Public Relations from the Ivory Tower: Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/ Business Models

Transcription

1 The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement. Vol.4 No.2 Public Relations from the Ivory Tower: Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/ Business Models Received (in revised form): May 15, 2003 Margarete Rooney Hall is an associate professor in the Department of Public Relations, College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. She teaches philanthropy, fund raising, strategy, and theory. Dr. Hall spent nearly 20 years as a fund-raising and public relations professional in higher education, most recently as vicepresident for institutional advancement at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC and previously at Mount Saint Mary s College and the University of Maryland. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland. Gail F. Baker is the Vice-President for Public Relations at the University of Florida. She previously served as the University s Director of Communications and chair of the Public Relations Department, and chair of the Advertising Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Dr. Baker holds a doctorate from the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has held positions with IBM and International Harvester (now Navistar) and has consulted scores of business, government, and nonprofit clients. She is the author of Advertising and Marketing to the New Majority and co-author of Exploding Stereotypes: Milestones in Black Newspaper Research. Abstract The study explored the practice of public relations in higher education. It measured the characteristics of public relations programs at a set of research universities against known characteristics of excellence in public relations in businesses and other organizations. It asked whether the chief public relations officers at the research Author s Contact Address: Margarete Rooney Hall, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Public Relations College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida, Gainesville FL Tel: Fax (G. Baker): mhall@jou.ufl.edu universities highly value strategicmanagerial characteristics and historicaltechnical ones, whether university structure or individual demographics affect chief public relations officers perceptions of the characteristics, and whether the research universities provide support for excellent public relations. The data suggest that chief public relations officers at research universities do believe that the characteristics known to indicate excellence in public relations are very important; however those beliefs are not necessarily reflected by the priorities the public relations officers set. Also, the data show that the universities often exhibit the indicators of organizations and THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

2 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker corporations that provide appropriate support for excellent public relations. Demographics affect chief public relations officers perceptions in only a few areas, but they are interesting ones. For example, chief public relations officers with more experience outside of academia rate their universities support for public relations programs higher than do those with more experience inside academia. There is also a difference in responses based on the placement of the public relations program within the university structure. Where there is a single vice-president with responsibility for both public relations and fund raising, the chief public relations officers rate the characteristics of excellence less highly than where there is a separate vice-president for public relations and for fund raising. The results lead to further questions such as whether research universities are in transition from a more historical-technical model of public relations to a more strategic-managerial model, whether having separate vicepresidents for public relations and for fund raising will promote that transition and therefore increase public relations effectiveness, and whether universities actually provide more support to public relations when the chief public relations officers comes from outside of academe. Keywords: public relations, higher education, colleges and universities Introduction Higher education is a major economic force in American life and a major financial investment for society and for individual families. Universities are like big businesses, with large numbers of employees and clients, huge payrolls, major construction projects, water and sewer systems, parking and traffic problems, and safety and security issues. They have multiple stakeholder groups including their faculty and staff, students and alumni, donors and taxpayer investors, state and federal government officials, employers seeking workers, communities, and the media. Like business, universities use public relations expertise to influence those constituencies. It might therefore follow that successful university public relations programs would exhibit the characteristics that dominate in successful public relations programs in business and other organizations. The purpose of this study was to explore whether they do. The study measured the characteristics of public relations programs at a set of research universities against the known characteristics of excellence in public relations in businesses and other organizations. Literature Review A survey exploring perceptions of public relations by college presidents showed that only 52 percent of chief public relations officers reported directly to their presidents and that 68 percent of them carried a title of director rather than vice-president or vice-chancellor. It showed that presidents ranked their public relations officers highly on performance of technical functions, such as writing press releases, managing special events, producing publications, and responding to critics. It also found that they ranked public relations less highly in strategic areas such as explaining the mission, shaping image, and providing counsel on policies THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

