Relationship between Public Relation and Culture - Essay Example

Discuss the Relationship between Public Relation and Culture Your Relationship between Public Relation and Culture "We are living in an age of diversity"(Don C. Locke as quoted in Banks 2000, 3).It is a timeless saying that identifies the differences between every two individuals. These differences are visible yet so trivial that we tend to ignore them. On the other hand, some differences are so obvious that we have to categorize people on the basis of their dissimilarities. In both cases, differences or similarities can have immense practical implications (Banks 2003) and public relation is no exception. It is not a simple task to identify, analyze, and respond to the perceived categories of human differences for the purpose of public relation practices. Public relation practitioners, managers, and theorists have long been dealing with the concept of differences (Ainlay, Becker and Coleman 1986) and problems of communicating across cultures (Alberts 1992; Asante and Gudykunst 1989; Gudykunst 1991; Scollon and Scollon 1995; Varonis and Gass 1985; Gass and Varonis, 1991).On the other hand, some prominent public relation experts have criticized the importance of multicultural communication. This paper tries to explore the relationship between public relation and cultures while discussing about the societal and corporate cultures and their collective impact on public relation practices. Public relation practice is packed with the possibilities of embarrassments, lost opportunities, confused clients, inadequate performance, and unsatisfied expectations stemming from misunderstood cultural differences. Some prominent commentators reject the idea of multicultural communication, such as, ODwyer (1994 quoted in Banks 2000). Considering the insensitivity towards cultural differences, Banks (2000) suggests that they must get more informed about cultural diversity and get a better understanding of cultural variability and its implications for public relation practices. Banks (2000) refers to it as internalization of business; others call it globalization of business (Cheney 1999; Fitzpatrick 1992 quoted in Banks 2000, 40). Banks (2000) also notes that the research and theory on diversity in public relation is in its early phases. A diverse body of literature has emerged in order to provide practical information for training and working in multicultural settings, however, the largest public relation study, the IABC Research Foundations "excellence project" has not directly acknowledged multicultural principles or issues; either we consider the studys development as theoretical statement or for using recommendations to improve professional practice(Cutlip, Center, and Broom 2000; J.E. Grunig and Hunt 1984, Vercic, van Ruler, Butschi, and Flodin 2001 quoted in Sriramech and Dejan 2003,7).The lack of in depth literature give rise to misconceptions and further development of professional practices. James Tolley (1988) states, "for me, public relation boils down to getting people to do what you want them to do." For influencing people to such an extent, public relation practitioners must understand the way people perceive and react to certain message, and why they do it. Here, culture comes into play. Individuals are recognized by the ideas, beliefs, values, thoughts, and perceptions. No two individuals are same, even if they are provided with the same conditions. Sometimes the difference is obvious, other times it is not. It is crucial to consider the consequences when public relation experts are unaware of the cultural differences. Lets consider the case of David M. Grant who was conducting a publicity program in business and trade press for a high profile European client. Clients remained dissatisfied despite getting excellent press placements in rights markets. The reason was unmet expectations-manager expected to not only establish personal contacts in targeted industries and media outlets, but also a great deal of socialization with their respective representatives. They were even concerned about "too low" agency expenditure. As a result, clients changed agencies and an $8,000 per month relationship was lost because of differing beliefs and assumptions about the way public relation must be practiced. Later, Grant analyzed the issue and suggested that while dealing with a foreign culture, public relation practitioners must equate their concept of good public relation with that of their clients, without considering the consequences or output(Grant 1988 as cited in Banks 2000, 4). Communication influences and has its influences on culture. A number of the definition of the term public relation originating in Europe and United States acknowledge communication (mass and interpersonal) as a foundation of public relation as a profession and its resources to the point of building relationship between organizations and their targeted audiences. As a consequence, culture has impact on public relation, and public relation practice assists in changing cultures. Despite the logical relationship between culture and public relation, it is no more than a decade that public relation professionals have started studying the impact of culture on organizational practices (Huang 2000; Rhee 1999, 2000; Sriramesh 1992; 1999; Sriramesh and Takasaki 1999 quoted in Sriramech and Dejan 2003, 7). Culture is fundamental to communication that it inspires public relation practitioners to study the impact of culture on the selection of public relation strategies and tactics in different regions. However, more in depth empirical studies are required to analyze the association between public relation and culture (Sriramech and Dejan 2003).In order to determine the relationship between culture and public relation, it is crucial to define the term culture and all of its dimensions. Culture is complex term; therefore, even in a study that revolves around studying culture (anthropology), there is no standard definition. