Explicating Relationship Management asa General Theory of Public Relations

John A. LedinghamDepartment of Communication

Capital University

Although the relationship management perspective of public relations is the focus ofa substantial body of scholarship, a theory of that perspective has yet to be articulatedand explicated. Herein, I review the emergence of the relational perspective, summa-rize the relevant literature, and construct a theoretical statement of that perspective. Ithen argue for relationship management as a general theory of public relations and of-fer suggestions for future research within a relational paradigm.

The relationship management perspective holds that public relations balancesthe interests of organizations and publics through the management of organiza-tion–public relationships. Within that perspective, public relations is seen as “themanagement function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial rela-tionships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failuredepends” (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994, p. 2). The relational perspective hasbeen explored in the context of various public relations functions, including pub-lic affairs (Ledingham, 2001a), community relations (Ledingham & Bruning,2001), issues management (Bridges & Nelson, 2000), crisis management(Coombs, 2000), and media relations (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998b, 1999).Moreover, the notion of relationship management is consistent with major theo-retical concepts such as systems theory and the two-way symmetrical model ofJ. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) and also accommodates relevant middle-range the-ories. Despite a growing body of scholarship focused on the relational perspec-tive, some have suggested that the concept has yet to be articulated in a theoreti-cal statement that then can be examined in terms of accepted criteria for theorybuilding (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997, 2000). Such a statement, grounded in

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH, 15(2), 181–198Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Requests for reprints should be sent to John A. Ledingham, College of Arts and Sciences, CapitalUniversity, Columbus, OH 43209–2394. E-mail: jledingh@capital.edu

the scholarly literature, is offered here. That statement then is examined with re-gard to accepted criteria for theory building.

The essence of the relational perspective is captured in Center and Jackson’s(1995) observation that: “The proper term for the desired outcomes of public rela-tions practice is public relationships. An organization with effective public rela-tions will attain positive public relationships” (p. 2). The relational perspective issaid to define the organizational function of public relations (Ledingham &Bruning, 1998b), clarify the role of communication within that function(Ledingham & Bruning, 2000b), and provide a process for determining the contri-bution of public relations to attainment of organizational goals (Ledingham &Bruning, 1997). Moreover, the relational perspective is consistent with the notionthat public relations initiatives should generate understanding and benefit both fororganizations and publics (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Ledingham & Bruning, 2001).Further, the concept of relationship management underscores the need for publicrelations practitioners to be conversant with strategic planning and other manage-rial processes. The relational perspective also provides a framework for scholarlyinquiry, a platform for developing educational curricula, and a rationale for practi-tioners charged with accounting for program initiatives.

EMERGENCE OF THE RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

According to Ledingham (2001a), “There are four pivotal developments whichspurred emergence of the relational perspective as a framework for public relationsstudy, teaching, and practice” (p. 286). He offered the following:

1. Recognition of the central role of relationships in public relations. Fergu-son’s (1984) admonition that relationships, “not … the organization, nor the pub-lic, nor the communication process,” should be the unifying concept of public rela-tions gave rise to a major shift in the core focus of the discipline.

2. Reconceptualizing public relations as a management function. The notion ofmanaging organization–public relationships introduced managerial concepts and pro-cesses to the practice of public relations. For example, reconceptualization focused at-tention on the need for public relations managers to be proficient in the four-step man-agement process of analysis, planning, implementation, and evaluation.

3. Identification of components and types of organization–public relation-ships, their linkage to public attitudes, perceptions, knowledge and behavior, andrelationship measurement strategies. Scholars began to explore the composition oforganization–public relationships and the linkage of those relationships to publicperceptions, attitudes, and behavior. Moreover, an organization–public relation-ship measurement scale was developed for use in predicting public loyalty, satis-faction, and behavior.

182 LEDINGHAM

4. Construction of organization–public relationship models that accommodaterelationship antecedents, process, and consequences. Pioneering models of the or-ganization–public relationship included antecedents, properties, consequences,and maintenance as well as monitoring strategies. A 10-phase developmentalmodel and a five-step process model also were advanced.

IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONAL CONCEPT

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the relational concept to publicrelations. Ehling (1992) characterized it as “an important change in the primarymission of public relations” (p. 662). Dozier (1995) reasoned that, “the purposeand direction of an organization (its mission) is affected by relationships with keyconstituents (publics) in the organization’s environment” (p. 85). Within that per-spective, Dozier also suggested that communication is “a strategic managementfunction (that helps) manage relationships with key publics that affect organiza-tional mission, goals and objectives” (p. 85). Moreover, Broom and Dozier (1990)argued that the relational perspective shifts the validation of public relations initia-tives from measures of communication output to that of behavioral outcomes.Ledingham and Bruning (2000a) also suggested that

the emergence of relationship management … calls into question the essence of pub-lic relations—what it is and what it does or should do, its function and value withinthe organizational structure and the greater society, and the benefits generated notonly for sponsoring organizations but also for the publics those organizations serveand the societies in which they exist. (p. xiii)

Echoing Dozier’s observation, they asserted that while “goals are developedaround relationships … communication is used as a strategic tool in helping toachieve those goals,” and that “while measurement of communication efficienciesshould certainly be part of the evaluation process, their importance eventually mayrest upon their ability to impact the achievement of relationship objectives”(Ledingham & Bruning, 2000b, p. 63).

SHIFTING FOCUS

According to Littlejohn (1995) the purpose of research is to build theories to solvethe problems researchers face in working in a domain. J. E. Grunig (1989) sug-gested that theory building begins with the presuppositions of a domain, and theo-ries are conceptualized as organizing mechanisms shaped by those presupposi-tions. Collectively, those presuppositions constitute a worldview that drivesscholarship and practice. According to J. E. Grunig, the source of the suppositionspresumed within a discipline serves as a framing mechanism for the development

EXPLICATING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 183

of theory. He noted that when the source of the suppositions from which the theo-retical constructs arise—the domain—undergoes a change, then the worldviewmust change. That is precisely what is happening in public relations as it shiftsfrom a field that draws its suppositions from the area of communication to one withrelationships as the supposition source.

The notion of managing organization–public relationships also addresses a ma-jor problem within the practice. Research suggests that a lack of managementtraining is a contributing factor to public relations experts being passed over for se-nior management positions (Lindemann & Lapetina, 1981). An additional surveyof the field of public relations found that those with public relations training moreoften are assigned a technician role, whereas managers more often are drawn formthe ranks of business, management, or related fields (Dozier, 1984). The perspec-tive that views public relations as a management function requires practitionerstrained in management processes and able to apply those skills to public relationsproblems and opportunities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Scholarship concerning the management of organization–public relationships hasincreased dramatically in recent years. That scholarship includes definitions, di-mensions, types of organization–public relationships, maintenance strategies, theimportance of stakeholder expectations, and developmental and process models.In the first iteration of their model, Broom et al. (1997) argued that the lack of adefinition of an organization–public relationship inhibited further development ofthe relational perspective. In response, Ledingham and Bruning (1998b) offeredthe following: “[An organization–public relationship is] the state which exists be-tween an organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impactthe economic, social, cultural or political well being of the other” (p. 62). Subse-quently, Broom et al. (2000) suggested that, “relationships consist of the transac-tions that involve the exchange of resources between organizations … and lead tomutual benefit, as well as mutual achievement” (p. 91).

Organization–Public Relationships Dimensions

More than a decade ago, Broom and Dozier (1990) hypothesized that levels ofagreement between organizations and publics on key issues and the degree towhich an organization and its key publics can accurately predict each other’s posi-tion can act as indicators of relationship state. Ledingham’s (2001a) study of gov-ernment–citizenry relationships found support for that hypothesis in the linkage oforganization–public agreement and relationship state. Moreover, L. A. Grunig, J.E. Grunig, and Ehling (1992) suggested that relationship state can be determined

184 LEDINGHAM

by the dimensions of reciprocity, trust, mutual legitimacy, openness, mutual satis-faction, and mutual understanding. As the result of a broad review of relevant liter-ature, Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, and Lesko (1997) culled from the litera-ture 17 dimensions thought to be central to interpersonal, marketing, and othertypes of relationships. Subsequently, Ledingham and Bruning (1998b)operationalized five relevant dimensions: trust, openness, involvement, invest-ment, and commitment. In that typology, trust is operationalized as an organization“doing what it says it will do” and openness is seen as “sharing the organization’splans for the future with public members.” Involvement is described as “the organi-zation being involved in the welfare of the community,” investment as “the organi-zation investing in the welfare of the community,” and commitment as “the organi-zation being committed to the welfare of the community” (p. 62). Ledingham andBruning then explored the linkage between those dimensions and public percep-tions, attitudes, and choice behavior, finding public awareness of an organization’ssupport of community associated with a favorable predisposition toward that orga-nization. Their research also demonstrates the value of relationships as a predictorof public predispositions (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998b), behavior (Ledingham &Bruning, 2000b), and satisfaction (Bruning & Ledingham, 1998a). Recently, Honand J. E. Grunig (1999) offered strategies for maintaining organization–public re-lationships, including access, positiveness, openness, assurance, networking, andthe sharing of tasks. In addition, they suggested control mutuality, trust, satisfac-tion, and commitment as organization–public relationship outcomes.