3 Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/Business Models In the past decade, higher education studies have provided little research on the public relations function, the roles and responsibilities of public relations professionals, or the impact of universities efforts to establish, maintain, or improve relationships with key publics through public relations programs. Studies have examined the relationship between universities and several key publics, including faculty, 2 students, 3 legislators and regulators, 4 and business. 5 However, only a few provide insights into the universities primary relationship-building function with these publics its public relations program. 6 Several studies have examined the public relations function in other settings. One such study, the Excellence Project, has provided significant insights into the characteristics of the public relations function. 7 Almost 300 nonprofit and forprofit organizations and government agencies were surveyed. About 5,000 people were surveyed, including chief executives, communication officers, and employees from outside the public relations offices. The surveys included about 1,700 variables that were submitted to factor analysis and resulted in approximately 12 discrete characteristics. 8 Qualitative research using long interviews was subsequently performed at some of the organizations to provide in-depth understanding of the survey results. The study identified both characteristics of excellent programs and organizational characteristics that are supportive of excellent programs. A public relations program might theoretically be doing all the right things and not having full success because the organization does not really support high quality public relations. Conversely, an organization might be supportive of excellence in public relations, but not have adequately skilled public relations professionals to create the desired success. Both sets of characteristics are necessary, (1) characteristics of excellence in public relations programming itself, and (2) organizational characteristics that support excellence in public relations. It was learned that excellent programs are managed strategically, that is to say, they seek to build long-term relationships with the publics that can most help or hurt the organization. The leaders of excellent programs report to the chief executive officer and usually are part of the top management team. They follow a two-way, interactive communication model seeking to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes for the organization and the constituents, rather than a model that seeks only to persuade or to manipulate the constituent to do what the organization wants. According to the study results, in excellent public relations programs the senior practitioner is first a manager and strategist, and then an expert technician. The leader is very concerned about the why of the communication, and not satisfied even with high technical quality if it does not meet a strategic objective: Having the expertise required of a strategic manager is the single greatest determinant of communication excellence. 9 In addition to identifying characteristics of excellent public relations programs, the Excellence Study also made clear that organizational support for public relations is essential. That support demonstrates itself in a management culture that welcomes input and avoids manipulation and dominance of internal and external THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

4 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker constituents. In organizations with excellent public relations, top management supports communication, provides equal opportunities to women and minority employees, and hears the concerns of critics. The organization has an open schema that understands the business value of input from stakeholders. In summary, the characteristics of excellence identified in the Excellence Study are:. Being strategically managed;. Being separate from marketing;. Reporting directly to senior management;. Being a single integrated department;. Following a two-way symmetrical communication model;. Having a senior practitioner who is more a manager than an expert technician;. Having a senior manager with necessary and appropriate expertise;. Having a symmetrical schema or worldview;. Providing equal opportunity for advancement of women and minorities;. Being attentive to activist publics;. Having top management support;. Having a participative organizational culture. 10 Other studies have examined the public relations rhetoric that calls for building relationships with key stakeholders. These studies expand the Excellence Study. A few have looked at what happens if the development or marketing functions encroach on the public relations function. 11 Kelly, for example, noted that when development encroaches, public relations works less with the board and nondonor publics receive less board attention. 12 That diminution of board attention is reflected with a lessening of attention to nondonor publics by the whole organization. Other studies have explored the literature on characteristics of interpersonal relationships and how they inform an understanding of the relationship between an organization and its publics. 13 They also study the implications of relationship building for public relations practice and propose tools for measuring relationships. 14 Based on the literature and the authors combined professional experience of more than 30 years in higher education public relations and development, the current study had three research questions: 1. Do chief public relations officers at major research universities place high value on those characteristics that have been identified as producing excellence in public relations? 2. Do organization structure or individual demographics affect the perception of chief public relations officers at research universities about the characteristics of excellence? 3. Do research universities exhibit the characteristics that support excellent public relations programs? Methodology This study used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The chief public relations officers at the 63 universities that are members of the Association of American Universities (AAU) were included. These are among the most prestigious of the fewer than 200 research universities in North America. They are prosperous and well-funded schools. The sample group was chosen to provide a degree of similarity among the participating institutions. 130 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

