A Contingency Explanation of Public Relations Practitioner Leadership Styles: Situation and Culture

This article was downloaded by: [University of Memphis]On: 25 August 2012, At: 02:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Public RelationsResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20

A Contingency Explanation ofPublic Relations PractitionerLeadership Styles: Situationand CultureJae-Hwa Shin a , Robert L. Heath b & Jaesub Lee ba School of Mass Communication and Journalism,University of Southern Mississippib School of Communication, University of Houston

Version of record first published: 31 Mar 2011

To cite this article: Jae-Hwa Shin, Robert L. Heath & Jaesub Lee (2011): AContingency Explanation of Public Relations Practitioner Leadership Styles: Situationand Culture, Journal of Public Relations Research, 23:2, 167-190

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2010.505121

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2010.505121

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

A Contingency Explanation of PublicRelations Practitioner Leadership Styles:

Situation and Culture

Jae-Hwa ShinSchool of Mass Communication and Journalism,

University of Southern Mississippi

Robert L. Heath and Jaesub LeeSchool of Communication, University of Houston

Public relations practitioners from the U.S. and South Korea identifiedpreferred leadership styles in routine and non-routine situations. Results ofdiscriminant function analysis suggested that U.S. professionals place greaterimportance on strategic communication or problem-solving activities than doKorean practitioners. Public relations practitioners prefer leadership charac-teristics and functions associated with practical and resourceful capabilitiesin non-routine situations. This preference is most obvious among Korean pub-lic relations practitioners. Findings are best explained by cultural and situa-tional contingency perspective of public relations leadership.

One traditional line of analysis in public relations studies seeks to under-stand roles that practitioners play on behalf of organizations. To thatend, authors (especially Broom & Dozier, 1986; Dozier, 1992) reasoned thatpractitioners play a definable number and kind of roles. Such analysis par-allels the interest to understand leadership characteristics, functions, andstyles that public relations practitioners can and should perform in routine

Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Jae-Hwa Shin, Ph.D., MPH, University of Southern

Mississippi, School of Mass Communication and Journalism, Box 5121, 118 College Drive,

Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(2):167–190, 2011

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1062-726X print=1532-754X online

DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2010.505121

167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

and nonroutine circumstances such as conflict management, crisis response,and risk management. These nonroutine functions, roles, and styles can beconceptualized under the umbrella of strategic conflict management(Cameron, Wilcox, Reber & Shin, 2007).

Leadership is a shadow concept embodying assumptions that predisposepersons in key roles to choices of what to do and how to do it to achievesocially useful outcomes (Heath, 2009). Dozens of relevant communicationstudies have examined leadership, especially organizational communicationwith its long tradition of interest in group dynamics, organizational leader-ship, and leadership in and for organizations.

In one of the most insightful examinations of leadership and public rela-tions, with sensitivity to gender themes, Aldoory and Toth (2004) found ‘‘astrong preference for transformational leadership over transactional leader-ship’’ along with ‘‘situational leadership’’ (p. 157). They adopted perspec-tives of leadership ‘‘as activity aimed at bringing about change in anorganization or social system to improve people’s lives’’ (p. 158). As such,this logic focuses on ‘‘the process by which influencers and change makersaffect a population’’ (p. 158). According to Aldoory and Toth, people tendto gravitate to behaviors and enactor characteristics that can bestaccomplish goals contingent on situational dynamics regarding organiza-tions and publics.

Following that line of reasoning, insights into leadership styles can helpacademics gain insights for strategic planning, as well as academic and pro-fessional development pedagogy to help practitioners know how to bestserve their clients, organizations, and society. Looking forward at the cuspof this century, Pohl and Vandeventer (2001) predicted that:

Leadership will be defined by the public relations professional’s ability to inte-grate at several levels of business and society and to create more integratedmanagement processes. . . .Public relations will provide a new level of leader-ship for management to integrate relationships inside as well as outside anorganization, using a wide range of management strategies and tactics. (p. 358)

This challenge is in line with Heath’s (2006) call for theory and practice tofocus on how practitioners can help organizations to make society morefully functional through leadership that is skilled, contingent, strategic,and reflective.

Discussing contingent leadership, Vroom and Yetton (1963) identifiedtypes of leadership (autocratic, consultative, and consensus seeking) andnoted the importance of traits and communication (or engagement) styles.As Heath and Coombs (2006) observed, ‘‘The contingency theory of leader-ship is a model that prescribes what types of decision making an organization

168 SHIN, HEATH, AND LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

[and therefore by implication, the public relations practitioners among other‘leaders’] should use in a given situation’’ (p. 404). Depending on contingentrelationship needs, organizations through their leadership cadres are capableof generating desired outcomes: proactive, informed, participative, andmandated.

To help advance that theme, this study examines leadership styles—typical of routine performances—and compares them with those that arepreferred in nonroutine situations. This research also helps identify differ-ences and similarities between public relations practice in the United Statesand Korea. These insights can advance understanding of culture’s impact onthe practice as well as adds support for a public relations leadership model.

This study features the contingency approach to public relations practi-tioners’ conception of leadership. This contingency approach to leadershipin public relations can illuminate whether, and then how, individuals leadingorganizations make decisions at a given time contingent on culture and situ-ation. It further suggests that public relations practice is flexible in respond-ing to different contexts. The essence of the contingency approach is thatstances and strategies continually shift, leading to a series of strategicresponses to each given situation (Shin, 2004).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Definition of Leadership

Scholarship on leadership has generated thousands of studies. Hackmanand Johnson (2009) claimed that ‘‘leadership seems to be linked to what itmeans to be human’’ (p. 5). Since the mid-20th century, the topic has beengiven ‘‘an important place in organization theory’’ (Peterson & Sorenson,1991, p. 501). In organizational settings, leadership is often conceptualizedin terms of ‘‘styles or behavior patterns’’ (Husband, 1985, p. 103), what indi-viduals do strategically that helps some group or larger organization meetidentifiable goals. Collinson (2008) defined leadership in organizations‘‘primarily as a process of persuasion,’’ which implies the practical realitythat leadership arises from the ability to influence individual and groupchoices and behaviors in contingent situations (p. 2672; see also Hackman& Johnson, 2009, p. 6). Broadly conceived, ‘‘leadership is human (symbolic)communication, which modifies the attitudes and behaviors of others inorder to meet shared group goals and needs’’ (Hackman & Johnson,2009, p. 11).

