USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

A quantitative assessment of internal publics perception of their relationship with the organization

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A quantitative assessment of internal publics perception of their relationship with the organization
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Smith, Lindsay C
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Satisfaction
Trust
Commitment
Control mutuality
Exchange relationship
Communal relationship
Goal compatibility
Dissertations, Academic -- Mass Communications -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: This study focuses on relationships. Specifically, it measures the relationship between the administration of a large public university in the southeastern United States, USF, and its primary internal public the faculty. The purpose of this study is to measure the quality and type of relationship between an organization and it public, as perceived by the public. This study seeks to replicate and extend previous relational research by examining how the variables of trust, commitment, control mutuality, and satisfaction are related to the quality of relationships in organizations. In addition, the type of relationshipcommunal or exchangethat the faculty has with the university, is examined. This thesis also posits an additional indicator of relationship quality goal compatibility. Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed:
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Lindsay C. Smith.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 110 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001680998
oclc - 62501273
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001131
usfldc handle - e14.1131
System ID:
SFS0025452:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001680998
003 fts
005 20060215071106.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 051207s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001131
035
(OCoLC)62501273
SFE0001131
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
P90 (Online)
1 100
Smith, Lindsay C.
2 245
A quantitative assessment of internal publics perception of their relationship with the organization
h [electronic resource] /
by Lindsay C. Smith.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
2005.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 110 pages.
3 520
ABSTRACT: This study focuses on relationships. Specifically, it measures the relationship between the administration of a large public university in the southeastern United States, USF, and its primary internal public the faculty. The purpose of this study is to measure the quality and type of relationship between an organization and it public, as perceived by the public. This study seeks to replicate and extend previous relational research by examining how the variables of trust, commitment, control mutuality, and satisfaction are related to the quality of relationships in organizations. In addition, the type of relationshipcommunal or exchangethat the faculty has with the university, is examined. This thesis also posits an additional indicator of relationship quality goal compatibility. Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed:
590
Adviser: Kelly P. Werder, Ph.D.
653
Satisfaction.
Trust.
Commitment.
Control mutuality.
Exchange relationship.
Communal relationship.
Goal compatibility.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Mass Communications
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1131



PAGE 1

A Quantitative Assessment of Internal Publics Perception of Their Relationship With the Organization by Lindsay C. Smith A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Mass Communications College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Kelly P. Werder, Ph.D. Ken Killebrew, Ph.D. Scott Liu, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 12, 2005 Keywords: trust, satisfaction, control mutu ality, commitment, exchange relationship, communal relationship, goal compatibility Copyright 2005, Lindsay C. Smith

PAGE 2

Dedication First of all, I would like to thank my Sa vior, Jesus Christ, for giving me the ability and strength to follow His will for my life. I am thankful for my wonderful parents, Rod and Rhonda Smith, who urged me to continue my education through many times of discouragement. Finally, I dedicate this pie ce of academia— which represents sacrifice, hard work and determination—to my beautiful baby boy, Jackson Carter.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments I would like to express my appreciation to Kelly P. We rder, Ph.D., my mentor and friend, for her encouragement and dedicati on to this thesis. Her experience and knowledge helped me immensely with its co mpletion. I could not have done it without her. Thank you.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures v Abstract vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 6 Public Relations 6 Relationships 8 Internal Public Relationships 11 Symmetrical and TwoWay Communication 13 Relational Perspective 14 Relationship Measurement 23 Exchange Relationship 33 Communal Relationship 33 Control Mutuality 35 Trust 35 Satisfaction 35 Commitment 35 Goal Compatibility 37 Hypotheses and Research Question 39 Chapter Three: Methods and Procedures 42 Respondents 43 Instrumentation 44 Procedures 49 Data Analysis 50 Chapter Four: Results 51 Response Statistics 52 Demographic Data 53 Relational Variables 55 Reliability Analysis 62 ANOVAs 63 Correlation Coefficients 68 Tests of Hypotheses 75

PAGE 5

ii Test of Research Question 76 Chapter Five: Discussion 78 Limitations of the Study 83 Future Research 84 References 86 Appendices 93 Appendix A: Pre-Survey Letter 94 Appendix B: Introduction Letter 96 Appendix C: Survey Instrument 96 Appendix D: Reminder Postcard 100

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1 Frequency of Gender 54 Table 2 Frequency of Academic Title 54 Table 3 Frequency of Campus Affiliation 55 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics – Trust 56 Table 5 Descriptive Statisti cs – Control Mutuality 57 Table 6 Descriptive Statis tics – Commitment 58 Table 7 Descriptive Statis tics – Satisfaction 59 Table 8 Descriptive Statisti cs – Communal Relationship 60 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics – Exchange Relationship 61 Table 10 Descriptive Statisti cs – Goal Compatibility 62 Table 11 Overall Scale Means 63 Table 12 ANOVA of Independe nt Variable – Trust 64 Table 13 ANOVA of Independent Variable – Years at USF 65 Table 14 ANOVA of Independe nt Variable – Gender 66 Table 15 ANOVA of Independe nt Variable – Campus 67 Table 16 Correlation Analysis – Trust 69 Table 17 Correlation Analys is – Control Mutuality 70 Table 18 Correlation Analysis – Commitment 71 Table 19 Correlation Anal ysis – Satisfaction 72 Table 20 Correlation Analysis – Goal Compatibility 73

PAGE 7

iv Table 21 Correlation Analysis – Comm unal and Exchange Relationships 74 Table 22 Regression Analysis – Relationship Variables 75 Table 23 Regression Analysis – Goal Compatibility 76

PAGE 8

v List of Figures Figure 1. Communication Process 7 Figure 2. An Open Systems View of the Organization 18

PAGE 9

vi A Quantitative Assessment of Internal Publics Perception of Their Relationship With the Organization Lindsay C. Smith ABSTRACT This study focuses on relationships. Speci fically, it measures the relationship between the administration of a large public un iversity in the southeastern United States, USF, and its primary internal public— the faculty. The purpose of this study is to measure the quality and type of relationshi p between an organization and it public, as perceived by the public. This study seeks to replicate and extend previous relational research by examining how the variables of trust, commitment, control mutuality, and satisfaction are related to the quality of relationships in organizations. In addition, the type of relationship—communal or exchange—t hat the faculty has w ith the university, is examined. This thesis also posits an additional indicator of relationship quality – goal compatibility. Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed: H1 : Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality are indicators of relationship quality between and organization and its publics. H2 : Goal compatibility is an indicator of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. Explicitly, this study seeks to explore the following:

PAGE 10

vii RQ1 : How do faculty employees at a large, Research I university perceive their relationship with the admini stration in terms of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compatibility, w ith regards to the issue of salary, and what type of relationship—communal or exchange—does the organization and its public have? The significance of this study lies in its ability to contribute to public relations theory and practice. This research will en rich our understanding of the importance of building strong relationships be tween organizations and their publics. This study will also build on previous public relations studies of relationship measurement in order to further public relations theory development. From an applied perspective, this research may serve to inform the organization about the quality of its relationship with one of its most important strategic publics. According to the data analyses, in term s of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compatibility, the faculty perceives their relationship to be low quality. In addition, the faculty perceives to have an exchange relationship with the administration.

PAGE 11

1 Chapter 1 Introduction A growing number of pub lic relations scholars and practitioners are defining public relations as the management of rela tionships between orga nizations and publics. Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000) define public relations as “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually bene ficial relationships be tween an organization and the publics on whom its success or failu re depends” (p. 2). Coombs (2001) defines public relations as the use of communication to manage th e relationships between an organization and its stakeholders/publics. Kruckeberg and Starck (1998) state that, “public relations is best de fined and practiced as the ac tive attempt to restore and maintain a sense of community” (p. 52). These definitions exemplify the paradigmatic shift of the public relations discipline from a journalistic function to a strategic management role. Moreover, these definitions emphasize thr ee vital elements of public relations – communication, management, and relationships. Communication is vital because it is the most effective strategy for an organization a nd its stakeholders to share information and engage in dialogue. Public relations is seen as a management function because it involves planning and problem solving and is used to manage the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders. Relationshi ps become the link be tween an organization

PAGE 12

2 and its stakeholders. Relationshi p is defined as the interdep endence between two or more people, where the link can be economical, politi cal, social, or even moral. The link is a way to facilitate interaction between tw o parties (O’Hair, Friedrich, Wienmann, & Wienmann, 1995; Trenholm & Jensen, 1996). In addition to the management function of planning public relations activities and programs, public relations pract itioners must provide positiv e outcomes of their activities in order to maintain a foothold in the strategic decision-ma king process of an organization. The outcomes must positively contribute to the bottom line. “The proper term for the desired outcomes of public relations practice is public relationships. An organization with effective public relations will attain positive public relationships” (Center & Jackson, 1995, p. 2). Therefore, public relations practitioners st rive to achieve quality relationships that contribute positively to the bottom line of the organization. As seen in the recent definitions of public relations, relationship is an important term that is receiving much attention from scholars as well as from practitioners. Recently, an internal study was conducted at a large, Research I academic institution – the University of South Florid a (USF), Tampa, Fla. – revealing that the faculty salaries at the university were among the lowest nationally, as well as the lowest among the state of Florida’s doc toral universities. The faculty senate of USF passed a resolution urgently requesting action on the part of the administration to form a plan to address the issue of faculty compensation. Th e plan, which must involve full consultation with faculty representatives, is to raise th e weighted mean salary by approximately one-

PAGE 13

3 third. The faculty responded to the plan with comments such as, “Increases in base salaries are needed,” and “I have lost a colleague this year…my understanding was that salary was the main issue.” One faculty memb er noted that, “one know n factor is a lack of proper salary increases during the year s after they (faculty) are hired.” These statements are pulled from e-mails in re sponse to the call for action. According to members of the faculty union, the impact of the low salaries has affected faculty retention, morale, and the everyday faculty e xperience. This issue provides a context for studying the quality of the relationship betw een the university administration and its faculty. This study focuses on organization/public relationships. Specif ically, it measures the relationship between the administrati on of a large public university in the southeastern United States, USF, and its prim ary internal public— the faculty. Public, for the purpose of this study, is defined as a group of persons sharing some characteristics or set of attributes (Heath, 2001). The faculty members examined in this study include assistant, associate and full professors, as well as full time, part time and adjunct instructors at all four campus es of the university – Tampa, St. Petersburg, Lakeland, and Sarasota. The purpose of this study is to measur e the quality and type of relationship between an organization and its public, as perceived by the public. The definition of relationship for the purpose of this study is the perception of a mutually beneficial relationship as defined by four relationship in dicators that have b een tested previously. Specifically, this study seeks to replicate and extend previous relational research by

PAGE 14

4 examining how the variables of trust, commit ment, control mutuality, and satisfaction are related to the quality of re lationships in organizations In addition, the type of relationship—communal or exchange—that th e faculty has with the university, is examined. This thesis also posits an additional indicator of relationship quality – goal compatibility. Goal compatibility is a unique addition to previous re search and promises to add an original and innovative elem ent to the relational perspective. The significance of this study lies in its ability to contribute to public relations theory and practice. This research will en rich our understanding of the importance of building strong relationships be tween organizations and their publics. This study will also build on previous public relations studies of relationship measurement in order to further public relations theory development. From an applied perspective, this research may serve to inform the organization about the quality of its relationship with one of its most important strategic publics. The universit y administration can send out messages and activities to sustain or improve the rela tionship based on feedback from the study. The body of literature that has emerged from studying relationship management comprises the relational pers pective of public relations. Chapter Two of this study provides a review of literature important to the understanding of the relational perspective and organization-public relations hips. Concepts fundamental to public relations theory— relationships, internal co mmunication, symmetrical and two-way communication—are examined. Also included, is information re garding internal/employee communication, as the study focuses on the relationship between an organization and its internal/employee

PAGE 15

5 public. Symmetrical and two-way public relations models are introduced in the literature review to document effective rela tionship management techniques. Chapter Three provides the methodology used for this study. Chapter Four provides the results of this study, and Chapter Five offers a discussion of the results of the study.

PAGE 16

6 Chapter 2 Review of the Literature This chapter provides a review of literature important to the understanding of the relational perspectiv e and organization-public relationships. Public Relations “Research concerning relationship manageme nt falls into three categories: (a) models of the organization-public relationship, (b) relationship dimensions as indicators of relationship effects, and (c) applications of the relational perspective to various aspects of public relations practice” (Ledingham Bruning & Wilson, 1999, p. 168). This review of literature will concentrat e on the above-mentioned catego ries, and specifically, the practice of public relations as it re lates to relationship management. From a communication perspective, public relations is viewed as a dynamic process influenced by the situational inte raction of source, message, and receiver variables as shown in Figure 1 (Werder, 2003). Hazelton and Long (1988) define public relations as “a communication function of management through which organizations adapt to, alter or maintain their environm ent for the purpose of achieving organizational goals” (p. 81). Wilcox, Ault, Agee and Cameron (2000) note that, among the various definitions of public relations that have been posited, this definition best reflects today’s modern practice. “Their approach represen ts the somewhat newer theory that public

PAGE 17

7 relations is more that pers uasion. It should also foster open, two-way communication and mutual understanding with the idea that an organization also cha nges its attitudes and behaviors in the process—not just the target audience” (p.4). Figure 1 Communication Process The traditional view of public relations describes it as a communication activity, primarily press agentry. Public relations pract itioners were considered the “journalist in residence” or the “conscience” of the organization (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). Originally, the field centered on the pract ice of generating go od publicity for the organization. Edward Bernays, Arthur Page and Harwood Childs saw public relations as a way of balancing the interests of orga nization and their publics (Cutlip, 1994). According to J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig and Dozier (2002), public relations professionals aim to help organizations bu ild relationships with their publics, which include various stakeholders and groups. Pract itioners build relations hips by facilitating communication between subsystems of the orga nization and its publics, both internal and external. Ultimately, their goals include, managing relationships, shaping public opinion through communication, and resolving conflict. Wilson (1994) states that practitioners mu st always have a finger on the public pulse. Practitioners must be one step ahead of their publics, thus allowing them to predict future behavior. Building and maintaining excellent organizationpublic relationships Source Messa g e Receiver