5 Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/Business Models Initially, long interviews were conducted by one researcher with each of seven chief public relations officers. These open-ended interviews explored their roles and responsibilities, the characteristic attributes of their programs, and the characteristics of the university s support for public relations. Following methodologies established by Grant McCracken, 15 the interviews were semistructured, assuring that the same topics were covered in all interviews and that the interviewee could take the description in the direction that best fit his or her understanding of public relations work. Based on the literature and on the results of the long interviews, questionnaires were then designed to survey the remaining AAU chief public relations officers concerning characteristics of their programs and of their university s support for public relations. After omitting the researchers university, introductions were sent to the remaining 55 chief public relations officers who had not been interviewed. The described the study s purpose and requested that they participate by agreeing to respond to a 10-minute telephone survey. Phone calls were made to identify new incumbents when the s found there had been a change. Twenty-nine chief public relations officers were reached between September 1 and September 11, 2001 when calling was suspended in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. An additional 15 were reached in spring This yielded a participation rate of 80 percent on the telephone surveys and 82 percent overall, including the long interviews. The September surveys were conducted by the Florida Survey Research Center, a component of the University of Florida, and the spring surveys by one of the authors. The survey explored three sets of characteristics based on those identified by the Excellence Study: strategic managerial, historical-technical, and university-support characteristics. 16 Ten items were included for each of the three sets. Each survey participant ranked, on a 1-5 Likert-like scale with 5 indicating greatest agreement, the importance of the strategic-managerial characteristics, and historical-technical characteristics. Respondents also ranked, on a 1-5 Likert-like scale, the degree to which they agreed with statements about the university s support for public relations activities. They provided data about their titles and reporting relationships, their participation on formal and informal university management teams. They listed their top roles and responsibilities, and their primary constituent groups. They also provided information about their academic background and professional experience. Strategic-managerial characteristics These characteristics focus on building long-term relationships with key publics. They seek outcomes that benefit both the publics and the university. They are characteristics of a chief public relations officer who is part of senior management and who contributes to the university s overall success by scanning the environment for emerging issues, spanning the boundaries between the university and its publics, and providing expert counsel on communication issues from a perspective that values the input of publics. Based on the Excellence Study, they include (1) managing strategically, (2) reporting directly to senior management, (3) following a two-way symmetrical communication model, (4) having a senior practitioner who is more a manager than THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

6 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker an expert technician, (5) having a senior practitioner with necessary and appropriate management expertise, (6) having a symmetrical schema or worldview, and (7) being attentive to activist publics. Historical-technical characteristics These characteristics focus on communicating with key publics. They seek to communicate expertly in order to persuade and convince the key publics. They are characteristics of a highly skilled public relations officer who is not necessarily part of senior management but who contributes to the university s overall success by articulating the mission and messages of the university well. Based on the Excellence Study, these include (1) being focused on historically successful programs, (2) not reporting directly to senior management, (3) following a oneway persuasive communication model, (4) having a senior practitioner who is more an expert technician than a manager, (5) having a senior practitioner without necessary and appropriate management expertise, (6) having an asymmetrical schema or worldview, and (7) being inattentive to activist publics. University-support characteristics These characteristics demonstrate that the president and other top administrators provide the time and access needed to build relationships with key publics and attend to emerging issues in the university s environment. They are characteristics of an administrative culture that values the concerns and needs of its key publics and builds them into the decision-making process, expects the chief public relations officer to be a boundary spanner, and seeks the best public relations talent without gender or ethnic bias. Based on the Excellence Study, they include (1) having an independent public relations office, separate from marketing or fund raising; (2) having a single, integrated, centralized public relations office; (3) providing equal opportunity for advancement of women and minorities; (4) having top management support for public relations; and (5) having a participative organizational culture. Results and Discussion There was no meaningful difference evident between the importance that chief public relations officers attributed to the strategic-managerial and the historicaltechnical characteristics. Also, they believed that their universities were quite supportive of excellence. The mean score on the strategicmanagerial items was On the historical-technical it was On the university-support characteristics the mean score was Figure 1 illustrates these scores. There was a positive correlation between the sets of strategic-managerial and historical-technical characteristics (r = 0.448, p = 0.002), confirming that the chief public relations officers consider both to be important. A positive relationship (r = 0.361, p = 0.015) also was found between high mean scores on the university-support characteristics and the length of time a chief public relations officer worked in public relations outside of a university setting. Results of regression analysis reveal a significant linear association on this factor, and therefore validate the conclusion that the length of time in nonuniversity public relations is a significant predictor that the chief public 132 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