Viewed not only as the responsibility of senior management, leadership isalso expected of other members in each organization and at all levels; this

PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONER LEADERSHIP STYLES 169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

perspective assumes that leadership is performed to serve various goals, con-tingent on outcome, at the organizational level and interdependent withother organizations, markets, publics, and audiences. As such, analysis ofleadership moves beyond the realm of ‘‘command and control’’ to become‘‘dispersed through team-based interdependencies and fluid, multidirec-tional social interactions and networks of influence’’ (Collinson, 2008,p. 2673). Thus, leadership styles reflect individual and organizational out-looks such as transactional (authoritative), transformational (charismatic),and pluralistic (participative in decision-making). By this logic, the world-views of the organization and individuals can and do predict strategicchoices as situationally-relevant contingent behaviors.

Such analysis is part of a long tradition of calling forth and preparingpublic relations professionals to be not merely tacticians, but to serve asstrategists and managers who influence the quality of organizations andtheir relationships with key publics. Scholars continue to integrate leader-ship components into public relations pedagogy in both academic and pro-fessional arenas (Neff, 2002; Aldoory & Toth, 2004). As Neff featuredleadership studies as basic to public relations courses (a vital way to empha-size the necessity of teamwork for the field to grow and remain relevant), sheasked which leadership styles are expedient in particular situations.

No standard definition of leadership has emerged in the public relationsliterature. However, Kinder and Robertson (1994) reasoned that ‘‘leadershipis an interaction of the person and the situation’’ (p. 11). Aldoory and Toth(2004) found a preference for transformational leadership style in compari-son to transactional style and situational leadership. Featuring a contingentapproach to leadership, Cameron, Cropp and Reber (2001) identifiedindividual characteristics and functions that include public relations practi-tioners’ predisposition toward altruism, ability to handle complex problems,communication competency, personal ethics, recognition of problems,whether personality is dogmatic or not, whether individuals can grasp andappreciate others’ worldviews, predisposition towards negotiation, opennessto innovation, and comfort level with conflict and dissonance. Shin,Cameron and Cropp (2006) suggested that such individual-level factors aremore influential to public relations practice than organizational or societallevels. This contingency view of public relations emphasizes the interplayof individual characteristics and situational factors.

Qualifications of Public Relations Professionals: AdvancingContingency Theory

In developing Management Excellence Theory, Grunig (2001) featuredleadership as one of the several pillars of an excellent organization, and a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

normative framework for excellent public relations. He featured the conceptof empowerment as an aspect of leadership excellence:

Excellent organizations have leaders who rely on networking and ‘‘management-by-walking-around’’ rather than authoritarian systems. Excellent leaders givepeople power but minimize power politics. At the same time, excellent leadersprovide a vision and direction for the organization, creating order out of thechaos that empowerment of people can create. (p. 233)

Grunig’s approach to leadership tended to feature leadership as universaltraits more than contingent characteristics and functions that lead to orga-nizational success in complex stakeholder relationships.

In keeping with the larger tradition of management and organizationalcommunication, analysis of leadership is likely to be most productive whenit focuses on styles as defined by situationally-relevant characteristics andfunctions. This reasoning builds around the crucial premise that leadershipplays a critical role in public relations in routine, and particularly duringconflict, crisis, and risk situations.

Considering that an issue, conflict, or crisis can arise and develop in waysthat harm the relationships between an organization and its various keypublics (Shin, 2004), it is important to examine public relations leadershipstyles, characteristics, and functions in routine and nonroutine situations.This claim results from the belief that leadership characteristics or functionscan lead to appropriate contingency strategic responses that help rather thanharm the quality of the relationships situated in situationally-contingentcontexts. Conflict, crisis, or risk management, from prevention to response,presents many challenges for public relations professionals who may serveboth their clients’ interests and those of key publics.

The contingency theory of public relations identifies a number of factorsthat influence the decision-making processes used by practitioners(Cameron et al., 2001; Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997; Cancel,Mitrook & Cameron, 1999). The factors are arrayed on social, organiza-tional, and individual levels. Particularly, the individual level of contingencyfactors suggests what qualifications are needed for individual public rela-tions professionals who take lead roles in conflict situations. Based on a sur-vey of 1,000 practitioners, Shin et al. (2006) found that individual levelfactors have primary influence on response to situations. Some of individuallevel of factors includes individual communication competency, personalethical values, ability to handle complex problems, and familiarity withexternal publics or its representatives. This contingency framework guidesdeployment of the individual qualifications necessary for effective conflictmanagement.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

Conflict, crisis, and risk situations challenge professionals to make con-tingent reactions to each case based on its distinct, yet transforming, nature:as such, practitioners need effective decision-making and problem-solvingskills, as well as the ability to engage in ethical decision-making (Ni &Heath, 2007; Palenchar & Heath, 2007). Part of the challenge, especiallyon controversial matters, is to achieve reflective consensus within the orga-nization’s leadership structure as well as within society, preferring win-winoutcomes, unless ideas truly lack merit and therefore are best defeated orignored (Heath, 2007; see also Berger & Reber, 2006).

This study explores the popular notion that public relations not onlyshares general leadership responsibilities in an organization, but can providespecialized leadership functions or roles tailored to contingent conditions.The occurrence of a nonroutine situation often has the effect of exposingthe problematic nature of the status quo, making it easier, but also morenecessary, for consideration of contingent alternatives. This challenge sug-gests simply, but with grave importance, that the quality of the contingentresponse under these conditions tests the philosophy, strategic skills andethical character of the practitioner.

This research project proposes that the requisites of public relations lead-ership coincide with the requirements of effective contingent management inroutine and nonroutine situations. As such, leadership is best not conceivedas a universal trait, but as situationally-sensitive management and strategic(even tactical) options. This study approaches leadership as a set of charac-teristics or functions relevant to routine as well as conflict, crisis or risksituations.

Leadership and Culture

One important element in the contingency nature of effective public relationsleadership is likely to be national culture. Culture powerfully shapes the waythat people interact with one another in social environments, including orga-nizations, because different cultures promote unique sets of values, norms,and expectations (e.g., Dorfman & House, 2004; Hofstede, 1993; Triandis& Albert, 1987). For example, Hofstede (1993) argued that leaders ‘‘grewup in a particular society in a particular period, and their ideas cannot helpbut reflect the constraints of their environment’’ (p. 82). Dorfman and House(2004) noted that ‘‘leader attributes, behavior, status, and influence vary con-siderably as a result of culturally unique forces in the countries or regions inwhich the leaders function’’ (p. 53). Leaders’ specific actions and behaviorsare undoubtedly contingent upon their cultural environments.

