USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Public perceptions of organizational culture and organization-public relationships

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Public perceptions of organizational culture and organization-public relationships
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Fonseca Rivera, Cherisse
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Communications
Corporate Culture
Management
Organization Theory
Public Relations
Dissertations, Academic -- Mass Communications -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Almost 30 years ago, public relations scholars began to process the idea that the concept of culture was important to public relations practices. In particular, scholars questioned what influence culture might have on the communication process and relationship building between organizations and their stakeholders. Yet, today culture is still an understudied concept in the public relations literature. The purpose of this study is to analyze how of organizational culture, as defined by Sriramesh, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier (1996), is significant to the relationship outcomes in public relations. The theoretical framework for this study consists of organizational culture theory and organization-public relationship theory. A quantitative survey was used to measure an external public's perceptions of organizational culture and organizational-public relationships within an academic department. The research measures of authoritarian/participative culture to determine how it is related to the dimensions of organizational-public relationships, including control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, communal relationships, and exchange relationships. The results suggest how an organization can utilize perceptions of organizational culture and relationship management from external publics to develop and implement effective communication strategies.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Cherisse Fonseca Rivera.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 122 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:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004866
usfldc handle - e14.4866
System ID:
SFS0028130:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

! ! Public Perceptions of Organizational Culture and Organization Public Relationships by Cherisse Fonseca Rivera A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts School of Mass Communications College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Kelly Page Werder, Ph.D. Kimberly Golombisky, Ph.D. Kelli Burns, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 24, 2011 Keywords: management, public relations, communications, corporate culture, organization theory Cop yright 2011 Cherisse Fonseca Rivera

PAGE 2

Dedicat i on To the past because without you I would have never looked towards the future, and to the f uture because I never want to go to the past I dedicate this thesis to my mother, Aida Zayas Fonseca, because without her I would have never made it this far in life. You have cried for me, pushed me, lifted me, and cheered me on at every exp erience in m y life. To my father, Jose Fonseca, D. Min. you have lead by example. You have encouraged me and shown me the power of knowledge in your own way. I also dedicate this thes i s to Derina Holtzhausen, Ph.D. because you have been the voice in my head. I never gave up on this project because of you.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements First and foremost, I thank God for giving me the ability to finish this process. I am grate ful that He did not make it an easy process for me. I thank Him for always providing and loving me even when I am unlovable. Dr. Werder, thank you for being my thesis chair and never giving up on me. I have appreciated every moment you have given me. Thank you for imparting your knowledge and wisdom into me. I am eternally grateful. Dr. Golombisky, thank you for always challenging me to be a better student. You have been a huge influence in my life. The woman, teacher, and pupil I am today have been because of you. Thank you for always leading in honesty. I will always push myself further because of you. Thank you for being a mentor and investing your time into my life. Dr. Burns, thank you for sharing with me your scholarly and personal life. Thank you for agreeing to sit on my thesis committee. I appreciate the time you have spent sharing your know ledge and wisdom with me. Dr. Holtzhausen, you are the voice in my head. Thank you for seeing something in me and pushing me into this experience. I hope that I will be the educator who empowers students to maximize their potential. Thank you for being a role model and mentor to me.

PAGE 4

Thank you to my family. They have put up with me and endured with me as I have gone through this process. Mom, thank you for always pushing me. Dad, thank you for loving me. My sisters, Aida Y and Mariela, thank you for being my best friends. You fill a space in my life that no one else can Titi Magali, thank you for being my confident and friend. Abuela Aida, I am the woman I am today because of you ( Tu m e as hecho la mujer quien soy hoy ) I love you all more than you will e ver know. "!#$!%&'($)*!'+ *+*-! .*/!0$1'(2-!3(24$2+!,*(!4(''(!'5!#$6!.*(!+$'#,('! )'4$(#'-!7+$!8&!,&')'+69!:(24$2+!,*(!)2(#'!'/!8$'#,*!%&'!' 5 '4' +$82)*!,2(2! 4*#,/'82(!'+82!#'826!;('+!/2!+2/124$<5 !) '!#$!4*(2=<56!>$'#,('!8'!2#2('6

PAGE 5

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures v Abstract v i Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review 6 Organizational Culture 6 The Importance of Organizational Culture 9 Organizational Culture and Public Relations 12 Dimensions of Organizational Culture 17 Authoritarian Culture 18 Participative Cult ure 18 Organization Public Relationships 20 Relationship Management Theory 23 Types of Relationships 26 Exchange Relationships 26 Communal Relationships 26 Measurements of Relationship Quality 27 Control Mutuality 28 Trust 28 Commitment 28 Satisfaction 28 Organizational Culture and Organization Public Relationships 29 Hypotheses and Propositions 31 Chapter 3: Method and Procedures 33 Research Design 34 Instrumentation 35 Measures of Organizational Culture 36 Innovation, Tradition, and Efficiency 36 Authoritarian versus Participative Management Styles 37 Liberal versus Conservative Values 37 Cooperation or Domination in Relationship with Publics 37 System Open or Closed 38

PAGE 6

ii Measures of Organization Public Relations 38 Trust 38 Control Mutuality 39 Commitment 39 Satisfaction 40 Communal Relationships 40 Ex c hange Relationships 40 Demographics 41 Sampling Procedures 41 Data Collection 42 Data Analysis 43 Chapter 4: Results 45 Response Statistics 46 Descriptive Statistics 47 Organizational Culture 49 Organi zational Public Relationships 58 Hypothesis one: Perceptions of participative culture 65 Hypothesis two: Perceptions of authoritarian culture 69 Hypothesis three: Organizational Domination 73 Hypothesis four: Organizational Cooperation 73 Chapter 5: Discussion 74 Limitations of the Study 83 Conclusions 85 Future Research 87 References 88 Appendices 94 Appendix A: Survey Instrument 94 Appendix B: Prenotification Email 105 Appendix C: Participation Email 107 Appendix D : Email Reminder 1 109 Appendix E: Email Reminder 2 111

PAGE 7

iii List of Tables Table 1. Gender Frequencies 47 Table 2. Class Standing Frequencies 48 Table 3. Expected Date of Graduation Frequencies 48 Table 4. Living In Frequencies 49 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Culture Innovation, Tradition, Efficiency 50 Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Culture Participative Management Style 51 Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Liberal vs. Conservative Values, Cooperation vs. Domination, and Opened or Closed Organizational Systems 52 Table 8. Rotated Factor Matrix a 54 Table 9. Rotated Factor Matrix a 56 Table 10. Descriptive Statist ics for Relationship Trust 59 Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for Relationshi p Satisfaction 60 Table 12. Descriptive Statistic s for Relationship Commitment 61 Table 13. Descriptive Statistics for R elationship Control Mutuality 62 Table 14. Descriptive Statistics for Relationship Commu nal and Exchange Relationship 63 T able 15. Reliability Analysis 64 Table 16. Overall Means 65 Table 17. Hypothesis 1 Correlations 66 Table 18. Participative Management Style Correlations 67

PAGE 8

iv Table 19. Innovation, Efficiency and Liberalism Correlations 68 Table 20. Open Organ izational System Co rrelations 69 Table 2 1. Hypothesis 2 Correlations 70 Table 22 Authoritarian Management Style Correlations 71 Table 23 Tradition and Conservatism Correlations 72 Table 2 4 Closed Organizational System Correlations 73

PAGE 9

v List o f Figures Figure 1. Antecedents and Consequences of Organization public Relationships 24

PAGE 10

vi Abstract Almost 30 years ago, public relations scholars began to process the idea that the concept of culture was important to public relations practices In particular, scholars questioned what influence culture might have on the communication process and relationship building between organizations and their stakeholders. Yet, today culture is still an understudied concept in the public relations literature. The purpose of this st udy is to analyze how of organizational culture, as defined by Sriramesh, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier (1996), is significant to the relationship outcomes in public relations. The theoretical framework for this study consists of organizational c ulture theory a nd organization public relationship theory. A quantitative survey was used to measure an external public's perceptions of organizational culture and organizational public relat ionships within an academic department The research measures of authoritarian/p articip ative culture to determine how it is related to the dimensions of organizational public relationships, including control mutu ality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, communal relationships, and exchange relationships. The results suggest how an organ ization can utilize perceptions of organizational culture and relationship management from external publics to develop and implement effective communication strategies.

PAGE 11

1 ! Chapter One Introduction The concepts of organizational culture and relationship management are not new in the public relations literature. Numerous studies have examined organizational culture and how it affects public relations practice. J. Grunig, L. Gruni g, and Dozier ( 2002) posit that public relations departments can be influential in changing the larger culture of an organization. More recent ly scholars have argued that the main function of public relations practice i s relationship management (Bruni n g, 2002). Research in th is area determined that organization public relationships, when managed effectively, do es affect stakeholders' attitud es, evaluations, and behaviors (Bruning, 2002) Despite the abundant literature advocating the importance of both organizational culture a nd relationship management to public relations, there has been minimal research devoted to how these two concepts are related. Specifically, limited attention has been given to how organizational culture and relationship management function of public relat ions are related The concept of culture also referred to as societal culture, emerged from the field of anthropology. However, a commonly agreed upon definition has not been produced, and many articulations and descriptions of culture exist. For example, Kluckhohn (1951) defined culture as a way of thinking, feeling, and reacting. Many scholars, such as Deal and Kennedy (1982), describe culture as a set of core values. Mitroff (1983) defined

PAGE 12

2 ! culture as shared meanings or symbols. Hofstede (200 1) viewed values which consists of symbols, heroes, and rituals as the part of culture that cannot be seen (p. 10) Hofstede (1980 ) de fined culture as "the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of peop le from another" (p. 21). L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) collaborated to find similarities among all the definitions th ey studied and came up with one, which provides the conceptual definition of culture used in this study. Specifically, "culture is the sum total of shared values, symbols, meanings, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations that organize and integrate a group of people who work together" ( L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002 p. 482). Essentially, L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and D ozier (2002) determ ined that organizational culture is composed of a set of assumptions that provide a n organizational worldview and what is produced from it Values, stories, myths, artifacts, and rituals may be considered to be the product of the worldvi ew. Hofstede (1980) was among the first to link societal cultur e with organizational behavior, asserting that values are the framework that contributes to culture. Victor (1992) argued that people learn culture, which functions within a group, and that cul ture is "inseparably tied to communication" (p. 6). He went on to say that "a person's culture shapes a host of business commun ication factors" (p. 7 ). Similarly organization public relationship management theory is founded in communication (Broom, Case, & Ritchey, 1997). Walton ( 1969) suggested that communication is "the most significant factor accounting for the total behavior of the organization" and the dynamics of the organization can be best understood through its syst ems of communication (p. 109). C ommunication leads to relationship building

PAGE 13

3 ! Relationships are a connection, association, or involvemen t, and they represent the exchange or transfer of information, energy, or resources (Broom et. al, 1997, p. 94). Therefore a relationship can be formed through social a nd cultural norms the sum total of shared values, symbols, meanings, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations that organize and integrate a group of people. Despite the shared conceptual foundation of organizational culture and relationship m anagement, these aspects of public rel ations scholarship and practice have not been strongly linked to their contributions to organizational effectiveness. "Culture although fundamental to any relationship building effort has yet to be integrated into the discussion of relationship building" (Sriramesh, 2007). The purpose of this study is to analyze how organizational cultur e is significant to relational outcomes in public relations. This study attempts to extend theory related to organizational culture an d the dimensions of organization public relationships. Specifically, this study seeks to extend public relations theory by examining how measures of authoritarian/participative culture relate to and influence dimensions of organization public relationships including variables of trust, commitment, control mutuality, and satisfaction. This study attempts to determine how culture might have an effect on the communication process and relationship building function of public relation s. Specifically it asks how perceptions of or ganizational culture are related to perceptions of or ganization public relationships Therefore, it empirically tests the following hypotheses and related propositions:

PAGE 14

4 ! H1: Perceptions of participative culture are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.1: Perceptions of participative management style are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.2: T he organizational values of innovation, efficiency, and liberalism are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.3: An open organizational environment is positively related to perceptions of trust, sat isfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H2: Perceptions of authoritarian culture are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.1: Perceptions of authoritarian management style are inversely relate d to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.2: The organizational values of tradition and conservatism are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.3: A closed organ izational environment is inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H3: Authoritarian culture is positively related to exchange relationships. H4: Participative is positively related to communal relationship s. To test these hypotheses and propositions, a quantitative survey was used to measure perceptions of organizational culture and perceptions of organization public relationship. The findings of the survey provide a better understanding of how

PAGE 15

5 ! organizational culture and relationship management are related and influence one another in the context of an organization ( academic department ) and one of its key public s ( r esidents ). This study is significant because of its ability to contribute to publi c relations theory and practice. It will build on previous public relations studies on organizational culture and relationship management to further public relations theory. The hope is that the concept of culture will continue to be integrated into the di scussion of relationship building. From an applied perspective, t he research presented here can provide public relations departments with effective tools to bring change within organizations to build positive relationships Chapter two of this study provi des a review of the literature on org anizational culture and organization public relationship s This includes a definition, the importance, and measures of organizational culture. Furthermore, the literature illustrates a link between organizational culture and public relations, as well as relationship management theory. The literature suggests that both concepts influence effective public relations practices. Chapter three describes the methodology used to gather and analyze d ata for this study. Chapter four presents the resu lts of the study and chapter five offe rs a discussion on the findings of the survey Chapter six presents the conclusions, including limitations an d directions for further research on this topic.