PAGE 18

8 paves the way to motivate new behavior, reinforce existing positive behavior and modify negative behavior (Cen ter & Jackson, 1995). Relationships J. E. Grunig (1994) argued that practitio ners must be concerned not only with symbolic relationships between organizati ons and key publics, but also with the behavioral relationships that result. Currently, the fundamental goal of public relations is to build and then enhance on-going or long-term relationships with an organization’s key publics. Relationship is defined as the inte rdependence between two or more people, where the link can be economical, political, so cial or moral, in order to facilitate interaction between two part ies (Trenholm & Jensen, 1996). Effective public relations practice incl udes both process and outcome (J. E. Grunig & Hon, 1999). The term relationship best describes the desired outcome of public relations practice. Center and Jackson (1995) em phasized the central role of relationships in public relations management when they st ated that, “the proper term for the desired outcomes of public relations practice is publ ic relationships. An organization with effective public relations will attain positive public relationships” (p. 2). Some researchers argue that the resu lts or outcome of the behavior al relationships are far more important than the symbolic relationship that can exist between an organization and its publics. In recent research, it has been debate d whether corporations are ultimately responsible for the communities in which th ey operate. According to world-renowned economist, Milton Friedman, the social responsibility of a business is to “maximize its

PAGE 19

9 profits” (Wilson, 2001). The capitalist system, wh ich provides jobs, goods, and services in a free marketplace, is responsible for the tremendous growth and development of society and the comfort of our lives. Relations hips with other actors either directly or indirectly affect the profit-making status of a company. “Unhappy employees strike, unhappy communities withdraw tax breaks, un happy government agencies regulate, and unhappy consumers boycott—making it more diffi cult for the corporation to operate profitably” (Wilson, 2001, p. 522). The counterpoint is that being social ly responsible is actually in the best interest of the organization’s bottom line. Wilson (1994) states that public relations practitio ners are being expected to help an organization display an image of corporate social responsibility: Since …traditional strategic management principles with their over-emphasis on the short-term bottom line are failing to mediate those issues, management is turning to public relations to build rela tionships with the organization’s publics to solve the problems facing the organi zation’s community. (Wilson, 1994, p. 336) Corporations were first charted in the pub lic interest to meet a public need, to provide a public service. Seen as extensi ons of the government, corporations performed government—that is, state or public—busin ess (Estes, 1996). Jaworski concluded through research that, “relati onship is the organizing prin ciple of the universe” (1996, p. 184). The question then is not wh ether or not we have relationships in society, but instead what the qualities of those relationships are at any given time. Public relations counselors’ role are to ensure that th e organization recognizes and accepts its responsibility to engage in c ooperative action for the growth, benefit and improvement of

PAGE 20

10 the community. The corporation will come to realize that a community consist not only stockholders and investors, but also stakeholders with wh om relationships must be cultivated. Success can be measured in customer and employee satisfaction and the reduction or elimination of social problems. First, the corporation should establish a set of corporate values. Peters and Waterman (1982) found that in organizations with strong overriding corporate values truly governing policy and practice at all levels the corporate value set usually consisted of those core values held by the chief execu tive officer. Business has a complex relational role in a society made up of individuals as well as organizational units. Research has shown that loyalty toward an organizati on in a community is strengthened by the community members’ perceptions of the orga nization’s openness and its involvement and investment in, as well as its commitment to, the community (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). One must understand that organizations do not need relationships will all publics, but they do need to prioriti ze their publics. Organizations should properly scan their environments to determine their most strategic publics and place them in ranking order. Then organizations can determine the most effective methods for maintaining these strategic relationships (J. E. Grunig & Hon, 1999). Bruning and Ledingham (2000) questioned the influence that organization-public professional, personal, and community relati onships have on key me mbers’ satisfaction. They found respondents’ percepti on of three independent vari ables combine to influence key public member evaluations of satisfacti on with an organization. Whichever type of

PAGE 21

11 organization-public relationship (OPR) that exists, developing mutually beneficial relationship building initiatives will help m ove public relations pr actice away from the traditional journalistic approach to a more strategic management style. Effective relationships help an organization maintain key constituencies and save money by reducing the cost of litigation, regul ation, legislation, pressure campaigns, or lost revenue that results from bad relationships. They also cultivate relationships with donors, stakeholders and legisl ators, thus increasing revenue and increasing user buy-in (J. E. Grunig & Hon, 1999). J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig and Dozier (2002) show that the value of public relations come s from the relationships that communicators develop and maintain with publics. The researchers show that reputation is a pr oduct of relationships and employees largely contribu te to an organization’s re putation. Effective internal relationships will make employees more likely to support and less likely to interfere with the mission of the organization (J. E. Grunig & Hon, 1999). Therefore, internal relationships are one of the most im portant to measure (Lindenmann, 1998). Internal Publics Relationships Public relations makes an organization more effective when it identifies the most strategic publics as part of strategic management proce sses and conducts communication programs to develop and maintain effective long-term relationships between management and those publics (J. E. Grunig & Hon, 1999, p.9). Ledingham and Bruning (2000) state, “to be effective and sustaining, relationships need to be seen as mutually beneficial, based on mutual interest between an organi zation and its significant publics” and “the key to managing successful relationships is to understand what must be done in order to

PAGE 22

12 initiate, develop, and maintain that rela tionship” (pp. 85-86). E ffective relationship management can engender loyalty toward the organization on the part of public members (Bruning & Ledingham, 1998). Ratings of th e OPR by public members have been found to serve as a predictor of an indicator of loyalty toward an organization (Ledingham & Bruning, 1997). Organization or internal / employee public relationships are all too often forgotten when doing a strategic scan of the environm ent. Public relations management must concern themselves with internal as well as external relationships. Employees are the core of the organization and as such determin e the success or failure of the entity. They are the first and most important public for a ny organization to mainta in relationships and communication with (Center & Jackson, 1994). Howard (1998) states the followi ng concerning the goal of internal communications: Remember, though, that the goal is not communications for the sake of communications. Rather, it’s communications as a tool to help achieve your business goals – and these days, in many organizations, culturally change goals. After all, changing behavior, or pres erving the behavior you want, is what employee communication is all about (p. 16). Informed employees are typically more committed to, satisfied with, and place higher trust in their organizations. Informed employees help an organization develop its goals, sustain its values and achieve consensus with its strategic constituencies (J. E.

PAGE 23

13 Grunig, 1992; Kazoleas & Wright, 2001). Schol arly research largely focuses on the importance of maintaining organizati on / internal public relationships. Stroh (2002) attempted to clarify the growing importance of organization-public relationship management during organizationa l change. The author hypothesized that a positive relationship between an organization an d its internal public will lead to greater communication effects and a greater willingness to change. The study found that high participatory communication leads to significan tly more control mutuality, trust, higher commitment, and more satisfaction between an organization and its employees. Overall, the attitudes and loyalty of employees are di rectly influenced by their participation in communication efforts, which in turn directly influences customer care and eventually leads to growth of the bottom line. In addition, building strong relationships and communication programs with employees prev ents them from becoming anxious and frustrated, and promotes buy-in to the co mpany and its mission (Kazoleas & Wright, 2001). Building strong relationshi ps involves creating a two-wa y symmetrical system of communication. Symmetrical and Two-Way Communication The excellence theory states that organi zations should have a symmetrical system of internal communication. However, most organizations do not because authoritarian dominant coalitions see the approach as a thr eat to its regime (J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig & Dozier, 2002) Excellence theory findings illustrate that symme trical and two-way communication models are the most important and typically the most successful methods for an organization to implement when attemp ting to build long-term relationships with

PAGE 24

14 employees (J. E. Grunig, 1992). J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) posit that these programs are more ethical and they pr omote more long-term relationships better than any other model. Two-way symmetrical m odels attempt to balance the interests of the organization and its publics. Symmetrical practice yields mixed motiv es, where loyalty is shown to both the organization and its publics. Symmetrical pr actices build open, trusting, and credible relationships with strategic employee publics. It also increases employee satisfaction with their individual jobs and th e organization, which leads to greater employee loyalty and identity to the organization. Organizations that communicate eff ectively with publics develop better relationships because mana gement and publics understand one another and because both are less likely to behave in ways that have negative consequences on the interests of the other. Hence, the relationship management pe rspective posits that a strong public relations program yields better organization-public relationships. Relational Perspective The relationship management, or relational, perspective holds th at public relations is “the management function that estab lishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (Cutlip, Center & Broom, 1994, p. 2). In 2003, Ledingham articulated and explicated the theory of relationship management as, “Effectively managing organizational-public relations hips around common interests a nd shared goals, over time, results in mutual understanding and benefit fo r interacting organiza tions and publics” (p. 190). Public relations balan ces the interests of organi zations and publics through the

PAGE 25

15 management of organization-public relati onships (Ledingham, 2003). The relationship paradigm provides a framework in which to explore the linkage be tween public relations objectives and organizational goals, for constr ucting platforms for st rategic planning and tactical implementation, and approaching pr ogrammatic evaluation in ways understood and appreciated by the ruling management group or dominant coalition (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). Typically, success is measured when an organization achieves its missions and goals. Effective organizations achieve their goa ls when they choose goa ls that are valued by both management and by strategic intern al and external publics. By doing so, organizations minimize their publics’ interfer ence and maximize their publics’ support (Hunt & J. E. Grunig, 1994). The relational perspective is said to define the organizational function of public relations, clar ify the role of communication within that function, and provide a process for determini ng the contribution of public relations to attainment of organizational goals (Ledingham & Bruning, 1997, 1998, 2000; Ledingham, 2003). Ferguson (1984) was the first advocate of the relational paradi gm in her call for researchers to implement interpersonal communication in public relations research. Ferguson recognized the central ro le of relationships in public relations. This gave rise to a major shift in the core focus of the di scipline (Ledingham, 2003). Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1987) advanced the perspective with a relational definition and the relational perspective emerged as an area for explora tion for public relations scholars. Broom and Dozier (1990) suggested a co-orientationa l approach to measure organization-public

PAGE 26

16 relationships, rather than communication effi ciencies, as a function of public relations evaluation. J. E. Grunig (1992) noted the im portance of building relationships with publics that constrain, or enhance the ability of the organization to meet its mission. Ehling (1992) shifted the focu s from public opinion manipul ation toward a relationshipcentered approach. This substa ntial body of scholarship s uggests the importance of relationship management as a general theory of public relations. “T he notion of managing organization-public relationshi ps introduced managerial concepts and process to the practice of public re lations” (Ledingham, 2003, p. 182). Pub lic relations managers were now called to be proficient in the four-step management pr ocess of analysis, planning, implementation, and evaluation, like their corporate coworkers. Dozier (1995) called for the use of co mmunication as “a strategic management function (that helps) manage relationships with key publics that affect organizational mission, goals, and objectives” (p. 85). Broom Casey, and Ritchey (1997) constructed a model for developing theory around the notion of relationship management. Central to that model is recognition of the need to iden tify the antecedents, states, and consequences of organization-public re lationships (OPR). The literature of organization-public relationships draw on a variety of disciplines, including interpersonal co mmunication and relationship building, organizational behavior, marketing, social psychology, to name a few. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) approached the study of orga nization-public relations hips by identifying dimensions of organization-public rela tionships and by applying the relational perspective to issues such as consumer satisfaction, competitive choice, and media

PAGE 27

17 relations (1998). Wilson (1994) focused on th e relationship between corporations and community within the social re sponsibility perspective. In the interpersonal comm unication literature, Duck (1986) suggested the term relationship not be definable in ways agreeab le to empirical observation, “Relationships should be regarded not as permanent things that we investigat e clinically, but as potentially changing mental and behavior creatio ns of participants and outsiders” (p. 92). Capella (1991) suggested that understandi ng relationships requi res studying “the association between patterns of message inte rchange between partne rs and the partners’ experienced state of the rela tionship” (p. 103). Ballinger (1991) developed a model of public-organizational relationships. “The relational dimensions of Millers and Rogers (1987), intimacy, trust, and control, were t hus integrated into a preliminary relational model of public-organiz ational relationships which also includes the dimensions of perceptions, communication behavior, and relational outcomes” (p. 75). The dominant paradigm for studying interorg anizational re lationships draws from resource dependence theory and exchange theory (Broom, Casey & Ritchey, 2000). According to resource dependence theory, relationships form in response to an organization’s need for resources. Satisfy ing the need for resources allows an organization to survive, to grow, and to achieve other goals. Exchange theory suggests the voluntary transactions resu lt from knowledge of domain si milarity and lead to mutual benefit, as well as to mutual goal ach ievement (Broom, Casey & Ritchey, 2000). Most of the scholarship in the area of relationship management exhibits an appreciation for systems theory approach as an overarching cons truct. Katz and Kahn

PAGE 28

18 (1967) described systems theory as “basically concerned with problems of relationships, of structure, and of interdepe ndence rather than with the cons tant attributes of objects” (p. 18). Miller (1978) defined a system as “a set of interacting units with relationships among them” (p. 16). The structure of a system is defined by the relationship among the units. System theorists base their definition of sy stems on the central notion of interdependence of elements. Relationships reflect the conjoi nt, purposive behaviors of the actors in the relationships. Antecedents to relationships include the perceptions, motives, needs, behaviors and so forth, posited as causes in the formation of relationships. In the open systems model of public relations, antecedents are the sources of change, pressure, or tension on the system derived from the e nvironment (Broom, Casey & Ritchey, 2000). The consequences of relationships are the out puts that have the effects of changing the environment and of achieving, maintaining, or changing goal states both inside and outside the organization (Cutlip et al., 1994, p. 213). Figure 2 shows an open systems view of an organization as con ceptualized by Hatch (1997, p. 38). Figure 2 An Open Systems View of the Organization According to Hazelton and Long, the public relations process consists of “(1) input from the environment (exogenous input) to the system, (2) tr ansformation of inputs into communication goals, objectives, and cam paigns, and (3) output, in the form of Organization Inputs Outputs Transformation Processes

PAGE 29

19 messages, to the target audiences located in internal and external environments. Target audiences reactions to public relations messages provide s timuli or further input for organizational maintenance or adaption, refineme nt of the public re lations process, and alteration of the environment in which th e organization exists” (1988, p. 80). Hazelton and Long’s public relations pr ocess model describes public relations as goal-driven communications strategies used by organizations to interact with target publics existing in their environment. The relational perspective, which views public relations as the management of organization-public relationships (OPRs), has developed into a prominent area of public relations scholarship. The notion of rela tionship management brings with it the opportunity for theory-building and cross-di scipline integrati on. Broom, Casey and Ritchey (2000) attempted to define organization-public relationships: Organization-public relationships are repr esented by the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchanges, and linkage be tween an organizati on and its publics. These relationships have properties that are distinct from the identities, attributes, and perceptions of the indi viduals and social collectiv ities in the relationships. Though dynamic in nature, organization-public relationships can be described at a single point in time and tr acked over time. (p. 18) The authors conclude from their study th at conceptualizing organization-public relationships as observable phenomena distinct from their antecedents and consequences, and independent of the parties in the relations hip, provides a useful paradigm for research and theory building.