Thus, culture as shared knowledge is likely to influence public relationsleadership characteristics, perhaps by prescribing those traits that are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

preferred in general, as well as during conflict, crisis response, or risk com-munication. This study argues that shared sense-making of each culturedefines leadership in general, as well as the qualities of relationships betweenorganizations and their key publics. As such, culture is fraught with expecta-tions—what one entity, a business for instance, expects of customers andwhat customers expect of it.

Preliminary studies in other disciplines have suggested that public rela-tions professionals in different cultures may assume different leadershiproles and be expected to perform functions based on their value system(e.g., Davis & Rasool, 1988; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,2004; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Considering that few studies have beendevoted to public relations leadership styles in different cultures, this studyexplores the practices in the United States and South Korea. The choice ofSouth Korea is especially beneficial to this research. The strong culturalcontrast between two countries (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) repre-sents the experimental condition that is as different as possible in theresearch design (i.e., ‘‘maxmincon principle’’; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000, p. 456).

Korean Cultural Characteristics and Leadership

The overriding feature in Korean culture is Confucianism. During the Yidynasty (1392–1910), it was the official code of conduct regulating the livesof Koreans. Generally speaking, Confucianism espouses that proper humanrelationships are the basis of society. The five principal human relationships(wu lun) are those between ruler and subject, father and son, elder brotherand younger brother, husband and wife, and older friend and youngerfriend (Hofstede & Bond, 1987; Huang, 2000). Proper relational conductis guided by four fundamental principles: jen (humanism), i (faithfulness),li (propriety), and chih (wisdom) (Yum, 1988).

The Confucian philosophy promotes filial piety; reverence for ancestors;loyalty to family, friends. and organizations; respect for hierarchy of occu-pational ranking; deference to elders; and harmony and equality in one’srelationships with others. In particular, ‘‘in the Confucian teachings, har-mony is the most important virtue and inequality is even worse than pov-erty’’ especially in the sphere of one’s family and friends (D. K. Kim &Kim, 1989, p. 207). Other distinctive Confucian teachings include theemphasis on learning through a hierarchical, family-modeled institution inwhich children acquired important life principles such as diligence,self-sacrifice, and delayed gratification (Wei-Ming, 1996). These teachingsinfluenced many aspects of organizational leadership communication inKorea and other East Asian countries, including explicit rules guiding com-munication within the rigid, hierarchical superior-subordinate relationship,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

particularistic relationship and complementary social reciprocity betweenmanagement and employees, sharp in-group and out-group distinction,use of a nonconfrontational intermediary in initiating a new relationshipor resolving a conflict, and vague boundary between personal and publicrelationships (Chen & Chung, 1994). Indeed, consistent with Confucianteachings, highly paternalistic, authoritarian leadership, owner-managers,and centralized decision-making have long prevailed as characteristics ofthe dominant management style in Korean businesses (Koch & Steers,2005).

Korea is a society of relatively high power distance in comparison to theUnited States (Hofstede, 1983, 1991). Recent empirical data (House et al.,2004) further confirmed that Korea is one of the countries with the highestlevel of power distance (5.61 on a 7-point scale), whereas the United States ismoderate (4.88). Leaders in high power distance cultures tend to make deci-sions, take responsibilities, and expect obedience from their followers.Low-power distance countries like the United States favor more equality,egalitarianism, greater participation in decision making, and more demo-cratic leadership styles.

The culture of Korea is highly collectivistic. Hofstede (1983, 1991) foundthat it was among the most collectivistic countries, and the United Stateswas the most individualistic. House et al. (2004) indicated that Koreanshad one of the highest scores in institutional collectivism (encouragingand rewarding collective allocations of resources and collective actions)and in-group collectivism (expressing pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in theirorganizations, families, or close friends), whereas the United States had lowto moderate scores. Hofstede (1983, 1991) noted that a collectivistic Koreanleader is likely to take an active role in nurturing followers and fosteringgrowth of the group as a whole. In contrast, an individualistic Americanmanager provides his or her subordinates with autonomy and opportunitiesfor personal growth.

Hofstede (1983, 1991) indicated that Korean culture is characterized byhigh uncertainty avoidance. They place heavy emphasis on an individual’sknowledge and use of appropriate communication norms in interactionswith others. On the other hand, House and his colleagues (2004) found thatKorea (3.55) was low in this attribute, ranking even lower than the UnitedStates (4.15). Korean managers actually perceived their society as having astrong tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty. American managers per-ceived their society as having a moderate tendency toward orderliness andconsistency, structured lifestyles, clear specification of social expectations,and rules and laws to cover situations.

House and his colleagues (2004; Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, &House, 2006) reported that both Korea (4.40) and the United States


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

(4.55) were ranked as among the highest in terms of actually practicingassertiveness (encouraging and rewarding to be dominant, tough, confronta-tional, and competitive), although Korean managers strongly preferredmodest, warm, cooperative, and harmonious interactions with others.Further, both Korean and American managers exhibited moderate levelsof future orientation (encouraging and rewarding future-oriented behaviorssuch as long-term thinking, planning and decision-making time frame,investing in the future, and delaying gratification) and humane orientation(encouraging and rewarding individuals for being fair, sympathetic, sup-portive, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others). Both Korean andAmerican leaders scored highest in performance orientation (encouragingand rewarding performance improvement and excellence), indicating thatthey place high value on training and development, believe in initiative,and prefer a direct style of communication and have a sense of urgency.

In sum, leadership behaviors and actions are inevitably tied to culture.Old (Hofstede, 1983, 1991) and new (House et al., 2004) empirical data sug-gested significant differences between Korean and American culture in suchareas as Confucian dynamism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, andindividualism and collectivism. Nevertheless, substantial similarities appear,including assertiveness, future orientation, and performance orientations.

Contingency approaches (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001) empha-size how both individual and contextual factors interact. Within that intel-lectual tradition, this study draws on the contingency approach byconsidering leadership styles in general, as well as in a variety of culturesor situations. This study provides a foundation and an additional step fordefining a public relations leadership scale. Such intellectual advance maysuggest guidelines for public relations scholars, professionals, and educatorsof their continuing research, practice, and curriculum. Toward this end, thefollowing research questions are addressed in this study:

RQ1: What leadership styles (characteristics and functions) do publicrelations professionals in the United States and Korea identifyas being strategically most useful in routine or in contingentresponse to non-routine situations?