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) gathered 164 definition and 300 variations of these definitions which shows the malleable nature of this important concept (quoted in Sriramech and Dejan 2003). Eventually, Tylor (1871) came up with the most comprehensive definition of culture as a complex whole that includes beliefs, art, customs, knowledge, morals, in addition to other habits and capabilities adopted by members of a certain society. Kroeber and Kluckhohn defined culture as a, "set of attributed and products of human societies, and therewith of mankind, which are extra somatic and transmissible by mechanism other than biological heredity"(quoted in Sriramech and Dejan 2003, 8). After defining culture, it is important to determine the way different societies adopt different cultures (Sriramech and Dejan 2003). Kaplan and Manners (1972) highlighted four determinants of societal culture. Firstly, technoeconomics that refers to the economic development of society which always influences culture. Economic development is the first environmental factor. Modern technologies, such as, satellite communication and internet changes the culture significantly, therefore, it has direct influence on public relation performance. Secondly, social structure is suggestive of the social institutions that determine the relationships between different groups and its members in a particular society, for instance, feudal, caste, and class stratifications. Thirdly, ideology is the determinant that refers to the norms, values, beliefs, worldviews, philosophies, knowledgebase, and religious practices that a society practices. Historically, there have always been differences over religious philosophies and the situation will remain the same in future. Therefore, due to its influence on sociopolitical systems, theocracy is a vital part of international relations. Finally, personality is the individual trait of society that is based on child-rearing practice; acculturation in schools and workplaces. These are the most vital determinants of culture in a society. Consequently, societal culture penetrates into the organizations through employees with different family backgrounds and beliefs which turn organization into an exclusive corporate culture (Sriramesh et al. 1996). Before establishing relationship between culture and public relation, it is important to understand that how cultures are manifested in a society. While admitting the inability to completely measure culture due to its malleability and shifting perceptions, Hofstede (1980, 2001) determined five dimensions of a societal culture that include: power distance, collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation. Some scholars identified other dimensions which include interpersonal trust on fellow human beings (Tayeb 1988) deference to authority when subordinates readily adopt superior (Kakar 1971) Japanese concept of amae that’s the manifestation of deference to authority; and wa (harmony) that refers to directing communication among Japanese (Siramesh and Takasaki 1999). Societal culture analysis leads to the association between public relation and corporate cultures (Sriramech and Dejan 2003). Organizational culture is a prime determinant of organizational effectiveness. Culture assists in determining the factors that lead to an excellent public relation practice (Grunig, James, David 2002). Siriamesh and Buffington (1992) note that despite the fact that societal culture influences corporate culture it is still distinct. In the same societal culture, organizations have different corporate personalities due to leadership, age, type, and size of organization. Schein (1985) highlighted major reasons of analyzing organizations culture. Firstly, corporate culture is highly prominent and can be experienced by all of the observers and participants. Secondly, understanding corporate culture assists in determining organizational performance and peoples perceptions about it. Thirdly, it provides a common frame of reference for organizational members which are a prime element of cohesiveness in an organization. Identifying corporate culture is also important because it assists in getting along with organization and beliefs they share (Sriramech and Dejan 2003).Moreover, organizations dont necessarily have a single culture; they have subcultures and countercultures. Some subcultures are enhancing as they may invigorate main culture by reemphasizing prime organizational values. Others are slightly