In public relations, measuring and evaluating attitude and behavior change have often been regarded as a measurement of public relations program ef-fectiveness aimed at determining the success of the persuasive communication message.
It would also be essential to measure behavior or behavioral intention in public diplomacy as there is a general consensus among scholars that a goal of public diplomacy is “to influence the behavior of a foreign government by influencing the attitudes of its citizens” (Malone, 1988, p. 3). Behav-ior indicates that a public changes or maintains their action according to a goal of an organization (state/nation/government) (Signitzer & Wamser, 2006). To induce the target publics to act according to the organizational goal is often considered difficult, as only those publics who have changed or maintained their attitude in support of the organization are willing to actively influence other publics to support the organization (state/nation/
government) as well.
An important issue in measuring the outcome of a public diplomacy program is to identify which evaluative construct is key to predicting be-havioral intention of a target public, namely a foreign public. It is import-ant to evaluate the public’s behavioral intentions in an effort to assess their potential to remain engaged with or oppose the organization (state, nation, or government). By applying the theory of hierarchy of effect (cognition
→ attitude → behavior (conative)) or persuasion process and relationship management perspective to public diplomacy, this chapter proposes to treat relationship quality as a perception. Furthermore, this discussion tests the effects of relationship quality perception on attitude and behavior in the context of public diplomacy in order to evaluate the effectiveness of a public diplomacy program.
understanding public diplomacy that acts as the foundation for this chapter has yielded a useful framework for advancing public relations as well as public diplomacy.
The convergence of relationship management and public diplomacy has been suggested in prior scholarship (Fitzpatrick, 2007; Signitzer & Wam-ser, 2006; Yun, 2006). Golan (2013) proposed the positive consequences of long-term relational public diplomacy in his integrated model of public diplomacy. However, empirical evidence of the convergence between public diplomacy and relationship management has yet to be documented. There-fore, scholars should consider empirically testing the effectiveness of the con-vergence in these two arenas. Hopefully, this chapter brings more attention to the convergence of public diplomacy and relationship management.
Multiple research ideas should be considered for exploring the conver-gence as previously discussed. First, as proposed in this chapter, future re-search is needed to empirically document evidence of the linkages between/
among relationship quality outcomes, attitudes, and behaviors in the pub-lic diplomacy environment. Second, the three elements—antecedents, cul-tivation strategies, and relationship outcomes—are considered as primary components in the organization-public relationship literature (Broom et al., 2000). Antecedents are the reasons that publics and organizations initiate re-lationships. Cultivation strategies are the communications and behaviors that occur between an organization and its publics in the cultivation of relation-ships. Relationship outcome refers to the perceptions of relationship quality held by each party involved in a given relationship. This chapter addresses only the portion of relationship outcomes. Therefore, future research is need-ed to apply antecneed-edents and cultivation strategies to public diplomacy. Third, the proposed model should be tested across countries to achieve generaliz-ability. Last, given that public diplomats deal with oversea publics, it would be necessary to test the effect of culture in cultivating relationships with these foreign publics.
Notes
1. Actors include inter- and nongovernmental organizations, and sub-state actors and they increasingly also become transnational actors and individuals (Barston, 1997).
2. For further comparison of public relations and public diplomacy, refer to the follow-ing two articles. Macnamara, J. (2012). Corporate and organisational diplomacy: an alternative paradigm to PR. Journal of Communication Management, 16 (3), 312–
325. Signitzer, B., & Wamser, C. (2006). Public diplomacy: A specific governmental public relations function. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II, (pp. 435–464). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bibliography
Anholt, S. (2008). The importance of national reputation. In J. Welsh & D. Fearn (Eds.), Engagement: Public diplomacy in a globalized world (pp. 30–43). London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Barston, R. (1997). Modern diplomacy (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Biden, J. R. (2009). The White House. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/
pubdip.pdf
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and theory of organi-zation-public relationships: An update. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruning, S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2004). Building relationships between organization and publics: Examining the linkage between organization-public rela-tionships, evaluation of satisfaction, and behavioral intent. Communication Studies, 55(3), 435–446.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale.
Public Relations Review, 25, 157–170.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evalua-tions of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relaevalua-tions Review, 26(1), 85–95.
Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management advantages of a relational perspective. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management:
A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 73–93). Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Delaney, R. F. (1968). Introduction. In A. S. Hoffman (Ed.), International communica-tion and the new diplomacy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Deutsch, K. (1996). Nationalism and social communication: An inquiry into the founda-tions of nationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relation-ships. Paper presented at the meeting of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. L. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in.
New York: Penguin Books.
Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2007). Advancing the new public diplomacy: A public relations per-spective. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2(3), 187–211.
Fry, M. G., Goldstein, E., & Langhome, R. (2004). Guide to international relations and diplomacy. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Corp.
Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2009). Credibility and public diplomacy. In N. Snow &
T. Philip (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (pp. 154–165). New York, NY: Routledge.
Golan, G. (2013). Introduction: An integrated approach to public diplomacy. American Behavioral Science, 57, 1251–1255.
Goldstein, J. (1994). International relations. New York, NY: Harper Collins College.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relation-ship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effec-tive organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still en-joy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research.
Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.
Hale, J., Householder, B. J., & Greene, K. L. (2002). The theory of reasoned action. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 259–286). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public rela-tions. Gainesville: Institution for Public Relarela-tions.
Hosmer, L. T. (1996). Research notes and communications: Responses to ‘Do good ethics always make for good business?’. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 501.
Huang, Y.-H. (2001a). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organi-zation-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 61–90.
———. (2001b). Values of public relations: Effects on organization-public relationships mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 265–301.
Hung, C. J. (2000). Organization-public relationships, relationship maintenance strategies, and relationship outcomes. Paper presented at the Educator’s Academy, Public Rela-tions Society of America, Miami, FL.
Jo, S. (2006). Measurement of organization-public relationships: Validation of measure-ment using a manufacturer-retailer relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3), 225–248.
Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2004). Organization-public relationships: Measure-ment validation in a university setting. Journal of Communication ManageMeasure-ment, 9(1), 14–27.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.
Ki, E. -J., & Hon, L. C. (2007a). Testing the linkages among the organization-public rela-tionship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 1–23.
———. (2007b). Validation of relationship quality outcome measurement. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 419–438.
———. (2009). The causal linkages between/among relationship cultivation strategies and relationship quality outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communica-tion, 3, 1–22.
———. (2012). Causal linkages among relationship quality perception, attitude, and be-havior intention in a membership organization. Corporate Communication: An Inter-national Journal, 17, 187–208.
Ki, E. -J., & Shin, J.-H. (2006). The status of organization-public relationship research from an analysis of published articles, 1985–2004. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 194–195.
Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organization-public relationship: A valid and reliable instrument. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 799–815.
L’Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as diplomacy. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 14–34). London: International Thomson Business.
———. (2006). Public relations as public diplomacy. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 373–388). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
———. (2008). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. (1998a). Community relations and relationship dimen-sions: Measuring the impact of a managed communication program. Paper presented at the International Interdisciplinary Research Conference, College Park, MD.
———. (1998b). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organi-zation-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65.
Leonard, M., Small, A., & Rose, M. (2005). British public diplomacy in the Age of Schisms.
London: The Foreign Policy Centre.
Macnamara, J. (2012). Corporate and organisational diplomacy: An alternative paradigm to PR. Journal of Communication Management, 16(3), 312–325.
Malone, G. D. (1988). Political advocacy and cultural communication. Organizing the nation’s public diplomacy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). London: Sage.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Nye, F. I. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. ANNALS, American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94–109.
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Riordan, S. (2003). The new diplomacy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Rose, M., & Wadham-Smith, N. (2004). Mutuality, trust and cultural relations. London:
British Council.
Ross, C. (2002). Public diplomacy comes of age. Washington Quarterly, 25(2), 75–83.
Seltzer, T., & Zhang, W. (2010). Toward a model of political organization-public rela-tionships: Antecedent and cultivation strategy influence on citizens’ relationships with political parties. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 24–45.
Sheeran, P., Abraham, C., & Orbell, S. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of hetero-sexual condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 90–132.
Signitzer, B. (2008). Public relations and public diplomacy: Some conceptual explora-tions. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research:
European and international perspectives (pp. 205–218). Wiesbaden: Verlag fur sozial-wissenschaft.
Signitzer, B., & Coombs, T. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual convergences. Public Relations Review, 18(2), 137–147.