PAGE 16

6 ! Chapter Two Literature Review "Culture is an idea whose time has come." (Smircich, 1983, p. 339). This study b uilds on previous studies that have attempted to understand and explain effective public relations practice J. Grunig, L. Grunig and Dozier (2002) introduced two distinct type s of culture in the Excellence S tudy: authoritarian and participative cultures. This study uses the measures of authoritarian and participative culture s to determine how they relate to the dimensions of organization publi c relationships. T his study also uses Hon and J. Grunig's (1999) six measures of r elationship management : control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship, and communal relationship. This chapter provides a review of the literature linking culture and organizations. It attempts to explain the concept of organizational culture, the importance of organizational culture, organizational culture and public relations, and measurements of organizational culture. The last part of the chapte r focuses on the concept of organization public relationships relationship management theory, types of relationships, and dimensions of relationship quality. Organizational Culture According to Smircich (1983) there are differen t links between culture and organization s First, Smircich argues that a country transmit culture to an organizat ion

PAGE 17

7 ! through its employees. Second, organizational culture (internal culture) exists within a societal culture. The last three linkages Smircich posited view culture not as separate from the organization but as something the organization is. Sriramesh and White (1992) describe it as organizations that each respectively take cognitive, symbolic, and structural perspectives of organizations" (p. 60 0). Their research determined that societal culture is equally important as corporate culture because it influences the "organization's human resources as well as its corporate culture" (1992, p. 601). Where as societal culture is external to the organization, organizational culture deals with the internal patterns, behaviors, values, beliefs, etc. of an organization. Coinciding with the definition of culture, scholars have provided a plethora of definitions fo r organizational culture. Culture can be seen as "the glue that hold excellent organizations together and keep mediocre organizations mediocre" (Sriramesh, J. Grunig, & Buffin g ton, 1992, p. 577). Sriramesh, J. Grunig, and Buffin g ton (1992) referred to org anizational culture as the rules and ropes employees must learn in order to be accepted within the organization. Schein (1985) defined organizational culture as unknown beliefs, which help members of an organization define their views and how it relates to the environment. Schein's (1985) work defines organizational culture as the basic assumption that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems" (p. 6). Deal and Kennedy (1982) viewed organizational culture as a set of principal values adopted by an organization. They arg ued that these values determine how an organization will function, from products produced to issues of human resources. Ouchi (1981), along with Pascale and Athos (1981) used the term "philoso phy" in their

PAGE 18

8 ! definit ions of organizational culture. They argued that these "philosophies" pushed the policies of an organization onto its customers and emplo yees. These "philosophies" are establi shed over a long period of time and are passed on from one generation to the next. Many scholars who study organizational culture have describe d it as containing signs and symbols and have included the concept of stories as an important part of organizational culture. Barley (1983) took this ap proach and investigated how the use of signs helps creat e the meaning of communication, identify ing the culture within an organization. Martin, Feldman, Hatch, and Sitkin ( 1983) conducted a study in which they focused strictly on stories. The y argued that "stories were selected because they generate, as well as reflect, changes in organizations stories include rich detail and carry multiple interpretations (Martin et al 1983, p. 439) Hatch (2006) provided a list of the most widely used definitions of organizational culture within her text Her analysis found that most the definitions included the concepts of shared meanings, beliefs, assumptions, understandings, norms, values and knowledge, which are common among groups of people. Hatch pointed ou t that among all the definitions the common themes illustrate organizational and subcultural levels of analysis. "This is because culture is a particular way of life among people or community and organizations are communities that sometimes grow to be c omplex enough to sustain smaller communities or subcultures" (Hatch, 2006, p. 177). Hatch (2006) defines subculture as a group of members within an organization that identify themselves separately and make decisions based on their "unique collective" under standing (p. 176). She explains that typically the dominant subculture in the organization is set apart by

PAGE 19

9 ! senior executives and this explains why organizational culture is often called corporate culture. The def initions included in this review provide a conceptual understanding of organizational culture. Sriamesh, J. Grunig and Dozier (1996) stated that it is "necessary to unify the concept and arrive at comprehensive measures to identify it in organizations" (p. 234). The following section provides a review of the literature related to the importance of organizational culture The Importance of Organizational Culture A conceptual understanding of organizational culture begins to provide an understanding of why organizational culture is important. Deal and Kennedy (1982) argued that organizations do not only pass along products and services, but also values and beliefs as well. Ultimately, a firm understanding of organizational culture can contribute to increased effectiveness of the organization. Sriramesh, J. Grunig, and Dozier (1996) state that "organizational effectiveness is the ultimate aim of most managers" (p. 23 4). Smirci ch 's (1983) analysis of the literature revealed that organizational culture is a key tool that strategic managers can use to achieve organizational effectiveness According to Tichy (1982) organizational culture i s complex and difficult to identify, but it has the most widespread influence on organizational effectiveness (p. 62). Tichy used a metaphorical analysis to reinforce the importance of organizational culture. He referred to an organization as a "strategic rope" made up of three intertwined strands. Each strand represents what he identifies as the key elements known as environments that impact an organization. The strands are technical, poli tical, and cultural, and "at first,

PAGE 20

10 ! from a distance, individual stra nds are not distinguishable" (p. 63). In addition, just as a major strand of a rope is made of multiple strands of ropes, the "strategic rope is multifaceted. A thorough analysis of an organization will identify many subsystems, which can be related to su bcultures. Last, Tichy uses the image of separating the rope to explain that when the strands are taken apart the rope becomes weaker. The same happens within organizations whose subcultures begin to clash. "Therefore, the author argued, it is important to know and understand corporate culture" (Sriramesh, J. Grunig, Buffington, 1992, p. 584). Schein (1992) decided to add a number of practical suggestions for dealing with organizational culture to his work. First, analyzing culture reveals what goes on in side the organization when subcultures exist The concept of culture is not only important at the organizational level, but it provides an understanding of how different groups work within organizations. Schein states that most often this issue is viewed a s a "co mmunication failure" when it is a breakdown of intercultural communications. Second, studying culture "is necessary if we are to understand how new technologies influence and are influenced by organizations" (p. xii). Culture can help an organizatio n understand how new technology influences different groups within the organization both at the development and implementation stages. Third, understanding culture is important when being informed how to manage organizations across national and ethnic boun daries. As organizations build relationships with organizations of other nations and cultures, managers must be able to analyze and solve cultural misunderstandings. Last, culture can be the primary source of resistance when it come s to "organizational lea rning," "development," and "planned change." Organizational change often involves

PAGE 21

11 ! some changes in culture, and many times at the subcultural level (p. xiv). Schein argued that because of these issues the study of organizational culture must increase and a solid conceptual foundation must be established. I n recent years business scholars have studied organizational culture and found that its importance is tied to the notion of organizational change. K e and Wei (2008) discovered that organizational culture was "important to the success of projects involving organizational change" (p. 209). C ameron and Quinn (2006) argued that change in organizations in unavoidable due to the rapid growth and change of e xternal environments. Their research revealed that without ch ange in organizational culture organizations cannot expect to pursue improvement in organizational performance (p. 11). Many organizations have the tools and techniques needed to implement change but most times organizational change fails because the "fundamental" culture of the organization is not taken into consideration. Organizations fail to study and change values, managerial styles, ways of thinking, and approaches to problem solving (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Sun (2008) concluded that organizational culture should not be ignored because culture can be used as a competitive advantage during organizational development" (p. 140). An organizational culture where beliefs and values are widely shared can also have advantages with cooperation, control, communication, and commitment (Sun, 2008, p. 141). At the core of the literature on the importance of organizational culture is the thought that organizational culture can be managed. Martin, Sitkin, and Boehm (1985) identified two schools of thought. The first is of cultural pragmatists who argue that organizational culture can be managed. They view culture as a tool, which is key to

PAGE 22

12 ! organizational effectiveness and profitabi lity and can be managed to accomplish organizational goals set by management. Martin et al. (1985) labeled the second school of thought as purists. Purists argue that organizational culture is inherent and cannot be managed. Moreover, p urists believe that culture evolves from the majority of in dividuals in the organization. Public relations scholars who study organizational culture consider themselves cultural pragmatists. Sriramesh, J. Grunig, and Dozier (1996) found that organizational culture could be measured and managed. Their research began to make the connection between organizational culture and public relations. The next section will discuss the literature on organizational culture, communication, and public relations. Organizational Culture a nd Public Relations Before making the connection between organizational culture and public relations, it is pertinent to connect organization al culture with communications. The connection between organizational culture and communications can be found in th e conceptual meaning o f communication. Since the 1980 s, scholars have derived a communication approach to organizational culture (Barley, 1983; Bormann, 1985; B r oms & Gahmberg, 1983; Edelstein, 1983; Glaser, 1994; Marshall & Stohl, 1993; Pacanowsky & Truji llo, 1983; Schall, 1983). Pacanowsky and Trujillo (1983) viewed communication within an organization as a performance. They concluded that members of an organization seen as a theater performed different roles depending on the situation, the position they hold and their tasks. They argued that organizational communication was a performance that led to ritual, "passion," sociality, politics, and enculturation (Pacanowsky & Trujillo, 1983).

PAGE 23

13 ! Borman n (1985) had a similar approach defining communication a s "the human social processes by which people create, raise, and sustain group consciousness" (p. 100). In Carey's (1989) ritual view of communication communication is a symbolic process where by reality is created, maintained, repaired, and transformed. The ritual view of communication is similar to one of two major models of communication. The other is the transmission model of communication. Bell, Golombisky, and Holtzhausen (2002) briefly describe the differences between the transmission and ritual mod els of communication: Transmission asks questions about how we get information from here to there across distances. The ritual model asks questions about how we manage to get along together over time. The ritual model helps us explain how we build shared reality and culture in social groups, including in organizations, even as we account for constant change. (p. 5) The co mmon conceptual themes support t hat Sriamesh, J. Grunig, and Dozier (1996) reasoned, "that culture and communication have a symbiotic re lation and changing one will facilitate the modification of the other (p. 239). Sriramesh, J. Grunig, and Dozier (1996) contended that understanding the communication process and linking it to organizational culture is important to public relations scholar s. They viewed public relations as a communication activity and saw public relations as both a product of culture and instrument of culture (p. 239). The authors defined public relations as the management of communication between an organization and its in ternal and external publics (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984) Consequently, they conducted a quantitativ e study to determine whether public relations effects organizational culture and sought to answer if organizational culture can be measured a nd changed. For the m, "public relations consists of the portion of organizational communication that is managed by professional communicators" (p. 239).

PAGE 24

14 ! J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) identified four models of public relations which they felt would help conceptualize and practice communication management. The four models are press agentry, public information, two way asymmetrical and two way symmetrical. Press agentry is applied when excellent public relations practices focus on publicity. Public information "uses journalists in residence' to disseminate relatively objective information through the mass media and controlled media such as newsletters, broch ures, and direct mail (J. Gruni g, 1992 a p. 18). Two way asymmetrical mo del develops messages based on research to persuade strategic publics to behave the way the organization wants. Two way symmetrical is based on research and communicates in order to manage conflict and improve understanding with strategic publics. The rese arch suggested that excellent public relations practices model more of a two way symmetrical rather than the other three. J. Grunig and L. Grunig (1992) later concluded that those who hold the power in the organization, known as the dominant coalition, cho ose the model of public relations organizations practice. The way the dominant coalition practices public relations is influenced by: the culture of organization, the potential of the public relations department, and the schema for public relations in the organization (p. 298). Sriramesh, J. Grunig, and Buffington (1992) agreed that corporate culture is comprised by a set of presuppositions that make up a worldview, which are assumptions about public relations and the products of that worldview such as valu es, stories, myths, artifacts, or rituals (p.591). J. Grunig and White (1992) argued that assumptions and products of a wo rldview have powerful control over the way members of an organization or an organization itself interprets public relations, what individuals expect to be its effect, and how convinced they area about its social purpose. "The presuppositions of a

PAGE 25

15 ! culture influence the choice of a model of public relations directly or indirectly by influencing the organization's schema for public rela tions or by affecting the people or types of people who come to power in an organization" (p. 591). Sriramesh, J. Grunig, and Buffingt on (1992) derived three propositions that linked public relations with organizational culture based on the litera ture revi ew for the Excellence S tudy. They concluded that presuppositions about public relations are deeply rooted in a wide range of presuppositions of both societal and organizational cultures: Proposition 1 : The presuppositions about public relations in an organ ization will reflect that organization's internal and external culture. Proposition 2 : Public relations managers will be most likely to change the model of public relations practiced in an organization when organizational culture is changing. Proposition 3 : A public relations department that is high in potential (because of managerial roles, education in public relations, and professionalism) will develop a counterculture when the organization's culture of worldview for public relations do not reflect the p resuppositions and worldview for public relations of the department. (p. 592) Cameron and McCollum (1993) used in depth interviews and surveys to study the connection between the success of internal communications and shared beliefs among members of the d ominant coalition and employees. I n turn they evaluated the link between organizational culture and public relations. The authors proposed that "consensus between employees and management at the level of constructs, ideals, and beliefs is both a product a nd facilitator of communication between management and employees" (p. 244). The findings extended the idea that public relations p ractitioners should promote two way communication between members of the dominant coalition and members of the organization. Consequently the organization will have a stronger organizational culture (Sriramesh, 2007).

PAGE 26

16 ! L. Gruni g (1995) assessed the link between public relations and organizational culture in her case study of a class action suit agains t the U.S. Department of Sta te. L. Grunig (1985) focused her study on "sex discrimination in job assignments as a way of exploring the existence and consequences of organizational culture on public relations (p. 139). The author specifically studied women professionals wanting to go into a managerial role. She used long interviews, newspaper coverage related to the lawsuit, and State Department periodicals and manuals to examine subcultures that can be found inside a larger organizational context. L. Grunig (199 5) concluded that a st rong "subculture has perpetuated the pattern of dominance and bias that once characterized the State Department's dominant culture (p. 240). Furthermore, she demonstrated that organizational culture does directly and indirectly affect public relations pra ctice. Organizational culture may be more prominent than that of official policy or law. In fact, organizational culture can limit the power of the dominant coalition or the members of the organizati on who set and implement policy (p. 240). Grunig (1995) s uggests that both genders of communication practitioners must examine organizational culture when attempting to practice two wa y symmetrical public relations. Then, changing organizational goals and attitudes and behaviors of strategic publics depends on understanding and considering organizational culture. As stated by Sriramesh (2007), "save for the previously discussed studies, one cannot find published information of empirical research that has specifically linked corporate culture with public relation s (p. 516). A few other studies have made references about the linkage of organizational culture and public relations. Reber and Cameron

PAGE 27

17 ! (2003) did not measure organizational culture specifically, but did discuss organizational culture as a factor that dec isively affects the outcome of public relations. This study aligns itself with Sriramesh, J. Grunig and Dozier (1996) who also reviewed the literature concluding that: Public relations practitioners have the greatest impact on the decisions made about public relations when one or more of them are included in the organization's dominant coalition. If a public relations practitioner is not part of the dominant coalition, which is frequently the case, public relations practitioners function more in the imp lementation of decisions about public relations that in their formulation. Corporate culture also has indirect effects on public relations. Corporate culture is affected by the power holders in the dominant coalition, and it affects which key managers gain enough power to be in the dominant coalition. (p. 240) The preceding review of the literature suggests that public relations can affect organizational culture, and organizational culture can affect public relations. Public relations practitioners must stu dy and understand organizational culture in order to make decisions about organizational goals and improve relationships with key publics. The next section will discuss the two dimensions of organizational culture practitioners can use to begin to study an d understand the culture of an organization. Dimensions of Organizational Culture The dimensions of organizational culture d escribed in this section derive from the research cond ucted by Sriramesh, J. Gruni g and Dozier (1996) for the Excellence Study. Grunig (1992 b ) identified one of the characteristics of the Excellence Study as strong, participative cultures. The characteristic suggest that: Excellent organizations share a sense of mission. They are integra ted by strong culture that values human resources, organic structures, innovation, and symmetrical communication. (p. 236) The Excellence Study identified two dimensions of culture: participative culture and authoritarian culture (J. Gru n i g, L. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) This section analyzes the

PAGE 28

18 ! literature on participative and authoritarian culture. Specifically, how these dimensions of culture can be used as measures of organizational culture as they relate to this study. Sriramesh, J. Grunig, and Dozier ( 1996) analyzed the relation between corporate culture and the organizations pub lic relations activities using factor analysis, which narrowed down the large number of items the y developed into two factors (p. 242). The factors seemed to be consistent with the concepts of authoritari an and participative cultures. Authoritarian c ultures. L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) describe organizations with authoritarian cultures as focus ed on centralized decision making, where pertinent decisions are made by members of the dominant coalition. They explain that "different departments pursue their separate agendas that may conflict with each other" (p. 482). Members of the organization believ e they have little power to create change. Employees also feel that senior management only perceives them as a function of the organization and fear top management. The authors express authoritarian cultures as closed and resistant to ideas from outside or ganizations. Participative c ultures. Participat ive cultures emphasize teamwork a common value among emp loyees (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). Departments within the organization collaborate together for a shared mission. L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) indicated that "departmental agendas match the overall goals and object ives of the organization (p. 483 ). Members of the organization say they would manage the organization the same way as members of the executive team. Employees believe that the dominant coalition values them as people and not just functions of the organization.

