Imagen y Reputación

These findings further suggest that organizational involvement in and support of the community in which it operates can engender loyalty toward an organization among key publics when that involvement/support is known by those key publics. What emerges is a WO-step process in which organizations must (1) focus on the relationships with their key publics, and (2) communicate involvement of those activities/programs that build the organization-public relationship to members of their key publics.

Conclusiones de un estudio hace dos décadas sobre la percepción de la eficacia de acciones sociales y responsables a partir de la información del publico acerca de los patrocinios de unas organizaciones. Un estudio todavía no de la relación con públicos, sino de la eficacia de la comunicación de acciones sociales por parte de organizaciones. La evaluación de la comunicación se considera parte, importante, de la evaluación de las acciones locales, sociales, medioambientales... que desde hace décadas se consideran imprescindibles para unas sanas relaciones con públicos.

Scholars have the luxury to deliberate the nature of public relations but practitioners deal on a daily basis with the immediate problem of justifying the value of their programs. One measuring stick of a successful relationship is the predisposition of members of significant publics to react positively toward a sponsoring organization. Indeed, if organizational activities can be shown to favorably impact a decision to stay with a provider in the face of competition, then there can be little doubt that these activities have value that contributes to the economic well-being of that organization. This research indicates that an organization-public relationship centered around building trust, demonstrating involvement, investment, and commitment, and maintaining open, frank communication between the organization and its key public does have value in that it impacts the stay-leave decision in a competitive environment. We suggest that, in this case, the value of the relationship between the sponsoring organization and its significant publics is equal to the number of local subscribers for whom relationship factors spelled the difference between staying with the sponsoring organization or opting for service from a new provider. In this research, subscribers were asked to make a choice. In that sense, this research is consistent with Grunig’s~* concern that public relations practitioners must demonstrate the impact of their programs on behavioral relationships if they are to have value within sponsoring organizations. The research results also provide verified relationship variables that can be used as the basis for further exploration of Broom and Dozier’s19 coorientation approach to relationship audits. Moreover, the research is responsive to Toth’s20 call for identification of constructs that overbridge the areas of interpersonal communication, organizational communication and public relations. Finally, in response to Broom et al.,21 we offer a tentative definition of the organization-public relationship as “the state which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well-being of the other entity.” An ideal organization-public relationship, then, would be “the state that exists between an organization and its key publics that provides economic, social, political, and/or cultural benefits to all parties involved, and is charaacterized by mutual positive regard.” This study also suggests that when public relations is viewed as relationship management, then public relations programs can be designed around relationship goals, with communication strategies employed to support the achievement of those goals. And, if the success of public relations programs is to be evaluated in terms of relationship goals, then -as Ferguson has contended- the central focus of public relations research should be on relationships. This research also was conducted within a setting in which one organization had a substantial advantage because of its long-term relationship with its significant publics. Indeed, it is that very relationship which seemed to spell the difference when the organization’s activities were made known. However, relatively few public members (some eight percent) were aware of the numerous activities which the local organization supports in order to build relationships with key publics. Moreover -as noted in the Ledingham, Bruning, Thor&on, and Lesko22 report of the qualitative research- the decision to stay or leave changed significantly after respondents became aware of the organization’s efforts to create, develop, or maintain relationships with its key publics. In that regard, a comment from a focus group participant captures the power of the organization-public relationship: I hadn’t thought of that. Now that it has been mentioned, though, I changed my mind. There’s no way I’d sign up with a new company. This reaction not only underscores the importance of activities designed to build relationships with key publics, but also emphasizes the need to communicate those activities so they are top-of-mind. This investigation clearly suggests a role for communication initiatives within the framework of relationship management; in that role, goals are developed around relationships, and communication is used as a strategic tool in helping to achieve those goals. Moreover, while measurement of communication efficiencies should certainly be part of the evaluation process, their importance eventually may rest upon their ability to impact the achievement of relationship objectives

El estudio repasa otros estudios y autores clásicos en la cuestión. Algunos precursores del cambio un paradigma relacional en organización, sociología, ecología...

Broom, Casey and Ritchey reviewed the literature of interorganizational and interpersonal relationships as well as that of psychotherapy as a part of the process of explicating the term “relationship.“7 They suggest a concept of organization-public relationships with measurable properties, independent of the parties in the relationship, and distinct from their antecedents and consequences. In an unpublished work, Grunig and Huang have responded to Broom’s notion of relationship precedents and antecedents, as well as maintenance strategies that address the state of the relationship itself.8 Numerous other scholars have approached discussion of public relations from a relational perspective. For example, Wilson calls for the use of public relations as a vehicle for building responsibility in contemporary corporations.9 Acknowledging that public relations practitioners must “have a finger on the public pulse,” she contends nonetheless that the focus of public relations oughtto be toward the development of ‘creZutiunal responsibility.” Similarly, Heath argues for a focus on social responsibility, employing a traditional rhetorical perspective. l0

The investigation reported herein is an attempt to identify through qualitative research and verify through quantitative research relationship dimensions upon which good organization-public relationships are initiated, developed, and maintained. The respondents for this study were local telephone subscribers who resided in territories that were recently opened to competition for local telephone service. A total of 384 respondents were surveyed.

The qualitative research process was initiated with indepth discussions with 14 public relations personnel of the telecommunications company. That discussion was followed by interviews with 18 local governmen tal, business and community leaders across the three-state area. The results of these interviews served as the basis for discussions with residential telephone subscribers in focus group settings across the three-state area. Focus groups were conducted using a group of randomly selected residential subscribers. Twelve focus groups of six to 12 residential subscribers were conducted in this manner across the tri-state territory. In these groups, the residential subscribers discussed the impact that price, product features, and the organization-public relationship have on consumer behavior. Also, focus group participants were asked which of the 17 relationship dimensions they believed would have an influence on their relationship with an organization.17 The following relationship dimensions were defined by focus group participants as being critical in the process of creating, developing, and maintaining an organization-public relationship: trust, openness, involvement (investment, and commitment).

The hypotheses developed as the result of the review of literature and the qualitative research are presented below: Hl: The organization-public relationship dimensions of openness, trust, involvement, commitment, and investment will differentiate staying, leaving, and undecided consumers. H2: The organization-public relationship dimensions of openness, trust, involvement, commitment, and investment can be used to predict which subscribers will stay, leave, or are undecided. H3: The organization-public relationship mean scores of stayers will be highest of the stayers, leavers, and undecideds. The organization-public relationship mean scores of undecideds will be in the middle, and the mean scores of leavers will be the lowest.

John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, (1998) Public Relations Review, Volume 24, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 55-65, pdf 796k, doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9

Autores/as que han citado este artículo en Scopus.