Organization–Public Relationships and Loyalty

Ledingham and Bruning (1998b) found that consumers who ranked an organiza-tion highly with regard to the five relationship dimensions were more likely to usethat organization’s services when given a competitive choice. Based on the results,they posited a theory of loyalty that: “organizational involvement in and support ofthe community in which it operates can engender loyalty toward an organizationamong key publics when that involvement/support is known by key publics” (p.63). They further concluded that “what emerges is a process in which organiza-tions must (1) focus on the relationships with their key publics, and (2) communi-cate involvement of those activities/programs that build the organization–publicrelationship to members of their key publics” (p. 63). They also suggested: “To beeffective and sustaining, relationships need to be seen as mutually beneficial,based on mutual interest between an organization and its significant publics,” andargued that “the key to managing successful relationships is to understand whatmust be done in order to initiate, develop and maintain that relationship” (p. 27).Subsequently, Wilson (2000) argued that there is “support (for) the application of(that) theory to … community and employee publics as well” (p. 12).

EXPLICATING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 185

Organization–Public Relationships and Satisfaction

Further research by Bruning and Ledingham (1998a) demonstrated that relation-ship scores can be used to predict levels of customer satisfaction. Accordingly,they advised that “the relationship between an organization and its key publicsshould be considered when developing customer satisfaction initiatives and shouldbe included in future models of satisfaction research” (p. 199). Moreover, organi-zation–public relationships were found to cluster into three relationshipstypes—interpersonal, professional, and community. That typology then served asthe foundation for development of a multi-item, multi-dimensional scale to mea-sure organization–public relationship state (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999). Otherresearch (Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999) suggested that organization–pub-lic relationships change over time, and it might require decades in some cases tosolidify a relationship, underscoring the need to attend to the relationship through-out its life cycle.

The Importance of Expectations

Littlejohn (1995) contended that “a relationship is defined not so much by what issaid as by the partner’s expectations for behavior” (p. 262). Moreover,Thomlison’s (2000) review of interpersonal literature supports the notion that fail-ure to meet or exceed expectations can determine whether a relationship continues.Ledingham’s (2001a) study of government–citizen relationships reinforces the no-tion of expectations as a relationship imperative. Similarly, Coombs (2000) arguedthat damage to a relationship “tends to be a result of either (1) incongruence be-tween the public and private definitions of a relationship, or (2) the people involvedin the relationship have different expectations of each other” (p. 2). Coombs alsointroduced the notion of relationship history as a contributor to the state of an orga-nization–public relationship.

Models of Organization–Public Relationships

Models are an illustration of theories in action, and several organization–public rela-tionship models have been advanced. The pioneering model of Broom et al. (1997)included antecedents, subsequent states, and consequences of organization–publicrelationships. In that model “antecedents … include perceptions, motives, needs,behaviors … posited as contingencies or causes in the formation of relationships …(and) antecedents are the sources of change pressure or tension … derived from theenvironment” (p. 94). Moreover, consequences of organization–public relation-ships were seen as “the outputs that have the effects of changing the environment andofachieving,maintainingorchanginggoal statesboth insideandoutsideof theorga-nization” (p. 94). In a subsequent iteration of the model, Broom et al. (2000) sug-

186 LEDINGHAM

gested that transactions are part of the process of fulfilling needs and can be used todescribe, categorize, and evaluate the quality of relationships. Accordingly, thecommunication-centered patterns of accessing, storing, and using information (a“need”) as well as communication engagement (“social exchange”) were suggestedas indicators of relationship state. Broom et al. also included three additional dimen-sions of relationships—the degree of formalization, standardization, and complex-ity—as well as the intensity and reciprocity of two additional relationship pro-cesses—information flow and resource flow. J. E. Grunig and Huang (2000)reconceptualized Broom et al.’s (2000) antecedents, states, and consequences ascharacteristics that describe the publics with which organizations need relationships(antecedents), maintenance strategies (relationship states) and outcomes of thosestrategies (consequences). They then suggested methods for monitoring each of thethree components of the model: environmental scanning for the antecedents phase,ongoing observations by management and publics for relationship states, and,coorientational measurement for consequences.

