Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

blogs.unpad.ac.id
from blogs.unpad.ac.id More from this publisher
31.12.2014 Views

necessary (Grunig et al., 1995). For instance Taylor and Kent (1999) report that public relations in Asia is often influenced by Eastern theology and hierarchic relationships. Some refer to iPR as globalization (Zaharna, 2000); referred to by Hill and Knowlton’s CEO as one of the most important changes affecting the function of public relations today (Mellow, 1989). Botan (1992) discussed ethnocentrism – which in public relations is the belief that what is known about it in one country is applicable across all countries. In 1989 Wilcox et al. defined iPR as the planned and organized effort of a company, institution or government 2 to establish mutually beneficial relations with the publics of other nations. Anderson (1989) used the terms global and international to distinguish between public relations practised in the same way throughout the world and public relations customized for each culture. Differentiated does not necessarily mean that messages have to be altered wholesale; they can be adapted to appeal to identified customer needs (Kitchen and Wheeler, 1999). In endorsing a strong version of the global approach, Sharp (1992) noted that the principles regarding what PR is – and can do – remain the same worldwide. Botan (1992) came to the opposite conclusion. Grunig et al. (1995) suggest that emerging from the merits of two extreme positions seems a consensus that the ideal model for iPR lies somewhere in the middle. Synnott and McKie (1997) suggested that the political system in a country might well influence that country’s perception and use of PR; while, Krishnamurthy and Dejan (2001) propose three factors of the relevant country: 1 infrastructure: political system, economic development, level of activism, culture and media environment; 2 environment; 3 societal culture; that might impact upon iPR practice. In 1992 Baskin and Aronoff suggested that iPR has three main functions: 1 representing a corporation in its home market; 2 bridging the communication gap between foreign management and home management; 3 facilitating communication in the host country. Target audiences The general public is not always the target of public relations (Taylor and Kent, 1999). Overseas government officials may be the focus (Haug and Koppang, 1997); such a relationship will influence the practice of public relations (Taylor and Kent, 1999). Taylor and Kent suggest that in the developing world those who control access to scarce resources may be a key public. Key management role Since the 1970s, public relations has matured within the advanced western economies into a modern, sophisticated management function (Moss, 2001). It continues to evolve as a strong discipline (Krishnamurthy and Dejan, 2001) playing a key role in the success of many organizations with a well developed local body of knowledge – in both Europe and Australia in particular (Moss, 2001). Botan (1992) discussed PR functions, roles and goals and how they vary between countries; while Van Leuven and Pratt (1996) identified variations deriving from: © 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection; individual chapters, the contributors

• communication infrastructure; • market economy; • political stability; • linguistic/cultural integration. Unchanged role Moss (2001) suggests that in many parts of the world public relations remains wedded to its publicity origins. But, Krishnamurthy and Dejan (2001) suggest that, in political systems that do not value public opinion, PR tends to be propagandist (although Al-Enad (1990) questions whether government institutions in authoritative societies care about public opinion). However, Krishnamurthy and Dejan note that varying stages of democratization offer different opportunities and challenges to PR professionals. They suggest that the western definition of public relations assumes a democratic political structure where competing groups seek authority and legitimacy through the power of public opinion. International PR practitioners must understand the extent of media outreach 3 in countries where they operate. But that media may not provide an effective means for wide dissemination of organizational messages in every country. In developing countries the media reaches a fairly homogenous small segment of the total population; accordingly, in order to reach the largest populace the iPR consultant will have to think of other media that reach out to untapped publics (Krishnamurthy and Dejan, 2001). IT impact Among PR practitioners, increasingly complex relationships must be nurtured satisfactorily; and this has, by and large, to be done through unproven means (Kruckeberg, 1996). The computer has become central to PR activity and the global potential of the internet suggests more intercultural activity (Neff, 1998). Interactive communication technologies are providing groups and individuals with unprecedented capacities to form meaningful transnational networks (Comor, 2001). The rapid expansion of communication technology has increased the dissemination of information (although the level of development of a country’s infrastructure vastly influences a practitioner’s ability to plan and implement communication programmes). This rapid increase in international communication through emergent IT is putting PR practitioners at the forefront of managing relationships with peoples of varied nations and cultures (Krishnamurthy and Dejan, 2001). Culture Taylor and Kent (1999) suggest that detailed introspection may well persuade PR practitioners that many of the assumptions guiding western PR are simply not applicable to the growing field of iPR. Taylor (2001) suggests that it is important to remember that iPR is always intercultural PR. Intuitively, one would posit that different cultures would require different PR theories and practice (Kruckeberg, 1996). In arguing that cultural distinctions among societies must affect the way that PR is practised within those societies Sriramesh and White (1992) lend credence to this assumption. Kruckeberg (1996) notes that when they practise beyond their borders western PR practitioners face an extreme range of cultures; and that they will be challenged by © 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection; individual chapters, the contributors