PAGE 29

19 ! Participative organizations are open to ideas from outsid e the organization as well as the internal environment (p. 483 ). Sri r amesh, J. Grun ig, and Dozier (1996) derived two different types of organizational culture from different sources, which included the following characteristics from Ouchi 's (1981) study of a Japanese company in the United States, where Theory J (Japanese style) compared with Theory A (U.S. style) organizations: Collective versus individual responsibility Collective versus individual decision making Collective versus individual values Holist ic concern versus lack of such concern for employees Long term versus short term employment Slow versus fast evaluation and promotion Nonspecialized versus specialized career paths Sriramesh, J. Grunig, and Dozier (1996) used several characteristics from their previous research on the relations between organizational ideology and presuppositions and models of public relations (p. 243) and developed the following variables: Importance of innovation, tradition and effi ciency as organizational values Partici pative versus authoritarian management style Lib eral versus conservative values Cooperation versus dominatio n in relationships with publics System open versus closed to its environment

PAGE 30

20 ! In order to measure perceptions of organizational culture this study fo cuses on these variables. Sriramesh, J. Gruni g, and Dozier (1996) also included the following from the literature of organizational culture as part of their study: shared mission, rewards for performance rather than personal connections, social atmosphere among employees and managers off the job, integration versus individualism, emphasis on time, style of decision making, and consensual pro cess (L. Gruni g, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002 p. 484). L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) reasoned that excellent public relations programs would have characteristics of a participative culture. From the beginning of their study the y contend that organizations can have both characteristics of a participativ e and authoritarian culture. In their conclusion, they link ed public relations with organizational culture and suggested that for excellent public relations there need not be a presence of a participative culture. The results pertaining to authoritarian culture did not relate negatively to factors from the Excellenc e S tudy. They did find that a participative culture "provides a more supportive, nurturing environment for excellent public relations than does an authoritarian culture (p. 496). A conceptual understanding of authoritarian and participative cultures is a starting point in studying how organizational cul ture might relate organization public relations hips Basic connections begin with the similarities that both can be measured and change d The following section begins to define organization public relationships and presents the dimensions of relationship management. Organization Public Relationships Srirames h (2007) asserted culture as an essential part of the relationship building process. Yet, only a few studies have attempted to integrate culture with research in

PAGE 31

21 ! relationship management. Unlike organizational culture, relationship management scholars have emerged themselves into the study "of public relations as the management of relationships between an organization and its key publics" (Ledingha m & Bruning, 2000, p. 56). Ledingham (2001) derived at "four pivotal developments, which spurred emergence of the relational perspective as a framework for public relations study, teaching and practice" (p. 286). The f irst development Ledingham (2001) prop osed was the recognition of the central role of relationships in public relations. Ferguson's (1984) call gave rise to relationship study within public relations scholarship and practices. Second, Ledingham offered the reconceptualizing of public relations as a management function. The idea of managing organization public relationships introduced the management process to public relations practice (Ledingham, 2003). Third, scholars began to present the identification of components and types of organization public relationships, their linkage to public attitudes, perceptions, knowledge and behavior, and relationship measurement strategies. T he last and fourth development established organization public relationships models, which included antecedents, proper ties consequences, and maintenance as well as monitoring strategies (Ledingham, 2003, p. 183). Emergence into relationship management scholarship also advanced a 10 phase development model and a five step process model. These vital developments contribute d to the fundamentals of the relational perspective, which is encapsulated in Center and Jackson's (1995) observation that "the term for desired outcomes of public relations practice is public relations" (p. 2) Furthermore, "an organization with effective public relations will attain positive public relationships" (p. 2).

PAGE 32

22 ! Like organizational culture, organization public relationship is about organizational effectiveness. Just as the Excellence Study identified that effective public relations recognizes str ong, participative culture, it also argued that public relations contributes to the effective ness of an organization when it identifies strategic publics and uses symmetrical communication to "develop and maintain quality long term relation ships" (L. Gruni g, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002, p. 548 ) Hon and J. Grunig (1999) asserted that public relations contributed to organizational effectiveness when communication programs identify key publics and works to establish and maintain relationships over a long period of time. Effectiveness is the extent to which organizat ions can meet their goals. Organizations are more effective when they build quality relationships that allow for more independence, which result in the realization of the organizations mission (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Ehling, 1992). J. Grunig (1992 a ) defin ed the major purpose of public relations as "building relationships with publics that constrain or enhance the ability of the organization to meet its mission" (p. 20). I n order to continu e the discussion, organization public relations needs to be defined. The p ursuit to define organization public relationships began with Broom, Casey, and Ritchey's (1997) call for a definition. Ledingham and Brun ing (1998) retorted with the first organization public relationships definition as "the state which exists between an organization and its key publics, in which the action of either can impact the economical, social, cultural or political we ll being of the other" (p. 62). Their definition links relationships with impact. Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (2000) define d organization public relations hips using a transactional approach. They posited organization public

PAGE 33

23 ! relations hips "are represented by the pattern of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage between organization and its publics" (p. 18). Hung (2007) defined organization public relationship from "the system theory perspective, where organizations and there publics affect each other with their behaviors" (p 444). Hung (2005) stated that organization public relationships appear when organizations and th eir publics become reliant on each other, which mo ves the organization to action. Relationship Management Theory A common theme that emerges from the definitions of organization public relations hips is the connection between the organiza tion and its strategic publics. In 2003, Ledingham articulated and explicated the theor y of relationship management as "e ffectively managing organization public relationships around common interests and shared goals, over time, results in mutual understanding and benef it for interacting organizations and publics" (p. 190). The relationship paradigm provides a framework to study the link between public relations objectives and organizational goals, for constructing platforms of strategic planning and tactical implementat ion, and evaluating programs in a way that members of the dominant coalition understa nd and appreciate (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). This section reviews the literature on the dominant paradigm for study ing organization public relationships and its application. Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) developed a theoretical framework for defining organization public relations. The notion for this study was based on t he authors' pioneering model that emerged from systems theory, which form definitions of sy stems on the idea of interdependence, or relatedness, of elements. They posited that the concept of systems theory suggests a concept of relationships:

PAGE 34

24 ! Relationships represent the exchange or transfer of information, energy, or resources. Therefore, attrib utes of those exchanges or transfers represent and define the relationship. At the level of organization public systems, the attributes of linkages among the participants describe the relationships within the system as well as the structure of the system. (p. 94) Broom, Casey, and Ritchey's (1997) model incorporated antecedents, subsequent states, and consequences of organization public relationships. Antecedents included "perceptions, motives, needs, behaviorsposited as contingencies or causes in the formation of relationships (p. 94). They further argued that antecedents are the origin of change due to stressors on the system stemming from the environment. Furthermore, consequences of organization public relationships were seen as "the outputs that ha ve the effects of changing the environment and of achieving, maintaining or changing goal states both inside and outside of the organization" (p. 94). Broom, Casey, and Ritchey developed Fig ure 1, where cultural norms are incorporated as an element of ante cedents to further explain the concept of relationships and how they impact and form (p. 94) Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (2000) looked more closely at the model suggesting transactions are part of the process if fulfilling needs and can be used to describe, categorize, and evaluate the quality of relationships (Ledingham, 2003, p. 187). They

PAGE 35

25 ! added three additional dimensions of relationships formalization, standardization, and complexity. Broom, Casey, and Ritchey also suggested the intensity and re ciprocity of two major relationship processes information flow and resource flow. The authors concluded that relationships are subject to different interpretations, and agreed on the importance of determining the perceptions of relationship of all publics involved separate from their behavior in the relationship ( Ledingham & Bruning 2000). J. Grunig and Hua ng (2000) reconceptualized the model and described antecedents as characteristics of key publics, maintenance strategies as relationship states, and out comes of those strategies as outcomes. The y suggested using environmental scanning to monitor antecedents, continual observations by management and publics for the relationship state, and coorientational measurement for consequences. Furthermore, J. Grunig and Huang organized antecedents of relationships and maintenance strategies into a process model of relationships and added the relationship outcomes identified by Huang (1997). Huang suggested trust, control mutuality, relational commitment, and relation al satisfaction as vital indicators, which represent the quality of organization public relationships. Broom, Casey, and Ritchey's (2000) model o f organization public relationships c lassified cultural norms as a source of change, which results in forming a nd maintaining a relationship. That includes shared values, symbols, meanings, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations of a group. The review on the literature on Broom, Casey, and Ritchey's model illustrates how organizational culture can affect org anizati on public relationships. The next section discusses the two type s of relationship s and expands on Huang's (1997) relationship outcomes.

PAGE 36

26 ! Types of Relationships Clark and Mills (1993) identified two types of interpersonal relationships that explicate the desired nature of the relationship between an organization and a public. Hon and J. Grunig (1999) established two primary types of relationships that may exist be tween an organization and its publics as exchange relationship and communal relationship. Exchange r elationship s In an exchange relationship, one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so I the future" (L. Grunig, J Grunig, & Dozier, 2002, p. 552). Exchange relationships occur when parties give the same value of benefits they expect to receive. L. Grun ig, J. Grunig, and Dozier explain ed that exchange relationship is the nature of mar keting relationships, but it often is not sufficient for a public. Organizations are expected to give back to the community and its stakeh olders, and frequently receive little or nothi ng in return (Hon & Grunig, 1999; L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) Communal r elationships. In a communal relationship, the two parties involved "provide benefits to the other because they are concerned with the welfare of the other even when they get nothing in return" (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999, p. 21). L. Grunig, J. Grunig and Dozier (2002) suggested that the role of public relations is to work with members of the dominant coalition to help them understand the importance of building communal relationships with publics such as employees, the community, and the media. The re searchers contended that public relations practitioners add value to the organization when they establish communal relationships. "Communal relationships are important if

PAGE 37

27 ! organizations are to be socially responsible and to add value to society as well as t o client organizat ions" (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002, p. 553). Hon and J. Grunig (1999) explained that exchange relationships a re not good for an organization. They recommend that public relations professionals should not seek to develop exchange relationships. Clark and Mills (1993) stated that most relationships begin as exchange relationships and develop into communal relationship s as they are established. Hon and J. Grunig furth er explicated that exchanges can begin to build trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction. In return, public relations professionals can establish long term communal relationships where the lev el of these four indicators could become even high er and remain stable over time (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999, p. 21). The process can also be reversed, and there are times when a communal relationship needs to be established in order for an exchange to occur. In perspective, communal relationships contribute t o organization effectiveness when public relations professionals become experts in building this relationship type a practice that sets public relations apart from other organizational functions. Measurements of Relationship Quality As mention ed in the pr evious section, exchange and communal relationships contribute to indicators of relationship quality. Researchers have identified many characteristics that define the quality of a relationship. This study focuses on Huang (1997, 2001), J. Grunig and Huang (2000), and Hon and J. Grunig (1999) four characteristics of measuring quality of organization public relationships control mutuality, trust, commitment, and satisfaction.

PAGE 38

28 ! Control m utuality. Control mutuality is the degree to which parties agree on who has rightful power to influence one another. "Although some degree of power imbalance is natural in organ ization public relationships, the most stable, positive relationships exist when organizations and publics have some degree of control over the other (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002, p. 553). Trust. Trust is one party's level of confidence in and wi llingness to open oneself to the other party (L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002, p. 553). The authors argue that trust is a complicated concept with several underlying dimensions. The dimensions include the following : integrity, the belief that an organ ization is fair and just; dependability, the belief that an organization will do what is says it will do; and competence, the belief that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do. Commitment. Commitment is the extent to which one party believes that the relation ship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote. Two dimensions of commitment exist continuance commitment, which refers to a certain line of action, and affective commitment, which is an emotional orientation (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999, p. 20). Satisfaction. Satisfaction is the extent to which one 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 cos ts Satisfaction also can occur when one party believes the other party is engaging in positive steps to maintain the relation ship" (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002, p. 553). These indicators of relationship quality, which are also the variables for t his study, can be measured quantitatively using Hon and J. Grunig's Public Relations Relationship Measurement or qualitatively using parameters design to focus on

PAGE 39

29 ! interview type methodologies (Lindenmann, 1997; J. Grunig 2002). This study applies quantita tive measures. Organizational Culture and Organization Public Relationships As mentioned in previous sections of this literature review, f ew studies have attempted to integrate the measures of relationship quality with organizational culture scholarship. Sriramesh 's (2007) research on culture and public relations outlined areas for future study which needs to be examined beyond the goals and ad vancement achieved through the Excellence Study. He mentions, specifically, the notion of relationship building. Hung's (2003) study of multinational companies in China focused on the role culture plays in relationship cultivation. She proposed that relationship cultivation and interactions are influenced by a national culture. The author used qualitative research (i nterviews) to determine that "multinational companies have different responses as to how culture influences relationship building, ranging from being influenced by their own culture values to total adherence to Chinese cultural values" (Hung, 2003, p. 277) The study revealed that characteristics of Chinese culture, such as family orientation, guanxi, and relational orientation (role formalization, relational interdependence, face, favor, relational harmony, relational fatalism, a nd relational determination ) had influence on multinational companies' relationship cultivation strategies (Hung, 2003, p. 264). Hung discovered that multinational companies from Western countries determined to maintain their own cultural values in relationship building than multina tional companies from Asian countries.