PAGE 30

20 A relationship development rationale for public relations can justify a revenue enhancement paradigm, but probably more indirectly than is assumed by many practitioners who devote atte ntion to media relations, publicity, and promotion. The relationship management literature ma y include the following terminology: “relationships, shared control, trust, social capital, shared meaning, argumentativeness, listening, openness, mutually beneficial rela tionships, multiple publics (stakeholders and stakeseekers), epistemological issues of fact, axiological issues of value, ontological issues of choice-based actions, chaos in place of linearity, cognitive involvement, legitimacy gap, problem recognition, constrai nt, power, and collaborative decisionmaking” (Heath, 2001, p. 2-3). The new view of public relations assumes th at publics are attracted to and kept by organizations that can create mutually bene ficial relationships. Centering attention on publics as the basis for stake holder relations and the use of systems theory to offer solutions to the problems that organizations cr eate for their publics, researchers seek to empower the publics who want to influence the actions, statements, and policies of organizations. This requires a high-quali ty communication process—more symmetrical than asymmetrical. To achieve harmony an or ganization may constan tly adapt itself to the ethical preferences of its publics. Public relations is a professional practice that helps organizations and publics to understand each other’s interests. A rhetorical foundation for public relations can explain how statements count in the dialogue by which individual and collectiv e ideas are formed. Ethical standards are

PAGE 31

21 determined as the most admired by the community of interest, defined by dialogue with other members of their community. A rhetorical rationale for public relations reasons that the limit of one ethical perspective is the presence of a more co mpelling one. The limits of the accuracy of one set of facts is the presence of a more compelling set. The limits of commercial and public policy is the presen ce of a more compelling policy. Thus, rhetoric is dialogic. Ideas and ethical positions are not privileged. Manipulation cannot sustain itself because others w ill disclose and vilify the manipulator. Selfish interests cannot prevail because a dvocates will persuasively advance their countervailing interest s. (Heath, 2001, p. 4) This thought presumes that ideas are bette r for having been deliberated. Rhetorical enactment theory reasons that all of what on or ganization does and says is a statement. It is a statement that is interpreted uni quely by each market, audience, and public. “Corporations must recognize th at the greatest stakeholde r—the ultimate environmental constituency—is society itself, to which such corporations are ultimately and irrefutably answerable” (Stark & Kruckeberg, 2001, p. 59). It is the role of the public relations practitioners to learn how to communicate with, rather than to, their publics. Leichty and Warner (2001) reason that th e thoughts of society break into cultural topoi. Topoi is a concept that was used by clas sical rhetoricians to express the collective and embracing thoughts that lead people to draw one set of conclusions as opposed to another. Simply stated, people arrive at diffe rent conclusions because they subscribe to different cultural topoi. Cultural topoi ar e zones of meaning. One of the daunting

PAGE 32

22 challenges of public relations practitioners is to find points of agreement and to work toward consensus by increasing agreement a nd reducing disagreement. This approach reasons that organizations are in dialogue with their publics. This dialogue consists of a complex set of arguments that people – indi vidually or collectiv ely – use to achieve social capital. Social capital increases when organizations and people work to add value to society rather than expecti ng society to conform to their na rrow self-interest. Society is stronger when individual interests are melded in to community interests. “The ideology of sound collectivism, communitarianism, reas ons that society becomes stronger when individuals and organizations shoulder the responsibility of blending their visions to define the ends of society” (Heath, 2002, p. 6). “Community is seen as necessary to the development of the individual” (Leeper, 2001, p. 97). Thus, public relations is challenged to define itself as a professional practice that stresses “commitment to and the quality of relationships, a sens e of social cohesion, the importance of core values and beliefs, ba lancing rights and res ponsibilities, citizen empowerment and a broadening of perspective so as to reduce social fragmentation” (p. 99). Coombs (2001) reasons “excellence suggests that communication helps the organization not only to understa nd but also to negotiate ex pectations” (p.112). Thus, the dominant model of public relations based on interpersonal communica tion theory sees the practice as chat, conversati on, and accommodation to build mutual benefit between the both parties. Publics influence the practi ce of public relations. Developing a publiccentered view of the practice ra ther than looking essentially at organizations and taking

PAGE 33

23 an organization-centered view of the practi ce can enrich theory and practice of the discipline. The goal is for organizations to comm unicate well with their publics to ensure each side knows what to expect from the ot her. This builds relationships and perhaps lessens the negative affect a public can ha ve on an organization’s missions and goals. Each side does not always have to agree or get along, as long as they have understanding. Ultimately, communication and compromise ar e the foundation of pub lic relations (Hunt & J. E. Grunig, 1994). Lindenmann (1998) quot es Kathleen Ward stating, “Positive relationships are those in which both or all parties perceive th at they benefit. As in any relationship some accommodations will be called for” (p.19). Scholars posit that relatio nship building is recipro cal between two parties. Relationship building is a new concept to contemporary scholars and practitioners because today’s publics are more active and inte ractive than ever before. For this reason, many scholars have shifted th eir research from measur ing communication flows to examining and understanding the va riables that influence orga nization-public relationship building and maintenance (Bruning, 2002). Relationship Measurement It was not until recently that the need fo r long-term relationship measurement has become vital for public relations. Scholars a nd practitioners wish to answer the question, “How can public relations pr actitioners begin to pinpoint and document for senior management the overall value of public relati ons to the organization as a whole?” Public relations is increasingly be ing evaluated on how it aff ects the bottom-line of an

PAGE 34

24 organization. For the discipline to receive recognition and respect w ithin an organization, it must contribute to financial outcomes. J. E. Grunig, and Hon (1999) have developed the Public Relations Relati onship Measurement Scale to ensure an effective determination of the value of public relations to an organization and ultimately society. Bruning and Ledingham (1999) developed the Multiple-item Relationship Scale that measures personal, professional and community relationships. This scale provides a basis for linking those relationship types to pub lic behavior. The multiple-item organizationpublic relationship (OPR) measurement scale is used for determining relationship quality and organization-public agreement (B runing & Ledingham, 1999). Measuring relationships is important because public rela tions practitioners and scholars believe that the fundamental goal of the practice is to build and then enhan ce ongoing or long-term relationships with an or ganization’s key publics. L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, and Ehling ( 1992) developed a general premise of how public relations contributes to organizational effectiveness, which they then used to integrate several subtheories of public relations. They conc luded that public relations contributes to organizational effectiveness “…when it helps reconcile the organization’s goals with the expectations of its strategic constituents. Th is contribution has monetary value to the organization. Public relations c ontributes to effectiven ess by building quality, long-term relationships with strategic c onstituencies” (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000, p. 24). In the Excellence Study conducted by L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier (1995), research showed that excellent public relati ons programs were much more likely to have “change of relationship effects” and “conflict avoidance effects” than were less excellent

PAGE 35

25 programs (pp. 226-229). Most CEO’s valued pub lic relations programs when it develops good relationships with strategi c publics – relationships that in particular, helped the organization withstand crisis (pp. 230-235). Short-term output and outcome measuremen t has been applied for years. Outputs are usually the immediate results of a public relations program, event or campaign. This measures how much attention or exposure the organization receives. Outcomes measure whether the target audience received, pa id attention, understood and retained the messages. They also measure whether th e communications materials and messages resulted in opinion, attitude or behavior cha nge on part of those targeted publics. The main disadvantage with outputs and outcomes is that they only give information about the effectiveness of a particular or speci fic public relations program or event. Public relations has begun to demonstr ate their effectiveness through program evaluation. Evaluation can be completed by measuring both process and outcome indicators. Process indicators include, the num ber of press clippings, content analysis or the number in attendance at an event. Ou tcome measurement is a more arduous task. Lindenmann (1997) notes, As important as it might be to measure PR outputs, it is far more important to measure PR outcomes. These measure whet her target audience groups actually received the messages directed at th em…paid attention to them…understood the messages…and retained these messages in any shape and form. Outcomes also measure whether the communication ma terials and messages, which were

PAGE 36

26 disseminated, have resulted in any opini on, attitude, and/or behavior changes on the part of those targeted audiences to whom the messages were directed. (p. 5) The communication’s processes should be measured as two-way, by looking for effects on the audience as well as on manage ment. The coorientation model developed by McLeod and Chaffee (1973) was adapted by Br oom (1977) and J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) for public relations st udy. The two-way relationship va riables developed by J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) include: communication (extent of dialogue or mutual exposure), understanding (shared cognitions), agreemen t (shared attitudes), and complementary behavior (p. 134). The coorientat ion approach is useful is measuring short-term effects. In order to measure long term relationshi ps, which senior management demands, a separate conceptualization is necessary. Ferguson (1984) iden tified five attributes of relationships: dynamic versus static; open ve rsus closed; the degree to which both the organization and the public are satisfied with th e relationship; distribut ion of power in the relationship; and the mutuality of understand ing, agreement and consensus. J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig and Ehling (1992) concluded the fo llowing attributes as the most important in measuring the quality of long-term relations hips: “reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy, openness, mutual satisfaction and mutual understanding” (p. 83). Huang (1997) suggested that trust, control mutua lity, relationship commitment, and relational satisfaction are the most essential and pert inent indicators representing the quality of organization-public relationships An organization may be most successful to “the degree that the organization and public s trust one another, agree on who has rightful power to

PAGE 37

27 influence, experience satisfaction with each other, and commit oneself to one another” (Canary & Spitzberg, 1984, pp. 633-634). In 2001, Huang developed a cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring the organization-public relationships, called the Organization-Public Relationship Assessment (OPRA). The scale was de veloped to fulfill the standards of reliability and validity in measurement but also to acquire cross-cultural comparability. A positive OPR has been demonstrated as one of the majo r contributions of p ublic relations to organizational effectiveness. J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig, and Dozier (1995) concluded that public relations increases organizationa l effectiveness when it builds a “long-term relationship of trust and understanding” (p.5). Having identified OPR and conflict resolution as two new variables of public relations effects (Huang, 1997), Huang (1998) explored successfully the cau sal relationships between public relations strategies and OPR. Huang (1999) demonstrated that relati onships were key variables mediating the effect of an organization’s public relations strategies on resolving the conflicts between the organization and its publics. Bruning and Ledingham (1999) defined OPR as the “state which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impacts the economic, social, political, and/or cultural we ll-being of the other entity. Huang (1997) defined OPR from two basic assumptions: Re lationships consist of more than one fundamental feature, and four relational features represent the construct of OPR. Huang (1998) defined OPR as “the degree that the or ganization and its publics trust one another,

PAGE 38

28 agree on one has rightful power to influence, experience sati sfaction with each other, and commit oneself to one another” (p. 12). J. E. Grunig, L. E. Grunig, and Dozier (1995) concluded that public relations increases organization effectiveness when it builds a “long-term rela tionship of trust and understanding” (p. 5). Huang (1999) found th at relationships were key variables mediating the effect of an organization’s public relations strategies on resolving the conflicts between the organizations and its publics. Bruning and Ledingham (1999) defined OPR as the “state that exists be tween an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact th e economic, social, political and/or cultural well-being of the other entity (p.160). Huang ( 1998) defined OPR as “t he degree that the organization and its publics trust one anot her, agree on who has rightful power to influence, experience satisfaction with each other and commit oneself to one another” (p.12). The process of developing and maintaining relationships with st rategic publics is a crucial component of st rategic management, issues management, and crisis management. Porter (1994) found that orga nizations generally make better decisions when they listen to and collaborate with st akeholders before they make final decisions rather than simply trying to persuade them to accept organizational goals after decisions are made. Public relations makes an organiza tion more effective when it identifies the most strategic publics as part of strate gic management processes and conducts communication programs to develop and main tain effective long-term relationships between management and those publics (J E. Grunig & Hon, 1999, p.9). Ledingham and

PAGE 39

29 Bruning (2000) conclude, “to be effective and su staining, relationships need to be seen as mutually beneficial, based on mutual interest between an organization and its significant publics” and “the key to managi ng successful relationships is to understand what must be done in order to initiate, deve lop and maintain that relati onship.” Effective relationship management can engender loyalty toward the organization on the part of public members (Bruning & Ledingham, 1998). Ratings of th e OPR by public members have been found to serve as a predictor of an indicator of loyalty toward an organization (Ledingham & Bruning, 1997). In the Excellence Study conducted by L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) the results highlighted the importa nce of a public relations department participation in strategic deci sion-making processes of an orga nization. This is in order to reach maximum organizational effectiveness. The data revealed when public relations was optimal as first, when it identifies the strategic publics that develop because of the consequences that organizations and publics have on each other and second, when it uses symmetrical communication programs to de velop and maintain quality long-term relationships with these strategic publics. (p. 548) Ferguson’s (1984) suggestion, and subsequent ly, Broom, Casey, and Ritchey’s (1997) call that the central concept of public relati ons be relationship be tween an organization and its publics, is a concept that played a large part in the conceptualization of the Excellence Study. Broom et al. (2000) develo ped a three-stage model of relationship management, which included antecedents of re lationships, concepts of relationships, and outcomes of relationships. J. Grunig and Hua ng (2000) used that model as a springboard

PAGE 40

30 to develop a similar three-stage model of th e public relations proce ss that incorporated strategic management of public relations, the models of public relations, and relationship outcomes into a single theory. The first st age consisted of envi ronmental scanning to identify the strategic public s with which an organization needs relationships. The second stage incorporated the models of public relations into a se t of communication strategies for developing and maintaining relationships w ith these publics. The third stage consisted of a set of relationship outcomes that could be used to assess the quality of organizationpublic relationships and, as a result, the contribution of public relations makes to organizational effectiveness (p. 549). “The public relations program consists of public relations goals, characteristics of solutions, audience analysis, public relations strategies and practical modes of action” (Page, 2000b). Environmental scanning is a re search technique that can identify the publics with which an organiza tion needs relationships and th e problems or issues that exist or might exist. A public relations staff could then formulate objectives for programs to communicate with these strategic publics. Since the value of pub lic relations to an organization and society exists in the rela tionships developed with strategic publics, objectives should consist of stra tegies to develop, maintain and enhance relationships and the relationship outcomes that the organization strives to ach ieve with these strategies. Strategies to develop and main tain relationships can be spec ified as process objectives for public relations programs. Relationship outcome s can be specified as outcome objectives. One must recognize that not al l public relations strategies techniques and programs are equally likely to produce quality relationshi p outcomes. The Excellence Study has shown