RQ2: Are there any identifiable differences in the leadership stylesbetween public relations professionals in the United States andin Korea?

RQ3: Are there any identifiable differences among public relations pro-fessionals regarding leadership styles in routine and nonroutinesituations?

RQ4: What factors distinguish Korean public relations practitioners andUnited States public relations practitioners in routine andnon-routine situations?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

METHOD

Participants

A total of 222 public relations professionals in the United States and SouthKorea participated in this research among 400 randomly selected publicrelations professionals. The random sample of US public relations profes-sionals was drawn from the Southern Public Relations Federation Directory(2008), an alternative to the directory of the Public Relations Society ofAmerica to which an access was restricted at the time that this researchwas conducted. The Korean sample was randomly drawn from the KoreaPublic Relations Association Directory (2008). The samples consisted of pub-lic relations practitioners who self-identified as working in public relationsat agencies, corporations, nonprofits, and government organizations. Thetwo samples were quite comparable to one another.

Among the US public relations professionals who participated in the sur-vey (n¼ 120), about 36% (n¼ 43) were in the age category of 20–29, 25%(n¼ 30) in 30–39, and about 20% (n¼ 24) in 50–59. About 36% were women(n¼ 44). About 33% possessed bachelor’s degrees (n¼ 40), and about 20%received master’s degrees (n¼ 24). About two-thirds of the professionals werestaff members (n¼ 84); the remaining one-third held managerial posts(n¼ 36). Approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported that they wereaffiliated with public relations agencies (n¼ 80), approximately one-third withcorporations (n¼ 32), and the rest with nonprofit or government organiza-tions (n¼ 8). About one-third of the respondents had worked for less than5 years (n¼ 36), and approximately another third for 5–9 years (n¼ 40).

Among the Korean public relations practitioners who participated in thesurvey (n¼ 102), more than half were aged 40–49 (n¼ 54), and most of theremainder were 30–39 (n¼ 42). About 36% (n¼ 36) were women. About athird of the professionals possessed bachelor’s degrees (n¼ 30), and abouta fifth of the professionals had master’s degrees (n¼ 20). Two-thirds ofthe professionals were staff (n¼ 70); the remaining third held managerialposts (n¼ 32). Approximately two-thirds of the respondents reported beingaffiliated with public relations agencies (n¼ 70), about one-quarter with cor-porations (n¼ 24), and the rest with nonprofit or government organizations(n¼ 8). About half of the respondents had worked for less than 5 years(n¼ 42), and approximately another half for 5–9 years (n¼ 46).

Procedures

Once a survey questionnaire was developed and gained institutional reviewboard clearance, a Korean version was crafted using the typical translation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

and back-translation procedure. One of the researchers first translated thequestionnaire into Korean; an independent researcher translated the Koreanversion back into English. When two English versions were in agreement,both English and Korean versions were further developed into Web versionsand posted.

A randomly selected 400 practitioners were contacted via e-mail andasked to participate in the Web survey. Individuals willing to participatein the survey received a link to the survey Web site. Participants completedthe survey during October and November of 2008. The overall response ratewas 55.5%, (222 completions), with 5% of margin of sampling error.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument was developed through an extensive literature reviewregarding leadership studies across disciplines. The review netted 27 leader-ship characteristics and functions such as engage in skillful communication,think strategically, recognize problems, recommend solutions, and coordinatecommunication plan (see Table 1 for all items).

Items (leadership characteristics and functions) utilized in this study dif-fered from those used by Aldoory and Toth (2004), who asked respon-dents to rate statements typical of transactional, transformational, andpluralistic styles. Current items were developed from the CommunicationAdaptability Scale (Duran & Zakahi, 1984), Bass and Avolio’s (2000) mul-tifactor leadership questionnaire, and other scales of leadership functionsand characteristics described as important by public relations scholars(e.g., Cameron, 1997; Cameron et al., 2001; Dozier, 1992; Shin et al.,2006). The instrument was designed to focus on the factors of role research(Dozier, 1992) and contingency factors (Cameron et al., 2001). After acareful review of various leadership style items, those items that appearedto be typical, recurring, and significant were identified. Only the items thatwere agreed upon by researchers were then included in the questionnaire(i.e., 27 items).

A scenario of nonroutine challenges (conflict, risk, or crisis) was includedin the questionnaire. This scenario focused on conflict between the company,employees, and community members—which constituted a crisis for the lat-ter two entities due to business and employment relocation. The circum-stances of the conflict are related to the risk of suffering another hurricanethat would do as much damage as Katrina did. If that risk recurred, it couldbe predicted to result in crisis for the company, community, and employees(see Appendix; Shin & Reber, 2007). Research participants were asked tothink about this scenario or situation as a nonroutine situation in additionto a routine situation. They reported their perception of importance for each


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

of the 27 leadership characteristics and functions in both routine and non-routine situations on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 is not at all, and5 is very much.

The reliability among the 27 items as a whole was high, with Cronbach’salpha¼ .94. The analysis was conducted using t-tests to discover culturaland situational differences, followed by discriminant function analysis tomake simultaneous comparison among differences.

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics of Leadership Characteristics and Functions for US and Korean Public

Relations Professionals in Routine and Non-routine Situations (n¼222)