PAGE 40

30 ! In another study on culture and organization public relationships, Huang (2001) presented a cross cultura l, multi item scale for measuring organization public relationships. The goal of the Organization Public Relatio nship Assessment (OPRA) was to establish standards of reliability and validity as well as capability. Huang's research helped move organization public relationships "to a higher theoretical, operational, and cross cultural level" (p. 85). She used survey and long interview data to present the scale's reliability, factor structure, and validity. Huang added face and favor as a fifth dimension of relationship outcomes in addition to trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction. Huang de fined face and favor as kinds of resources to be exchanged in organizatio n public relationships (p. 69). H er study concluded that OPRA is a multi item scale with good reliability and validity that can be used to measure perceptions of relationship quality and improve public relations practices. Huang also extended the proposition that several relationship dimensions are important constructs in relationship measurement. Although Hung (2003) and Huang (2001) are the only empirical studies that have attempted to integrate culture and relationship building, l iterature reviewed for this stud y demonstrates a relation between both concepts. Common themes can be found in the conceptual foundation of organizational culture and organization public relationships. The d efinitions explicate how both organizational culture an d organization public relations a ffect the organization, along with its stakeholders and its environment. Furthermore, the reviewed literature exemplifies that separately organizational culture and organization public relationships are important to public relations and impact organizational effectiveness. This study attemp ts to continue the discussion of integrating

PAGE 41

31 ! measures of participative and authoritarian cultures to t he relationship outcomes control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship, and communal relationship Hypotheses and Propositions The purpose of this study is to explore residents perceptions of organizational culture and h ow they relate to organization relatio nship building by using measures of organizational culture and dimension s of organization relationship building. This study attempts to contribute to the review of the literature by asking how perceptions of organizational cu lture are related to perceptions of organization public relationships. In order to meet the objective of this study, f our hypotheses and related propositions w ere developed bas ed on the literature review. H1: Perceptions of participative culture are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.1: Perceptions of participative management style are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.2: T he organizational values of innovation, efficiency, and liberalism are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.3: An open organizational environment is positively related to perceptions of trust, sat isfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H2: Perceptions of authoritarian culture are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality.

PAGE 42

32 ! P2.1: Perceptions of authoritarian management style are inversely relate d to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.2: The organizational values of tradition and conservatism are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.3: A closed organ izational environment is inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H3: Authoritarian culture is positively related to exchange relationships. H4: Participative culture is positively related to communal rela tionships. Chapter Three will discuss the methodology of this study, including methods, procedures, research design, instrumentation, data collection and analysis.

PAGE 43

33 ! Chapter Three Methods and Procedures The purpose of this study is to measure perceptions of organizational culture and organization public relationships with key external publics. Specifically, this study seeks to extend public relations theory by examining how measures of authoritarian/parti cipative culture relate to and influences dimensions of organization public relationships, including variables of trust, commitment, control mutuality, and satisfaction. This study attempts to determine how culture may affect the communication process an d relationship building function of public relatio ns. In specific, it asks how perceptions of or ganizational culture are related to perceptions of organization public relationships This objective is accomplished by empirically t esting the following hypoth eses and propositions : H1: Perceptions of participative culture are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.1: Perceptions of participative management style are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality.

PAGE 44

34 ! P1.2: The organizational values of innovation, efficiency, and liberalism are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.3: An open organizationa l environment is positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H2: Perceptions of authoritarian culture are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.1: Pe rceptions of authoritarian management style are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.2: The organizational values of tradition and conservatism are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisf action, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.3: A closed organizational environment is inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H3: Authoritarian culture is positively related to exchange relationships. H4: Participative culture is positively related to communal relationships. This chapter outlines the methods and procedures used to examine these hypotheses, propositions, and research questions. It explains the research design, instrumentation, sampling, data collection, pretest, response statistics, and data analysis for this study. Research Design To achieve the purpose of this study, it is necessary to examine a specific organization and one of its publics in order to measure the public's perceptions about

PAGE 45

35 ! organizational culture, as well as its perceptions of its relationships with the organization. The U niversity of F lorida Department of Housing and Residence Education ( DOHRE ) was chosen as the organization of interest. Due to the availability and access to the database of residents contact information, students residing on the UF campus were selected as the populations of interest. A survey of DOHRE residents was conducted t o measure perceptions of organizational culture and organization public relationships. Measurement is important in order to understand people's behaviors (Stacks, 2002). A survey was considered appropriate for this study because surveys "attempt to gauge h ow the public perceives an issue or event or person, and they allow the researcher to probe in a controlled and prescribed way why respondents feel the way they do" (Stacks, 2002, p. 175). In addition, the flexibility of a survey allows for a wide range of responses. A random sample of residents of the UF Department of Housing and Residence Education during 2010 2011 was used to measure the variables of organizational culture, particularly authoritarian/participative culture, and the dimensions of organiza tion public relations hips. There are approximately 8,230 students residing on campus, which includes both undergraduate students and graduate students with or without families Online modes of survey administration were used to collect data. The following section describes the instrumentation used for this survey. Instrumentation A 50 item questionnaire was developed to measure the variables of interest in this study. Specifically, measures of organizational culture and dimensions of relationship

PAGE 46

36 ! managemen t were adapted from prior literature. In addition, appropriate demographic characteristics or the population were also measured. Previous literature indicates that the concept of organizational culture can be assessed through measures of 1) innovation, tra dition, and eff iciency as organizational goals; 2) authoritari an versus participative culture; 3) lib eral versus conservative values; 4) cooperation versus dominatio n in relationships with publics; 5) open system versus closed system to its environment. In addition, Hon and J. E. Grunig 's (1999) Public Relations Relationship Measurement Scale was used to measure residents perceptions of their relationship with the DOHRE The scale measures six eleme nts/constructs of relationships control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship, and communal relationship. Respondents were asked to rate the level to which they agre e with each statement on a five point Likert type scale from one ( strongly disagree ) to five ( strongly agree ). The items are discussed in detail in the following sections in order to determine how residents perceptions of organizational culture influence perceptions of organization public relationships. Measures of Organizational Culture Innovation, tradition, and e fficiency To measure the importance of innovation, tradition, and efficiency as organizational goals items previously tested (Sriramesh, J. Grunig & Dozier, 1996) the following five items were used: 1. As an organization, DOHRE is open to new ideas. 2. As an organization, DOHRE looks to the future rather than the past.

PAGE 47

37 ! 3. As an organization, DOHRE believes it is important to be innovative. 4. As an organization, DOHRE treats efficiency as the most important goal. 5. As an organization, DOHRE values tradition. Authoritarian versus participative m anagement s tyles To measure the presence on authorita rian or participative management styles (Sriramesh, J. Grunig & Dozier, 1996) the following six items were used: 6. The DOHRE administration has nearly total control over student behaviors. 7. Rigid control by DOHRE 's administration makes it difficult for me to voice new ideas. 8. The DOHRE administration seems to believe that students lack initiative 9. The DOHRE believes they know best because they have more experience than residents 10. The DOHRE administration believes in sharing the power with its residents 11. Most residents are afraid of the DOHRE administration. Liberal and conservative v alues To measure perceptions of liberal and conservative values (Sriramesh, J. Grunig & Dozier, 1996) the following two items were used: 12. I consider DOHRE to be a conservative (traditional) organization. 13. I consider DOHRE to be a liberal (forward thinking ) organization. Cooperation or domination in relationships with p ublic Sriramesh, J. Grunig and Dozier (1996) measured the degree in which participants perceive how cooperative or dominant an organization. The fo llowing two items were replicated for the purpose of this study:

PAGE 48

38 ! 14. The DOHRE administration is willing to work with outside groups that have different values. 15. The DOHRE administration tries to take control of groups that disagree with it. System open or c losed The follo wing t w o items measured participants' perceptions of how opened or closed an organization is to new ideas from outside influences (Sriramesh, J. Grunig & Dozier, 1996): 16. The DOHRE administration is closed to new ideas from outside influences. 17. The D OHRE administration is open to new ideas from outside influences. Measures of Organization Public Relationships Hon and J. Grunig (1999) suggest measuring outcomes of an organization's relationship with key publics by concentrating on six elements: control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship, and communal relationship. The questionnaire for this particu lar study consisted of a series of agree and disagree statements. Participants were asked to evaluate their overall perception of their relationship with the organization using a semantic differential scale. The following statement was assessed on a scale from one to five with the endpoints of positive/negative, good/bad, satisfactory/unsatisfactory, and excellent/poor: 18. Overall, my relationship with DOHRE is: Trust Trust is one party's level of confidence in and willingness to open onesel f to the other party (Hon & J. Grunig 1999). Ther e are three dimensions of trust integrity, which is the belief that an organization is fair and just; dependability, meaning the belief an organization will do what it says it will do; and competence, which is the

PAGE 49

39 ! belief that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do. To measure trust between residents and the organization the following three items were used: 19. The DOHRE has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. (Competence) 20. Whenever DOHRE makes important decisions, I know the administration will be concerned with residents like me. (Integrity) 21. I believe DOHRE takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. (Dependability) Control m utuality Co ntrol mutuality is the "the degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another" (Hon & J.E. Grunig, 1999). To measure the perceptions of the control the organization has over participants and vice versa the following three items were used: 22. I feel DOHRE really listens to what people like me have to say. 23. DOHRE listens to what residents have to say. 24. DOHRE believes my opinions are legitimate. Commitment Hon and J.E. Grunig (1999) define commitment as the extent to which a party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote. In order to determine participants' perceptions of the commitment between the organization and external publics the following three items were used 25 I feel DOHRE is trying to maintain a long term commitment to people like me. 26. I can tell that DOHRE wants to maintain a relationship with residents like me.

PAGE 50

40 ! 27. Compared to other housing options I value my relationship with DOHRE more. Satisfaction "A satisfying relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs" (Hon & J.E. Grunig, 1999). The following items were used to measure the extent to which a party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationsh ip are reinforced. 28. I am happy with DOHRE 29. I am happy with my interactions with the DOHRE 30. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship DOHRE has established with me. Communal r elationships The following three items were used to measu re communal relationships, where both parties provide benefits to the other because they are concerned about the welfare of the other (Hon & J.E. Grunig, 1999). This happens even when they get nothing in return. 31. DOHRE does not especially enjoy helping others. 32. DOHRE is very concerned about the welfare of residents 33. I feel DOHRE takes advantage of residents Exchange r elationship s Hon and J.E. Grunig (1999) define the exchange in relationships as the action wher e one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past of what i t s expected to do so in the future. The following measures were used to measure exchange relationships in this study. 34. Whenever DOHRE gives or offe rs something to residents it expects something in return.

PAGE 51

41 ! 35. DOHRE will compromise with residents when it knows that it will gain something. 36. DOHRE takes care of residents who are likely to make it look good. Demographics Participants were asked thirteen demographic questions. Categorical level variables included gender, age, race/ethnicity, along with the following: 42. Major: 43. Class standing: 44. Are you involved in a student organization? 45. How long have you been a student at the University of Florida ? 46. When is your expected graduation date? 47. Are you a transfer student? 48. Are you from Florida? 49. What is your zip code? 50. I live in a residence hall or Graduate and Family Ho using The response categories for categorical variables where constructed for this study to match those used by the UF Department of Housing and Residence Education to collect student demographic information. A copy of the questionnaire and the cover lette r distributed to the sample can be found in Appendix A The next section describes the sampling procedures used to select participants for this study. Sampling Procedures To measure perceptions of organizational culture and organization public relationships, residents from the UF Department of Housing and Residence Education living on campus during the Spring 2011 semester were chosen as the population of

PAGE 52

42 ! interest for this study. The sample frame for this study is a list of nearly 8,230 resident emails supplied by the DOHRE Calculations of the sample size required to produce generalizable results for this study followed the procedures described in Stacks (2002). According to Stacks, statistical law holds that the distribution of people chosen randomly from a population becomes more evenly distributed as more random selections are made. Thus, the average for all the samplings will begin to estimate the true population charac teristics (p. 162). Austin and Pinkleton (2001) and Dillman (2000) reported that for a population of 8,230, a final sample size of 371 is needed to produce findings with a +/ 5% margin of error at the 95% confidence level. Th erefore, 371 was set as the min imum number of questionnaire responses needed to produce meaningful results. Data Collection Residents served by the UF Department of Housing and Residence Education during the Spring 2011 semester were surveyed using an online survey. Survey m onkey .com was used to construct and host the survey as an online mode of administration. A unique URL (web address) https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SNRJRWJ was created to provide access to the survey instrument To ensure the confidentiality of respondents, online survey responses were not linked to email addresses in any way. This resulted in anonymous responses. Participants responded to items measuring perceptions of organizational culture and relationship management, along with demographic questions including c lass standing, involvement in s tudent organizations, length at the University of Florida expected

PAGE 53

43 ! graduation date, and transfer student, which may effect perce ptions of relationship quality. Multiple contacts were used to increase response rates (Dillman, 2000). Residents received a prenotification email (Appendix B) informing them of the purpose of the study and alerting them to a future request for participation. Two days later, residents received an email (Appendix C) requesting participation in the sur vey. The email included the hyperlink to access the survey in order to facilitate connection to Surveym onkey.com Also, t he email included an Informed Consent Statement required by the Inst ituti onal Review Board. Three days after the email request for participation, residents received a remin der email message (Appendix D). Finally, five days after the email request for participation, residents received a final reminder email message (Appendix E). Prior to administering the s urvey, a pretest was conducted to determine the validity and ease of use. The pretest also served as a method to troubleshoot potential technical problems associated with the online survey. A sample of 38 University of South Florida students enrolled in Wr iting for Mass Media were selected to participate in the pretest. The results suggested that the instrument had face validity. Technical problems with the survey were identified and collected in order to ensure reliable data collection. The following secti on describes the data analysis conducted for this study. Data Analysis All the data coll ected was analyzed using SPSS 19 .0 for Wind ows. Participants responded on 5 point Likert type scale to indicate the extent to which they perceived that indicators of or ganizational culture and o rganization public relationship s described the UF Department of Housing and Residence Education Frequency and descriptive analysis

PAGE 54

44 ! were used to examine the d emographic variables and categorical variables and were compared across the sample. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the multi item indexes used to measure variables in interests. In addition, Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the relationship between or ganizational culture and control mutuality, commitment, trust, satisfaction, exchange relationship, and communal relationship. Finally, a f actor analysis was used to establish the dimensionality of the measures of organizational culture and test for subdim ensions (Stacks, 2002, p. 233). Chapter F our will present the results of the data analyzed in this section.

PAGE 55

45 ! Chapter 4 Results This chapter summarizes the data collected for this study and the data analysis o utlined in Chapter Three. It discusses the response statistics and scales used to analyze the data, and reports the results of hypothesis testing. This study attempts to measure perceptions of organizational culture and organization public relationships with key external publics. In addition t his study seeks to extend public relations theory by examinin g how measures of authoritarian and participative culture relate to the dimensions of organization public relationships, including variables of trust, commitment, control mutuality, and satisfact ion. S pecific ally it asks how perceptions of or ganizational culture are related to perceptions of organization public relationships This objective is accomplished by empirically t esting the following hypotheses and propositions : H1: Perceptions of partic ipative culture are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.1: Perceptions of participative management style are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality.