PAGE 41

31 that maintenance strategies that are symmetri cal in nature generally are more effective than asymmetrical strategies (p. 550). By incorporating theories of conflict re solution and interpersonal communication into maintenance strategies for organiza tion-public relationships, new theories and models of public relations can be built. Plowman (1996) and Huang (1997) conducted the first research using these literatures to expand theories of public relations strategies. The dialectical/dialogical approach to relati onships, developed by Ba xter and Montgomery (1996), recognizes the essential te nsion in all relationships – of wanting to be together and, at the same time, desiring autonomy. “Symmetrical communi cation does not move relationships inexorably to consensus, equili brium or harmony. Rather, it is the give-andtake of persuasion and collaboration that orga nizations and publics use when they must interact with each other. Although both might prefer autonomy, they cannot have it because their actions have consequences on the other. Thus, they struggle to pursue their self-interest while simultaneously taking the in terests of the other in to account” (p. 551). Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) developed a preliminary list of such maintenance strategies derived from Plowman’s and Huang’s research and from other academic studies of relationship and conflict resolution. Access Members of public or community or ac tivist leaders provide access to public relations people. Public re lations representatives or senior managers provide representatives of publics si milar access to organizationa l decision-making processes. Disclosure or openness Both organizations and members of public are open and

PAGE 42

32 frank with each other. They are willing to disclose their thoughts, concerns and problems as well as their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each other. Assurance or legitimacy Each party in the relationship attempts to assure the other that it and its concerns are legitimate a nd to demonstrate that it is committed to maintaining the relationship. Networking Organizations build networks or co alitions with the same groups that their publics do, such as environmenta lists, unions or community groups. Sharing of tasks Organizations and publics share in solving joint or separate problems. Examples of such tasks are managing community issues, providing employment, conducting high-quality research and maintaining f unding. These are in the interest of the organiza tion, the public or both. Integrative strategies of conflict resolution These approaches are symmetrical because all parties in a relationshi p benefit by searching out common or complementary interests and solving probl ems together through open discussion and joint decision-making. The goal is a win-win solution that values the integrity of a long-term relationship between an organizati on and its publics. Inte grative strategies are more effective than distributive strategies, which are asymmetrical because one party benefits at the expense of anothe r by seeking to maximize goals and minimize losses within a win-lose or self-gain perspe ctive. Distributive tactics include trying to control through domination, argument, insist ence on a position, or showing anger. Other forcing strategies are faulting the other party, hostile questioning, presumptive

PAGE 43

33 attribution, demands or threat s. Distributive strategies im pose one’s position onto that of an adversary without concer n for the adversary’s position. Organizations that communicate effectively with publics develop be tter relationships because management and publics understand one another and because both are less likely to behave in ways that have negative consequences on the inte rests of the other. As a way to measure relationships as they develop a nd are maintained rather than waiting to observe the behaviors that ma y or may not occur as a resu lt of communications programs, J. E. Grunig and Hon developed the Public Relations Relationship Measurement Scale J. E. Grunig and Hon (1999) found that relations hips could best be measured by focusing on six particular elements or components. They are exchange relationship and communal relationship, control mutuality, trus t, satisfaction and commitment. There are two primary types of relationships that may exist between an organization and the public – exchange and communal. Exchange Relationship In an exchange relationship, both parties gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided bene fits in the past or is expected to do so in the futures. Communal Relationship In a communal relationship, both parties provide benefits to the other because they are concerned for th e welfare of the other – even when they get nothing in return. For most publ ic relations activities, deve loping communal relationships with key constituencies is much more impor tant to achieve than developing exchange relationships.

PAGE 44

34 An exchange relationship takes place when “one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future” (J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig & Dozi er, 2002, p. 552). Typical ly this type of relationship is not satisfying enough for publics because they expect an organization to do and give more than the public itself gives. Clark and Mills (1993) point out that most relationships begin as exchange relati onships and then develop into communal relationships as they mature. The communa l relationship appears to be the most beneficial, especially for the organization, since both the public a nd the organization are striving for the same goal and will provide benefits when appropriate, without keeping score. J. E. Grunig and Hon (1999) reveal that communal re lationships are important if organizations are socially responsible and to add value to society as well as to other organizations. They also greatly reduce the likelihood of negative behaviors from stakeholders. Exchange relations hips never develop the same le vels of trust and the other three relationship indicators th at go with communal relationshi ps. It is important to know how organizational decision-makers see the relationship as well as how the publics see the organization. As exchange and communal define types of relationships, it is equally important to interpret the quality of relationships. Four elements define the quality of relationships: control mutuality, trust, commitment and sa tisfaction (J. E. Grunig & Hon, 1999, p.3; J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig & Dozier, 2002, p. 553).

PAGE 45

35 Control Mutuality is the degree to which partie s agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another. Although some imbalance is natural, stable relationships require that organizations and publics each have some control over the other. Trust is one party’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party. There are three dimensions to trust: (1) integrity : the belief that an organization is fair and just; (2) dependability : the belief that an organization will do what it says it will do; (3) competence : the belief that an organi zation has the ability to do what it says it will do. Satisfaction is the extent to which each party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced. A satisfying relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs. Commitment is the extent to which each party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to ma intain and promote. Two dimensions of commitment are continuance commitment, which refers to a certain line of action, and affective commitment, which is an emotional orientation. These variables can be measured quant itatively using J. E. Grunig and Hon’s Public Relations Relatio nship Measurement Scale or qualitatively using parameters designed for focused interview-type met hodologies (Lindenmann, 1997; J. E. Grunig, 2002). The current study applie s quantitative measures. Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, and Lesko (19 97) suggested that the concepts of openness, trust, involvement, investment a nd commitment act as dimensions of the organization-public relationship. Their rese arch suggests a role for communication

PAGE 46

36 initiatives within the framework of relati onship 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 pr ocess, their importance eventually may rest upon their ability to impact the achievement of relations hip objectives. (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998c). These dimensions were also found to infl uence perceptions of satisfaction with the organization by public members, influen ce perceptions of satisfaction with the organization for business owners, managers or both (Bruning & Ledingham, 1998a) and may be more influential that price or product features in predicting consumer behavior (Bruning & Ledingham, 1998). The amount of time in a relationship was also found to be an important perception influencer of the relationship dimensions (Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1998). The authors’ research re garding media and community relations suggests the importance of building and main taining relationships in that context (Ledingham & Bruning, 1997, Bruni ng & Ledingham 1998a, 1998b). The notion that managed communication pr ograms can influence perceptions of the organization-public relati onship and can impact the behavior of public members supports the hypothesis concerning the strategi c role communication plays within the relational perspective to help achieve rela tionship goals. When an organization engages in action and communication that facilitates a sense of ope nness, trust, commitment and investment it builds the symbolic and behavioral relationships with key publics that J. E. Grunig (1993) contends are critical to effective orga nizations (Ledingham & Bruning,

PAGE 47

37 2000). Research implies that there are economic as well as corporate social responsibility reasons for organizations to practice two-wa y symmetrical public relations. The mutual benefit obtained when an organization emphasi zes building and mainta ining relationships indicates that practicing public relations this way can result in benefit for publics (through organizational support for community activities) and for the organization (in increased loyalty toward the organizatio n). As Ledingham and Bruning (1998) observed “organizational…support of th e community in which it ope rates can engender loyalty toward an organization among key publics wh en that (support) is known by those key publics (p. 63). The researchers also stated “ public relations is a two-step process, in which organizations must (1) focus on the re lationships with their key publics, and (2) communicate involvement of those activities/p rograms that build th e organization-public relationship with members of their ke y publics (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, p. 63). Goal Compatibility Literature shows that effective organi zations are able to achieve their goals because they choose goals that are valued both by management and by strategic constituencies both inside and outside th e organization (J. E. Grunig and Hon, 2002). Effective organizations choose and achieve appropriate goals because they develop relationships with their publics. Publics ar e defined as a group of persons sharing some characteristics or set of attributes (Heath, 2001). Research indicates that goal compatibility is an attribute of publics that influences the public relations behavior of organizations (Page, 2000a). Goal compatibility is the extent to which the goals or objectives of one party are similar to and coincide with the

PAGE 48

38 goals and objectives of a nother party (Page & Hazelton, 1999). According to Page (2000a), as a construct, goal compatibility is essentially comprised of two general concepts: compatibility and goa ls. According to Ickes (1985) compatible relationships are ones in which members of the relations hip get along with each other. Conversely, incompatible relationships are ones in which the members do not get along with each other. Ickes explained the underlying co mplexity in these seemingly simplistic distinctions by stating that if a relationship is compatible, it is because its members are congruous (they mesh or fit together), accordant (they are in harmony or in sync with each other), or agreeing (they share common attit udes, goals and feelings). However, if a relationship is incompatible, it is because its members are incongruous (they do not mesh or fit together), discordant (they are out of harmony or out of sync with each other), or disagreeing (they do not share common attitudes, goals, feeli ngs, etc.). Furthermore, a compatible relationship suggests that member s make an active, in tentional attempt to understand and accommodate each other and ha ve a mutual willingness to share and suffer together. Thus, the foundation of compatib le relationships stems, in part, from the similarity of goals between parties. It next becomes necessary to identify variables that characterize goals and determin e how these variables relate to compatibility between two parties. Goal compatibility can be conceptualized as an attribute of publics that represent the degree to which members of a public perceive their goals to be similar to and coincide with the goals of an organizat ion. Page argued that if member s of a public perceive that an organization’s goals are similar to thei r own, they will likely be more receptive to

PAGE 49

39 messages output from the organization. Convers ely, a public will resist messages if its goals are not aligned with those of the organization (Page & Hazelton, 1999; Page, 2000a, 2000b). Furthermore, if an organizati on and its publics hold, or perceive they hold, incompatible goals, each may block the other from goal attainment (Vasquez, 1996). According to Page (2000b), goal compatibili ty has been identifi ed as an attribute of publics that has a significan t effect on public relations st rategy use and effectiveness. In addition, the findings of Page and Haze lton’s (1999) research indicate that goal compatibility is a significant predictor of effectiveness for the informative, facilitative, persuasive, promise and reward, threat a nd punishment, and cooperative problem-solving strategies. Hypotheses and Research Question The review of literature has revealed that in order to be effective and sustaining, relationships need to be seen as mutually be neficial, based on mutual interest between an organization and its significant publics. The ke y to managing successful relationships is to understand what must be done in order to initiate, develop, and maintain that relationship (Ledingham, 2001). The cumulative e ffect of this scholarship has been to establish the concept of relationship management as a useful and fruitful perspective for public relations study and edu cation. The relationship management approach is the theoretical framework for this research. As relationship building is a general paradigm for the study and practice of public relations, the Public Relations Relationship Measurement Scale developed by J. E. Grunig and Hon (1999) serves as the basis for measuring the relationship between an

PAGE 50

40 organization and its publics. This study focuse s on relationships; specifically it measures the internal relationship between the administ ration of a large public university in the southeastern United States and its primar y public— the faculty. The faculty members included in this study includes assistant, associ ate and full professors, as well as full time, part time and adjunct instructors at all four cam puses of the universit y. In order to assess the overall relationship quality, the researcher will measure faculty perceptions of the quality and type of relationship with the or ganization. The definition of relationship for the purpose of this study is the perception of a mutually beneficial relationship as defined by six relationship indicators that have been tested previously. Sp ecifically, this study seeks to replicate and extend previous relatio nal research by examining how the variables of trust, commitment, control mutuality, and satisfaction are related to the quality of relationships in organizations. In addi tion, the communal and exchange types of relationships will aide in the process of examination. Furtherm ore, this thesis posits an additional indicator of relati onship quality – goal compatibility. Goal compatibility is a unique addition to previous research and pr omises to add an original and innovative element to the relational perspective. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1 : Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality are indicators of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. H2 : Goal compatibility is an indicator of relationship quality between an organization and its publics.

PAGE 51

41 In addition, this study applie s the relational theo ry of public relations to a real world situation. Therefore, the follo wing research question is proposed: RQ1 : How do faculty employees at a large, Research I university perceive their relationship with the admini stration in terms of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compatibility, w ith regards to the issue of salary, and what type of relationship—communal or exchange—does the organization and its public have? The researcher chose the four campuses of the University of South Florida, Tampa, Fla., as the research site. The institution is in a unique position; currently, the school ranks lowest in academic pay in the state of Florida. Chapter 3 will review the methodology of the study, including the methods, procedures, respondents, instrume ntation, and data analysis.

PAGE 52

42 Chapter 3 Methods and Procedures This chapter outlines the methods and procedures that were used in gathering and analyzing data for this study. It describes th e respondents selected fo r this research, the scales and procedures to be used for gather ing data, and the methods to be used in the analysis of data. The purpose of this study is to measure the perceptions of an organization’s relationships with key internal constituen cies focusing on seven variables – trust, satisfaction, commitment, control mutual ity, exchange relationship, communal relationship and goal compatibil ity. Specifically, this study s eeks to replicate and extend previous relational research by examining how the variables of trust, commitment, control mutuality, and satisfaction are rela ted to the quality of relationships in organizations. In addition, the communal and exchange types of relationships will be examined. In addition, this thesis posits an additional indicator of relationship quality – goal compatibility. Goal compatibility is a unique addition to prev ious research and promises to add an original and innovativ e element to the relational perspective. Specifically, this study tests trust, commitm ent, satisfaction, and control mutuality as indicators of relationship qua lity. In addition, this study pos its that goal compatibility

PAGE 53

43 is an additional indicator of relationship quality. Therefore, the following hypotheses were tested: H1 : Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality are indicators of relationship quality between and organization and its publics. H2 : Goal compatibility is an indicator of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. A descriptive survey attempts to describe or document current conditions or attitudes— that is, to explain what exists at th e moment (Wimmer & Dominick, 2000, p. 167). Explicitly, this study explored th e following research question: RQ1 : How do faculty employees at a large, Research I university perceive their relationship with the admini stration in terms of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compatibility, w ith regards to the issue of salary, and what type of relationship—communal or exchange—does the organization and its public have? Respondents The 2003-2004 Faculty and Staff phonebook wa s used as the sampling frame for this study. The phonebook lists the current facult y and staff of the university at the time of publication. As of March 1, 2004, the numbe r of USF faculty me mbers totaled 2,804. The faculty members surveyed includes full professors, assistant professors, associate professors, and instructors. The academic f aculty comprises 13 separate schools spread across four campuses. Based on the population size, Austin and Pinkelton (2001)

PAGE 54

44 recommend a sample size of 666 (N=333), c hosen by a systematic sampling method with a random start. Instrumentation J. E. Grunig and Hon’s (1999) Public Relations Relatio nship Measurement Scale was used to measure faculty perceptions of their relationship with the university administration. The scale measures six elemen ts / constructs of relationships: control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitme nt, exchange relationship, and communal relationship. In addition, goa l compatibility, which was operationalized by Page and Hazelton (1999), was examined in this study. Re spondents were asked to rate the level to which they agree with each statement on a seven-point Likert-type scale from one ( strongly disagree ) to seven ( strongly agree ). J. E. Grunig and Hon’s (1999) Public Relations Relatio nship Measurement Scale has been shown to provide a reliable measure for employee relations, as seen in the literature review. To be most productive, employees must trust the organization for which they work. Management wants committed employees; often the synonyms used are loyalty and identification with the organiza tion. Job satisfaction is one of the most heavily researched areas of organi zational psychology and communication. Employees want a communal relationship w ith their employers; they want to go beyond exchange of work for pay. Perhaps most importantly, employee empowerment is the buzzwor d for modern employee relations: Employees want some mutuality of control with senior management. (Grunig & Hon, 1999, p. 24).