US

routine

US

nonroutine

Korea

routine

Korea

nonroutineLeadership characteristics

and functions M SD M SD M SD M SD

Engage in skillful communication 4.88 0.51 4.92 0.27 4.29 0.57 4.54 0.57

Think strategically 4.83 0.44 4.86 0.34 4.26 0.70 4.46 0.50

Coordinate communication plan 4.77 0.58 4.78 0.47 4.19 0.59 4.38 0.56

Exhibit personal ethics 4.75 0.58 4.76 0.59 4.15 0.74 4.36 0.63

Collaborate 4.73 0.45 4.72 0.65 4.15 0.70 4.27 0.53

Recognize problems 4.73 0.50 4.70 0.52 4.12 0.68 4.24 0.65

Exceed stakeholder expectations 4.67 0.57 4.69 0.66 4.09 0.75 4.23 0.70

Innovate policies 4.64 0.58 4.68 0.57 4.06 0.62 4.23 0.64

Align interests of organization

and community

4.62 0.58 4.68 0.62 4.03 0.54 4.20 0.49

Set and achieve goals 4.62 0.63 4.67 0.75 4.03 0.67 4.19 0.63

Appreciate others’ perspectives 4.60 0.74 4.61 0.68 3.94 0.59 4.12 0.59

Advocate 4.58 0.50 4.61 0.64 3.87 0.61 4.12 0.59

Respond proactively 4.56 0.63 4.61 0.89 3.85 0.65 4.08 0.63

Recommend solutions 4.55 0.55 4.58 0.60 3.84 0.68 4.04 0.76

Work as team 4.54 0.55 4.58 0.64 3.84 0.68 3.96 0.71

Dialogue 4.53 0.67 4.57 0.68 3.84 0.73 3.96 0.71

Negotiate 4.45 0.67 4.56 0.60 3.81 0.86 3.96 0.45

Let others know what is expected 4.44 0.75 4.56 0.65 3.81 0.82 3.92 0.69

Measure success 4.38 0.67 4.54 0.80 3.77 0.87 3.92 0.75

Balance multiple interests 4.38 0.73 4.50 0.73 3.76 0.77 3.92 0.69

Protect beneficial resources 4.36 0.62 4.50 0.65 3.74 0.57 3.88 0.58

Be flexible 4.33 0.65 4.46 0.76 3.74 0.70 3.84 0.68

Serve as the first and best

information source

4.28 0.68 4.32 0.81 3.71 0.73 3.77 0.85

Delegate responsibility 4.26 0.81 4.30 0.77 3.61 0.79 3.64 0.90

Balance pragmatism and idealism 4.13 0.82 4.19 0.78 3.59 0.81 3.54 0.89

Look out for personal welfare 4.10 0.71 4.14 0.81 3.44 0.74 3.40 0.81

Enact uniform procedures 3.97 0.95 3.97 0.96 2.87 0.71 3.24 0.91


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

RESULTS

RQ1 asked about leadership characteristics and functions that US andKorean public relations professionals perceived as being strategically impor-tant in routine and nonroutine situations. Table 1 presents descriptive stat-istics for the perceived importance of 27 leadership characteristics andfunctions. Overall, both Korean and US public relations practitionersranked all items high (mostly 3.50 or higher on a 5-point scale) with theexception of enact uniform procedures. Leadership characteristics such asengage in skillful communication or think strategically, and functions asrecognize problems or coordinate communication plan ranked high acrosssituations and cultures.

RQ2 addressed the question of identifiable differences in the leadershipstyles between public relations professionals in the United States and inKorea. A series of 27 t-tests was conducted to probe differences betweenUS and Korean public relations professionals with respect to leadershipcharacteristics and functions. To avoid spurious significant differences,the Bonferroni adjustment method was applied with the significance levelset at the p� .002 level (a=n¼ .05=27¼ .002). Significant differences appearin all leadership characteristics and functions except flexibility. US profes-sionals perceived all leadership characteristics and functions as more impor-tant than their Korean counterparts did. Table 2 presents comparisonsbetween US and Korean public relations professionals.

RQ3 was about identifiable differences among public relations profes-sionals regarding leadership styles in routine and non-routine situations.The results of t-tests with the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that publicrelations professionals collectively perceived as more important in conflictsituations such leadership characteristics and functions as ‘‘think strategi-cally,’’ ‘‘balance of pragmatism and idealism,’’ ‘‘balance multiple interests,’’‘‘serve as the first and best information source,’’ ‘‘protect beneficialresources’’ and ‘‘align interests of organization and community.’’ Table 2presents comparisons between routine and non-routine situations.

RQ4 asked about what leadership styles distinguish Korean public rela-tions practitioners and US public relations practitioners in routine andnonroutine situations. This question essentially compared the four groupscreated by two cultures (United States vs. Korea) and two types of situa-tions (routine vs. nonroutine): (a) Korean public relations practitionersassessing leadership characteristics in routine situations and (b) Koreanpractitioners in nonroutine situations, (c) US public relations practitionersassessing leadership characteristics in routine situations, and (d) US practi-tioners in nonroutine situations. The four groups were differentiatedthrough discriminant function analysis, allowing simultaneous evaluation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

of various leadership characteristics and functions. Adjustments for Type 1error, which sometimes results when numerous tests are conducted, weremade. Results from the discriminant function analysis revealed that twofunctions can differentiate four groups parsimoniously: Function 1:Canonical Correlation r¼ 0.962, Wilks’ Lamda¼ 0.004, v2¼ 914.464,p¼ 0.001 and Function 2: Canonical Correlation r¼ 0.785, Wilks’Lamda¼ 0.007, v2¼ 631.345, p¼ 0.001).

TABLE 2

T-Tests of the Perceived Differences of Leadership Characteristics and Functions by

Cultures (US and Korean Public Relations Professionals) and Situations (Routine vs.

Nonroutine Situations; n¼222)

Leadership characteristics

and functions

US versus Korea

Routine versus

nonroutine

t p t p

Exhibit personal ethics 15.003 .000 .417 .677

Recognize problems 10.426 .000 1.689 .092

Recommend solutions 5.783 .000 2.988 .003

Think strategically 9.011 .000 3.143 .002

Be flexible .955 .340 �1.209 .227

Balance pragmatism and idealism 5.800 .000 3.480 .001

Negotiate 5.615 .000 1.944 .053

Collaborate 11.400 .000 �1.756 .080

Advocate 14.523 .000 .290 .772

Engage in dialogue 5.229 .000 1.042 .298

Appreciate others’ perspectives 11.022 .000 1.766 .078

Balance multiple interests 8.541 .000 3.809 .000

Respond proactively 7.817 .000 1.399 .163

Serve as the first and best

information source

7.251 .000 3.132 .002

Protect beneficial resources 7.628 .000 3.560 .000

Use uniform procedures 10.202 .000 1.825 .069

Coordinate communication plan 14.592 .000 1.409 .160

Innovate policies 11.850 .000 �1.273 .204

Set and achieve goals 7.739 .000 1.520 .129

Delegate responsibility 7.300 .000 2.055 .041

Let others know what is expected 9.065 .000 1.850 .065

Work as team 6.675 .000 .373 .709

Look out for personal welfare 8.004 .000 �.201 .841

Measure success 7.919 .000 1.428 .154

Exceed stakeholder expectations 11.178 .000 2.261 .024

Align interests of organization

and community

8.277 .000 3.929 .000


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

Function 1 is most closely related to strategic, goal-oriented communi-cative aspects of leadership characteristics and functions (i.e., advocate,collaborate, negotiate, think strategically, recognize problems, set andachieve goals, engage in skillful communication, coordinate communicationplan, respond proactively, and measure success). Based on the commonal-ities of the items, it was labeled as the strategic competency. This functiondifferentiated two cultural groups (United States and Korea) well, buthardly situations (routine vs. nonroutine).