In addition, Lucarelli-Dimmick, Bell, Burgiss, and Ragsdale (2000) developeda model of physician–patient relationships with implications for management oforganization–public relationships. The model illustrates the steps in the develop-ment of the relationship, moving from current state to desired state in an ongoingprocess of monitoring and adjustment. As measures of relationship state,Lucarelli-Dimmick et al. suggested reciprocity, trust, credibility, openness, mutuallegitimacy, mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding. They further suggestedsymmetry, intensity, frequency, duration, valance, and content as measures of“communication linkage attributes” (p. 132). Moreover, Toth (2000) describedtwo types of public relations practice—a “pure personal influence” approach inwhich “interpersonal communication is used to dominate individuals, to accept ei-ther the organization’s or public’s position, closed and static in attributes,” and a“pure interpersonal influence” approach in which “interpersonal communication(is) used to find mutual definitions, mutuality of understanding, agreement, con-sensus, open and dynamic in attributes” (p. 214). Toth also suggested: “The endgoal of interpersonal communication is to establish and maintain successful rela-tionships” (p. 217), adding that “some conceptual elements to examine along anindividual continuum are mutuality of understanding, trust, credibility, emotion,intimacy and similarity, immediacy, and dominance-submission” (p. 218). Tothfurther called for research “to make this (interpersonal) model of use in managingpublic relationships,” and suggested that “One starting point would be to studyqualitatively how much individuals in negotiation situations attribute their successto their own choices and motivations and how much their agency is influenced anddistinctly built in the negotiation relationship” (p. 217).

A process model of relationship management was constructed by Bruning andLedingham (1999) and expanded in a later iteration (Ledingham, 2001d). Themodel consists of five steps: scan, map, act, rollout, and track (SMART). The

EXPLICATING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 187

model provides a process for managing organization–public relationships andspecifies the steps that must be taken in that process. It also lists monitoring strate-gies, methods of pretesting programmatic initiatives, recommendations for pro-gram implementation, and evaluation strategies. Bruning and Ledingham (2001)also constructed a developmental model of organization–public relationshipsbased on Knapp’s (1984) stages of the coming together and the coming apart of aninterpersonal relationship.

FINDINGS

At this point, what is known about organization–public relationships issummarized here:

1. In the relational perspective, relationship presuppositions act as a framingmechanism for theory building, teaching, and practice. The use of communicationoutput as the measure of programmatic accountability is superceded by measure-ment of relational and behavioral outcomes.

2. The appropriate unit of measurement of public relations impact is the orga-nization–public relationship.

3. Analysis of organization–public relationships is grounded in interpersonal re-lationship building. Moreover, many interpersonal relationship principles—com-plete with guidelines for initiating, maintaining, and improving relationships—serveas a foundation for the exploration of organization–public relationships.

4. Organization–public relationships involve an ongoing interchange of needs,expectations, and fulfillment.

5. Ratings of relationship dimensions can define the state of an organiza-tion–public relationship, which, in turn, can act as a predictor of public perceptionsand choice behavior.

6. Organization–public relationship types include symbolic and behavioral, aswell as personal, professional, and community-related.

7. Organization–public relationships change over time.8. The outcome of effective relationship management is mutual understanding

and benefit.9. Successful organization–public relationships develop around common in-

terests and shared solutions to common problems.10. Relationshipstate reflectsperceptionsofneedsandexpectationsfulfillment.11. Mutual benefit strategies can generate economic, societal, and political

gain both for organizations and publics.

A summary of findings in model form is found in Table 1.