PAGE 55

45 The questionnaire consists of 35 statements developed to test the variables of interest. The rationale used to operationa lize the variables is provided below. Control Mutuality It is important for organiza tions to measure relationships because it can provide information about the effectiveness of specific public relations programs and events. Although some imbalance is natural, stable re lationships require that organizations and intern al publics have some control over the other (Lindenmann, 1999). In order to measure control mutuality, which is defined as the degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another, the following statements were used: 1. The administration and faculty are attentive to what each other say. 2. This administration believes the opini ons of the faculty are legitimate. 3. In dealing with people like me, this ad ministration has a tendency to throw its weight around. 4. This administration really listens to what faculty have to say. 5. The administration gives faculty enough sa y in the decision-making process. Trust Trust is one party’s level of confidence and willingness to open oneself to the other party (Grunig, 1999). Th ere are three dimensions of trust: integrity, which is the belief that an organization is just and fair ; dependability, which is the belief that an organization will do what it says it will do; a nd competence, which is the belief that an organization has the ability to do what it sa ys it will do (Lindenmann, 1999). In order to measure trust between the faculty and administ ration the following statements were used: 1. This administration treats th e faculty fairly and justly.

PAGE 56

46 2. Whenever this administration makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about the faculty. 3. This administration can be relied on to keep its promises. 4. I believe that this administration take s the opinions of faculty into account when making decisions. 5. I feel very confident a bout the competence of the administrator’s of this university. 6. This administration has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. Satisfaction A satisfying relationship is one in which benefits outweigh the costs (Lindenmann, 1999). To measure sa tisfaction, the extent to which each party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced, the fo llowing statements were used: 1. I am happy with this administration. 2. Both the administration and facult y benefit from this relationship. 3. Most faculty members are happy in their interactions with this administration. 4. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this administration has established with the faculty. 5. Most people enjoy dealing with this administration. Commitment Commitment is the extent to which each party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending en ergy to maintain and promote. To measure commitment the following statements were used:

PAGE 57

47 1. I feel that this administration is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to the faculty. 2. I can see that this administration want s to maintain a relationship with the faculty. 3. There is a long-lasting bond between th is administration and the faculty. 4. Compared to other administrations, I value my relationship with this administration more. 5. I would rather work with th is administration than not. Exchange Relationship In an exchange relationship, one party gives benefits to the other party because the other has provided bene fits in the past or is expected to do so in the future (Lindenmann, 1999). To measur e the exchange relationship, the following statements were used: 1. Whenever this administration gives or o ffers something the faculty, it generally expects something in return. 2. Even though I have had a relationship w ith this administration for a long time, administrators still expect something in return whenever the offer me a favor. 3. This administration will compromise w ith the faculty when it knows that it will gain something. 4. This administration takes care of faculty members who are likely to reward the administration. Communal Relationship For most public relatio ns activities, developing communal relationships with key constituencies is much more important to achieve than

PAGE 58

48 developing exchange relationships (L indenmann, 1999). To measure communal relationships, where both parties provide benefi ts to the other because they are concerned for the welfare of the other even when they get nothing in return, the following statements were used: 1. This administration does not espe cially enjoy giving others aid. 2. This administration is very concerne d about the welfare of the faculty. 3. I feel that this administration take s advantage of faculty members who are vulnerable. 4. I think that this administration succeeds by stepping on other people. 5. This administration helps the faculty without expecting anything in return. Goal Compatibility Goal compatibility is the extent to which the goals or objectives of one party are similar to and co incide with the goal s and objectives of another party (Page & Hazelton, 1999). To measure goal compatibility, which is essentially comprised of two general concep ts (compatibility and goals), the following statements are presented: 1. The administration and the faculty have similar goals. 2. The administration perceives the goals of the faculty accurately. 3. Open communication characterizes the relationship of the administration and the faculty. 4. Cooperation characterizes the relationship of the administrati on and the faculty. 5. The administration and the faculty do not have the same goals.

PAGE 59

49 The goal compatibility statements were included in the questi onnaire to test the contribution of this variable as a unique i ndicator of a relationship. Thus, adding another dimension to relationship measurement. Pa ge (2000) operationalized goal compatibility through several studies and found it to be a key variable between organizations and publics. Along with the relationship indicators and goal compatibility measurements, respondents were asked a set of demographic questions including at what campus they primarily taught, what level of academia they represent, how many years they have been teaching at this college, gender, amount of decision-making power, and perception of overall relationship. A copy of the questionnaire and the cover letter distributed to the sample can be found in Appendix B. Procedures Following the development of the survey instrument, 666 questionnaire packets were sent through intercampus mail to randomly selected faculty members with a cover letter explaining the study (see Appendix B). One week prior to the questionnaire mailing, a letter prefacing the study was sent to the same sample (see Appendix A). Each faculty member selected for inclusion in this sample was mailed a survey packet containing a cover letter expl aining the purpose and intent of the study, an instrument developed to measure the variab le of interest, and a return envelope. The survey also includes Page’s measurement of goal compatibility. Along with the relationship measuremen ts, respondents were asked a set of demographic questions including the campus where they taught, how many years they

PAGE 60

50 have worked for USF, their rating of the quality of relationship, amount of decisionmaking power, gender, and academic title. Multiple contacts were used to increase response rate (Dillman, 2000). A three phase contact strategy was used, including a pre-notification letter, a cover letter and survey, and a reminder postcard. Copies of each item can be found in Appendix A-D. After the questionnaires were re turned, the data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and then transferred into SPSS 13.0 for Windows for data analysis. Data Analysis Participants in the survey responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale to indicate the extent to which they perceived that the indicators of the seve n indices listed in Chapter 3 described the administration. Negative indicato rs of each concept were reversed, and the answers to all of the items measuring each relationship outcome were averaged into single measures of each variable of interest. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) te sts were performed to determine the influence of certain demographic characteri stics on the relationshi p constructs, and to determine the statistically significant relations hips between constructs and demographics. To test the reliability of the relati onship measurement instrument, Cronbach’s Alpha and Pearson’s product moment correl ation coefficients were calculated. These tests were followed by the ANOVA and t-tests to determine the relationships between variables. Chapter Four will present the result s of the data analysis outlined in this chapter.

PAGE 61

51 Chapter 4 Results This chapter summarizes the data collected for this study and presents the results of the data analysis outlined in Chapter Three. It reveals the response statistics and explains the scales used in the analysis of data. This study tests trust, commitment, sa tisfaction, and control mutuality as indicators of relationship quality. In additi on, this study posits that goal compatibility is an additional indicator of relationship qua lity. Specifically, this study explores the following hypotheses: H1 : Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality are indicators of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. H2 : Goal compatibility is an indicator of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. The purpose of this study is to measur e the quality and type of relationship between an organization and its public, as perceived by the public. Therefore, the following research question is proposed: RQ1 : How do faculty employees at a large, Research I university perceive their relationship with the admini stration in terms of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compatibility, w ith regards to the issue of salary, and

PAGE 62

52 what type of relationship—communal or exchange—does the organization and its public have? Response Statistics The total sample size for the intercampus ma il survey was 666. The prenotification letter served to eliminate invalid listings prior to sending the survey package. Specifically, 27 letters were undeliver able due to incorrect addresses. Fourteen more prenotification letters were returned because the faculty member no longer worked for the university. This resulted in a valid sample size of 625. Of this number, 197 completed or partially completed and returned the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 31.5% and a completion rate of 28.5%. Due to the nature of the survey instrument, partially completed questionnaires were used in the data analysis, so the number of respondents varied for each statistical test used for data analysis. A number of faculty members (n=11) refuse d to complete the survey, stating they did not feel the topic of the survey applied to them or that they felt the administration referred to in the survey was unclear. This resulted in a refusal rate of .0176%. No contact was made with the remaining 428 f aculty members, producing a noncontact rate of 68.48%. Austin and Pinkelton (2001) state that 333 completed surveys are necessary for probability-based survey results with a +/ -5% margin of error at a 95% confidence level. However, some scholars rely on survey response rate to determine the generalizability of the study results. According to Wimmer and Dominick (2000), a reasonable response rate for mail surveys is one to four percent (pp. 193-194). The

PAGE 63

53 response rate of 31.5% obtained for this study wa s considered adequate to continue with the data analysis. Demographic Data Before beginning the analyses of the hypotheses and research question, standard descriptive statistics were pe rformed on the data. Descriptiv e statistics reduce data to allow for easier interpreta tion. The instrument used in this study measured six demographic variables. Of these, three were categorical variables that examined gender, academic title, and campus where that respondent primarily worked. In addition, three continuous variables examined years as a faculty member, amount of decision-making power, and overall relationship with the U SF administration. The categories used for academic title and campus were derived from the USF telephone book. All results reflect the valid sample. Frequency distributions were run on the three categorical variables. A frequency distribution is a table of sc ores ordered according to the magnitude and frequency of occurrence. Of the 197 respondents, 59.9% (n =118) were male and 39.1% (n=77) were female. One percent of the respondents did not indicate their gender. The respondents’ indication of gender is shown in Table 1.

PAGE 64

54 Table 1: Frequency of Gender Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Female 77 39.1 39.1 39.1 Male 118 59.9 59.9 99.0 99 2 1.0 1.0 100.0 Valid Total 197 100.0 100.0 To measure the distribution among various types of academic titles, individuals were asked to indicate their title. Nearly 35 percent of f aculty members indicated their title was professor (n=68). The second highe st categories of res pondents were associate (n=58) and assistant (n =45) professors. A very low numb er of instructors completed the survey (n=24), with one percent of responde nts failing to indicate their academic title. The results of the academic title of respondents are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Frequency of Academic Title Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Professor 68 34.5 34.9 34.9 Associate Professor 58 29.4 29.7 64.6 Assistant Professor 45 22.8 23.1 87.7 Instructor 24 12.2 12.3 100.0 Valid Total 195 99.0 100.0 Missing 9 2 1.0 Total 197 100.0 In addition to gender and academic position, the respondents were asked to indicate what campus they taught at the bulk of the time. The majority of respondents, or 86.3 percent, indicated that they taught ma inly at the Tampa campus (n=170). The second highest category of respondents indicated that they taught at the St. Petersburg campus (8.6%). The Sarasota (n=4) and Lakeland (n=2 ) campuses had very low response rates,

PAGE 65

55 respectively. The initial database did not contain many faculty members from the Sarasota and Lakeland campus. Therefore, th e low response rate is not surprising. Two percent of the population did not indicate at which campus they taught. The results of the campus affiliation of respondents are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Frequency of Campus Affiliation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Tampa 170 86.3 88.1 88.1 Sarasota 4 2.0 2.1 90.2 St. Petersburg 17 8.6 8.8 99.0 Lakeland 2 1.0 1.0 100.0 Valid Total 193 98.0 100.0 Missing 9 4 2.0 Total 197 100.0 Relational Variables Descriptive statistics were run on the seven items—trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, communal rela tionship, exchange relationship, and goal compatibility. Descriptive statistics reduce da ta to allow for easier interpretation. Six items were used to measure the vari able of trust. The means and standard deviations for each item are shown in Table 4. Generally, means for all items measuring trust are below the scale midpoint (4), indi cating low agreement. The highest mean was 3.86 for the statements: “The USF administration treats the faculty fair ly and justly,” and “The USF administration has the ability to acco mplish what it says it will do.” The lowest mean was 3.40 for the statement, “Whenever the USF administration makes an important decision; I know it will be concerned about the faculty.”

PAGE 66

56 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics Trust N Mean Std. Deviation The USF administration treats the faculty fairly and justly 196 3.86 1.842 Whenever the USF administration makes an important decision; I know it will be concerned about the faculty 196 3.40 1.717 The USF administration can be relied on to keep its promises 197 3.62 1.762 I believe that the USF administration takes the opinions of the faculty into account when making decisions 196 3.67 1.883 I feel confident about the USF administration’s skills 197 3.49 1.851 The USF administration has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do 197 3.86 1.687 Five items were used to measure the vari able of control mutuality. The means and standard deviations for each item are show n in Table 5. Generally, means for all items measuring control mutuality are below the s cale midpoint, indicating low agreement with this item. The highest mean for this vari able was 3.77 for the statement, “The USF administration believes the opinions of the facu lty are legitimate.” The lowest mean was 3.11 and for the statements: “In dealing with the faculty, the USF administration has a tendency to throw its weight around,” and “T he USF administrati on gives the faculty enough say in the decision-making process.”

PAGE 67

57 Table 5 Descriptive Statistics – Control Mutuality N Mean Std. Deviation The USF administration and the faculty are attentive to what each other say 196 3.59 1.657 The USF administration believes the opinions of the faculty are legitimate 196 3.77 1.717 In dealing with the faculty, the USF administration has a tendency to throw its weight around 197 3.11 1.641 The USF administration really listens to what the faculty have to say 196 3.43 1.722 The USF administration gives the faculty enough say in the decision-making process 196 3.11 1.702 Five items were used to measure the variable of commitment. The means and standard deviations for each item are shown in Table 6. The lowest mean was 3.09, indicating low agreement for the statement, “There is a long-lasting bond between the USF administration and the faculty. The sec ond highest mean was 4.11 for the statement, “I can see that the USF administration wants to maintain a relationship with the faculty.” The highest mean, and well above the midpoi nt, was 4.92 for the statement, “I would rather work with the USF administration th an not.” The two highest means indicate moderate agreement with the items.

PAGE 68

58 Table 6 Descriptive Statistics Commitment N Mean Std. Deviation I feel that the USF administration is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to the faculty 197 3.73 1.885 I can see that the USF administration wants to maintain a relationship with the faculty 196 4.11 1.849 There is a long-lasting bond between the USF administration and the faculty 196 3.09 1.704 Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with the USF administration more 192 3.23 1.769 I would rather work with the USF administration than not 191 4.92 1.816 Five items were used to measure the variable of satisfaction. The means and standard deviations for each item are show n in Table 7. Generally, means for all items measuring satisfaction are below the scale mi dpoint, indicating low agreement with this item. Only one statement reached slightly over the scale midpoint. One statement was extremely low, as compared to the other va riables. Ranking in order from lowest to highest mean, the statements are as follows : “Most people enjoy dealing with the USF administration” (2.90); “Most of the faculty ar e happy in their interactions with the USF administration” (3.03); “Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the USF administration has established with the faculty” (3.32); “I am happy with the USF administration” (3.53); “Both th e USF administration and the faculty benefit from this relationship” (4.13).