On the other hand, Function 2 included leadership characteristics andfunctions that are most closely related to resourceful or practical leadershipstyles (i.e., balance multiple interests, serve as the first and best informationsource, protect beneficial resources, balance of pragmatism and idealism,and flexibility). Thus, this function was labeled as the enactment competency.It was effective in differentiating situational groups (routine vs. nonroutine).Table 3 identifies the contribution that each variable makes to each of thetwo functions independent of all other variables.

A two-dimensional depiction of how the variables work to differentiatethe four groups is presented in Figure 1. The Korean professional groupstend toward negative values on Function 1 (strategic competency), but USprofessional groups tend to move in the opposite direction along the dimen-sion. Group centroids for Korean public relations practitioners in routineand non-routine situations were �1.670 and �1.141, respectively. Thosefor US public relations professionals in routine and nonroutine situationswere 1.271 and 0.854, respectively. The results suggest that US public rela-tions professionals tend to show greater appreciation for strategic, effective,communicative leadership characteristics and functions.

Function 2 (enactment competency) is effective in consistently separatingKorean public relations practitioners in routine and nonroutine situations.However, US public relations practitioners in routine and nonroutine situa-tions displayed a mixed pattern. Korean public relations practitioners in cri-sis situations tend toward positive values on Function 2, but in routinesituations they move in the opposite direction along the dimension. Groupcentroids for Korean public relations practitioners in routine and nonrou-tine situations were �.973 and 1.496, respectively. Those for American prac-titioners were �.972 and �.361 in routine and nonroutine situations,respectively. This pattern of results shows that public relations practitioners,in general, tend to desire the leadership characteristics associated with prac-tical and resourceful enactment capabilities in crisis situations. This tend-ency is more pronounced among Korean public relations practitionersthan their American counterparts.

Overall, Function 1 (strategic competency) seems to be effective indiscriminating US public relations professionals from Korean peers, which


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

reflects the cultural difference between Korean and the United States.Function 2 (enactment competency) is highly effective in separating Koreanpublic relations practitioners in routine versus nonroutine situations, butsomewhat effective in distinguishing US public relations practitioners inroutine vs. nonroutine situations. Thus, results suggest that culture accountsfor leadership characteristics and functions of strategic or effective com-munication competency, and situation accounts for practical or resourcefulenactment of leadership styles contingent to specific challenges.

TABLE 3

Discriminant Functions of Public Relations Leadership Characteristics and Functions by

Function 1 (Strategic Competency) and Function 2 (Enactment Competency)

Leadership characteristics and functions Function 1 Function 2

Advocate .608� .068

Coordinate communication plan .595� .137

Exhibit personal ethics .593� .105

Exceed stakeholder expectations .490� .008

Innovate policies .462� .055

Collaborate .445� �.066

Use uniform procedures .418� .137

Appreciate others’ perspectives .411� .327

Engage in skillful communication .402� .203

Recognize problems .361� .347

Align interests of organization and community .360� .211

Let others know what is expected .353� .288

Think strategically .347� .052

Set and achieve goals .317� .100

Measure success .307� .236

Respond proactively .304� .224

Look out for personal welfare .301� .193

Work as team .253� .178

Negotiate .234� �.030

Engage in dialogue .218� .060

Balance multiple interests .314 .428�

Serve as the first and best information source .279 .417�

Protect beneficial resources .306 .362�

Delegate responsibility .276 .361�

Recommend solutions .192 .232�

Balance pragmatism and idealism .211 .221�

Be flexible .034 �.205�

Notes. Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standar-

dized canonical discriminant functions; variables ordered by absolute size of correlation

within function.�Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

DISCUSSION

Practitioners serve as leaders in routine and nonroutine contexts (e.g.,Aldoory&Toth, 2004; Cameron et al., 2007; Neff, 2002; Pohl &Vandeventer,2001). However, the body of scholarly literature provides little explication ofwhat specific behavioral characteristics and functions public relations pro-fessionals enact or are expected to enact. Thus, this study identified leader-ship styles (27 characteristics and functions) and explored the extent towhich these styles vary by cultural and situational contingencies.

Findings indicated that all identified leadership characteristics and func-tions are perceived as strategically useful in routine and nonroutine situa-tions. Both US and Korean public relations professionals considered suchcharacteristics and functions as engage in skillful communication, thinkstrategically, recognize problems, and recommend solutions as most rel-evant to their leadership roles across situations. This implies that, althoughdescriptions of leadership characteristics and functions were drawn fromAmerican leadership literature, they are applicable to defining public rela-tions leadership in Korea. Like their American peers, Korean professionals

FIGURE 1 Discriminant function analysis of public relations leadership characteristics and

functions by culture and situation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

perceived the same, or at least similar, characteristics and functions to behighly relevant to their leadership practices in routine, as well as nonroutine,circumstances. This implication is consistent with the underlying assump-tion that certain basic functions (specific actions and behaviors) ofleadership in cross-cultural contexts are universally important and appli-cable to different cultures (although basic functions of leadership that areenacted are strongly influenced by the cultural variation; e.g., Chemers,1997; Dorfman & House, 2004).

More important to the theoretical point of this research, this study pro-posed that public relations leadership characteristics and functions wouldbe contingent on cultural and situational differences. Findings from the dis-criminant function analysis showed that two functions (strategic and enact-ment competencies) are able to account for both cultural (United States vs.Korean) and situational (routine vs. nonroutine) differences. The functionof strategic competency is related primarily to strategic, goal-oriented, effec-tive, or communicative aspects of leadership characteristics=functions (i.e.,advocate, collaborate, negotiate, think strategically, recognize problems,set and achieve goals, engage in skillful communication, coordinate com-munication plan, respond proactively, measure success). Enactment compe-tency is related most directly to resourceful or practical leadership styles (i.e.,balance multiple interests, serve as the first and best information source, pro-tect beneficial resources, and balance of pragmatism and idealism).

Results suggest that US public relations professionals show greaterappreciation for strategic, effective, communicative leadership characteris-tics, and functions than their Korean counterparts. This may be related tothe cultural or historical milieu of public relations practice, and strategicorientation or other aspects associated with Western culture. Consideringthat public relations practice, research and theory historically stem fromWestern cultural values, US public relations practitioners appears to havemore highly developed definitions and expectations linked to strategic com-munication.