7 Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/Business Models Figure 1: Mean score comparisons Strategicmanagerial Historicaltechnical University-support relations officer will perceive that the university is providing strong support to public relations (beta = 0.361, p = 0.015). This finding indicates that those who have worked in public relations outside academe get high-level university support and that they recognize that they are getting it. The finding leads to other interesting questions such as: (1) Do universities that hire practitioners with a lot of experience outside of academe provide them with more resources and support than are provided to practitioners who come from within academe? (2) Do practitioners from outside academe negotiate more successfully for resources than those from within? (3) Do universities provide about the same resources to public relations offices led by practitioners from outside and from inside, but those two groups of practitioners have different perceptions of what level of support is strong? Strategic-Managerial Characteristics Table 1 shows the strategic-managerial items from the survey instrument. The items that were considered most important among the strategic-managerial characteristics, with mean scores of 4.5 or higher, related to building relationships, managing issues, monitoring external situations that could affect the university, and providing counsel to the president about key publics. The item Sharing with other top administrators in the overall management of the university is correlated with seven of the ten strategic-managerial items, indicating that the chief public relations officers perceive it as central to their ability to manage strategically. Another three items, (1) Helping negotiate mutually beneficial outcomes for the university and constituent groups, (2) Table 1: Strategic-managerial items Item Mean score 1. Building relationships between the university and its constituents Researching how key constituent groups think about the university Creating opportunities for key groups to communicate with the university about what they 3.7 want and need from it 4. Helping negotiate mutually beneficial outcomes for the university and constituent groups Advising the president about building relationships with key constituents Sharing with other top administrators in the overall management of the university Managing issues that present potential crisis situations Monitoring external situations that could affect the university Bringing the concerns of activist constituencies, such as animal rights groups or union 3.8 organizers, to the attention of the university leaders 10. Staffing governance board work 2.9 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

8 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker Advising the president about building relationships with key constituents, and (3) Sharing with other top administrators in the overall management of the university correlated with six of the ten strategic-managerial characteristics. This may indicate that the chief public relations officers believe these three functions help shape and communicate university policies on such issues as building a parking garage or offering a living wage. Constituent resistance to such activities can literally slow or halt a project. The same may hold true in building and disseminating the university s message. The chief public relations officers may feel they need a clear understanding of the status of current relationships. For example, community leaders are an important constituency. The chief public relations officer would need to advise the president (particularly a new president) about the current and historical relationships and expectations in order to help determine how best to proceed. The single item in this set that chief public relations officers rated most important, Managing issues that present potential crisis situations, has a positive relationship with Sharing with other top administrators in the overall management of the university (r = 0.349, p = 0.015) and Monitoring external situations that could affect the university (r = 0.423, p = 0.003). This indicates that they believe they must both pay attention to the issues, and have the attention of the other university leaders in order to be effective. Most of the strategic-managerial items received high mean scores, above 3.5. The only strategic-managerial characteristic with a mean score below the neutral 3.0 point related to providing staff support for a committee of the governing board. The lower importance given to this item was surprising. It is usually the top administrators of the institution who work directly with the governing board, and it was expected that working with the board would be seen as an important indicator of having a high-level strategicmanagerial role. Previous research has indicated that working with the board is important in order to assure public relations receives board attention. 17 Boards tend to reflect the priorities of the staff professionals with whom they work closely. When public relations is part of a department led by a fund-raising professional who represents the department to the board, board members tend to focus more on donor relations and less on relationships with other key publics, such as community or legislators. It will be useful in the future to explore why the chief public relations officers considered working with the board to be less important than other strategic-managerial characteristics. Correlation analysis between the strategic-managerial items and demographic variables imply that the longer one is a public relations professional, the more important one considers it is to research how key constituent groups think about the university (r = 0.367, p = 0.010). R-square analysis shows that length of time the in public relations profession is a significant linear predictor of perceived importance, explaining 13 percent more of the variance than the importance rating alone. The value of doing research on constituent attitudes is apparently not instilled in education that prepares public relations officers, and is apparently not 134 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