PAGE 56

46 ! P1.2: The organizational values of innovation, efficiency, and liberalism are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.3: An open organizational environment is positively related to percep tions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H2: Perceptions of authoritarian culture are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.1: Perceptions of authoritarian management style a re inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.2: The organizational values of tradition and conservatism are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P 2.3: A closed organizational environment is inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H3: Authoritarian culture is positively related to exchange relationships. H4: Participative culture is positively relat ed to communal relationships. Response Statistics An oversampling strategy was employed in order to compensate for the decline of responses t o online surveys From a ra ndom sample of 4,000 UF student residents, 317 participants completed or partially completed the online survey. According to Wimmer and Dom i nick (2006), the response rate range for Internet survey s is generally 1% to 30% (p. 205). The response rate for this study was 8% Of the 317 participants, 87% c ompleted the survey. This study was conducted for the purpose of exploratory research.

PAGE 57

47 ! Therefore, partially answered questionnaires were included in the data analysis, and the number of respondents varied for each statistical test used to analyze the data. Descriptive Statistics Before beginning the analysis on the hypotheses, standard descriptive statistics were run in order to determine the generalizability of the sample to the population. Frequency distributions were run on the categorical variables. A frequency distribution is a table of scores ordered according to the magnitude and frequency of occurrence. Of the 317 respondents, 28.4% (n=90) were male and 58.4% (n= 1 85) were female. The r espondents' indication of gender is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Gender Gender n % Male 90 32.7 Female 185 58.4 The majority of respondents were 18 24 years old (n=242, 76.3%) and Caucasian (n=154, 48.6%). Respondents were asked to indicate their class standing in order to measur e the distribution among freshme n, sophomore, juniors, and seniors. Freshmen accounted for 38.5% (n=122), 18.3% (n=58) were sophomores, 10.4 % (n=33) were juniors, 7.6 % (n=24) were seniors, and 11.9% (n=38) were others Th e results for class standing are indicated in Table 2.

PAGE 58

48 ! Table 2 Class Standing Class Standing n % Freshman 122 38.5 Sophomore 58 21.1 Junior 33 12.0 Senior 24 7.6 Graduate 35 11 Other 3 .9 Residents were asked general questions about their student life The majority of residents were involved in student or ganizations (62.1%, n=197), have been attended the University of Florida less than a year (51.7%, n=164), were not transfer students (81.7%, n=259), and were from the state of Florida (73. 2%, n=232). When asked to indicate the expected date of graduation the majority (52.7%, n=167) responded to other (unknown) date of graduation The results for expected date of graduation are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Expected Date of Graduation Expected Graduation n % Spring 2011 20 6.3 Fall 2011 4 1.3 Spring 2012 26 8.2 Fall 2012 13 4.1 Spring 2013 38 12 Fall 2013 7 2.2 Other 167 52.7 Respondents were asked to indicate the type of housing they r eside and 75.4% (n=239) answered that they reside in a Residence H all, while 11.4 % of respondents

PAGE 59

49 ! reside in Graduate and Family Housing. The results for type of housing can be found in Table 4. Table 4 Living In Living in n % A residence hall 239 75.4 Graduate and Family Housing 36 11.4 The data analysis and results presented in this section is divided into the variables of organizational culture and organization public relationships. The first part includes the results for the variables of organizational culture described as innovation, tradition, and efficiency, authoritarian vs. participative management styles, liberal vs. conservative values, cooperation vs. domination in relationshi ps and opened or closed system The second section provides the results for the relationship items of trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, commitment, exchange and communal relationships. Organizational Culture Items measuring organizational culture were measured on a five point Likert type scale, where 1 represents "stro ngly disagree" and 5 represents "strongly agree". Five items where used to test the variables of innovation, tradition, and efficiency in organizational culture. The highest mean of 3.51 was for the statement "As an organization, the DOHRE believes it is important to be innovative ." The lowest mean ( m =3.20) was for the statement, As an organization, the DOHRE treats efficiency as its most important goal. Table 5 shows the means and standard deviation for all the items used to measure innovation, tradition, and efficiency.

PAGE 60

50 ! Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Culture Innovation, Tradition, Efficiency Statement N Mean Std. Deviation CUL ITE 3. As an organization, the DOHRE believes it is important to be innovative. 317 3.51 .80977 CUL ITE 2. As an organization, the DOHRE looks to the future rather than the past. 317 3.44 .72976 CUL ITE 1. As an organization, the DOHRE is open to new ideas. 317 3.42 .84073 CUL ITE 5. As an organization, the DOHRE values tradition. 317 3.40 .69427 CUL ITE 4. As an organization, the DOHRE treats efficiency as its most important goal. 317 3.20 .83755 Six items were used to test the respondents' perceptions of participative and authoritarian management styles. The statement with the highest mean of 3.19 was The DOHRE administration believes in sharing power with its residents. R esponden ts showed slight disagreement ( m = 2.57) with the statement, Most residents are afraid of the DOHRE administration. Table 6 reports the means and standard deviations for all six items.

PAGE 61

51 ! Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for Culture Participative and Authoritarian Management Styles Statement N Mean Std. Deviation CUL PART 5. The DOHRE administration believes in sharing power with its residents. 317 3.19 .90927 CUL PART 4. The DOHRE believes it knows best because it has more experience than residents. 317 3.11 .91040 CUL PART 3. The DOHRE seems to believe that students lack initiative. 317 2.72 .85605 CUL PART 2. Rigid control by the DOHRE makes it difficult for me to voice new ideas. 317 2.69 .94688 CUL PART 6. Most residents are afraid of the DOHRE administration. 317 2.56 .99013 CUL PART 1. The DOHRE has nearly total control over student behaviors. 317 2.27 .98191 Table 7 shows the results for respond ents' perceptions of liberal versus conservative values, cooperation or domination in relationships, an d opened or closed system s Two items were used to measure perceptions of liberal vs. conservative values The statement, I consider the DOHRE to be a liberal (forward think ing) organization," yielded a mean of 3.17. From the two items used to test perceptions of cooperation or domination in relationships, the statement, I consider the DOHRE to be a liberal (forward think ing) organization," yielded a mean of 3 .38. The la st two items shown in Table 7 were used to measure per ceptions of an opened or closed organizational system.

PAGE 62

52 ! The statement with the highest ( m = 3.44 ) was The DOHRE is open to new ideas from outside influences. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics for Culture Liberal vs. Conservative Values, Cooperation vs. Domination, and Opened or Closed Organizational Systems Statement N Mean Std. Deviation CUL OPE 2. The DOHRE is open to new ideas from outside influences. 310 3.4355 .75943 CUL DOM 1. The DOHRE is willing to work with outside groups that have different values. 310 3.3839 .74460 CUL LIB 2. I consider the DOHRE to be a liberal (forward thinking) organization. 310 3.1742 .78537 CUL LIB 1. I consider the DOHRE to be a conservative (traditional) organization. 310 3.1323 .77497 CUL DOM 2. The DOHRE tries to take control of groups that disagree with it. 310 2.6581 .76271 CUL OPE 1. The DOHRE is closed to new ideas from outside influences. 310 2.6129 .83521 Ne xt, the dimensionality of the 17 items was assessed using maximum likelihood factor analysis. Factor analysis was considered appropriate due to the large sample size (N=317 ) and the large ratio of observations to variables (19 :1). The factorability of the correlation matrix was also asse ssed. The Kaiser Meyer Olkin measu re of sampling adequacy was .885 indicating an adequate sample. In addition, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant (p=.000). Finally, an examination of descriptive statistics

PAGE 63

53 ! indicated that the skew ( .906 .438) and kurtosis ( .582 1.290 ) of the individual organizational culture items were smaller than the recommended threshold for questioning the adequacy of the maximum likelihood estimation method (West, Finch & Curran, 1995). The analysis was conducted in t wo stages (Green, Salkind, & Akey, 2000). Factor extraction in stage one was conducted using principal components analysis. Four criteria were used to determine the appropriate number of factors to extract: 1) a priori conceptual beliefs about the number of underlying dimensions of th e organizational culture construct; 2) the latent root criterion; 3) the scree test; and 4) the interpretability of the factor solution. Both the latent root criterion an d the scree test suggested a three factor solutio n, rather than the two factor structu re hypothesized. Consequently, three factors were rotated using a Varimax procedure. The ro tated solution, shown in Table 8 yielded two interpretable factors labeled authoritarian culture and participative culture as well as a third factor that captured the two items intended to measure organizational liberalism and conservatism: 1) I consider the DOHRE to be a conservative (traditional) organization. 2) The DOHRE tries to take control of groups that disagree with it. Thus, these two items were delete d and a second factor analysis was conducted

PAGE 64

54 ! Table 8 Rotated Factor Matrix a Statement Authoritarian Participative Factor 3 CUL INN 1. As an organization, the DOHRE is open to new ideas. .344 .685 .285 CUL INN 2. As an organization, the DOHRE looks to the future rather than the past. .030 .548 .162 CUL INN 3. As an organization, the DOHRE believes it is important to be innovative. .175 .660 .241 CUL EFF 4. As an organization, the DOHRE treats efficiency as its most important goal. .109 .533 .059 CUL TRAD 5. As an organization, the DOHRE values tradition. .030 .524 .112 CUL AUTH 1. The DOHRE has nearly total control over student behaviors. .439 .039 .067 CUL AUTH 2. Rigid control by the DOHRE makes it difficult for me to voice new ideas. .668 .211 .150 CUL AUTH 3. The DOHRE seems to believe that students lack initiative. .552 .136 .079 CUL AUTH 4. The DOHRE believes it knows best because it has more experience than residents. .419 .103 .083 CUL PART 5. The DOHRE administration believes in sharing power with its residents. .426 .540 .177

PAGE 65

55 ! CUL AUTH 6. Most residents are afraid of the DOHRE administration. .596 .149 .095 CUL CONS 1. I consider the DOHRE to be a conservative (traditional) organization. .231 .009 .669 CUL LIB 2. I consider the DOHRE to be a liberal (forward thinking) organization. .196 .445 .636 CUL COOP 1. The DOHRE is willing to work with outside groups that have different values. .409 .510 .175 CUL DOM 2. The DOHRE tries to take control of groups that disagree with it. .609 .317 .105 CUL CLOSE 1. The DOHRE is closed to new ideas from outside influences. .705 .430 .217 CUL OPEN 2. The DOHRE is open to new ideas from outside influences. .520 .544 .254 Note. Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations. The secon d factor analysis also used the maximum likelihood analysis was conducted with the 15 remaining organizational cult ure items. The results of the rotated factor matrix are shown in Table 9. Seven items loaded on the authoritarian culture factor, which accounted for 38.5 % of the item variance (eigenvalue=5. 77 ). Eight items loaded on the participative culture factor, which accounted for 12.12 % of the item variance (eigenvalue=1.817 ). Together, the two factor solution explained 51 % of the variance in the organizational culture items.

PAGE 66

56 ! Table 9 Rotated Factor Matrix a Statement Participative Authoritarian CUL INN 1. As an organization, the DOHRE is open to new ideas. .378 .721 CUL INN 2. As an organization, the DOHRE looks to the future rather than the past. .036 .590 CUL INN 3. As an organization, the DOHRE believes it is important to be innovative. .200 .695 CUL EFF 4. As an organization, the DOHRE treats efficiency as its most important goal. .098 .492 CUL TRAD 5. As an organization, the DOHRE values tradition. .044 .470 CUL AUTH 1. The DOHRE has nearly total control over student behaviors. .434 .063 CUL AUTH 2. Rigid control by the DOHRE makes it difficult for me to voice new ideas. .687 .215 CUL AUTH 3. The DOHRE seems to believe that students lack initiative. .551 .139 CUL AUTH 4. The DOHRE believes it knows best because it has more .432 .093

PAGE 67

57 ! experience than residents. CUL PART 5. The DOHRE administration believes in sharing power with its residents. .440 .560 CUL AUTH 6. Most residents are afraid of the DOHRE administration. .615 .136 CUL COOP 1. The DOHRE is willing to work with outside groups that have different values. .429 .515 CUL DOM 2. The DOHRE tries to take control of groups that disagree with it. .613 .315 CUL CLOSE 1. The DOHRE is closed to new ideas from outside influences. .714 .467 CUL OPEN 2. The DOHRE is open to new ideas from outside influences. .552 .568 Note. Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. Finally r eliability a nalysis was conducted on the eight item authoritarian culture measure and the seven item participative culture measure to determine internal consistency of the multi item scales The alpha coefficient for the authoritarian culture

PAGE 68

58 ! index was .751. An assessment of the analysis indicated tha t the internal consistency of the scale would be stronger if the item "As an organization, the DOHRE value s tradition," was deleted. The omission of this item yielded an alpha coefficient of .80 for the eight item authoritarian culture measure. T he alpha coefficient for the participative culture index was .844 indicating strong internal consistency. However, the researcher decided it was appropriate to exclude the item, As an organization, the DOHRE treats efficiency as its most important goal," which me asures efficiency and was the counter part for the organizational tradition i tem. Deleting the item resulted in an alpha coefficient of .8 47 The items in each index were then combined to create composite mea sures of authoritarian and parti cipative cultures for hypothesis testing. The average means for the multi item scales used to test the variables of interest were then collapsed to create composite measures for hypothes is testing The composite mean for participative culture was 3.40 (n =310) and a uthoritarian culture was 2.66 (n =310). Respondents tended to slightly agree with the measure of participative culture and slightly disagree with the measure of authoritarian culture. Organizati on Public Relations hips This sec tion provides the means and standard deviations for the relationship items of trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, commitment, exchange and communal relationships. This set of results is based on a five point Likert type scale, where 1 represents "strongly disagree" an d 5 represents "strongly agree." Three items were used to measure trust. The means and the standard deviations are shown in Table 10 The highest mean was 3.46 for the statement, The DOHRE has the ability to acc omplish what it says i t will do." The lowest mean was 3.20 for the statement, Whenever the

PAGE 69

59 ! DOHRE makes important decisions, I know the administration will be concerned with students like me ." The means for three statem ents are in the mid range of the scale, which means that ge nerally the majority of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for Relationship Trust Statement N Mean Std. Deviation T 1. The DOHRE has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 289 3.47 .84585 T 2. Whenever the DOHRE makes important decisions, I know the administration will be concerned with students like me. 289 3.27 .89638 T 3. I believe the DOHRE takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. 289 3.20 .89822 Three items were used to measure the relational variable of satisfaction The means and standa r d deviation s are shown in Table 11 All three items measured with in produced means scores neat the midpoint of the scale The highest mean was 3.40 for the statement, I am happy with the DOHRE. The lowest mean was 3.31 for the statement, Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the DOHRE has established with me. Table 11 also shows that there was no t a large difference among the means o f all three items.

PAGE 70

60 ! Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Relationship Satisfaction Statement N Mean Std. Deviation SAT 1. I am happy with the DOHRE. 289 3.47 .84585 SAT. 2 I am happy with my interactions with the DOHRE. 289 3.27 .89638 SAT 3. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the DOHRE has established with me. 289 3.20 .89822 Three items were used to measure commitment. Respondents tended to neither agree nor disagree with the statement r eporting the highest mean ( 3.18), which was I can tell that the DOHRE wants to maintain a relationship with residents like me. The lowest mean was 2.99 for the statement, I feel the DOHRE is trying to maintain a long term commitment to people like me. Table 12 shows the standard deviations for all three items measuring the relational variable of commitment.