188 LEDINGHAM

189

TABLE 1Dimensions, Types, and Models of Organization–Public Relationships

Dimensions Types ModelsRelationship State: Indicators of and

Contributors to Monitoring

Trust Symbolic Org–pub model Communication ScanningOpenness Behavioral Expanded model Frequency ObservationCredibility Personal Developmental model Complexity Storage/accessEmotion Professional Personal model Access Co-orientationalIntimacy Community Professional model Use MeasurementSimilarity SMART model Perceptions of:Immediacy Phases model Personal relationshipAgreement Professional relationshipAccuracy Community relationshipCommon interests Problem agreementRelational history Needs fulfillment

Goal sharing and reciprocityMutual legitimacySatisfaction and benefitConsensusAccuracy

Social exchangeTransactionsSubmissivenessFormalization and standardizationSymmetry and intensityDuration, valance, and contentInformation resource and flow

Note. Use of the term organization–public relationships is a convenience. It is not meant to suggest a hierarchy that placesmore importance on the participation of an organization than that of a public in the relationship.

A THEORY OF RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT

Hazleton and Botan (1989) contended that “a theory consists of at least two con-cepts and a statement explaining or predicting the relationship between those con-cepts” (p. 7). According to Littlejohn (1995), “all theories are abstractions” that“focus on certain aspects of process” (p. 12), and “represent various ways in whichobservers see their environments” (p. 13). Littlejohn further suggested that theoryis the result of a process of asking questions, observing phenomena, and construct-ing answers in which “the scholar attempts to define, to describe and explain, tomake judgments” (p. 9). Moreover, Littlejohn specified eight functions of theory:

1. Organizing and summarizing.2. Focus.3. Clarifying.4. Observation.5. Predictability.6. Heuristic.7. Communicative.8. Control. (p. 13)

He shared Hawes’s distinction that theory serves as an explanation, whereas a modelillustrates the “interrelationships among the parts of the modeled process” (p. 12).Littlejohn also stressed the importance of the usefulness of a theory, noting that“questioninga theory’susefulness iswiser thanquestioning its truthfulness”(p.13).

The following theory of relationship management, again, grounded in thescholarly literature is offered:

Effectively managing organizational–public relationships around commoninterests and shared goals, over time, results in mutual understanding andbenefit for interacting organizations and publics.

The theory of relationship management meets the criteria set forth by Littlejohn(1983, pp. 13–14) in that,

1. The theory serves as an organizing concept for the study of public relation-ships and the knowledge generated from that study.

2. It focuses on the core of the domain—relationships—and answers thequestion: “What will I look at?”

3. It helps clarify what is observed, and what public relations is about.4. It specifies theconceptsof thedomainandthe interactionof thoseconcepts.5. It lends itself to observation by pointing out how to observe the organiza-

tion–public relationship process through operational definitions and mod-els of the phenomenon.

190 LEDINGHAM

6. It sets the direction for future research by identifying concepts and examin-ing the relationships between them.

7. It lends itself to communicative efforts through the presentation or publica-tion of scholarly work.

8. The theory not only is descriptive, but also normative in that it sets require-ments for performance in terms of expectation fulfillment, and mutualityof understanding and benefit.

Moreover, the theory of relationship management responds to the concerns ofLeichty and Springston (1993) in that it identifies the elements of an organiza-tion–public relationship (organizations, publics), as well as the phenomenon (mu-tual understanding and benefit), and the elements of the condition that produce aninstance of the phenomenon (effective management, common interests, sharedgoals). The theory also explains that mutual benefit occurs when organiza-tion–public relationships are effectively managed, and describes how a symmetri-cal relationship emerges (by management focused, over time, on common interestsand shared goals). The theory specifies measurable outcomes (mutual benefit forinteracting organizations and publics). Additionally, research concerning relation-ship management in differing contexts has produced similar findings (Bruning &Ledingham, 2001; Bruning & Ralston, 2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998b,2000a). That research also demonstrates the usefulness of the relational perspec-tive in identifying measurable outcomes that transcend communication production(outputs), and also in providing practitioners with a framework for demonstratingthe contribution of public relations initiatives to the economic, cultural, and socialwell-being of an organization (outcomes).

The notion that mutuality is a cornerstone on which long-term organization–pub-lic relationships are constructed is supported by Ledingham and Bruning’s (1998b)longitudinal study of the management of an organization–public relationship. Re-search also has demonstrated the importance of common interests and shared goalsto the state of an organization–public relationship (Ledingham, 2001a; Ledingham& Bruning, 2001a), and that changes in those relationships occur over time(Ledinghametal.,1999).Relationshipmanagement theoryalsomeetsBroometal.’s(2000) explication requirements in that it identifies the act (effective management)that produces a result (mutual understanding and benefit) under specified conditions(a focus on shared goals and common interests over time).

RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT ASA GENERAL THEORY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

J. E. Grunig (1989) noted that, “one can think of many theories that apply … but itis more difficult to think of a public relations theory … that has not been borrowedfrom another” (p. 18).

EXPLICATING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 191

A general theory is a concept that unifies a discipline, providing an overarchingframework for exploring issues within that discipline. Leichty and Springston(1993) suggested,

If the relationship management metaphor is to be taken seriously, a theory (is needed)of how relationships between organizations and publics develop, change and are main-tained. [And] the varying ways in which organization–public relationships changeacross time should be a focus of analysis. In particular, a normative theory of public re-lations would instruct practitioners on how to try to develop or change an organiza-tion–public relationship from one relational phase to a more desirable one. (p. 334)

They added that “what we need is a theory that tells us when and how to build to-ward a two-way symmetrical exchange between organizations and publics” (p.335). Relationship management theory specifies how to build toward symmetry(managing organizational–public relationships around common interests andshared goals) and when to apply that approach (over time). Moreover, the relation-ship management theory not only predicts outcomes and the conditions underwhich those outcomes occur, but also accommodates subtheories—those thatPrior-Miller (1989) termed “middle-range” (p. 68)—which might explain part of aprocess, but lack the ability to explain the entire process.

For example, the notion of public loyalty advanced by Ledingham and Bruningand ameliorated by Wilson is a middle-range theory. That is, the theory explainsand prescribes ways in which an organization can engender public loyalty (bymeeting the needs of a public). However, it does not address other important rela-tional issues, and it is insufficiently comprehensive to explain all the elements andcomplexities involved in organization–public interaction. Moreover, the generaltheory of relationship management is compatible with many other theories relatingto public relations. For example, one of J. E. Grunig’s many contributions to the lit-erature of public relations includes a taxonomy of publics (J. E. Grunig & Repper,1992) as active, aware, latent, and nonpublics. As Kelly (2001) noted, “(This) situ-ational theory of public relations guides practitioners in identifying groups towhich public relations should target its communications” (p. 287). In that regard,the end goal of relationship management is mutual understanding and benefit.Identifying, typing, and categorizing publics, certainly, should be an integral partof that process. Moreover, the collective scholarship of the relational literaturesupports J. E. Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) notion of mutual benefit as a public rela-tions imperative. Although the notion of mutual benefit initially may initially havebeen driven, at least in part, by ethical concerns, recent research has found thatstrategies designed with mutual benefit in mind can stabilize market share and addvalue to an organization’s products and services (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000;Ledingham, 2001a; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998a).

192 LEDINGHAM

A RELATIONAL PARADIGM FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS

The relational theory of public relations also serves as the foundation for a rela-tionship-grounded research paradigm, as follows:

What types and process of management are most effective in identifying andfocusing on the common interests and shared goals of organizations andpublics, over time, to generate mutual understanding and benefit.

The components of the paradigm are (a) effective management types and pro-cesses, (b) common interests and shared goals, (c) time, (d) mutual understandingand benefit, (e) organizations, and (f) publics. Areas for future research within thisparadigm are offered here:

1. Issues regarding effective management including management philosophyand types, as well as issues of ethics and social responsibility.

2. Identifying the interests and goals shared by organizations and publics.3. The impact of time, frequency of contact, and other factors on organiza-

tion–public relationship quality.4. The development of processes to ensure mutual understanding and benefit,

and measures thereof.5. Organization and industry typologies, linked to typologies of publics such

as those of J. E. Grunig and Repper (1992).

IMPLICATIONS

The heuristic implications of the relational theory are varied. Although a great dealmore about organization–public relationships is known than ever before, numer-ous opportunities for exploration remain. In addition to the areas just listed, mat-ters of intensity, frequency, and interaction could serve as the basis for constructionof a matrix of relational types, quality, and contributing factors. The notion of or-ganization–employee relationships, largely untouched except by Wilson (2000),represents further research opportunities.