• communication infrastructure;<br />

• market economy;<br />

• political stability;<br />

• linguistic/cultural integration.<br />

Unchanged role<br />

Moss (2001) suggests that in many parts <strong>of</strong><br />

the world public relations remains wedded to<br />

its publicity origins. But, Krishnamurthy <strong>and</strong><br />

Dejan (2001) suggest that, in political systems<br />

that do not value public opinion, PR tends to<br />

be propag<strong>and</strong>ist (although Al-Enad (1990)<br />

questions whether government institutions<br />

in authoritative societies care about public<br />

opinion).<br />

However, Krishnamurthy <strong>and</strong> Dejan note<br />

that varying stages <strong>of</strong> democratization <strong>of</strong>fer<br />

different opportunities <strong>and</strong> challenges to PR<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>essionals. They suggest that the western<br />

definition <strong>of</strong> public relations assumes a democratic<br />

political structure where competing<br />

groups seek authority <strong>and</strong> legitimacy through<br />

the power <strong>of</strong> public opinion.<br />

International PR practitioners must underst<strong>and</strong><br />

the extent <strong>of</strong> media outreach 3 in countries<br />

where they operate. But that media may<br />

not provide an effective means for wide dissemination<br />

<strong>of</strong> organizational messages in<br />

every country.<br />

In developing countries the media reaches<br />

a fairly homogenous small segment <strong>of</strong> the<br />

total population; accordingly, in order to<br />

reach the largest populace the iPR consultant<br />

will have to think <strong>of</strong> other media that reach<br />

out to untapped publics (Krishnamurthy <strong>and</strong><br />

Dejan, 2001).<br />

IT impact<br />

Among PR practitioners, increasingly complex<br />

relationships must be nurtured satisfactorily;<br />

<strong>and</strong> this has, by <strong>and</strong> large, to be done through<br />

unproven means (Kruckeberg, 1996). The<br />

computer has become central to PR activity<br />

<strong>and</strong> the global potential <strong>of</strong> the internet suggests<br />

more intercultural activity (Neff, 1998).<br />

Interactive communication technologies<br />

are providing groups <strong>and</strong> individuals with<br />

unprecedented capacities to form meaningful<br />

transnational networks (Comor, 2001). The<br />

rapid expansion <strong>of</strong> communication technology<br />

has increased the dissemination <strong>of</strong><br />

information (although the level <strong>of</strong> development<br />

<strong>of</strong> a country’s infrastructure vastly influences<br />

a practitioner’s ability to plan <strong>and</strong><br />

implement communication programmes).<br />

This rapid increase in international communication<br />

through emergent IT is putting PR practitioners<br />

at the forefront <strong>of</strong> managing<br />

relationships with peoples <strong>of</strong> varied nations<br />

<strong>and</strong> cultures (Krishnamurthy <strong>and</strong> Dejan,<br />

2001).<br />

Culture<br />

Taylor <strong>and</strong> Kent (1999) suggest that detailed<br />

introspection may well persuade PR practitioners<br />

that many <strong>of</strong> the assumptions guiding<br />

western PR are simply not applicable to the<br />

growing field <strong>of</strong> iPR. Taylor (2001) suggests<br />

that it is important to remember that iPR is<br />

always intercultural PR.<br />

Intuitively, one would posit that different<br />

cultures would require different PR theories<br />

<strong>and</strong> practice (Kruckeberg, 1996). In arguing<br />

that cultural distinctions among societies must<br />

affect the way that PR is practised within those<br />

societies Sriramesh <strong>and</strong> White (1992) lend<br />

credence to this assumption.<br />

Kruckeberg (1996) notes that when they<br />

practise beyond their borders western PR<br />

practitioners face an extreme range <strong>of</strong> cultures;<br />

<strong>and</strong> that they will be challenged by<br />

© 2004 S<strong>and</strong>ra Oliver for editorial matter <strong>and</strong> selection;<br />

individual chapters, the contributors

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!