PAGE 69

59 Table 7 Descriptive Stat istics Satisfaction N Mean Std. Deviation I am happy with the USF administration 196 3.53 1.833 Both the USF administration and the faculty benefit from this relationship 190 4.13 1.885 Most of the faculty are happy in their interactions with the USF administration 196 3.03 1.419 Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the USF administration has established with the faculty 195 3.32 1.706 Most people enjoy dealing with the USF administration 194 2.90 1.442 Five items were used to measure the variable of communal relationship. The means and standard deviations for each item are shown in Table 8. These means were interesting as two of the items reached a bove the scale midpoint and one item was the lowest out of all the variables tested, indica ting high agreement with generally all items, but one. The highest mean was 4.35 for the statement, “I think that the USF administration succeeds by stepping on other pe ople.” The lowest mean was 2.48 for the statement, “The USF administration helps the faculty without e xpecting anything in return.”

PAGE 70

60 Table 8 Descriptive Statisti cs – Communal Relationship N Mean Std. Deviation The USF administration does not especially enjoy giving others aid 191 3.83 1.423 The USF administration is very concerned about the welfare of the faculty 192 3.42 1.753 I feel that the USF administration takes advantage of people who are vulnerable 194 4.08 1.801 I think that the USF administration succeeds by stepping on other people 194 4.35 1.778 The USF administration helps the faculty without expecting anything in return. 194 2.48 1.355 Four items were used to measure the variable of exchange relationship. The means and standard deviations for each item are shown in Table 9. Generally, means for all items measuring exchange relationship are high above the scale midpoint, indicating strong agreement with this item. The highest mean out of all variables occurred for the item, “The USF administration takes care of people who are likely to reward the organization” (5.08). The lowest mean was 4.86 for the item, “Even though the faculty have had a relationship with the USF admini stration for a long time, the administration still expects something in return when ever it offers the faculty a favor.”

PAGE 71

61 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics – Exchange Relationship N Mean Std. Deviation Whenever the USF administration gives or offers something to the faculty, it generally expects something in return 192 5.07 1.460 Even though the faculty have had a relationship with the USF administration for a long time, the administration still expects something in return whenever it offers the faculty a favor 190 4.86 1.434 The USF administration will compromise with the faculty when it knows that it will gain something 191 4.92 1.149 The USF administration takes care of people who are likely to reward the organization 192 5.08 1.461 Five items were used to measure the va riable of goal compatibility. The means and standard deviations for each item are shown in Table 10. Generally, means for all items measuring goal compatibility are below the scale midpoint, indicating low agreement with this item. The highest mean s were 3.43 and 3.41 for the statements: “The USF administration perceives the goals of the faculty a ccurately,” and “The USF administration and faculty have similar goals ,” respectively. The lowest mean occurred for the statement, “The USF administration a nd the faculty have the same goals” (3.05).

PAGE 72

62 Table 10 Descriptive Statis tics – Goal Compatibility N Mean Std. Deviation The USF administration and the faculty have similar goals 192 3.41 1.740 The USF administration perceives the goals of the faculty accurately 194 3.43 1.631 Open communication characterizes the relationship of the USF administration and the faculty 193 3.01 1.665 Cooperation characterizes the relationship of the USF administration and the faculty. 193 3.11 1.640 The USF administration and the faculty have the same goals 191 3.05 1.657 Reliability Analysis Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the fi ve items to determine the instrument’s reliability for measuring relationships. The rese arch supports the instrument created by J. E. Grunig and Hon (1999), as the reliability alph as are high. This adds to the reliability of the measures they propose. Cronbach’s alpha wa s used to assess the internal consistency of the multiple-item goal compatibility meas ure. According to Wimmer and Dominick (2001), a commonly held standard for reliabili ty alphas is .75 or higher. Carmines and Zeller (1979) stated that reliability alpha s should not fall below .80 for widely used scales. Similarly, Berman (2002) stated that alpha values between .80 and 1.00 indicate high reliability.

PAGE 73

63 The alpha for the variable trust was hi gh at .920. The alpha for control mutuality was also high at .886. The alpha for commit ment was .874. The alpha for satisfaction was .931. The alpha for goal compatibility was .912. The overall mean scores for each of the collapsed scales are shown in Table 11. Again, all means are low except for the excha nge relationship measure. This identifies the relationship between the administration and faculty most closely resembles an exchange relationship. However, the low m ean scores for the remaining variables indicate that this relationship needs work—from an organizational management perspective. Table 11 Overall Scale Means N Mean Std. Deviation TRUST 194 3.6555 1.51400 CONTROL 193 3.4052 1.40096 COMMITMENT 187 3.8246 1.47467 SATISFACTION 188 3.4149 1.47485 COMMUNAL 190 3.9329 1.43733 EXCHANGE 188 4.9450 1.13443 GOALCOMPATIBILITY 190 3.2116 1.43548 Valid N (listwise) 178 Years at USF 193 11.63 8.916 Decision-making power 193 4.71 2.653 Overall relationship 191 5.62 2.409 Valid N (listwise) 187 ANOVAs Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed on the data to determine if a significant relationship exists between the f aculty and administration. A series of oneway ANOVA tests were conducted to determin e if demographic characteristics were

PAGE 74

64 linked to certain relational attributes. Usi ng the relational attributes as dependent variables and title, gender, and campus as inde pendent variables, the results did not prove to be significant. A series of one-way ANOVAs were run with the relationa l variables as dependent variables and demographic variables as indepe ndent variables. First, an ANOVA was run with the variable trust (Table 12) an d did not prove to be significant. Table 12 Independent Variable Trust ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. TRUST Between Groups 12.309 4 3.077 1.351 .253 Within Groups 428.267 188 2.278 Total 440.575 192 CONTROL Between Groups 11.367 4 2.842 1.455 .218 Within Groups 365.112 187 1.952 Total 376.479 191 COMMITMENT Between Groups 5.878 4 1.470 .671 .613 Within Groups 398.608 182 2.190 Total 404.487 186 SATISFACTION Between Groups 15.204 4 3.801 1.773 .136 Within Groups 390.143 182 2.144 Total 405.346 186 COMMUNAL Between Groups 10.346 4 2.586 1.254 .290 Within Groups 379.642 184 2.063 Total 389.988 188 EXCHANGE Between Groups 3.159 4 .790 .608 .658 Within Groups 236.597 182 1.300 Total 239.756 186 GOALCOMPATI BILITY Between Groups 3.338 4 .835 .398 .810 Within Groups 385.491 184 2.095 Total 388.830 188

PAGE 75

65 The ANOVA ran for the number of years at USF is shown in Table 13. Satisfaction was the only variable that was close to being significant at .089. Table 13 Independent Variable – Years at USF ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. TRUST Between Groups 97.582 34 2.870 1.341 .118 Within Groups 331.667 155 2.140 Total 429.249 189 CONTROL Between Groups 71.227 34 2.095 1.098 .341 Within Groups 293.792 154 1.908 Total 365.019 188 COMMITM ENT Between Groups 85.796 34 2.523 1.207 .221 Within Groups 311.421 149 2.090 Total 397.217 183 SATISFAC TION Between Groups 94.289 34 2.773 1.400 .089 Within Groups 297.193 150 1.981 Total 391.482 184 COMMUN AL Between Groups 61.137 34 1.798 .850 .704 Within Groups 321.431 152 2.115 Total 382.568 186 EXCHANG E Between Groups 36.079 34 1.061 .791 .786 Within Groups 199.906 149 1.342 Total 235.985 183 GOALCO MPATIBILI TY Between Groups 84.557 34 2.487 1.258 .176 Within Groups 300.459 152 1.977 Total 385.016 186

PAGE 76

66 The ANOVA ran using the independent va riable gender is shown in Table 14. Again, satisfaction was very close to being significant at .064. Table 14 Independent Variable Gender ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. TRUST Between Groups 2.845 2 1.423 .618 .540 Within Groups 439.547 191 2.301 Total 442.392 193 CONTROL Between Groups 4.550 2 2.275 1.161 .315 Within Groups 372.285 190 1.959 Total 376.835 192 COMMITM ENT Between Groups 8.108 2 4.054 1.882 .155 Within Groups 396.379 184 2.154 Total 404.487 186 SATISFAC TION Between Groups 11.935 2 5.967 2.796 .064 Within Groups 394.824 185 2.134 Total 406.758 187 COMMUNA L Between Groups 4.198 2 2.099 1.016 .364 Within Groups 386.259 187 2.066 Total 390.457 189 EXCHANG E Between Groups .406 2 .203 .156 .855 Within Groups 240.248 185 1.299 Total 240.654 187 GOALCOM PATIBILITY Between Groups 1.779 2 .889 .429 .652 Within Groups 387.676 187 2.073 Total 389.455 189

PAGE 77

67 The ANOVA ran using the independent variable campus is shown in Table 15. The results of this analysis di d not prove to be significant. Table 15 Independent Variable Campus ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. TRUST Between Groups 9.361 4 2.340 1.015 .401 Within Groups 431.115 187 2.305 Total 440.476 191 CONTROL Between Groups 3.111 4 .778 .389 .816 Within Groups 371.393 186 1.997 Total 374.503 190 COMMITM ENT Between Groups 12.304 4 3.076 1.420 .229 Within Groups 392.041 181 2.166 Total 404.345 185 SATISFAC TION Between Groups 8.157 4 2.039 .930 .448 Within Groups 396.817 181 2.192 Total 404.974 185 COMMUNA L Between Groups 5.097 4 1.274 .606 .659 Within Groups 384.572 183 2.101 Total 389.669 187 EXCHANG E Between Groups 8.143 4 2.036 1.591 .179 Within Groups 231.610 181 1.280 Total 239.754 185 GOALCOM PATIBILITY Between Groups 4.657 4 1.164 .561 .692 Within Groups 380.121 183 2.077 Total 384.779 187

PAGE 78

68 Correlation Coefficients Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffi cient was calculated on the measures of trust, satisfaction, commitment, control mutu ality, and goal compatibility, as well as the exchange and communal relationship variables, to provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between the variables of interest and the continuous vari ables: years at USF, decision-making power, and overall quality of the relationship. Commonly symbolized as r the correlation varies between –1.00 a nd +1.00. A correlation coefficient of +1.00 indicates a perfect positive correlation (Wimmer & Domini ck, 2003) For the behavioral sciences, correlation coeffici ents of .10, .30, and .50, irrespec tive of sign, are typically interpreted as small, medium, and large co efficients, respectively (Green, Salkind, & Akey, 2000). Berman (2002) stated that values of r2 above .40 are considered strong, and those above .65 are considered very strong. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffi cient test revealed a significant positive correlation of trust between the variables de cision-making power and overall relationship (r=.369 & .622, p=.000). These results indicate that trust and deci sion-making power and overall relationship are related and that they vary positively; that is, as one goes up, the other goes up too. However, the number of years the respondent taught at USF was a negative (-.052), indicating that the variables vary inversely. That is, one measure is high, the other is low. Table 16 shows the measures of association between trust and the three continuous variables.

PAGE 79

69 Table 16 Correlation Analysis Trust ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffi cient test revealed a significant positive correlation of control mutuality between the variables decision-making power and overall relationship (r=.365& 645, p=.000). These result s indicate that control mutuality and decision-making power and overall relationship are related and th at they vary positively; that is, as one goes up, the other goes up too. However, the number of years the respondent taught at USF was a negative (-.057), indicating that the variables vary inversely. That is, one measure is high, the ot her is low. Table 17 shows the measures of association between control mutuality a nd the three continuo us variables. TRUST Years at USF Decisionmaking power Overall relationship TRUST Pearson Correlation 1 -.052 .369(**) .622(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .472 .000 .000 N 194 190 191 189 Years at USF Pearson Correlation -.052 1 .192(**) .019 Sig. (2-tailed) .472 .008 .793 N 190 193 189 188 Decisionmaking power Pearson Correlation .369(**) .192(**) 1 .605(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .000 N 191 189 193 190 Overall relationship Pearson Correlation .622(**) .019 .605(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .793 .000 N 189 188 190 191

PAGE 80

70 Table 17 Correlation Analysis – Control Mutuality CONTROL Years at USF Decisionmaking power Overall relationship CONTROL Pearson Correlation 1 -.057 .365(**) .645(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .433 .000 .000 N 193 189 190 188 Years at USF Pearson Correlation -.057 1 .192(**) .019 Sig. (2-tailed) .433 .008 .793 N 189 193 189 188 Decisionmaking power Pearson Correlation .365(**) .192(**) 1 .605(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .000 N 190 189 193 190 Overall relationship Pearson Correlation .645(**) .019 .605(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .793 .000 N 188 188 190 191 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffi cient test revealed a significant positive correlation of commitment between the va riables decision-making power and overall relationship (r=.365 & .695, p=.000). These resu lts indicate that commitment and decision-making power and overall relationship are related and th at they vary positively; that is, as one goes up, the other goes up too. However, the number of years the respondent taught at USF was a negative (-.041), indicating that the variables vary inversely. That is, one measure is high, the ot her is low. Table 18 shows the measures of association between commitment and the three continuous variables.

PAGE 81

71 Table 18 Correlation An alysis – Commitment COMMITM ENT Years at USF Decisionmaking power Overall relationship COMMITMEN T Pearson Correlation 1 -.041 .356(**) .695(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .581 .000 .000 N 187 184 184 183 Years at USF Pearson Correlation -.041 1 .192(**) .019 Sig. (2-tailed) .581 .008 .793 N 184 193 189 188 Decisionmaking power Pearson Correlation .356(**) .192(**) 1 .605(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .000 N 184 189 193 190 Overall relationship Pearson Correlation .695(**) .019 .605(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .793 .000 N 183 188 190 191 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffi cient test revealed a significant positive correlation of satisfaction between the va riables decision-making power and overall relationship (r=.391 & .691, p=.000). These results indicate that satisfaction and decisionmaking power and overall relationship are related a nd that they vary posit ively; that is, as one goes up, the other goes up too. However, the number of years the respondent taught at USF was a negative (-.058), indicating that the variables vary inve rsely. That is, one measure is high, the other is low. Table 19 shows the measures of association between satisfaction and the three continuous variables.