Moreover, today’s public relations graduates are entering a world in which an un-derstanding of management processes is increasingly considered a necessary part ofthe practitioner’s skill set. The notion of relationship management supports the needfor a review of public relations curricula to ensure that students are conversant withmanagement concepts as well as skilled in traditional communication techniques.Additionally, the relational theory provides a process for determining the contribu-tion of public relations initiatives to organizational goals. Research demonstratesthat programs designed to generate mutual understanding and benefit—the desired

EXPLICATING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 193

outcome of management of organization–public relationships—can contribute toattainmentofanorganization’ssocial, economic,andpoliticalgoalswhenthosepro-grams focus on the common wants, needs, and expectations of organizations and in-teracting publics (Ledingham, 2001a; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998b).

CONCLUSIONS

The theory of relationship management articulated herein meets accepted criteriafor a general theory of public relations. The theory is predicated on the notion thatthe appropriate domain of public relations is that of relationships. The theory alsoserves as an organizing concept for public relations scholarship, teaching, andpractice. It also provides the field with a framework within which to respond to thefunctional imperatives of organizations, publics, and the greater society.

Traditionally, the literature of public relations has focused on the use of com-munication as a means of manipulating public behavior. The symmetrical modeladvanced by J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) shifted the emphasis from manipulationto the notion of benefit for both organizations and interacting publics, primarilythrough communication. As the relational perspective gained acceptance, someaccommodated the shift by suggesting that organization–public relationships aremanaged through communication. J. E. Grunig (1993), however, has specified twotypes of organization–public relationships: symbolic and behavioral. He argued,

When symbolic (communication-based) relationships are divorced from behavioralrelationships (grounded in actions and events), public relations practitioners reducepublic relations to the simplistic notion of image building [which] offer[s] little ofvalue to the organizations they advise because they suggest that problems in relation-ships with publics can be solved by using the proper message—disseminated throughpublicity, or media relations—to change an image of an organization. (p. 136)

Moreover, Ledingham and Bruning, in a series of studies of organization–publicrelationships (1998b, 2000a, 2000b, 2001), emphasized the need for both behavior(organization or public) and communication.

The major shift occurring in the discipline, then, involves recognition that the ap-propriate domain of public relations is, in fact, relationships. The building and sus-taining of organization–public relationships requires not only communication, butorganizational and public behaviors, a concept central to the relationship manage-mentperspective.Moreover,public relations functionssuchasspecialevents,publicaffairs, development, and press relations are not—in and of themselves—communi-cation, but practice areas distinct from communication production, such as the prep-arationofnewsreleases, speeches,videos,annual reports, and the like.Within the re-lational perspective, communication functions as a strategic tool in the building and

194 LEDINGHAM

maintaining of organization–public relationships. It is the management of these re-lationships—through both communication and behavioral initiatives—that is theappropriate framework for the study, teaching, and practice of public relations.

AXIOMS

Based on the collective findings from the literature review, the following axioms oforganization–public relationships are offered:

1. Organization–public relationships are transactional.2. The relationships are dynamic; they change over time.3. They are goal oriented.4. Organization–public relationships have antecedents and consequences and

can be analyzed in terms of relationship quality, maintenance strategies, re-lationship type, and actors in the relationship.

5. These relationships are driven by the perceived needs and wants of inter-acting organizations and publics.

6. The continuation of organization–public relationships is dependent on thedegree to which expectations are met.

7. Those expectations are expressed in interactions between organizationsand publics.

8. Such relationships involve communication, but communication is not thesole instrument of relationship building.

9. These relationships are impacted by relational history, the nature of thetransaction, the frequency of exchange, and reciprocity.

10. Organization–public relationships can be described by type (personal, pro-fessional, community, symbolic, and behavioral) independent of the per-ceptions of those relationships.

11. The proper focus of the domain of public relations is relationships, notcommunication.

12. Communication alone cannot sustain long-term relationships in the ab-sence of supportive organizational behavior.

13. Effective management of organization–public relationships supports mu-tual understanding and benefit.

14. The relationship perspective is applicable throughout the public relationsprocess and with regard to all public relations techniques.

REFERENCES

Bridges, J. A., & Nelson, R. A. (2000). Issues management: A relational approach. In J. A. Ledingham& S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to pub-lic relations (pp. 95–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

EXPLICATING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 195

Broom, G., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization–public rela-tionships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83–98.

