integrated models. Only one of the eight fundraisers advanced a combined unit in which public relations is subordinate to fundraising, although most said a public relations goal is to support fundraising. One organization had used the model advanced by Kelly—fundraising as a public relations specialization—but that structure had been discontinued in favor of separate-but-equal departments, because the fundraiser advocated a direct-reporting relationship with the organization’s CEO. Three public relations and two fundraising executives said that for an integrated unit to operate as Kelly envisioned, its leader must have, foremost, a strong public relations background to ensure emphasis on all organizational relationships. One practitioner said that without a leader focused on all publics and not just donors, “there’s a danger of the integrated department being communications as the handmaiden of the fundraisers.” RQ3: Do practitioners accept or not accept the postulate that fundraising is a specialization of public relations? Kelly (1991) wrote that “a major problem of the theory of donor relations” (p. 501) was potential lack of acceptance by fundraising practitioners and scholars because they held asymmetrical worldviews and outdated concepts of public relations. The present research found that six of the eight fundraising practitioners (75%) agreed in principle with Kelly’s reconceptualization, although four of those expressed some reservations. Fewer than half of the eight fundraising practitioners (37.5%) agreed with Kelly that fundraisers would reject the reconfiguration. In addition, 75% of the public relations executives agreed that fundraising is a specialization of public relations. Just one of the public relations practitioners (12.5%) believed fundraising executives would accept the reconfiguration; further, she said fundraisers would use the reconfiguration to “institutionalize” encroachment. RQ4: Do recent elaborations or qualifications of public relations excellence theory, such as contingency theory, offer a possible refinement of the theory of donor relations? Kelly (1991, 1998) built her theory of donor relations on public relations excellence theory (Grunig, 1992). However, 14 (87.5%) of the practitioners described Cameron’s (1997) contingency theory as a more accurate representation of actual practice than symmetrical public relations. Findings also posited a potential new contingency theory proscriptive variable for fundraising. 4. Analysis and conclusion Despite revealing practitioner support for Kelly’s theory, findings suggest three issues remain. The first is pressure from organizations to evaluate fundraising in terms of dollars raised, consistent with the asymmetrical approach Kelly (1991, 1998) cited as typical. The second involves organizational structure. Although practitioners expressed support for donor relations theory, a majority advocated separate-but-equal departments as the best defense against fundraising encroachment, although they acknowledged CEO preference could prompt structural change. The third issue arises from practitioners’ stated belief that the integrated department could function as Kelly envisioned only if its leader cultivated relationships with all publics, an ability they said might not be present in leaders trained in fundraising. Because research by Cameron and others (see, e.g., Cancel, Mitrook, & Cameron, 1999, and Pang, Jin, & Cameron, 2007) demonstrated the soundness of contingency theory as an elaboration of excellence theory, this study examined potential refinement of donor relations theory to incorporate contingency theory. To this point, three fundraising practitioners independently identified a situation in which contingency theory seemed to provide theoretical underpinning for a specific stance toward a donor. One practitioner explained: We would never get to a point that, if a donor wanted to do something . . . but [that idea was] contrary to our mission . . . we would accept that gift. Someone wanted to give us a million dollars to build a facility . . . and it was not in our interest . . .. There were other needs [in] which the individual was not interested and we had to say, “No, thank you.” Cameron, Cropp, and Reber (2001) identified six proscriptive variables that can constrain an organization’s ability to accommodate a public: moral conviction, multiple publics, regulatory constraints, management pressure, jurisdictional issues, and legal constraints. Among the 86 contingent variables that can affect organizational stance are the external
568
W. Swanger, S. Rodgers / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 566–568
variable of “the public’s willingness to dilute its cause/request/claim” (Cameron et al., 2001, p. 258) and the internal threat of “economic loss or gain from implementing various stances” (p. 259). These two variables may seem to describe the cited fundraising situations, in which donor negotiations are necessary to create mutually acceptable uses of an otherwise unacceptable gift. In addition, the proscriptive variable of management pressure against “indiscriminate adoption of accommodative public relations” (p. 248) might apply. Yet in situations in which negotiations are not possible because of gift stipulations, it can be argued from current results that rejection of the gift rests not on prohibitions against indiscriminate accommodation or abridgement in donor intent, but on “mission fit”, congruence of the donation and organizational mission or ability to expand that mission in line with the gift. Whether contingency theory is extended to include this proscriptive variable, findings suggest Kelly’s theory be revisited to incorporate contingency theory. Among topics for future research are quantitative studies of a larger sample of fundraising practitioners, undertaken to gain their view on the effects they believe donor relations theory would have on their practice. Research also should examine the suggestion of a fundraising-related contingency theory proscriptive variable of mission congruence. References Cameron, G. T. (1997). The contingency theory of conflict management in public relations. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Norwegian Information Service Oslo, Norway. Cameron, G. T., Cropp, F., & Reber, B. (2001). Getting past platitudes: Factors limiting accommodation in public relations. Journal of Communication Management, 5(3), 242–261. Cancel, A., Mitrook, M., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Testing the contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 171–197. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Communication, public relations and effective organizations: An overview of the book. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fundraising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1994). Fundraising encroachment and the potential of public relations departments in the nonprofit sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(1), 1–22. Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fundraising management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pang, A., Jin, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Contingency theory of strategic conflict management: A decade of theory development, discovery and dialogue. In Paper presented at International Communication Association San Francisco, CA.