9 Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/Business Models Build relationship Research publics Create feedback Negotiate w/ publics Advise president Share mgmt Manage issues Monitor issues Bring concerns Staff board 2.5 Figure 2: Mean scores of strategic-managerial characteristics intuitively clear even to successful professionals until they have more career experience. Figure 2 illustrates the mean scores for the ten strategic-managerial characteristics. Historical-Technical Characteristics Table 2 shows the historical-technical items from the survey instrument. The chief public relations officers considered communicating the university s message in routine and in crisis situations were the most important items in this set. They had mean scores of 4.98 and 4.93 on a 1 to 5 scale. Similarly, they considered it very important to persuade constituents of the university s perspective (item 3). It had a mean score of 4.5. The historicaltechnical items did not have nearly as many positive correlations within the cluster as did the strategic-managerial items, in fact there were very few. The item Communicating the university s message to its constituents, with the highest mean score in this set of items, is not correlated with any of the others in the set. Perhaps this item was perceived as more strategic-managerial than historicaltechnical by the respondents, even though it clearly focused on the university product rather than the relationship between the university and the stakeholders. Item 10, Communicating the university s message effectively in a crisis situation, is positively correlated (r = 0.389, p = 0.006) with Obtaining press coverage. The mass media are particularly important during a crisis because of their ability to convey information to a variety of key publics quickly and accurately. Again, the focus is on conveying the university s message, rather than on strategic interaction with publics. THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

10 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker Table 2: Historical-technical items Item Mean score 1. Communicating the university s message to its constituents Maintaining popular past public relations programs Persuading constituent groups of the university s perspective Providing data for university leaders to evaluate the impact of public relations, such as 3.7 changes in constituent behavior 5. Winning awards for excellence in communications Writing reports, speeches, presentations, magazines, press releases, webpages and other 3.9 communications 7. Editing reports, speeches, presentations, magazines, press releases, webpages and other 3.9 communications 8. Obtaining press coverage Providing data for university leaders to evaluate the output of public relations, such as press 3.3 releases issued 10. Communicating the university s message effectively in a crisis situation 4.9 The historical-technical item considered least important related to winning awards for communication excellence. It had a mean score of 2.2 and was the only item in this set with a score below 3.0. A negative relationship exists (at the 90 percent confidence level, alpha = 0.10) between the awards item and age of respondent (r = 0.262, p = 0.072). Hence, the older the respondents the less important it is to win communication awards. One chief public relations officer mentioned that he believed awards were good for staff morale because they gave peer feedback, but he believed that they did not provide a useful measure of the value of public relations to the university. Items related to providing data about public relations impact and output were relatively low, with scores of 3.7 and 3.3 respectively. This was surprising because those data could provide useful measures of public relations value to the university. It was clear that technical expertise in writing, editing, and obtaining press coverage, with mean scores of 3.9, 3.9, and 4.2, continue to be important for chief public relations officers. The writing and editing items have an obvious and strong association (r = 0.826, p = 0.000). Figure 3 illustrates the mean scores of the ten historical-technical characteristics. Characteristics Considered Very Important In this study the characteristics with mean scores of 4.5 and higher relate to three public relations functions that are abundantly discussed in the literature: effective communication with the university s publics, 18 management of issues that can affect the university, 19 and management of relationships with the university s key publics. 20 Table 3 shows those items and their mean scores. The communication items are historical-technical characteristics. Relationship building and issues management items are strategic-managerial characteristics. The similarity in importance level given to the communication issues and relationship 136 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

11 Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/Business Models Communicate message Maintain programs Persuade publics Show impact Win awards Write Edit Obtain press Show output Communicate in crisis 2.0 Figure 3: Mean scores of historical-technical characteristics Table 3: Characteristics considered very important Function Item Mean Communicating Communicating the university s message to its constituents 4.9 Communicating the university s message effectively in a crisis situation 4.9 Persuading constituent groups of the university s perspective 4.5 Managing issues Managing issues that present potential crisis situations 4.8 Monitoring external situations that could affect the university 4.6 Managing relationships Advising the president about building relationships with key constituents 4.7 Building relationships between the university and its constituents 4.5 items by the chief public relations officers probably indicates that they consider communication as the technical means to achieving the strategic goals of the universities. It indicates that the content of the communication is focused on strategic objectives of building relationships and managing opportunities and threats in the university s environment. Figure 4 shows the mean scores of the most highly rated characteristics, grouped by function. This perception of communication as a means of implementing strategy needs to be carefully considered because relationship building and issues management require two-way communication that seeks a position THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