PAGE 71

61 ! Table 12 Descriptive Statistics for Relationship Commitment Statement N Mean Std. Deviation COMM 2. I can tell that the DOHRE wants to maintain a relationship with residents like me. 289 3.18 .97654 COMM 3. Compared to other housing options, I value my relationship with the DOHRE more. 289 3.01 .95377 COMM 1. I feel the DOHRE is trying to maintain a long term commitment to people like me. 289 2.99 .96998 Three items were used to measure control mutuality. The highest mean was 3.37 for the statement, The DOHRE listens to what residents have to say. The lowest mean was 3.10 for the statement, I feel the DOHRE really listens to what people like me have to say. Table 13 shows the means and standard deviations for all three items. All three items were above the midpoint, which means respondents slightly agree with the three statements

PAGE 72

62 ! Table 13 Descriptive Statistics for Relationship Control Mutuality Statement N Mean Std. Deviation CTL 2. The DOHRE listens to what residents have to say. 289 3.3702 .81943 CTL 3. The DOHRE believes my opinions are legitimate. 289 3.2318 .81109 CTL 1. I feel the DOHRE really listens to what people like me have to say. 289 3.1003 .85815 Three items were used to measure communal relationships. Respondents agreed with the statement, The DOHRE is concerned about the welfare of residents," which yielded the highest mean ( M= 3.63) among the items for communal relationship. Generally, reversed items, such as, The DOHRE does not especially enjoy helping others," falls below the scale mid point showing that the majorit y of respondents disagree ( M= 2.52) with the item In addition, three items were used to measure exchange relationships. The highest mean was 3.16 for the statement, DOHRE will compromise with residents when it knows that it will gain something. The lowest mean was 2.71 for the statement, Whenever the DOHRE gives or offers something to residents, i t expects something in return ." The results indicate that respondents perceive an exchange relationship between the DOHRE and its residents. Table 14 shows the means and standard deviations for both communal and exchange relationships values.

PAGE 73

63 ! Table 14 Des criptive Statistics for Relationship Communal and Exchange Relationships Statement N Mean Std. Deviation COM REL 2. The DOHRE is concerned about the welfare of residents. 278 3.6259 .83923 EXCH REL 2. DOHRE will compromise with residents when it knows that it will gain something. 278 3.1619 .76879 EXCH REL 3. The DOHRE takes care of residents who are likely to make it look good. 278 3.1223 .81467 COM REL 3. I feel the DOHRE takes advantage of residents. 278 2.7302 .89274 EXCH REL 1. Whenever the DOHRE gives or offers something to residents, it expects something in return. 278 2.7122 .83898 COM REL 1. The DOHRE does not especially enjoy helping others. 278 2.5180 .86948 Prior to hypotheses testing, Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the multi item scales used to measure the relational variables of trust, satisfaction, commitment, control mutuality, as well ad the three item measure of communal and exchange relationsh ips, and the four item measure of overall relationship quality. According to Stacks (2002), coefficients of .70 or higher are good reliability .80 or higher are great reliability, and .90 or higher are excellent reliability. The majorit y of the variables es timated coefficients higher than .80, which means this study supports the

PAGE 74

64 ! survey instrument Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) created to test the qualities of relationships. Table 15 shows the Cronbach's alpha for all the items. Trust ( =.81) and commitment ( =.81) estimated coefficients of .80 or higher, which means that the coefficients have great reliability. Satisfaction ( =.92), control mutuality ( =.90) and overall relationship ( =9.47) estimated coefficients of .90 or higher, which means that the coefficien ts have excellent reliability. Communal relationship s alpha was .781, which means the items have good reliability. The alpha for exchange relationships was .447. Due to the low estima ted coefficient, the items for exchange relationships were excluded and each item was tested individually. Table 15 Reliability Analysis Variable Cronbach's Alpha N TRUST .811 3 SATISFACTION .920 3 COMMITMENT .810 3 CONTROL MUTUALITY .903 3 EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS .447 3 COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIPS .781 3 OVERALL RELATIONSHIP .947 3 The average means for the multi item scales used to test the variables of interest were then collapsed to create composite me asures for hypothesis testing (s ee Table 16 ).

PAGE 75

65 ! The highest means was for communal relationship (3.46). The lowest mean was for commitment (3.06). Table 16 Overall Means Variable N Mean Std. Deviation EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS 278 3.46 .72360 COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIPS 278 3.46 .72360 COMMITMENT 289 3.36 .83055 TRUST 289 3.32 .75006 CONTROL MUTUALITY 289 3.23 .75931 SATISFACTION 289 3.06 .82309 Analysis of Hypotheses and Propositions This secti on provides the results for the hypothese s and propositions. Correlation analysis was used to measure the relationships between the variables of organizational culture and organization public relationships. Correlations were analyzed via the Pearson product moment coefficient According to Stacks (2002), correlations are expre sse d in terms of a continuum from 1.00 to + 1.00 (p. 229). He also suggests that correlations below .30 are "weak", between .40 and .70 "moderate", between .70 and .90 "high", and above .90 "very high". To test hypotheses 1 and 2 a linear regression analysis was conducted. H1. Hypothesis 1 posited that perceptions of participative culture are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. A correlation analysis was used to test this hypothesis Pearson product mom ent correlation coefficient revealed a significant positive association between participative culture and

PAGE 76

66 ! trust ( r =.699, p< .01 ), satisfaction ( r =.621, p< .01 ), and control mutuality ( r =.722, p< .01 ). The Pearson correlation for commitment was r =.524 (p< .01 ), indicating a moderate correlation to participative culture Tab le 17 shows the correlations results for hypothesis one. The strength of these relationships was moderate. Table 17 Hypothesis 1 Correlations (N=289) Participative Culture TRUST .699 SATISFACTION .621 COMMITMENT .534 CONTROL MUTUALITY .722 Note. *p< .01 P1.1. Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine if a significant positive relation ship exists between participative management style and perceptions of trust ( r =.550, p< .01 ) satisfaction ( r =.480, p< .01 ) commitment ( r =.442, p< .01 ) and control mutuality ( r = 593, p< .01 ). Table 18 shows the results that indicate participative management style h as a moderate positive relation ship to the measures of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. The strength of these relationships was moderate. The results support proposition 1.1.

PAGE 77

67 ! Table 1 8 Participative Management Style Correlations (N=289) CUL PART 5. The DOHRE administration believes in sharing power with its residents TRUST .550 SATISFACTION .4 80 COMMITMENT .4 42 CONTROL MUTUALITY .593 Note. *p< .01 P1.2. Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine if a significant positive relationship exists between the variables of innovatio n, efficiency, and liberalism and the measures of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Th e results show that trust has a significant mo derate relation ship to th e two of the measures used to test innovation ( r =.604, p<. 01 r =.491, p< .01 ), and a significant positive relationship with CUL INN 2 ( r =.36, p< .01 ) although it was weak The measures for trust also yielded a significant positive moderate relationship t o the measure for efficiency ( r =.541, p< .01 ), and a significant positive weak relationship with the measure for liberalism ( r =.223, p< .01 ). The measure for liberalism also had a significant positive weak relation ship with commitment ( r =.223, p< .01 ), sat isfaction ( r =.175 p< .01 ), and control mutuality ( r =184, p< .01 ). Table 19 shows the results that indicate that innovation, efficiency, and liberalism have a significant positive relation ship with the measures of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. The strength of these relationships was moderate. The results support proposition 1.2.

PAGE 78

68 ! Table 19 Innovation, Efficiency, and Liberalism Correlations (N=289) CUL INN 1. As an organization the DOHRE is open to new ideas. CUL INN 2. As an organization the DOHRE looks to the future rather than the past. CUL INN 3. As an organizatio n, the DOHRE believes it is important to be innovative. CUL EFF 4. As an organizatio n, the DOHRE treats efficiency as its most important goal. CUL TRAD 5. As an organizati on, the DOHRE values tradition. TRUST .604 .359 .491 .423 .223 SATISFACTION .559 .316 .462 .370 .175 COMMITMENT .450 .252 .403 .365 .223 CONTROL MUTUALITY .627 .342 .490 .411 .184 Note. *p< .01 P1.3. Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine if a s ignificant positive relation ship exists between perceptions of an open organizational system and perceptions of trust ( r =.600, p< .01 ), satisfaction ( r =.538, p< .01 ), commitment ( r =.390, p< .01 ), and control mutuality ( r =.508, p< .01 ). Table 20 shows the results that indicate that open organizational systems have a positive relationship to the perceptions of trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality. The strength of the relationship was moderate. The results support proposition 1.3.

PAGE 79

69 ! Table 20 Open Organizational System Correlations (N=289) CUL OPEN 2. The DOHRE is open to new ideas from outside influences. TRUST .600 SATISFACTION 507 COMMITMENT .507 CONTROL MUTUALITY .447 Note. *p< .01 H2. Hypothesis 2 posited that perceptions of authoritarian culture are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. A correlation analysis was used to test the relationship between perceptions of an authoritarian culture and perceptions of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient s revealed a significant negative relation ship between authoritarian culture and trust ( r = .538 p< .01 ), satisfaction ( r = 508 p< .01 ), and control mutuality ( r = .582 p< .01 ). The Pearson corre lation for commitment was ( r = .390 p< .01 ), indicating a significant weak relation ship to authoritarian culture. Table 21 shows the correla tions results for hypothesis 2 The results support hypothesis two.

PAGE 80

70 ! Table 21 Hypothesis 2 Correlations (N=289) Authoritarian Culture TRUST .538 SATISFACTION .508 COMMITMENT 390 CONTROL MUTUALITY .582 Note. *p< .01 P2.1. Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine if a significant inverse relation ship exists between authoritarian management style and perceptions of trust satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. T he highest Pearson correlations for the five authoritarian management style measures and the relationship measures are trust ( r = .494, p< .01 ), commitment ( r = .376, p< .01 ), satisfaction ( r = .494, p< .01 ), co ntrol mutuality ( r = .514, p< .01 ). The authoritarian management style measure CUL AUTH had a significant negative rela tion ship to the measures of commitment ( r = ,094, p< .01 ). Measure CUL A UTH 4 for authoritarian culture was not significa nt and produced a negative relation ship to the measures of trust ( r = .107, p< .01 ) and commitment ( r = .109, p< .01 ). Table 22 shows the results that indicate authoritarian management s tyle has an inverse rel ation ship to the measures of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. The results support proposition 2.1.

PAGE 81

71 ! Table 22 Authoritarian Management Styles Correlations (N=289) CUL AUTH 1. The DOHRE has nearly total control over student behavior s. CUL AUTH 2. Rigid control by the DOHRE makes it difficult for me to voice new ideas. CUL AUTH 3. The DOHRE seems to believe that students lack initiative. CUL AUTH 4. The DOHRE believes it knows best because it has more experience than residents. CUL AUTH 6. Most residents are afraid of the DOHRE administra tion. TRUST .157 .494 .362 .107 .412 SATISFACTION .248 .494 .305 .119 .408 COMMITMENT .094 .376 .266 .109 .313 CONTROL MUTUALITY .244 .514 .392 .166 .402 Note. *p< .01 P2.2 Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was used to determine if a s ignificant inverse relation ship exists betwe en tradition and conservatism and the measures of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Table 23 shows that the measures for tradition have a significant positive relation ship to measures of trust ( r =.223, p< .01 ), commitment ( r =.223, p< .01 ), satisfaction ( r =.175, p< .01 ), and control mutuality ( r =.184, p< .01 ); however, the relation is weak The measure for conservatism had a significant negative relation ship to trust ( r = .236, p< .01 ), commitment ( r = .160, p< .01 ), satisfaction ( r = .201, p< .01 ), and control mutuality ( r = .270, p< .01 ). The results support proposition 2.2.

PAGE 82

72 ! Table 23 Tr adition and Conservatism Correlations (N=289) CUL TRAD 5. As an organization, the DOHRE values tradition. CUL CONS 1. I consider the DOHRE to be a conservative (traditional) organization. TRUST .223 .236 SATISFACTION .175 .201 COMMITMENT .223 .160 CONTROL MUTUALITY .184 .270 Note. *p< .01 P2.3. Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine if a significant inverse relation ship exists between perceptions of closed organizational system and perceptions of trust ( r = .558, p< .01 ), satisfaction ( r = .386, p< .01 ), commitment ( r = .457, p< .01 ), and control mutuality ( r = .565, p< .01 ). Table 24 shows that perceptions of a close d organizational system have an inverse moderate relationship to the measures of trust, commit ment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. The results support proposition 2.3.

PAGE 83

73 ! Table 24 Closed Organizational System Correlations (N=289) CUL CLOSE 1. The DOHRE is closed to new ideas from outside influences. TRUST .558 SATISFACTION .457 COMMITMENT .386 CONTROL MUTUALITY .565 Note. *p< .01 H.3 Hypothesis 3 posited that an authoritarian culture is positively related to exchange relationships. Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine a significant positive relation between authoritarian culture and perceptions of exchange relationships ( r =.536, p< .01 ). The results support the hypothesis that there is a significant positive relation between authoritarian culture and exchange relationships. H.4. Hypothesis 4 posited that a participative culture is positively related to communal relationships. Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine a significant positive relation between participative culture and perceptions of communal relationships ( r =.657, p< .01 ). The results support the hypothesis that there is a significant positive relation between participative culture and communal relationships. This chapter summarized the statistical data at tained for this study. Chapter Five will discuss the r esults of the studies, state the limitations, and suggest areas of research for the future.

PAGE 84

74 ! Chapter 5 Discussion This chapter discuss es the analysis of the data presented in Chapter Four followed by the limitations of the study and the suggested areas for future research This study sought to investigate perceptions of organizational culture and how they relate to organization public relationship building using measures of organizational culture and dimensions of organization public relationships building. Specifically, it attempted to explore the organizational culture and relationship management for the UF Department of Housing and Residence Education (DOHRE) from residents' perspective. This s tudy attempts to contribute to public relations literature by asking how perceptions of organizational culture are related to perceptions of organization public relationships. The following four hypotheses and related propositions were develope d based on a review of relevant literature H1: Perceptions of participative culture are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.1: Perceptions of participative management style are positively related to percep tions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality.