PAGE 82

72 Table 19 Correlation Analysis – Satisfaction SATISFAC TION Years at USF Decisionmaking power Overall relationship SATISFACTI ON Pearson Correlation 1 -.058 .391(**) .691(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .435 .000 .000 N 188 185 185 183 Years at USF Pearson Correlation -.058 1 .192(**) .019 Sig. (2-tailed) .435 .008 .793 N 185 193 189 188 Decisionmaking power Pearson Correlation .391(**) .192(**) 1 .605(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .000 N 185 189 193 190 Overall relationship Pearson Correlation .691(**) .019 .605(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .793 .000 N 183 188 190 191 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffi cient test revealed a significant positive correlation of goal compatibility between the variables decision-making power and overall relationship (r=.337 & .569, p=.000) These results indicate that goal compatibility and decision-making power and ove rall relationship are related and that they vary positively; that is, as one goes up, the other goes up too. However, the number of years the respondent taught at USF was a negative (-.089), indicating that the variables vary inversely. That is, one measure is high, the other is low. Table 20 shows the measures of association between goal compatibility and the th ree continuous variables.

PAGE 83

73 Table 20 Correlation Analysis – Goal Compatibility GOALCOMP ATIBILITY Years at USF Decisionmaking power Overall relationship GOALCOM PATIBILITY Pearson Correlation 1 -.089 .337(**) .569(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .228 .000 .000 N 190 187 187 186 Years at USF Pearson Correlation -.089 1 .192(**) .019 Sig. (2-tailed) .228 .008 .793 N 187 193 189 188 Decisionmaking power Pearson Correlation .337(**) .192(**) 1 .605(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .000 N 187 189 193 190 Overall relationship Pearson Correlation .569(**) .019 .605(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .793 .000 N 186 188 190 191 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffi cient test revealed a significant positive correlation of communal relati onship between the variables decision-making power and overall relationship (r=.317 & .613, p=.000). These results indi cate that communal relationship and decision-maki ng power and overall relationshi p are related and that they vary positively; that is, as one goes up, the other goes up too. However, the number of years the respondent taught at USF was a negative (-.031), i ndicating that the variables vary inversely. That is, one measure is high, the other is low. Table 21 shows the measures of association between communal relationshi p and the three continuous variables.

PAGE 84

74 Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffici ent test revealed a significant negative correlation of exchange relationship between the variables decisi on-making power and overall relationship (r= -.033 & -.211, p=.000). These results indicate that exchange relationship and decision-maki ng power and overall relationshi p are related and that they vary inversely; that is, as one goes up, th e other goes down. However, the number of years the respondent taught at USF was a positive (.115), indicating that the variables vary positively. That is, one measure is hi gh, and the other is high. Table 21 shows the measures of association between excha nge relationship and the three continuous variables. Table 21 Correlation Analysis – Communal and Exchange Relationships COMMUNAL EXCHANGE Years at USF Decisionmaking power Overall relationship COMMUNAL Pearson Correlation 1 -.427(**) -.031 .317(**) .613(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .678 .000 .000 N 190 187 187 188 186 EXCHANGE Pearson Correlation -.427(**) 1 .115 -.033 -.211(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .121 .658 .004 N 187 188 184 186 183 Years at USF Pearson Correlation -.031 .115 1 .192(**) .019 Sig. (2tailed) .678 .121 .008 .793 N 187 184 193 189 188 Decisionmaking power Pearson Correlation .317(**) -.033 .192(**) 1 .605(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .658 .008 .000 N 188 186 189 193 190 Overall relationship Pearson Correlation .613(**) -.211(**) .019 .605(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .004 .793 .000 N 186 183 188 190 191 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 85

75 Tests of Hypotheses The following hypotheses were presented in this study: H1 : Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality are indicators of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. H2 : Goal compatibility is an indicator of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. To test H1, regression analys es were run on the coefficien ts. The independent variables of satisfaction, commitment, control mutuality, and trust were examined to measure the dependent variable of overall relationship qua lity. All variables, beside trust, were found to be positive predictors of overall relationship quality (F =44.920, df=4, p=.000). In order of significance, they are: 1) commitment, 2) satisfaction, and 3) c ontrol mutuality. Table 22 shows the regression model for the four variables. Trust prove d to be a negative predictor. This indicates an inverse relati onship, meaning as overall relationship quality went up; trust went down. Co mmitment was the only highly significant variable within the model. The predictors accounted for 50.9 percent of the unique variance in relationship quality (R=.714, R-Sq=.509). Th ese findings indicate support for H1. Table 22 Regression Analysis – Relationship Variables Beta Coef. t-ratio Sig. Trust -.053 -.398 .691 Control Mutuality .137 1.042 .299 Commitment .377 3.179 .002 Satisfaction .280 1.845 .067

PAGE 86

76 To test H2, a regression analysis was run. The independent variable, goal compatibility, was examined to measure the de pendent variable of overall relationship. These variables were found to be positive predictors of overall relationship quality (F=88.255, df=1, p=.000). Table 23 shows the re gression model for the single variable. This finding indicates support for H2. Table 23 Regression Analysis – Goal Compatibility Beta Coef. t-ratio Sig. Goal Compatibilit y .569 9.394 .000 Test of Research Question The researcher proposed the following research question: RQ : How do faculty employees at a large, Research I university perceive their relationship with the admini stration in terms of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compatibility, w ith regards to the issue of salary, and what type of relationship—communal or exchange—does the organization and its public have? According to the data analyses, in terms of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compatibility, the faculty perceives their rela tionship to be low quality. In addition, the faculty perceives to have an exch ange relationship with the administration. This chapter summarized the statistical data obtained from the study. Chapter Five discusses the results of the study, explains the limitations of this thesis, and suggests

PAGE 87

77 areas for future research.

PAGE 88

78 Chapter 5 Discussion This chapter will review the data analysis results presented in Chapter Four and present the researchers discussion. This study focused on relationships; speci fically it measured the relationship between the administration of a large public un iversity in the southeastern United States, USF, and its primary internal public— the facu lty. Specifically, this study tested trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality as indicators of relationship quality. In addition, this study hypothesized that goal comp atibility is an addi tional indicator of relationship quality. Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed: H1 : Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality are indicators of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. H2 : Goal compatibility is an indicator of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. In addition, this study applie s the relational theo ry of public rela tions to a real world situation. Therefore the follo wing research question is proposed: RQ1 : How do faculty employees at a large, Research I university perceive their relationship with the admini stration in terms of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compatibility, w ith regards to the issue of salary, and

PAGE 89

79 what type of relationship—communal or exchange—does the organization and its public have? The mean scores showed that the facu lty perceived their relationship to the administration to be very poor. Specifically, the respondents indicated that they held an exchange type of relationship with the ad ministration. In an exch ange relationship, one party give benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future. USF needs to recognize that simply holding an exchange relationship with its employees wi ll not enhance the overall relationship, and will eventually lead to dissatisfaction, dist rust, disloyalty, and manipulation. Therefore, the administration needs to work on a devel oping a communal relationship, in which both parties provide benefits to the other because they are generally concerned for the welfare of the other—even when they do not get anyt hing in return. Orga nizations benefit by building a reputation for being concerned a bout communal relations hips and encounter less opposition and more support over the long term from their publics (Grunig & Hon, 1999). Organizations that communicate effectively with publics develop be tter relationships because management and publics understand one another and because both are less likely to behave in ways that have negative consequences on the interests of the other. The researcher suggests that the administration adopt maintenance strategies developed by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) and derived fr om Plowman and Huang’s research and from other academic studies of relati onship and conflict resolution. They include:

PAGE 90

80 Access Members of public or community or ac tivist leaders provide access to public relations people. Public re lations representatives or senior managers provide representatives of publics si milar access to organizationa l decision-making processes. Disclosure or openness Both organizations and members of public are open and frank with each other. They are willing to disclose their thoughts, concerns and problems as well as their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each other. Assurance or legitimacy Each party in the relationship attempts to assure the other that it and its concerns are legitimate a nd to demonstrate that it is committed to maintaining the relationship. Networking Organizations build networks or co alitions with the same groups that their publics do, such as environmenta lists, unions or community groups. Sharing of tasks Organizations and publics share in solving joint or separate problems. Examples of such tasks are managing community issues, providing employment, conducting high-quality research and maintaining f unding. These are in the interest of the organiza tion, the public or both. Integrative strategies of conflict resolution These approaches are symmetrical because all parties in a relationshi p benefit by searching out common or complementary interests and solving probl ems together through open discussion and joint decision-making. The goal is a win-win solution that values the integrity of a long-term relationship between an organizati on and its publics. Inte grative strategies are more effective than distributive strategies, which are asymmetrical because one party benefits at the expense of anothe r by seeking to maximize goals and minimize

PAGE 91

81 losses within a win-lose or self-gain perspe ctive. Distributive tactics include trying to control through domination, argument, insist ence on a position, or showing anger. Other forcing strategies are faulting the other party, hostile questioning, presumptive attribution, demands or threat s. Distributive strategies im pose one’s position onto that of an adversary without concer n for the adversary’s position. The survey population, consisting of facu lty members of USF, were asked to respond to a set of questions on a seven point scale to indicate the extent to which they believed that the indicators in the seven indices described their administration. The results compared the faculty’s perception of their relationship with the administration. Keep in mind that the sample is not re presentative of the general population. Although respondents were chosen randomly from th e campus phone book, not all faculty members were still there from that year, faculty me mbers are usually very busy, and mail surveys are typically low. As a result the mean scores shown in the Chapter Four apply to only 197 people in the sample. However, the results are logical and might not differ greatly if the response rates were higher. Specifically, this study tested trust, commi tment, satisfaction, and control mutuality as indicators of relationship qua lity. In addition, this study pos its that goal compatibility is an additional indicator of relationship quality. The following hypotheses were proposed: H1 : Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality are indicators of relationship quality between and organization and its publics.

PAGE 92

82 H2 : Goal compatibility is an indicator of relationship quality between an organization and its publics. Reliability alphas for each of the variab les of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality and goal compatibility were highly significant, indicating that these measures could be used to examine relations hips. However, trust wa s a low indicator. As these measures have been tested previously and proved reliable, there may be a problem in the study’s methodology. Goal compatibility had the strongest re lationship indicator for the administration. This finding suggests that the faculty perceived their goals to be the similar to the goals of the administration. In the descriptive statistic section for the variable trust, one item was extremely high at 4.92. The statement was, “I would rath er work with the USF administration than not.” The mean for this statement may be high if the respondent felt the question meant that instead of working with the USF admi nistration they were unemployed. However, for most statements the means were low. Especially for the statement, “Most people enjoy dealing with the USF administrati on,” which had a mean of 2.90. Therefore, according to these two statements, even if they do not enjoy dealing with the administration, they still feel as if they would rather work at USF. Another interesting statistic that further shows that the administration and faculty hold an exchange relationship comes from th e statement, “The USF administration helps the faculty without expecting a nything in return.” The mean score for this statement was 2.48, indicating that the most res pondents felt that th e faculty expects something in return the majority of the time.

PAGE 93

83 The majority of the respondents in this st udy indicated their titl e as professor and associate professor. Many of these individua ls also serve administrative roles at the university, which may have sk ewed the results upward. The correlations had the same findings for the variables trust, control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and goal compatib ility. All were positive correlations—as one increases, the other increases. This mean s that the more decision-making power the individual has, the more he/she is involved in the administration. “Y ears at USF” did not seem to make a difference, as none of the correlations were significant. One would surmise that the longer someone is with an organization, the more trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and goal compa tibility, they would have. Such is not the case in this situation. Limitations of the Study The biggest disadvantage of the mail surv ey was the low return rate. Typically, the return rate for mail surveys is five to 40 percent (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003, p. 184). This study had a return rate of 31.5% which was high according to Wimmer and Dominick (2003). In addition, the phone book used for the survey was not the most recent edition. Thus, the surveys that were returned and that indicated the wr ong address and people who were no longer employed with the university. A number of individuals i ndicated that they did not understand to whom the administration referred. Although the majority of respondents were either male, full professors, and from the Tampa campus, this may not be representative of the general

PAGE 94

84 population as demographic data for the sample frame was not availabl e to the re searcher for comparison purposes. In addition, many of the respondents indicated that their answers would reflect their specified campus’ administration and not that of the main campus (Tampa). Respondents felt that their views differed dramatically between how their relationship was with their own campus administration and that of the main campus administration Specifically, the respondent s had differing perceptions depending on whom the administration referred. Respondent s indicated that their relationship was different for the president of the university, provost, dean, or colle ge administrator. The significance of this study lies in its ability to contribute to public relations theory and practice. This research will en rich our understanding of the importance of building strong relationships be tween organizations and their publics. This study will also build on previous public relations studies of relationship measurement in order to further public relations theory development. From an applied perspective, this research may serve to inform the organization about the quality of its relationship with one of its most important strategic publics. The universit y administration can send out messages and activities to sustain or improve the rela tionship based on feedback from the study. Future Research An additional variable that may play a role in relationships between an organization and publics are two dynamics of the commitment variable – length of commitment and intensity of commitment. Fu ture research examining these variables may show why it was more significant.

PAGE 95

85 The significance of this study lies in its ability to contribut e to public relations theory and practice. This research enrich ed our understanding of the importance of building strong relationships between the academ ic staff members and school. This thesis can be developed into a longitudinal study i nvestigating multiple institutions across the United States, in order to examine relationship quality at the university level. The researcher would also conduct a second maili ng of the survey to increase the response rate and further provide reliable results. These findings produced quantifiable evid ence of the perceptions that publics have of their relationship with an organizati on. The results of this evaluation can be used for program management in public relations. The significance of th is study lies in its ability to contribute to public relations theo ry and practice. This study will also build on previous public relations studies of relati onship measurement in order to further public relations theory development. From an applie d perspective, this research may serve to inform the organization about the quality of its relationship with one of its most important strategic publics. The university administ ration can send out messa ges and activities to sustain or improve the relationships based on feedback from the study.