12 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker Message Crisis Persuasion Issues Monitoring Advising Relationship Figure 4: Characteristics defined by their function beneficial to both the university and the stakeholder. 21 Building relationships and managing issues often require listening and accepting stakeholder input as well as persuading and convincing the stakeholders of the university s position. The desired result of the communication in relationship building is an increase in mutual trust, commitment, satisfaction, and sense of mutual control. 22 Communicating the university s message (historical-technical item 1) and persuading constituents of the university s perspective (historical-technical item 3) tend to be more one-way than two-way activities. When the stakeholders simply need information to convince themselves of the rightness of the university s perspective, effective communication can be more one-way than it can when the stakeholders hold positions in opposition to the university s as is most often the case in issues management and relationship-building situations. Opposing positions require dialogue that both seeks to persuade, and is willing to consider being persuaded. In the current study, the chief public relations officers considered persuasion (historical-technical item 3) and effective message delivery (historical-technical item 1) to be more important than creating opportunities for key groups to communicate with the university about what they need and want from it (strategic-managerial item 3), and more important than researching how key groups think about the university (strategic-managerial item 2). Those latter items had mean scores of 3.7 each, compared with the 4.5 and 5.0 mean scores of the former items. The results suggest that although the chief public relations officers consider the strategic-managerial characteristics of relationship building and issues 138 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

13 Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/Business Models management to be highly important, they embrace communication methodologies that may not be adequate to achieve the strategic objectives in situations where opposition or resistance exist. If the university is at one end of a continuum on an issue like tuition increases and a key stakeholder group is at the other end, the Excellence Study indicates that twoway symmetrical communication will be the most effective. When opposition or resistance exists each party needs to be persuasive and convincing in its communication. Each also needs to be willing to hear the other s arguments and move toward a win win zone at the center of an organization public continuum. 23 University-Support Characteristics Table 4 shows mean scores for universitysupport items.the highest level of agreement on the items measuring the level of university support for public relations concerned providing equal opportunity (item 4), welcoming public relations counsel on issues that could become crises (item 9), and the president and other top administrators providing needed access and time (items 1 and 2). These each had a mean score of 4.5 or higher. University-support item 6, Top administrators expect public relations to provide data that will help the university respond to the concerns of key publics, positively correlates with more strategicmanagerial items than any other university-support item. Similarly, the strategic-managerial item Managing issues that present potential crisis situations is positively correlated with many of the university-support items, particularly the first, The president supports public relations by providing needed access and time (r = 0.613, p = 0.000). Taken together, these correlations imply that universities that provide a high level of Table 4: University-support items from the survey instrument Item Mean Score 1. The president supports public relations by providing needed access and time Other top administrators support public relations by providing needed access and time Top administrators include public relations in high-level administrative decision-making 4.4 processes 4. The university provides equal opportunity for advancement to women and minorities in 4.6 public relations 5. Top administrators view public relations as one-way communication to influence how key 2.9 publics think or behave. 6. Top administrators expect public relations to provide data that will help the university 3.4 respond to the concerns of key publics 7. Top administrators are willing to consider making changes in response to the concerns and 4.2 needs of key publics 8. Top administrators equate public relations with press coverage Top administrators welcome advice from the chief public relations officer about emerging 4.6 issues that could become crises 10. Top administrators inform public relations about high-level administrative decisions only 2.4 after they have been made THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