Broom, G., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and theory of organization–public rela-tionships: An update. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationshipmanagement: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to programmanagement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1998). Organization–public relationships and consumer satis-faction: Role of relationships in the satisfaction mix. Communication Research Reports, 15,199–209.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: De-velopment of a multi-dimensional organization–public relationship scale. Manuscript submittedfor publication.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000a). Organization and key public relationships: Testing the in-fluence of the relationship dimensions in a business-to-business context. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D.Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public rela-tions (pp. 159–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Identifying the communication behaviors and interac-tion patterns of agency–client relationships in development and decline. Manuscript submit-ted for publication.

Bruning, S. D., & Ralston, M. (2001). Using a relational approach to retaining students and buildingmutually-beneficial student-university relationships. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Center, A. H., & Jackson, P. (1995). Public relations practices: Management case studies and problems(5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Coombs, 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 publicrelations (pp. 73–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Dozier, D. M. (1984). Program evaluation and roles of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 13–21.Dozier, D. M., with Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public rela-

tions and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an organization. In

J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence inpublic relations and communication management (pp. 616–638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships.Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,Gainesville, FL.

Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In C. H.Botan & V. Hazelton, Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17–44). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public RelationsReview, 19, 121–139.

Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: An-tecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham& S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to pub-lic relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

196 LEDINGHAM

Grunig,J.E.,&Repper,F.C.(1992).Strategicmanagement,publics,andissues. InJ.E.Grunig(Ed.),Excel-lence in public relations and communication management: Contributions to effective organizations (pp.117–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig, D.M.Dozier,W.P.Ehling,L.A.Grunig,F.C.Repper,&J.White (Eds.),Excellenceinpublicrelationsandcommunication management (pp. 65–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hazleton, V., Jr., & Botan, C. (1989). The role of theory in public relations. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton, Jr.(Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 3–15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Insti-tute for Public Relations.

Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In R. Heath (Ed.), Hand-book of public relations (pp. 279–289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Knapp, M. (1984). Interpersonal communication and interpersonal relationships. Boston: Allyn & Ba-con.

Ledingham, J. A. (2001a). Government and citizenry: Extending the relational perspective of publicrelations, Public Relations Review, 27, 285–295.

Ledingham, J. A. (2001b, November). Where have we been and where are we going? Paper presented atthe annual convention of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1997, November). Interpersonal dimensions in an organiza-tional–public relationship. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and MassCommunication, Chicago.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998a). The media audit: A management approach to media rela-tions. In J. Biberman & A. Alkhafaji (Eds.), Business research yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 752–756). Sa-line, MI: McNaughton & Gunn, Inc.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998b). Relationship management and public relations: Dimen-sions of an organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1999). Managing media relations: Extending the relational per-spective of public relations. In J. Biberman & A. Alkhafaji (Eds.), Business research yearbook (Vol.5, pp. 644–648). Saline, MI: McNaughton & Gunn, Inc.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000a). Background and current trends in the study of relationshipmanagement. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship manage-ment: A relational approach to public relations (pp. xi–xvii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, Inc.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000b). A longitudinal study of organization–public relationshipsdimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management. In J. A.Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational ap-proach to public relations (pp. 55–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2001). Community relations. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook ofpublic relations (pp. 527–534). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, T. D., & Lesko, C. (1997). The transferability of interper-sonal relationship dimensions into an organizational setting. Academy of Managerial Communica-tions Journal, 1, 23–43.Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the perceptions andbehavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting organization–public relationships.Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 167–183.

Leichty, G., & Springston, J. (1993). Reconsidering public relations models. Public Relations Review,19, 327–339.

Lindemann, W., & Lapetina, A. (1981). Management’s view of the future of public relations. Public Re-lations Review, 7(3), 3–13.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1983). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

EXPLICATING RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT 197

Littlejohn, S. W. (1995). Theories of human communication (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Lucarelli-Dimmick, S., with T. E. Bell, S. G, Burgiss, & C. Ragsdale (2000). Relationship manage-

ment: A new professional model. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as re-lationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 117–136). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Prior-Miller, M. (1989). Four major social science theories and their value to the public relations re-searcher. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton, Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 67–81). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Thomlison, T. D. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In J. A.Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational ap-proach to public relations (pp. 177–203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Toth, E. (2000). From personal influence to interpersonal influence: A model for relationship man-agement. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship manage-ment: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 205–219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Wilson, L. J. (2000). Building employee and community relationships through volunteerism: Acase study. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship man-agement: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 137–144). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

198 LEDINGHAM