PAGE 85

75 ! P1.2: The organizational values of innovation, efficiency, and liberalism are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P1.3: An open orga nizational environment is positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H2: Perceptions of authoritarian culture are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.1: Perceptions of authoritarian management style are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.2: The organizational values of tradition and conservatism are inversely related to perceptions of trus t, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. P2.3: A closed organizational environment is inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H3: Authoritarian culture is positively related to exchange relati onships. H4: Participative culture is positively related to communal relationships. The results for this study w ere divided into frequencies of the sample used int this study organizational culture variables, o rganization public relationship variables, and test of the hypotheses and corresponding propositions posited by this study The discussion of the results that follows in this chapter is organized in the same matter. Before discussing the organizational culture and o rganization public re lationship variables, a general discussion is necessary about the population for this study is provided The participants for this study were unique because they are college students

PAGE 86

76 ! residing on the University of Florida campus. The frequency distribution showed that the majority of the participants were females with freshme n class standing, with an un certain graduation date who live in a residence hall. Reference to the unique population will be mentioned t hrough out the discussion of the results and in th e limitations. Organizational culture v ariables. The results for the means and standard deviations revealed that participants slightly agreed with most of the participative culture statements and slightly disagreed with the majority of the authoritarian c ulture statements. The means and standards deviations exhibi t that the majority of resident s perceive the DOHRE to generally have a participative culture. Therefore, the DOHRE can be described as an innovative, efficient organization with a participative m anagement style. Also, the resident's perceive the DOHRE to value liberalism, be open to different thinking, and function as an open organization system. The factor analysis for the measures of organizational culture support ed previous studies that found the items measured two culture types: authoritarian cul ture and participative cul ture. This result support s Sriramesh, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier's (1996) results. It also demonstrates that these two dimensions of organizational culture can be me asured using quantitative research methods. The DOHRE can be described as an organization that depicts a participative culture, which emphasizes collective responsibility, decision making and values. Residents perceive the organization to be concerned wit h their needs. Organization public relationships v ariables. The means and standard deviations provide a glimpse at the participants' perception of their relationship with the DOHRE. Overall, residents slightly agreed that they are happy with their relatio nship

PAGE 87

77 ! with the DOHRE. Participants also slightly agreed with measures of commitment except for the statement, "I feel the DOHRE is trying to maintain a long term commitment to people like me," which yielded a mean of 2.99, indicating slight disagreement The uniqueness of the population may be the reason for these results. It could be that they do not perceive a long term relationship with the DOHRE because campus housing is mostly seen as temporary. The means and standard deviations for control mutuality revealed that overall residents perceive that the DOHRE listens to them and believes that their opinions are valued. Lastly, the means and standard deviation results showed that students perceive their relationship with the DOHRE as an exchange relations hip. Means for the mea sures of communal relationship revealed slight disagreement, where means for measures of exchange relationship showed a slight agreement. H1. Hypothesi s 1 proposed that perceptions of participative culture are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. The results fo r this study supported hypothesi s 1 The findings support that participative culture can be related to all four the variables of organization public relation ships: trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. The resu lts for this hypothesis support the theoretical framework for organizational culture where an organization with characteristics of a participative culture can influence an external public's perceptions of trust, satisfaction, com mitment, and control mutuality. P1.1. Proposition 1.1 proposed that perceptions of participative management style are positively related to perceptions of t rust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. The results from this study support this proposition. Correlations analysis revealed that resident s perceive a positive significant relation ship between participative

PAGE 88

78 ! management style and trust, satisf action, commitment and control mutuality. A participative management style is open, pluralistic, and democratic (Sriramesh & White, 1992). Comparing the six elements of organization public relationships theory can define a clear relation ship between a participative management style and the factors of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. An open, pluralistic, and democratic manager must agree when someone else has the rightful power to influence, to be open to the other part y, to recognizes that the relationship is better than the cause, to invest time in others and to expect nothing in return. These characteristics can also be describers for control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, and communal relationship s P1 .2. Propositi on 1.2 proposed that t he organizational values of innovation, efficiency, and liberalism are positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. The correlation analysis revealed a significant positive relation ship between the factors of innovation, efficiency, and liberalism and the measures of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. P1.3. Proposition 1.3 proposed that a n open organizational environment is positively related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1999) define an open organizational environment as a set of interacting units that have permeable boundaries and exchange information via inputs and throughputs. An open organizat ional system can be identified by its external orientation, its adeptness to work together to accomplish a goal, and seeks understanding. All of the characteristics of an open organizational environment fit the descript ions of a participative culture. This proposition contributes to the theoretical framework because it supports that there is a positive relationship between open organizational environments

PAGE 89

79 ! and measures of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. The proposition supports the fi ndings that if an organization is perceived as an open organizational environment then it is more likely to be perceived as an organization that supports the organization public relationships items of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality Organizations whose publics perceive an open organizational environment have a greater opportunity at establishing trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H2. Hypothesis 2 p osited that p erceptions of authoritarian culture are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. T he results from the correlation analysis support this hypothesis. Pears on's product moment correlation coefficient yielded a significant negative relation ship between the authoritarian culture factor and trust, commitment, and satisfaction. The results for trust, satisfaction, and control mutuality indicate a moderate relationship due to the fact that the numbers fall between a 40 and a 70. Commitment yielded a weak relationship with authoritarian culture since the num ber was less than 40. The number of freshme n participants could have had an effect on their perceptions of an authoritarian culture and commitment because they have not lived on campus an entire collegiate semester. Also, residents could also perceive the DOHRE as a rules and policy driven organization. An authoritarian culture can also be described as an autocratic organization (Sriramesh & White, 1992). Organizations with authoritarian culture s emphasize individual values and responsibility ( Sriramesh, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 1996). The hypothesis supports the theory through this study because an inverse relationship between authoritarian culture and trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality

PAGE 90

80 ! P2.1. Proposition 2.1 proposed that p erceptions of authoritarian management style are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. The correlations analysis for the factor of authoritarian management style provided informative results about the organization and the population. The results for the statement, "The DOHRE administration has total control over student behaviors," revealed a significant negative relation ship; however it was weak for trust, commitment satisfaction, and control mutuality. The numbers reflect the description of the majority of participants. Freshmen who have resided on the U niversity of F lorida campus less th an a year may not be aware of their options, and so they perceive the DOHRE to have control of their behaviors. Another possibility may be the way the question was phrased. The wording "student behaviors" can be interpreted by colle ge students as the rules they mu st follow while living in a residence hall, and if the rules are broken then there are consequences. Another statement that had a significant negative relation ship with the factors of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control was, "The DOHRE bel ieves it knows best because it has more experience than the residents." Again, the numbers yielded a weak relationship and can be explained by the majority of freshmen residents who responded as well as the larger number of residents who have lived on cam pus less than a year and have little experience with the organizational culture of the DOHRE. The other three measures of authoritarian management style support the hypothesis and contribut e to the theoretical framework that suggests organizational culture and organization public relationships are related Sriramesh, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier's (1996) describe authoritarian management style as managers who do not have

PAGE 91

81 ! concern for the lives of people outside the organization. Therefore, an authoritarian cultu re is inversely related to the items of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Managers who have no regard about people's lives does not project a perception of being trusting, committing, and collaborating with those they are involved wit h on a day to day basis. P2.2. Proposition 2.2 proposed that t he organizational values of tradition and conservatism are inversely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Pearson's product moment correlation coeffi cient revealed that there is a significant negative relationship between organizational values of tradition and conservatism to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, a nd control mutuality. This study supports this proposition and contributes to the theoretical frameworks for organizational culture and organization public relationships. However, the results did measure a weak relationship for both tradition and conservatism. First, residents' response to the statement, "As an organization the DOHRE values tradition," could have been interpreted differently than the intended meaning of the measure. Also, freshmen residents could have little experience about the traditional values of the DOHRE due to leng th of involvement. Second, the statement, "I consider the DOHRE to be conservative (traditional)," is a problematic statement because the term conservative has a political connotation. P2.3: Proposition 2.3 proposed that a closed organizational environment is inve rsely related to perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. The correlation analysis yielded results showing that a closed organizational environment

PAGE 92

82 ! has a significant negative relation to the factors of trust, satisfact ion, commitment, and control mutuality. Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1999) define a closed organizational environment as a set of interacting units that have impermeable boundaries and cannot exchange information with environments. A closed system in an orga nization can be identif ied by its internal orientation; workers do what they are told; and members of a dominant coalition that seek control. All of the characteristics of a closed environment fit the descript ions of an authoritarian culture. This proposit ion contributes to the theoretical framework because it supports that there is an inverse relationship between a closed organizational environments and measures of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. The proposition supports the finding s that if an organization is perceived as a cl osed organizational environment, it will also be perceived as an organization that does not support the organization public relationships items of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. H3: Hyp othesis 3 proposed that a uthoritarian culture is positively related to exchange relationships. A correlation analysis was used to test this hypothesis. The results yielded a significant positive relation ship between the measures for authoritarian culture a nd an exchange relationship. This study supports the presented hypothesis and theory The data revealed that perceptions of an authoritarian culture are related to perceptions of exchange relationships. Exchange relationships are relationships where one pa rty benefits from the other. Exchange relationships are self centered. The organization acts dependent on the benefits that it will receive. As previously mentioned in this chapter, authoritarian culture is characterized as being concerned with individual

PAGE 93

83 ! values and responsibility. The describers for both authoritarian culture and exchange relationships share similar characteristics. The data confirms the definitions of authoritarian culture and exchange relationship and shows that the perceptions of author itarian culture will be positively related to exchange relationships. H4: Hypothesis 4 proposed that a p articipative culture is positively related to communal relationships. Pearson's product moment revealed a significant positive relation between a participative culture and co mmunal relationship. Much like H yp o thesis 3 a participative culture and communal relationship share similar characteristics. The data supports the hyp othesis and contributes to theories of an organizational culture and organization public relationships. The findi ngs that support H ypothesis 4 help extend organizational culture theory by showing how the theory can connect to the variables organization pub lic relationships theory. Limitations The first li mitation of this study is the 8 % response rate. Stacks (2002) states that online surveys should be approached in the same mann er as a mail survey s He suggests that following Dillman's five steps to increase response rate. The following f our attempts were made to contact participants. They were: a pre notification email, email with survey link to invite residents to participate, a reminder email asking them to participate, and a final reminder email asking them to participate. Wimmer and Dom inick (2006) state the response rate range for Internet survey is 1% to 30% (p. 205). The number of respondents and its consistency with past research maintains the validity of this study ( Werder, 2005). Another l imitation is the construction of the statements used to measure the variables for organizational culture. The statements were adapted from previous studies

PAGE 94

84 ! and used language that could have been misinterpreted by residents who are students at a university. This could be the reason why statements had to be e xcluded from the factor analysis in order to yield two interpretable factors. Also, items had to be excluded from the reliability analysis in order to increase the internal consistency. Doing so increased the alpha coefficients, indicating a strong internal consistency. In the future, the questionnaire must be adapted to meet the understanding of the population. Despite this limitation, this study did produce consistent results that support the validity of previous studies. Although the results support the hypotheses and propositions presented in this study, the means present another limitation. The means yielded for most items a slightly disagree or slightly agree response. There was not a larger differen ce within each statement. A s mentioned previously the population for this study was unique. In the future, further explanation may be needed and an introduction about the organization can be presented in order for respondents to be aware. Also, the large m ajority of respondents were freshmen that lived on campus less than a year, which could a lso result in the lack of awareness. One final limitation is the length of the questionnaire. In attempt to connect the t w o theories, the questionnaire was adapted fr om two previous studies, which resulted in a 50 item questionnaire. In the future, this study could reduce the numbers of measures so that each participant spends less time taking the survey. Furthermore, the statements were long, and the survey required a lot of reading. This resulted in 13% of respondents not completing the survey.

PAGE 95

85 ! Despite these limitations, this study contributes to a unique body of research on the variables of organizational culture and organization public relationships Also, there has not been any research attempting to relate organizational culture with organization public relationships The results of this study constitute an important preliminary step in extending both the organizational culture theory and organization public relati onships theory Conclusions This study is significant to the extension of public relations theory. The research presented here will provide a greater understanding about perceptions of organizational culture and organization public relations from an external publics perspective. The findings for this study support previous measures created to test organizat ional culture and organization public relations hips This study also opens opportunities for further discussions on how organizational culture is r elated to organizational public relations, and how both can influence each other. Furthermore, t his study also contributes separately to organizational culture theory and organization public relationships theory. The premise for this study sprang from a p revious study on organizational culture. Sriramesh (2007) expressed that "culture fundamental to any relationship building effort (including the six outcomes listed by Hon & Grunig) has yet to be integrated into the discussion of relationship building" (p. 520). This study uses the two factors of authoritarian a nd participative culture developed by Sriramesh, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier to measure perceptions of organizational culture. Then, the measures developed for the six outcomes of trust, satisfaction, c ommitment, and control mutuality by Hon and Grunig were used to test relationship theory. Connecting the two theories materialized at

PAGE 96

86 ! the analysis of the results when the two measures of organizational culture where tested with the measure organization public relationships to determine the level of relation between the items. The results presented in this study support the hypotheses and propositions developed for this study. When an organization is perceived to have characteristics of a pa rticipative culture, it will have positive perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Vice versa, when an organization is perceived to have characteristics of an authoritarian culture, it will have negative perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. Specifically, an authoritarian culture shares characteristics with exchange relationships, and a participative culture shares characteristics with communal relation ships. This study supports the idea that w hen an organizat ion has a participative culture it also pr actices communal relationships. This study not only contributes to theory but also to public relations practice. First the UF Department of Housing and Residence will be able to use the data prese nted in this study to better understand their organizational culture and the quality of the relationships that exist with residents. This study can also be used to create a strategic communication plan for the DOHRE. Organizational objectives to increase c ommitment can be developed from the data presented here, along with strategies and tactics to deliver and receive messages to and from residents. The DOHRE can develop messages and activities to create change in organizational culture and to improve the qu alities of relationships based on the feedback from this study.

PAGE 97

87 ! Future Research Organizational culture is an understudied topic. Future research should incorporate discussions about organizational culture with other well studied theories. Also, future research should focus on measures of societal culture, and how they are related to r elationship management theory. Research on socie tal culture could reveal if organizational culture reflects the external culture of an organization. Furthermore, future studies should test if conflicts between societal culture and organizational culture af fect perceptions of trust, satisfaction, commitment, control mutuality, communal and exchange relationships. From a methodological perspective, future studies should incorporate qualitative research methods. According to Sriramesh, Grunig, and Dozier (199 6), qualitative research methods provide an in depth understanding about individual cultures and how they originated. The same can be applied to the study of relationships. In relationships study, qualitative methods can provide an in depth understanding o f the relationship measurement and how the length of relationships affects perceptions of the outcomes of organizational public relationships. In addition, qualitative methods can be useful when little or no data exists. Finally, it would be imperative to replicate this study to gather perceptions of organizational culture and organization public relationships from an internal publics perspective. Sriramesh, Grunig, and Dozier (1996) "theorized that employees would be the best sources of information that w ould lead to an understanding of organizational culture" (p. 243). This would also provide an opportunity to retest the items presented here with a more formidable population.