14 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker Pres access Leader access Decision role Equal opps One-way persuasion Bring data Consider change Press coverage Welcome advice Postdecision 2.0 Figure 5: Mean scores on university-support characteristics support for the public relations program consider the chief public relations officer to be more a strategist and manager than an expert technician. The universities support excellence by integrating public relations into the decision-making process. The mean score on this item was 4.4 and on a parallel statement that the chief public relations officer is informed of high-level decisions only after they are made, the score was a compatible 2.4. The results also show that university leaders have moved away from thinking of public relations as simple one-way persuasion or as equivalent to press coverage. Those items had mean scores of 2.9 and 2.8. Figure 5 illustrates these results. Primary Roles and Primary Publics Before respondents were prompted to rank the importance of the specific items in each of the three sets, they were asked, without prompting, to list their two or three primary roles and responsibilities. The role or responsibility most often mentioned first was media relations (26%), strategic communications (17%), or strategy setting (12%). Most often included among the two or three primary roles or responsibilities were media relations (19%), advising the president and other senior managers about public relations (14%), and strategic communications (12%). This indicates that although, when prompted, the participants consider strategic-managerial characteristics to be very important, when listing their primary roles and responsibilities without prompting they most often gave primary focus to the historical-technical responsibility of media relations. Crisis and issues management were listed among the top two or three roles and responsibilities by only 7 per cent and THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

15 Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/Business Models per cent of the participants respectively when not prompted. Also in an unprompted item, respondents were asked to list three or four of the constituent groups that they considered to be the most important to their roles as chief public relations officers. Most often listed first were media (28%), faculty/staff (22%), legislators (17%), and alumni (15%). This again indicates that the historical-technical roles and responsibilities are a major part of the chief public relations officers work. These results are not surprising. It can be assumed that the chief public relations officers view the media as important as a third-party constituent, critical in disseminating messages to other audiences. Also, they are perhaps highly sensitive to the response of the president and board to negative publicity. In terms of agenda setting, clearly the media play a role in determining which issues and messages are given salience by the general public. Titles and Reporting Relationships At the research universities included in this study, 35 per cent of the chief public relations officers have the title of vice president or vice chancellor. Another 24 per cent are associate vice presidents or assistant vice presidents. Twenty per cent are executive directors or directors. This total of 79 per cent with titles at or above the director level compares with the 32 per cent that were at or above director level in the 1991 survey, 24 which was not limited to research universities. The president or chancellor is the direct supervisor of 48 per cent of the chief public relations officers in the current study, compared with 52 per cent in the earlier study of a more diverse set of colleges and universities. Seventeen per cent (N = 8) of chief public relations officers in the current study report below the vice- president level. At 24 per cent (N = 11) of the universities in this study there is a single vice president with responsibility for both public relations and development/fund raising. The other 74 per cent (N = 33) of these universities have separated the responsibility for these functions. The chief public relations officers in these two situations with a single vice president for both functions or with separate vice presidents for each function differed on their responses to some of the issues considered in this study. Figure 6 shows the differences between the responses of chief public relations officers based on whether they are in universities with a single vice president or with separate vice presidents. Those chief public relations officers at institutions with a single vice president had lower mean scores on all three sets of characteristics. They considered both strategic-managerial and historical-technical characteristics of public relations less important than did their peers at universities where the public relations and development function each had its own vice president, and they received less university support for public relations. There is also a notable difference in the importance given to historical-technical characteristics in the two situations. Chief public relations officers at universities with a single vice president for both functions ranked historical-technical characteristics highest of the three sets. Those at schools with separate vice presidents ranked them lowest. Also, when controlling for institution type, correlations illustrate that for THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

16 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker Single VP Separate VPs Strategicmanagerial Historicaltechnical Supportiveuniversity Figure 6: Excellence characteristics by VP type universities with a single vice president for both public relations and development/ fund raising there is a strong relationship (r = 0.734, p = 0.010) between the sets of strategic-managerial and historical-technical characteristics. However, where there are separate vice presidents for public relations and development/fund raising, this association is positive though not as strong (r = 0.437, p = 0.010). This may indicate that for institutions with separate vice presidents, there is more of a distinction between the importance of strategic-managerial and historical-technical characteristics. It may be that when fund raising and public relations are integrated under a single vice president, the public relations function is perceived, overall, to be less important than when it stands independent of fund raising. This may relate to the encroachment issues noted by Kelly. 25 Of the publics considered very important by more than 10 percent of the respondents in at least one group, those in institutions with a single vice president for both development and public relations rated donors, faculty/staff, and alumni as more important publics. Those in institutions with separate vice presidents rated legislators, students, and the media higher. In light of the literature on the danger that when fund raising encroaches on public relations important key publics are overlooked in communications programming, 26 this is a useful finding. % who listed as a primary role Set strategy Strategic comm Issues mgmt Advise pres Media rel Single VP Separate VPs Figure 7: Roles and responsibilities by VP type 142 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