different from the conventional culture and referred as orthogonal subculture or completely opposite to the mainstream culture called countercultures. When the counterculture of a certain organization has a charismatic leadership, it may intimidate mainstream culture and result in major organizational changes (Martin and Siehl 1983). Glasser (1994) identified cooperative relationship and communication among employees as a key to success. Communication is imperative for cooperation which is the prime interest of public relation practitioners. He highlights the fact that how a scattered and mistrusted organization is transformed into a great team of professionals just by better communication over a period of three years. Communication provided huge support for corporate culture (Glasser 1994) and works as "normative glue" that holds all parts of organization together (Tichy 1982). The quality of corporate culture has huge impact on overall organizational health. DiSanza (1995) analyzed different organizations with weak corporate cultures. He identified weakness in employee orientation and serious lack of communication that led to poor customer service and lower employee morale. Such corporate cultures are inclined to develop orthogonal and countercultures. During an experimental study, Holladay and Coombs (1993) identified that the delivery of message plays an important role in shaping employees perceptions about CEOs charisma. Lack of credibility in messages or differences in delivery damage leaders credibility, therefore, it can be concluded that both corporate and societal cultures influence communication in general and public relation in particular. Here, the question arises that what is the association between societal and corporate culture and public relation and its practices. Acculturation is the process which inculcates in human value system and influences daily routines and practices. This process may take place at work, home, school, or other socializing places. The values that managers hold clearly influence their selection of strategies and options in public relations. Similarly, other sections of publics within a particular society also hold beliefs and values that influence their level of acceptance or rejection to organizational messages. Therefore, it is crucial to operationalize culture as variable and analyze its impact on public relation in a particular society (Sriramech and Dejan 2003). No doubt, Hofstede (2001) and other scholars have contributed to the development of this concept, but one must consider the cultural dimensions of a particular region. Generic cultural dimensions (Hofstedes) and dimensions which belong to a particular culture (wa and amae in Japanese culture). In a global environment, multiculturalism is a phenomenon that cannot be ignored easily. Identifying, analyzing, and responding to cultural practices, beliefs, and idea is vital for communication purpose in general and pubic relation in particular. For practicing excellent pubic relation and responding to globalizing business, public relation experts must identify and respond to cultural differences since diversity in their target audience is something that cannot be ignored easily. References Banks, Stephen. 2000. Multicultural Public Relations: A Social-Interpretive Approach. Iowa: Iowa State University Press. DiSanza, J. R.1995. "Bank teller organizational assimilation in a system of contradictory practices." Manage-ment Communication Quarterly 9:191–218. Glaser, S. R. 1994. "Teamwork and communication: A 3-year case study of change." Management Communication Quarterly 7: 282–296. Grunig, Larissa, James E. Gunig, and David, M. Dozier.2002. Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holladay, S. J. and Coombs, W. T. 1993. "Communicating visions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma." Management Communication Quarterly 6: 405–427. Kakar, S. 1971. "The theme of authority in social relations in India." Journal of Social Psychology 84: 93–101. Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J. E., and Dozier, D. M. 1996. "Observation and measurement of two dimensions of organizational culture and their relationship to public relations." Journal of Public Relations Research 8:229–261. Sriramesh, Krishnamurthy and Dejan Vercic.2003.The Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research, and Practice. Mahwah: New Jersey: London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J. E., and Buffington, J. 1992. "Corporate culture and public relations." In Excellence in public relations and communication management, ed. J. E. Grunig,577-598. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sriramesh, K., Kim, Y., and Takasaki, M. 1999. Public relations in three Asian cultures: An analysis. Journal of Public Relations Research 11(4): 271–292. Tichy, N. M. 1982. "Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and cultural keys." Organizational Dynamics 11(2): 59–80. Tylor, E. B. 1871. Primitive culture. London: Murray. Tayeb, M. H. 1988. Organizations and national culture: A comparative analysis. London: Sage. Tolley,J.L1988. Even when youve made it, you havent got got it made. Vern Schrantz Lecture, Department of Journalism, Ball State University, Muncie,IN. Read More