Signitzer, B., & Wamser, C. (2006). Public diplomacy: A specific governmental public re-lations function. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public rere-lations theory II (pp.
435–464). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 8, 217–242.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: Random House.
Wilcox, D. L., & Cameron, G. T. (2012). Public relations: Strategies and tactics.
Wilson, L. J. (2001). Relationships within communities: Public relations for the new cen-tury. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 521–526). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yun, S. H. (2006). Toward public relations theory-based study of public diplomacy: Test-ing the applicability of the excellence study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 287–312.
Management to Public Diplomacy
JanGyul robert KiM
National governments consistently face issues and fall into situations of crisis.
These issues and crises are typically unwelcome and unexpected, and can have any number of causes. Some arise from internal domestic causes, while others are caused by external influences such as conflict with neighboring countries or flux in the world economy. In some cases, an individual’s faults or mistakes lead to a crisis, while a national government’s policy can also lead to an inevi-table occurrence. Some crises are caused by wars or natural disasters.
Some issues can be anticipated or found via environmental scanning, al-lowing time for preparation. Conversely, some issues are entirely unpredict-able and, even if predicted, might be unavoidunpredict-able. However, it is believed that in general, issues and crises can be detected and prevented.
Although different in the size and character, a corporation, like a national government, consistently faces crises, and is swept by issues that need to be prevented or solved. The crises and issues that face a corporation are generally smaller in scale. However, many multinational corporations exceed the size of some nations’ economies and their business areas cover the entire world (Signitzer & Wamser, 2006).
In particular, a national government and corporations in that country hold symbiotic relationships, given that they both have to deal with the same international publics. Take a look at governments today. A national govern-ment supports its national corporations on the international level, and in turn, these corporations share important information with the government.
For instance, former President Lee Myung-Bak of South Korea has personally travelled to UAE to support a Korean company’s bidding for construction of a nuclear powerhouse. The fact that high-ranking officials from the South
Korean government visit the United States to seek restriction on American beef (USA Today, 2008) shows the coherent and complementary relationship between a national government and its corporations. A strong corporation aids the government, and a strong nation supports corporations. Conversely, governmental turmoil negatively affects its corporations. The recent tsunami and resulting nuclear leakage in Japan not only affected Japan as a nation, but also on the performance and reputation of Japanese corporations inter-nationally. Companies such as McDonald’s and Coca-Cola often become the victims of boycotts against the United States, simply for being representatives of America (BBC News, 2009).
The reality is that, as long as a national government and its corporations continue to build relationships with other governments and international publics, it is inevitable that issues will surface and crises will occur. While na-tional governments have previously performed “elite diplomacy” with foreign governments and officials, corporations have performed international public relations, targeting international publics and stakeholders, and have accumu-lated expertise and developed systems that strategically deal with issues and crisis management. Thus, to understand how a national government should undertake issues and crisis management, it is worthwhile to look at how cor-porations handle them.
Regarding public diplomacy research, it is mainly influenced by Nye (1990, 2008) who coined the term, soft power, as opposed to hard power.
A national government may deploy soft power programs to build long-term friendly relationships with citizens (international publics) in other countries via educational and cultural exchange programs. On the other hand, some scholars (Entman, 2004; Sheafer & Gabay, 2009; Sheafer & Shenhav, 2010) focused on mediated public diplomacy research, which deals with a national government’s efforts to engage international citizens in favor of it by lever-aging global news media. Recently, Golan (2013) proposed an integrated model of public diplomacy, which classified public diplomacy into three layers of terms and objectives: mediated public diplomacy (short/medium term), nation branding and country reputation (medium/long term), and relational public diplomacy (long term).
Among these layers, issues and crisis management research fall into short- to medium-termed mediated public diplomacy as they deal with current is-sues and crisis that need immediate attention and follow-ups. Therefore, this chapter first offers a literature review on issues and crisis management in cor-porations. In particular, by focusing on definitions and crisis management strategies, this chapter attempts to apply a corporation’s crisis management frame to public diplomacy; and suggests a direction on how issues and crisis
management research can be best utilized in mediated public diplomacy pro-grams.
Before applying issues and crisis communications as functions of orga-nizational communications to public diplomacy, operational definitions of issues management, crisis, and crisis management are required. These defini-tions will first be examined then be revised to fit public diplomacy.