17 Comparing Research Universities with Corporate/Business Models Membership in the top management team Results of an ANOVA reveal a significant difference (F = 4.504, p = 0.039) on strategic-managerial mean scores between chief public relations officers who are members of the formal top management team advising the president and those that are not members. The aggregate mean on the strategic-managerial set for members is 4.21 and for nonmembers is Moreover, no significant differences are reported between these groups for the historical-technical or university-support clusters. This indicates that those chief public relations officers who are members of top management place higher importance on strategic than on technical characteristics, as would be expected from the literature. Limitations and Conclusion The purpose of this study was to measure the characteristics of public relations programs at a set of research universities against the known characteristics of excellence in public relations in businesses and other organizations. A few limitations need to be cited. First, it is important to note that while based on the concepts identified by the Excellence Study, this research analyzed a set of items developed from interviews with university public relations officers and for the explicit purpose of this project. The items selected accurately reflect the opinions of the participants and very possibly have produced an accurate assessment of the manner in which public relations is practiced in major universities. Another limitation involves the survey sample. Association of American Universities (AAU) schools were selected because they represent a body of institutions with shared backgrounds, missions, and goals. While the similarity of these programs provides a good basis for their inclusion in this survey, clearly many other excellent colleges and universities were excluded. Additional research must be conducted before these data can be generalized beyond the AAU. However, the findings of the present study have implications for management of % who listed as a primary public Legislators Donors Faculty/staff Alumni Students Media Single VP Separate VPs Figure 8: Publics by VP type THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO

18 Margarete Rooney Hall and Gail F. Baker public relations programs and for organizational structure at large research universities. The study s primary findings are that the chief public relations officers who responded, do place a high value on characteristics identified as excellent, and that the universities in the study do provide a high level of support for the public relations function. Further, the results indicate that there are specific areas in which the university chief public relations officers could strengthen their programs attention to characteristics identified by the Excellence Study, and that the structure in which public relations operates at the universities may affect how highly they value those characteristics. Two items yielded extremely high mean scores, making it difficult to interpret the validity of the responses. Scores of (5.0) and (4.9) respectively, for Communicating the university s message to its constituents, and Communicating the university s message effectively in a crisis situation, indicate that respondents found it impossible to disagree with the relative importance of the items. Instead, it might have been better to ask the degree to which their units participate in such activities. Based on the findings, research universities do exhibit many of the characteristics that support excellent public relations programs, but have yet to assimilate all of them. For example, the Excellence Study identified following a two-way symmetrical communication model as important. Yet on items in the strategic-managerial category, the public relations officers rated two-way communication comparatively lower than other characteristics. Specifically, the respondents gave lower mean scores to Researching how key constituent groups think about the university (3.7), and Creating opportunities for key groups to communicate with the university about what they want and need from it (3.7). Incorporating these characteristics into future public relations strategies might be helpful in bringing universities even closer to excellence. Also, responses to unprompted questions indicate that the primary roles and responsibilities of the chief public relations officers often continue to be more historical-technical, rather than strategic-managerial in nature. Specifically, media relations is still a primary role and the media are a primary public for public relations. It will be important to learn through further studies whether public relations in research universities is in transition from a historical-technical perspective to a strategic-managerial phase. The findings also indicate that organizational support for public relations excellence exists at these universities, positioning them well for future achievement. Items characterized as university-support earned high ratings from the respondents. The three items reflecting presidential support, equal opportunity for women and minorities and avoiding crises through counseling top administrators, received a mean score of 4.6. Taken together these two findings are particularly important. To achieve excellence, an organization must have both a well-led and strategically focused public relations program, and a senior management team that understands and supports strategic communication. The findings of this study are that these universities have the support of their presidents and other top administrators and that their public relations programs 144 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.4 NO