PAGE 96

86 References Adams, J.A. & Jones, W.H. (1999). Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Ballinger, J.D. (1991). Relational dimensions of public-organizat ional relationships. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Die go State University, San Diego, CA. Berman, E. M. (2002). Essential statistics for pu blic manager and policy analysts Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Broom, G.M. (1977). Coor ientational measurement of public relations. Public relations review, 3 (4), 110-119. Broom, G.M. & Dozier, D.M. (1990). Using research in public relations: applications to program management Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Broom, G.M., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J. ( 1997). Toward a concep t and theory of organization-pubic relationships. Journal of Public Re lations Research, 9, .83-98. Broom, G.M., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J. ( 2000). Concept and Theory of OrganizationPublic Relationships. In J.A. Ledingham and S.D. Bruning(Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bruning, S.D. (1999). The Future of Public Relations Research: Moving from a Mass Communication to an Interpers onal Communication Perspective. Business Research Yearbook, 6 702-706. Bruning, S.D. (2002). Relationshi p building as a retention st rategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evalua tions to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28 (1), 39-48. Bruning, S.D. & Ledingham, J.A. (1998a). Organizational-public relationships and consumer satisfaction: The role of relationships in the satisfaction mix. Consumer Research Reports, 15, 198-208. Bruning, S.D. & Ledingham, J.A. (1998b). P ublic relations and consumer decisions: Effectively managing the relationships th at impact consumer behavior. Paper

PAGE 97

87 presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Baltimore, Maryland, August. Bruning, S.D. & Ledingham, J.A. (2000). Percep tions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26 (1) 85-95. Canary, D.J. and Spitzberg, B.H. (1989). A model of the perceived competence of conflict strategies. Human Communication research, 15 630-649. Capella, J.N. (1991). Mutual adaptation and relativity of measurement. In B.M. Montgomery and S.W. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 103117). New York: Guilford. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Center, A. H. and Jackson, P. (1995). Public Relations practices: managerial case studies and problems (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Clark, M.S. & Mills, J. (1993). “The Difference Between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What it is and is not.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684-691. Coombs, T.W. (2001). Interpersonal Communica tion and Public Relations. In R.L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp.105-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cutlip, S. M. (1994). The unseen power: Public relations, a history Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cutlip, S., Center, A. & Broom G. (1987). Effective Public Relations, 6th ed., Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Cutlip, S., Center, A. & Broom G. (1994). Effective Public Relations, 8th ed., Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Cutlip, S., Center, A. & Broom G. (2000). Effective Public Relations, 7th ed., Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Duck, S.W. (1986). Human relationships: An intr oduction of social psychology Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

PAGE 98

88 Dozier, D.M., Grunig, L.A. & Grunig, J.E. (1995). Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ehling, W.P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an organization. In J.E. Grunig, D.M. Dozi er, W.P. Ehling, L.A. Grunig, F.C. Repper & J. Whirs (Eds.), Excellence in Public Re lations and Communication Management Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Estes, R. (1996). Tyranny of the bottom line: Wh y corporations make good people do bad things San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Jaworski, J. (1996). Synchronicity, the inne r path of leadership San Fransisco: BerrettKoehler. Ferguson, M.A. (1984). Building Theory in Public Relations: In terorganizational Relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Co mmunication, Gainesville, FL, August. Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Grunig, J.E. (1993). From Symbolic to Behavioral Relationships. Public Relations Review, 19, 136. Grunig, J.E. (1994). Worldview, ethics, and the two-way symmetrical model of public relations. In W. Armbrecht and U. Zabel (Eds.), Normative aspekte der public relations (pp. 69-90). Pladen, Germany: Westdeitscher Verlag. Grunig, J.E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics. The Institute for Public Relations [Online]. Available: http://www.instituteforpr.com [2003, February 16]. Grunig, J.E. & Hon, L. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. The Institute for Public Relations [Online]. Available: http://www.instituteforpr.com [2003, February 16]. Grunig, J.E. and Huang, Y. (2001). From orga nizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public re lations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J.A. Ledingham and S.D. Bruning(Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

PAGE 99

89 Grunig, L., Grunig, J.E., & Dozier, D. (1995) Combining the twoway symmetrical and asymmetrical models into a contingenc y model of excellent public relations. Paper presented at the meeting for th e advancement of policy, research and development in the third world, Las Vegas, NV. Grunig, L., Grunig, J.E., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, L., Grunig, J.E., & Ehling, W. P. (2002). What is an effective organization? In J.E. Grunig (Ed.) Excellent public relations and effective organizations (pp. 483501) Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. J.E. Grunig, D.M. Dozier, W.P. Ehling, L.A. Grunig, F.C. Repper & J. Whirs (Eds.) (1992). Excellence in Public Relatio ns and Communication Management Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hallahan, K. (2000). The forgotten publics in public relations. Public Relations Review, 26 (4), 499. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory New York: Oxford University Press. Hazelton, V, Jr., & Long, L.W. (1988). Concep ts for public relations education, research and practice: A communication point of view. Central States Speech Journal, 39 11-87. Heath, R. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of public relations Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Huang, Y. (1999). The effects of public rela tions strategies on conflict management. Paper presented at the 49th annual conference of the International Communication association, Quebec, Canada. Huang, Y. (2001). OPRA: A Cross-Cultural, Multi-Item Scale for Measuring Organization-Public Relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (1), 61-90. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1967). The social psychology of organizations New York: Wiley. Kruckenberg, D. & Stark, K. (1998). Public Relations and Community: A reconstructed theory New York, NY: Praeger.

PAGE 100

90 Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (1998). Relationship Management in Public Relations: Dimensions of an Organization-Public Relationship. Public Relations Review, 24 (1), 55-66. Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (1999). Re lationships Between Organizations and Publics: Development of a Multi-Dimen sional Organization-Public Relationship Scale. Public Relations Review, 25 (2), 157. Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (2000a). Public Relations as Relationship Management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (2000b). Managing community relationships to maximize mutual benefit: doing well by doing good. In R. Heath (ed.), Public Relations Handbook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D., & Lesko, C. (1997). Community Relations and Loyalty: Toward a relationship theory of public re lations. In J. Biberman and A. Alkhafaji (eds.), Business Research Yearbook IV. Pp. 772-776. Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D., Thomlis on, T.D. &B Lesko, C. (1997). The transferability of interpersonal relations hips dimensions into an organizational setting. Academy of Managerial Co mmunications Journal, 1 23-43. Ledingham, J.A., Bruning, S.D., & Wilson, L.J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the perceptions and behavior of members of key publics: Monitoring and predicting organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11 (2), 167-183. Leeper, K.A. (2001). The Measurement of Et hics: Instruments App licable to Public Relations. In R.L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leichty, G. and Warner, E. (2001). Cultural T opoi: Implications for Public Relations. In R.L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lindenmann, W.K. (1997a). Guidelines and standards for measuring and evaluating PR effectiveness. The Institute for Public Relations [Online]. Available: http://www.instituteforpr.com [2003, February 16]. Lindenmann, W.K. (1997b). Setting Minimum Standards for measuring public relations effectiveness. Public Relations Review, 23 (1), 391.

PAGE 101

91 Lindenmann, W.K. (1998). Measuring relationshi ps is key to successf ul public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 43 (4), 18-24. McLeod, J.M. and Chaffee, S.H. (1973). In terpersonal Approach es to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16 469-500. Miller, J.G. (1978). Living systems New York: McGraw-Hill. Miller, F.E. and Rogers, L.E. (1987). Re lational dimensions of interpersonal communications. In G.R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 87-103). New Park, CA: Sage. Page, K.G. (2000a, March). An exploratory analysis of goal compatibility between organizations and publics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern States Communication Association. Page, K.G. (2000b, June). Prioritizing publics: Explori ng goal compatibility between organizations and publics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Asso ciation, Acapulco, Mexico. Page, K.G., & Hazelton, V. (1999, May). An empirical analysis of factors influencing public relations strategy, usage and effectiveness Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communicat ion Association, San Francisco, CA. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982). In search of excellence: lessons from America’s best-run companies New York: Harper and Row. Plowman, K.D. (1995). Congruence between pub lic relations and conflict strategies: negotiating in the organization. Unpublishe d doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, college Park, MD. Porter, M.E. (1994). Toward a dynamic theory of strategy. In R.P. Dumelt, D.E. Schendel & D.J. Teece, (Eds.), Fundamental Issues in Stra tegy: a Research Agenda Boston: Harvard Business School Press, p.451. Stark, K. and Kruckeberg, D. (2001). Public Relations and Commun ity: A Reconstructed Theory Revisited. In R.L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trenholm, S. & Jensen, A. (1996). Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Werder, K. P. (2003, July). An empirical analys is of the influence of perceived attributes of publics on public relations strategy us e and effectiveness. Paper presented at

PAGE 102

92 the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, Missouri. Wilson, L.J. (1994a). The Return to Gemeinsc haft: A Theory of Public Relations and Corporate Community Relations as Re lationship-building. In A.F. Alkhafaji (Ed.), Business Research Yearbook: Global Business Perspectives, 1 135-141. Wilson, L.J. (1994b). Excellent Companies a nd Coalition-Building Among the Fortune 500: A Value and Relationship-based Theory. Public Relations Review, 20 333343. Wilson, L.J. (2001). Relationships with communities. In R.L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 521-526). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2000). Mass media research: An introduction Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

PAGE 103

93 Appendices

PAGE 104

94 Appendix A January 11, 2005 First_Name Last_name PositionTitle Department Box # Dear First_Name Last_name: A few days from now you will receive in the intercampus mail a request to fill out a brief questionnaire for an important research proj ect being conducted by a graduate student at the University of South Florida (USF). The questionnaire concerns the practice of public relations. Specifically, it investigates USF faculty member’s perceptions of their relationship with the USF administration. I am writing in advance because many people like to know ahead of tim e that they will be contacted. The study is an important one that will help public rela tions researchers and practitioners determine relationship indica tors to improve the relationship quality between the organization and publics whom they serve. In addition, for academia, understanding relational indica tors will help us in our efforts to teach others. Thank you for your time and consideration. It is only with the generous help of people like you that this research can be successful. Sincerely, Lindsay C. Smith, Master’s Candidate

PAGE 105

95 Appendix B January 14, 2005 First_Name Last_name PositionTitle Department Box # Dear First_Name Last_name: I am a graduate student in the School of Ma ss Communications at the University of South Florida. I am conducting thesis research that investigates the percep tion of relationships between the faculty and admini stration of this university. As a faculty member, you have been selected to participate in this st udy. I need your assistance in discovering your perceptions of the relationship you hold with the USF administrati on. Your cooperation will add valuable insight into th e practice of public relations. The enclosed questionnaire will take about 10 mi nutes to complete. Your input is vital to this research. Please take a few minutes to contribute to th e understanding of organization-public relationships. The inform ation you provide will be held in strict confidence. The responses to the survey will not be linked to indivi duals and no further tracking of the responses will occur. You may ob tain a copy of the results of this study. The questionnaire is composed of questions relating to your pe rception of certain relationship attributes. You are asked to indicate from one to seven the extent to which you agree that each item describes your relati onship with the administration of USF. Please take a few minutes to complete the que stionnaire and re turn it in the enclosed envelope by Friday, January 28 The few minutes you spend now will help us do a better job of educating those who are follo wing you. Thank you in advance for your cooperation – I look forward to receiving your response. Sincerely, Lindsay C. Smith, Master’s Candidate Enclosures

PAGE 106

96 Appendix C RELATIONSHIP MEASUREMENT QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire is composed of a series of statements dealing with the perception of relationships. Specifically, the survey investigates six pr eviously studied relational attributes and a seventh additional component This study examines the relationship between the USF faculty and USF administration at this time. This research is a thesis project being conducted by a graduate student at the University of South Florida School of Mass Communications. Your responses to th e questionnaire will remain completely confidential. Thank you, in advance, for completing this questionnaire. Section I: Relational Attributes The following items are statements desc ribing your relationship with the USF administration. Using the following scale, pl ease mark the numeral response to each statement in the blank that precedes it. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly disagree, 4 = Undecided, 5= Slightly agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree 1. ____ The USF administration treats th e faculty fairly and justly. 2. ____ Whenever the USF administration make s an important decision; I know it will be concerned about the faculty. 3. ____ The USF administration can be relied on to keep its promises. 4. ____ I believe that the USF ad ministration takes the opini ons of the faculty into account when making decisions. 5. ____ I feel confident about the USF administration’s skills. 6. ____ The USF administration has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 7. ____ The USF administration and the faculty are attentive to what each other say. 8. ____The USF administration be lieves the opinions of the faculty are legitimate. 9. ____ In dealing with the f aculty, the USF administrati on has a tendency to throw its weight around.

PAGE 107

97 Appendix C (Continued) 10. ____The USF administration really listens to what the faculty have to say. 11. ____ The USF administration gives the facu lty enough say in the decision-making process. 12. ____ I feel that the USF administration is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to the faculty. 13. ____ I can see that the USF administration wants to maintain a relationship with the faculty. 14. ____ There is a long-lasting bond between the USF administration and the faculty. 15. ____ Compared to other organizations, I value my relations hip with the USF administration more. 16. ____ I would rather work with the USF administration than not. 17. ____ I am happy with the USF administration. 18. ____Both the USF administration and the facu lty benefit from this relationship. 19. ____ Most of the faculty are happy in their interactions with the USF administration. 20. ____ Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the USF administration has established with the faculty. 21. ____ Most people enjoy dealing wi th the USF administration. 22. ____ The USF administration does not espe cially enjoy giving others aid. 23. ____ The USF administration is very concer ned about the welfare of the faculty.

PAGE 108

98 Appendix C (Continued) 24. ____ I feel that the USF administrati on takes advantage of people who are vulnerable. 25. ____ I think that the USF administration succeeds by stepping on other people. 26. ____ The USF administration helps the f aculty without expecting anything in return. 27. ____ Whenever the USF administration gives or offers something to the faculty, it generally expects something in return. 28. ____ Even though the faculty have had a rela tionship with the USF administration for a long time, the administration still expects something in return whenever it offers the faculty a favor. 29. ____ The USF administration will compromise with the faculty when it knows that it will gain something. 30. ____ The USF administration takes care of pe ople who are likely to reward the organization. 31. ____ The USF administration and the faculty have similar goals. 32. ____ The USF administration perceives the goals of the faculty accurately. 33. ____ Open communication characterizes the relationship of the USF administration and the faculty. 34. ____ Cooperation characterizes the relations hip of the USF administration and the faculty. 35. ____ The USF administration and the faculty have the same goals.

PAGE 109

99 Appendix C (Continued) Section II: Demographics Listed below are a few demographic questions that will help us to better understand your answers. Please answer these questio ns to the best of your knowledge. 1. Which of the following best descri bes your position at the university? a. Professor b. Associate Professor c. Assistant Professor d. Instructor 2. How many years have you been a faculty member at USF? ___________ 3. What is your gender? a. Female b. Male 4. What campus do you teach at the majority of the time? a. Tampa b. Sarasota c. St. Petersburg d. Lakeland 5. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very l ittle and 10 being extensive, please rate your amount of decision-making power. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very poor and 10 being very good, how would you rank your overall relationship w ith the USF administration? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thank you very much for taking the ti me to complete this questionnaire!

PAGE 110

100 Appendix D Last week a questionnaire seeking your inpu t about the practice of public relations was mailed to you. You were selected as part of carefully chosen sample of faculty members of the University of South Florida. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. I am especia lly grateful for your help because it is only by asking people like you to share your thoughts that we can understand how to improve organizational communication. If you did not receive a questionnaire, or if it was misplaced, please contact me at (727) 488-3707 or email LindsayC_Smith@hotmail.co m and I will send you another one. Lindsay C. Smith, Master’s Candidate School of Mass Communications, Un iversity of South Florida Lindsay