PAGE 98

88 ! References Austin, E. W., & Pinkleton, B. (2001). Strategic public relations management: Planning and managing effective communication programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 393 413. B ell, E., Golombisky, K., & Holtzhausen, D. (2002). CommunicationRules! Unpublished training manual, Tampa, FL. Bormann, E. G. (1985). Symbolic convergence: Organizational communication and culture. In L.L. Putman & M.E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 99 122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Broms, H., & Gahmberg, H. (1983). Communication to self in organizations and cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 482 495. Broom, G. M., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization pubic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 9, 83 98. Broom, G. M., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization public relationships. In J.A. Ledingham and S.D. B runing (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 3 22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bruning, S.D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attit udes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review 28 (1), 39 48. Cameron, G. T., & McCollum, T. (1993). Competing corporate cultures: A multi method, cultural analysis of the role of internal communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5 (4), 217 250. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Carey, J.W. (1989). Communication as cultur e : Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

PAGE 99

89 ! Center, A. H. & Jackson, P. (1995). Public Relations practices: M anagerial case studies and problems (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Clark, M. S. & Mills, J. (1993). The difference betwe en communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19 684 691. Cutlip, S., Center, A., & Broom, G. (1999). Effective public relations : 8 th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. E. (1982). Corporate c ulture: The rites and ritual of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Edelstein .A. S. (l983 ). Communication and culture: T he value of comparative studies. Journal of Communication 33 302 310. Ferguson, M.A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as public relations Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL. Glaser, S. R. (1994). Teamwork and communication: A 3 year case study of change. Management Communication Quarterly 7 282 296. Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J. & Akey, T.M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2 nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Grunig, J. E. (1992a). Communication, public relations, and effective organization: An overview of the book. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp.1 28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E. (1992b). What is excellent in management? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 219 250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics Gain e sville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations. Grunig, J. E. & Grunig. L A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communicati on management (pp. 285 326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

PAGE 100

90 ! Grunig, J. E. & White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and practice. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication manag ement (pp.31 64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt. T. (1984). Managing public relations New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Grunig, J.E. and Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indica tors: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J.A. Ledingham and S.D. Bruning (Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management (pp. 23 53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, L. A. (1995). The consequ ences of culture for public relations: The case of women in the foreign service. Journal of Relations Research 7 (2), 139 161. 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 communication management (pp. 65 90) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ha tch, M. J. (2006). O rganization t heory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives New York: Oxford. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, insti tutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J.E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gain e sville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Huang, Y. (2001). OPRA: A cross cultural, multi item scale for measuring organization public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 13 (1), 61 90. Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict management strategies Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Hung, C. J. F. (2003, May). Culture, relationship cultivation, and relationship outcomes: A qualitative evaluation on multinational companies' relationship management in China. Paper presented at th e Public Relations Division in the 53rd Annual Conference of International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

PAGE 101

91 ! Hung, C. J. F. (2005). Exploring types of organization public relationships and their implication for relationship management in public re lations. Journal of Public Relations Research 17 (4), 393 426. Hung, C. J. F. (2007). Toward a theory of relationship management in public relations: How to cultivate quality relationships? In Toth, E. (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management ( pp. 443 476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ke, W., & Wei, K.K. (2008). Organizational culture and leadership in erp implementation. Decision Support Systems 45 208 218. Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The study of c ulture. In D. Lerner & H. Haswell (Eds.), The policy sciences: recent developments in scope and method (pp. 86 101). Stanford, CA: Stan ford University Press. Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government and citizenry: Extending the relational perspective of public relations. Public Relations Review 27 285 295. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 15 (2), 181 198. Ledingham, J.A. & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ledingham, J.A. & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public r elations: Dimensions of an organization public relationship. Public Relations Review 24(1), 55 66. Lindenmann, W. K. (1997). Guidelines and standards for measuring and evaluating PR effectiveness. Gainesville FL: The Institute for Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbau m. Marshall, A. A., & Stohl, C. (1993). Being "in the know" in a participative management system. Management Communication Quarterly 6 372 404. Martin, J., Feldman, M.S., Hatch, M.J., & Sitkin, S.B. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stud ies. Administrative Science Quaterly 28 438 453. Martin, J., Sitkin, S. B., & Boehm, M. (1985). After the founder: An opportunity to manage culture. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organi zational c ulture (pp. 99 124). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mitroff, I. I. (1983). Stakeholders of the organizational mind San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 102

92 ! Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How America business can meet the Japanese challenge Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Pacanowsky, M. E., & O'Donnel Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as organizational performance. Communication Monograph 50 126 147. Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981). The art of Japanese management New York: Simon & Schuster. Reber, B. H., & Cameron, G. T. (2003). Measuring contingencies: Using scales to measure public relations practitioner limits to accommodation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 80 (2), 431 446. Schall, M. S. (1983). A communication rules approach to organizational culture. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 557 581. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Smiric h, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quaterly 28 339 358. Sriramesh, K. (2007). The relationship between culture and public relations. In Toth, E. (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management ( pp. 507 543). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sriramesh, K., & White, J. (1992) Societal culture and public relations. In J.E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication man agement (pp. 597 614). Hillsdale, NJL Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. (1996). Observation and measurement of two dimensions of organizational culture and their relationship to public relations. Journal of Publ ic Relations Research 8 (4), 229 262 Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J., & Buffington, J. (1992). Corporate culture and public relations. In J.E. Grunig (Ed), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 577 596). Hillsdale, NJL Lawerence Er lbaum Associates, Inc. Stacks, D. W. (2002). Primer of public relations research New York: The Guil ford Press. Sun, S. (2008). Organizational culture and its themes. International Journal of Business and Management 3 (12), 137 141.

PAGE 103

93 ! Tichy, N.M. (1982). Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and cultural keys Organizational Dynamics 11 59 80. Victor, D. A. (1992). International business communication New York: HarperCollins. Walton, R. (1969). Interpersonal peacemaking Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Werder, K. (2005). An empirical analysis of the influence of perceived attributes of publics on public relations strategy use and effectiveness. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (3), 217 266. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran P. J. (1995. Structural equations models with non normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wimmer, R. & Dominick, J. (2006). Mass media rese arch: An introduction Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

PAGE 104

94 ! Appendix A Survey Instrument

PAGE 105

95 !

PAGE 106

96 ! Page 2 My Perception of DOHRE's Culture and Relationship My Perception of DOHRE's Culture and Relationship My Perception of DOHRE's Culture and Relationship My Perception of DOHRE's Culture and Relationship This section evaluates your perceptions of the Department of Housing and Residence Education's culture. DOHRE in this section refers to the UF Department of Housing and Residence Education. Please answer how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements: 2. Part One UF Department of Housing and Residence Education's Culture Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree The DOHRE believes it knows best because it has more experience than residents. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j Rigid control by the DOHRE makes it difficult for me to voice new ideas. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j As an organization, the DOHRE looks to the future rather than the past. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j As an organization, the DOHRE treats efficiency as its most important goal. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j As an organization, the DOHRE is open to new ideas. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j As an organization, the DOHRE believes it is important to be innovative. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j The DOHRE has nearly total control over student behaviors. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j As an organization, the DOHRE values tradition. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j The DOHRE seems to believe that students lack initiative. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j Most residents are afraid of the DOHRE administration. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j The DOHRE administration believes in sharing power with its residents. n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j n m l k j

PAGE 107

97 !

PAGE 108

98 !

PAGE 109

99 !

PAGE 110

100 !

PAGE 111

101 !

PAGE 112

10 2 !

PAGE 113

103 !

PAGE 114

104 !

PAGE 115

105 ! Appendix B Prenotification Email

PAGE 116

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

PAGE 117

107 ! ! ! ! Appendix C Participation Email

PAGE 118

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`4]E!ab2 c ^ba3M!N>)*!*#+=>$+#+!L788!*#6,7$!:>$?7%#$;7,8!;>!;(#!#X;#$;!=*>H7%#%!0-!8,LM! N>)!%>!$>;!(,H#!;>!,$+L#*!,$-!d)#+;7>$+!->)!%>!$>;!L7+(!;>!,$+L#*.!,$%!->)!(,H#!;(#!*7A(;!;>! L7;(%*,L!:>$ +#$;!,;!,$-!;76#!L7;(>);!:>$+#d)#$:#M!'(#*#!,*#!$>!,$;7:7=,;#%!*7+O+!,++>:7,;#%! L7;(!->)*!=,*;7:7=,;7>$!7$!;(7+!*#+#,*:(!,$%!->)!L788!*#:#7H#!$>!:>6=#$+,;7>$!?>*!->)*! =,*;7:7=,;7>$M!J?!->)!(,H#!,$-!d)#+;7>$+!:>$:#*$7$A!;(#!=*>:#%)*#+!)+#%!7$!;(7+!+;)%.!-> )!6,-! :>$;,:;!6#!,;!;(#! # c 6,78!,%%*#++!:6?>$+#:Q6,78M)+?M#%)M!e)#+;7>$+!>*!:>$:#*$+!,0>);!->)*! *7A(;+!,+!,!=,*;7:7=,$;!:,$!0#!%7*#:;#%!;>!;(#!I$7H#*+7;-!>?!">);(!/8>*7%,!J$+;7;);7>$,8!B#H7#L! f>,*%!,;!C`4]E!ab2 c R^]`M!W8#,+#!*#?#*#$:#!JBf!=*>3333121^M

PAGE 119

109 ! ! ! ! ! Appendix D Email Reminder 1

PAGE 120

110 ! "#$%&![>$%,-.!/#0*),*-!1`.!1344 56,78!")09#:;&!";)%#$;!")*H#-!>$!);!;(#!I/!<#=,*;6#$;!>?!@>)+7$A!,$%!B#+7%#$:#!5%):,;7>$! >*A,$7F,;7>$,8!:)8;)*#!+)*H#-M ! J?! ->)!(,H#!,8*#,%-!:>6=8#;#%!;(#!>$87$#!d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`4]E!ab2 c ^ba3M!N>)*!*#+=>$+#+!L788!*#6 ,7$!:>$?7%#$;7,8!;>!;(#!#X;#$;!=*>H7%#%!0-!8,LM! N>)!%>!$>;!(,H#!;>!,$+L#*!,$-!d)#+;7>$+!->)!%>!$>;!L7+(!;>!,$+L#*.!,$%!->)!(,H#!;(#!*7A(;!;>! L7;(%*,L!:>$+#$;!,;!,$-!;76#!L7;(>);!:>$+#d)#$:#M!'(#*#!,*#!$>!,$;7:7=,;#%!*7+O+!,++>:7,;#%! L7;(!->)*!=,*;7:7=,;7>$ !7$!;(7+!*#+#,*:(!,$%!->)!L788!*#:#7H#!$>!:>6=#$+,;7>$!?>*!->)*! =,*;7:7=,;7>$M!J?!->)!(,H#!,$-!d)#+;7>$+!:>$:#*$7$A!;(#!=*>:#%)*#+!)+#%!7$!;(7+!+;)%.!->)!6,-! :>$;,:;!6#!,;!;(#! # c 6,78!,%%*#++!:6?>$+#:Q6,78M)+?M#%)M!e)#+;7>$+!>*!:>$:#*$+!,0>);!->)*! *7A(;+!, +!,!=,*;7:7=,$;!:,$!0#!%7*#:;#%!;>!;(#!I$7H#*+7;-!>?!">);(!/8>*7%,!J$+;7;);7>$,8!B#H7#L! f>,*%!,;!C`4]E!ab2 c R^]`M!W8#,+#!*#?#*#$:#!JBf!=*>3333121^M !

PAGE 121

111 ! ! ! ! ! Appendix E Email Reminder 2

PAGE 122

112 ! "#$%&!V#%$#+%,-.![,*:(!1.!1344 56,78!")09#:;&!";)%#$;!")*H#-!>$!);!;(#!I/!<#=,*;6#$;!>?!@>)+7$A!,$%!B#+7%#$:#!5%):,;7>$! >*A,$7F,;7>$,8!:)8;)*#!+)*H#-M ! J?!->)!(,H#!,8*#,%-!:>6=8#;#%!;(#!>$87$#!d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`4]E!ab2 c ^ba3M!N>)*!*#+=>$+#+!L788!*#6,7$!:>$?7%#$;7,8!;>!;(#!#X;#$;!=*>H7%#%!0-!8,LM! N>)!%>!$>;!(,H#!;>!,$+L#*!,$-!d)#+;7>$+!->)!%>!$ >;!L7+(!;>!,$+L#*.!,$%!->)!(,H#!;(#!*7A(;!;>! L7;(%*,L!:>$+#$;!,;!,$-!;76#!L7;(>);!:>$+#d)#$:#M!'(#*#!,*#!$>!,$;7:7=,;#%!*7+O+!,++>:7,;#%! L7;(!->)*!=,*;7:7=,;7>$!7$!;(7+!*#+#,*:(!,$%!->)!L788!*#:#7H#!$>!:>6=#$+,;7>$!?>*!->)*! =,*;7:7=,;7>$M!J?!->)!(,H#!,$-!d )#+;7>$+!:>$:#*$7$A!;(#!=*>:#%)*#+!)+#%!7$!;(7+!+;)%.!->)!6,-! :>$;,:;!6#!,;!;(#! # c 6,78!,%%*#++!:6?>$+#:Q6,78M)+?M#%)M!e)#+;7>$+!>*!:>$:#*$+!,0>);!->)*! *7A(;+!,+!,!=,*;7:7=,$;!:,$!0#!%7*#:;#%!;>!;(#!I$7H#*+7;-!>?!">);(!/8>*7%,!J$+;7;);7>$,8!B#H7#L! f>,*%!,; !C`4]E!ab2 c R^]`M!W8#,+#!*#?#*#$:#!JBf!=*>3333121^M


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 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2011 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004866
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Fonseca Rivera, Cherisse
0 245
Public perceptions of organizational culture and organization-public relationships
h [electronic resource] /
by Cherisse Fonseca Rivera.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2011.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 122 pages.
502
Thesis
(M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Almost 30 years ago, public relations scholars began to process the idea that the concept of culture was important to public relations practices. In particular, scholars questioned what influence culture might have on the communication process and relationship building between organizations and their stakeholders. Yet, today culture is still an understudied concept in the public relations literature. The purpose of this study is to analyze how of organizational culture, as defined by Sriramesh, J. E. Grunig, and Dozier (1996), is significant to the relationship outcomes in public relations. The theoretical framework for this study consists of organizational culture theory and organization-public relationship theory. A quantitative survey was used to measure an external public's perceptions of organizational culture and organizational-public relationships within an academic department. The research measures of authoritarian/participative culture to determine how it is related to the dimensions of organizational-public relationships, including control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, communal relationships, and exchange relationships. The results suggest how an organization can utilize perceptions of organizational culture and relationship management from external publics to develop and implement effective communication strategies.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor:
Werder, Kelly .
653
Communications
Corporate Culture
Management
Organization Theory
Public Relations
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Mass Communications
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4866