Consistent with American cultural values of relatively low power dis-tance, high individualism, high assertiveness, and high performance orien-tation, American professionals seem to expect leadership characteristics orfunctions that recognize problems, think strategically, respond proactively,set and achieve goals, coordinate communication and collaborate with con-cerned parties, advocate organization’s interests, and negotiate skillfullywith various publics. This tendency is more pronounced among Americanpractitioners than their Korean peers. The emergent leadership from thisdescription may be categorized as a strategic democratic type.

The function of enactment competency was typified by the differentiationof routine versus nonroutine situations. This differentiation was especially


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

pronounced for Korean public relations professionals. Although Americanprofessionals see little differences in their leadership activities and behaviorsacross situations, their Korean counterparts regard enactment competencyas much more relevant to conflict situations than to routine situations.American public relations leaders appear to think that they will behave inthe same manner whether faced with a conflict or not. On the other hand,Korean public relations leaders may be expected to behave and act differ-ently when faced with a conflict as opposed to a routine situation, typicallygiving much more attention to resources and balancing acts (e.g., balancemultiple interests, serve as the first and best information source, protectbeneficial resources, and balance of pragmatism and idealism).

In general, crises or other types of emergencies may require practitionersto develop resourceful capabilities. Professionals seem to be expected to pro-vide resources and information, balance interests and concerns, defineboundaries, and remove barriers in crises. This contingent orientation seemsto be associated particularly with the outlook of Korean public relationsprofessionals. Korean public relations professionals show a greater differ-ence between their perceived leadership characteristics in routine and non-routine situations. The relative similarities in contingent leadershipcharacteristics and functions among US professionals in both situationsmay reflect cultural traditions that produce widely expected leadership char-acteristics and functions.

Y. Y. Kim (2009) suggested that ‘‘classical liberalism’’ (p. 185) underpinsAmerican consciousness and colors thinking, intellectual beliefs, attitudes,and behaviors. Individualism, universalism, and procedural equality (e.g.,due process) are central to the classical liberalism. In particular, belief inuniversalism encourages Americans to act or behave in a consistent, appar-ently fair manner across social groups or categories such as ethnicity andrace. Yum (1988) reasoned that Americans have universalistic orientationstoward life; they tend to apply general and objective rules consistently acrossdiverse relationships and contexts. In this regard, American professionalsseem to perceive at least similar leadership characteristics and functionsapplied to non-routine and routine situations.

On the other hand, Koreans tend to hold particularistic orientations inwhich specific rules and interaction patterns are encouraged, rewarded,and applied often with different linguistic or behavioral codes, dependingon relationship and context (e.g., Chen & Chung, 1994; Yum, 1988). Thisview suggests that Korean professionals may be more inclined thanAmericans to change the rules of engagement as the situation changes fromroutine to nonroutine. Collectivistic values and the enormous emphasis onharmonious relationships among concerned parties in Confucianism tra-dition (e.g., Hofstede, 1983; House et al., 2004) are likely to encourage


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

Korean public relations professionals to manage conflicting interests prop-erly or perhaps aggressively, particularly in conflict situations where thepotential conflicts of interests or threats to harmonious relationships maybe heightened. Korean public relations leaders seem motivated to balancemultiple interests, balance pragmatism and idealism, serve as the first andbest information source, and protect beneficial resources, especially in crisissituations. The emergent leadership of Korean public relations professionalsin crisis situations may be characterized as a benevolent paternalist type.

Implications

As illustrated thus far, there seem to be many best ways to lead in the mind-set of public relations professionals, and different cultures or situations mayrequire public relations professionals with different sets of leadership char-acteristics and functions. The cultural variation of leadership characteristicsis also commingled with the situational variation. These findings suggestimportant practical and theoretical implications. For example, public rela-tions practitioners should understand that culture plays an important rolein defining preferences among leadership characteristics and the perform-ance of various functions. When practicing public relations in different cul-tures, professionals should prepare by understanding the particularleadership styles embedded in the business, social, economic, political andcultural complexities inherent in the settings. Findings also suggest theoreti-cal implications for developing the public relations leadership model. Distin-guishing the two professions by culture and situation appears to provide auseful extension of a contingency public relations leadership model. Thepublic relations leadership items on the two dimensions can be developedinto a scale that illustrates the dynamism of public relations leadership con-tingent on situations and cultures.

US and Korean professionals showed high regard for strategic leadershipcharacteristics. For this reason, they should continue to improve theirunderstanding of general leadership characteristics and functions, as wellas those relevant to different cultures or contexts. Public relations educatorsmay consider introducing leadership curricula in educational settings andextracurricular activities through contact with professional associations toprepare future public relations leaders. As practitioners advance to the nextlevel of professionalism, they should learn nuances associated with leader-ship qualifications in a global setting.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Findings from this study suggest that research should be carried out withcomprehensive samples in a variety of contexts and cultures, for a deeper


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

understanding of contingent leadership characteristics and functions. Oursample is somewhat skewed toward public relations staff members, whichcomprise about two-thirds of both American and Korean samples. TheUS sample is restricted further by the geographical location of survey part-icipants who may articulate leadership characteristics and functions accord-ing to regional patterns. Nevertheless, any region of the United States maybe characterized increasingly as a mixed culture in which regional differ-ences are waning, particularly with increased mobility and technologicalconnectedness.

Culture-specific Korean leadership characteristics and functions maynot have been fully considered in the research design. Future researchshould examine Korean leadership literature and offer a universal list ofleadership characteristics and functions. Even though this researchinvolved perceptions, not actual behaviors, it nonetheless rested on a themechampioned by anthropologist Maurice Godelier (1988): Perceptionsrepresent realities.

Future research needs to explore actual behaviors or cases to enhancethe ecological validity of findings. It will be also interesting to observethe impact of leadership traits, characteristics, functions and their interac-tions on organizational effectiveness. Future research may use scenariosthat feature conflict, crisis, or risk separately to identify leadership stylesin such contingent situations. It may be interesting to explore the differ-ences between public relations professionals who envision themselves asleaders versus those who regard others as leaders in routine and nonroutinesituations.

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: Perceived effective-

ness of transformational and transactional leadership styles. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 16, 157–183.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (2000). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire sample set: Tech-

nical report, leaders form, rater form and scoring key for MLQ from 5x-Short (2nd ed.).

Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Berger, B. K., & Reber, B. H. (2006). Gaining influence in public relations: The role of resistance

in practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1986). Advancement for public relations role models. Public

Relations Review, 7, 37–56.

Cameron, G. T. (1997). The contingency theory of conflict management in public relations.

Proceedings of the conference on two-way communication (pp. 27–48), Oslo, Norway:

Norwegian Central Government Information Service.

Cameron, G. T., Cropp, F., & Reber, B, H. (2001). Getting past platitudes: Factors limiting

accommodation in public relations. Journal of Communication Management, 5, 242–261.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

Cameron, G. T., Wilcox, D., Reber, B. H., & Shin, J. H. (2007). Public relations today:

Managing competition and conflict. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A

contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 9, 31–63.

Cancel, A. E., & Mitrook, M. A., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Testing the contingency theory of

accommodation. Public Relations Review, 25, 171–197.

Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Chen, G., & Chung, J. (1994). The ‘‘Five Asian Dragons’’: Management behaviors and organi-

zational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 93–105.

Collinson, D. L. (2008). Leadership in organizations. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international

encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2672–2677). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Davis, H. J., & Rasool, S. A. (1988). Values research and managerial behavior: Implications for

devising culturally sensitive managerial styles. Management International Review, 28, 11–20.

Dorfman, P. W., & & House, R. J. (2004). Cultural influences on organizational leadership:

Literature review, theoretical rationale, and GLOBE project goals. In R. J. House, P. J.

Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta, V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and orga-

nizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 51–73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duran, R., & Zakahi, W. (1984). Competence or style: What’s in a name? Communication

Research Reports, 1, 42–47.

Dozier, D. M. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations practi-

tioners. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management

(pp. 327–355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Godelier, M. (1988).The mental and the material (Trans. M. Thom). New York: Verso.

Grunig, J. E. (2001). Communication, public relations, and effective organizations: An over-

view of the book. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication man-

agement (pp. 219–250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Leadership: A communication perspective (2nd ed.).

Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations research directions.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 93–114.

Heath, R. L. (2007). Management through advocacy: Reflection rather than domination. In

E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management:

Challenges for the next generation (pp. 41–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heath, R. L. (2009). The rhetorical tradition: Wrangle in the marketplace. In R. L. Heath, E. L.

Toth & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 17–47).

New York: Routledge.

Heath, R. L., & Coombs, W. T. (2006). Today’s public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of organizational behavior.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural reliability of organizational practices and theories. Journal of

International Business Studies, 14, 75–89.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organization: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management

Executive, 7, 81–94.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1987). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to econ-

omic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

Huang, Y. (2000). The personal influence model and Gao Guanxi in Taiwan Chinese public

relations. Public Relations Review, 26, 219–236.

Husband, R. (1985). Toward a grounded typology of organizational leadership behavior.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 103–118.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the

beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 20, 67–90.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Fort Worth,

TX: Harcourt College.

Kim, D. K., & Kim, C. W. (1989). Korean value systems and managerial practices. In K. H.

Chung & H. C. Lee (Eds.), Korean managerial dynamics (pp. 207–216). New York: Praeger.

Kim, Y. Y. (2009). Unum and Pluribus: Ideological underpinnings of interethnic communi-

cation in the United States. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.),

Intercultural communication: A reader (12th ed., pp. 185–197). Boston, MA: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning.

Kinder, A., & Robertson, I. T. (1994). Do you have the personality to be a leader? The impor-

tance of personality dimensions for successful managers and leaders. Leadership and Organi-

zation Development Journal, 15, 3–12.

Koch, M., & Steers, R. (2005, January). South Korea. In S. Cartwright (Ed.), Blackwell Encyc-

lopedic of Management: Human Resource Management, 2nd ed. Vol. 5, p. 351. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Neff, B. D. (2002). Integrating leadership processes: Redefining the principles course. Public

Relations Review, 28, 127–147.

Ni, L., & Heath, R. L. (2007). Crisis and culture: Extending intellectual, practitioner and cul-

tural boundaries. In X. Tong (Ed.), Summit on public administration (pp. 25–38). Nanjing,

China: Nanjing University Press.

Palenchar, M. J., & Heath, R. L. (2007). Strategic risk communication: Adding value to society.

Public Relations Review, 33, 120–129.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for

future research. Journal of Management, 34, 566–593.

Peterson, M., & Sorenson, R. (1991). Cognitive processes in leadership: Interpreting and hand-

ling events in an organizational context. Communication Yearbook, 14, 501–534.

Pohl, G. M., & Vandeventer, D. (2001). The workplace, undergraduate education, and career

preparation: The public relations academic and practitioner views. In R. L. Heath (Ed.),

Handbook of public relations (pp. 357–368). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shin, J. H. (2004). Contingency theory. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations

(pp. 191–193). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shin, J. H., Cameron, G. T., & Cropp, F. (2006). Occam’s Razor in the contingency theory: A

national survey of PR professional response to the contingency model. Public Relations

Review, 32, 282–286.

Shin, J. H., & Reber, B. H. (2007). Instructor’s manual and test bank for public relations today:

Managing competition and conflict. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Triandis, H. C., & Albert, R. D. (1987). Cross-cultural perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.

Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication:

An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 264–295). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1963). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA:

University of Pittsburg Press.

Wei-Ming, T. (Ed.). (1996). Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communi-

cation patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374–388.

APPENDIX

Scenario:Oreck Company has elected to leave Biloxi, Mississippi in the aftermath

of Hurricane Katrina. Unless the company communicates the need to moveeffectively, they risk appearing inflexible and unresponsive to the concernsof employees and the community. Were Oreck to fold under pressure andcancel its plans to move to Tennessee, and decide to stay in Biloxi, it wouldmost likely win the approval of many vocal constituents. However, concernsabout the prohibitively high cost of insurance and difficulty of securingemployees on the Mississippi Gulf Coast make this scenario unlikely. Oreckmight amend its plans and decide to relocate to an area adjacent to Biloxithat was not as severely affected by Hurricane Katrina. It could also offerto help displaced employees with cash settlements, assistance in findingnew jobs, or relocation expenses and guaranteed positions at the newlocation. Oreck’s public relations department should focus on clearlyexplaining why a move is necessary and steps that the company is takingto accommodate displaced employees (Shin & Reber, 2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is]

at 0

2:10

25

Aug

ust 2

012

Documents

A Contingency Explanation of Public Relations Practitioner Leadership Styles: Situation and Culture