The Role of Public Relation - Essay Example

PUBLIC RELATIONS Introduction In modern times like this, there is increasing awareness of the factors that can affect performance of organizations that had been overlooked for many years. With the increase of pace in global markets and rapid expansion of many large corporations, there is often the need to realize that adaptation and learning are the keys to the success of any contemporary organizations. It is suggested that this is best achieved by involving public relations and leadership as part of the organizational strategies. In any kind of organization, profit-oriented or not, public relations plays a very critical role. This paper then clarifies if public relations have just but one key role in an organization or if it is actually a mixture of many roles. An in-depth research and peer reviewed journals have been sought out to analyze the very nature of public relation as a task and as an organizational strategy. The Role of Public Relation On Marketing People’s expectations and subsequent satisfaction level are often shaped by public relation. For many commercialized or profit orients organizations public relation serve as a source of information and motivation for the people within and outside the organization. Like for example, before the purchase is made, and continue to inform prospective, current, and past customers even while a product is in use, public relation is greatly used. As such, public relations present the focal product or service in the best light. There are many strategic and creative approaches that PR personnel might take toward presenting a product offering using marketing communications, such as advertising, with the overall effect of displaying benefits while creating and managing consumer expectations. For the most part, purchases (whether provoked by public relations directly, indirectly, or not at all) have outcomes that are satisfying, with the performance of the product or service measuring as expected. However, when the service or product performance is below acceptable standards, customers suffer from the disappointment of their suboptimal consumer experience, what might be called a product-harm crisis (Dawar and Pillutla 2000), with the consumer blaming the company for the experience (Laufer, Silvera, and Meyer 2005). This is reflected in the loss of time, money, and other costs associated with an unexpectedly inequitable exchange. If the purchase outcome somehow goes awry, negative thoughts and feelings, such as dissatisfaction, anger, and regret, might be expected to follow. While public relation is generally meant to stimulate purchase or at least trial among prospective customers, many ads are seen by current product users; in fact, the purpose of the message itself might be to serve as a reminder to accelerate repurchase (e.g., a new version of this product is available and I should try it; or, that reminds me, I'm running low on this product) or initiate the search process. There are also examples of expressly post-purchase public relations, such as thank you letters from salespeople to their customers confirming the wisdom of their purchase, and television ads from movie studios urging customers to see a movie for a second time. Public relations do not occur only before a purchase is made. Post-purchase public relations are prevalent in the mass and direct media, and recent research includes consumer interaction with advertising as related to past consumption activity (Braun and Loftus 1998). There are many opportunities to be satisfied or dissatisfied (Oliver 1997) and an advertisement for any given product may be seen by current, past, or potential customers at any stage of their product decision-making cycle. Many PR personnel pay hundreds of thousands of dollars toward research to carefully target their most inviting and responsive consumer segments, yet despite these attempts to reduce the likelihood of a current or lapsed customer receiving marketing communications meant for a potential customer, such misdirected communications do exist. On Corporate Image Your identity is who you really are—and your image is how much of that reality people understand the daunting boundaries of language and culture. (“Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment”, 2008) Corporate image and identity comes hand in hand to make up a desired audience perception towards the corporation. The image and identity that is projected towards the market, most significantly to its target consumers, creates a reputation about the corporation that would eventually become the basis of the people’s decision of availing the services of the corporation. As simple as these two ideas may seem yet in reality, this is one of the most difficult and the most complex challenges that a business may face that concerns management these days. In order to address this challenge, every organization must understand and recognize the importance of corporate image and identity. (“Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment”, 2008). In order to make sure that the company is developing the reputation it seeks from the community, the need for perfectly aligning these two elements – corporate image and corporate identity, is held necessary furthermore considered to be the only way of attaining such expectations (“Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment”, 2008) “Identity goes to the heart of how a company creates value in the marketplace and in the financial markets. In a nutshell, that is the very essence of image management”. This key element in building the reputation of the organization includes the organization’s purpose, its vision, its strategy and its business objectives. “(“Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment”, 2008) As a whole, corporate identity consists of all its products and services, as well as how its people behave that is projected through the shared values of the organization and its employees. Corporate identity digs deeper as to the process and the ways in which the company creates its own value in the community where it markets its products and services (“Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment”, 2008). On the other hand, corporate image has to do something with the people who had availed of the corporation’s products and services, their impressions and associations towards the corporation as perceived through their experiences with the company. Generally, these impressions and association that the consumers have developed within themselves can however be controlled by the corporation. Everything that the consumers have to go through is capable of being controlled by the corporation to a greater or lesser degree. This “may include the tone and manner of its employees, its pricing structure, the quality of its customer service, the publicity it receives from the media, its social responsiveness and its activities in the community” (“Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment”, 2008). It is and has been conceptualized largely in terms of the visual aspect it projects to the people. In business management studies, they also suggest that image is determined mostly by the organization and is presented to the employees in both verbal and visual form (qtd in Moffit & Williams, 1997). Managing effectively the corporate image and identity is considered as the only way of building the desired reputation of the corporation towards its target consumers. (“Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment”, 2008). Managing corporate image begins with properly defining what the term basically means. It is through the definition of corporate image in which the corporation will be able to formulate its policies that would address the creation and the development of which. On the other hand, even at present there are yet arguments regarding what corporate image means. In the business field, the definition of the term may vary according to the roles of these significant fields. Organizational communication scholars and related business fields of advertising, marketing, management, and public relations have struggled to define the mysterious concept of corporate image. They have defined image as a product, a reality, a cognitive structure, a process, or an illusion that confronts definition. (Moffit & Williams, 1997) They have varying definitions although generally, it boils down to the process in which a certain corporation may market itself from the vast sea of institutions offering the same services as it does. Based from this literature, it could be derived that companies have control over the image that it wants to project towards the people regarding the company. However, the image that they would want to illustrate is at the same time influenced by the people that relate to the organization. That is, corporate image has been recognized as the result of a dual process of corporate image production by the organization and audience consumption by the populations and publics that relate to the organization. A corporation's image is no longer considered as defined by the company's logo, copy platform, name, or other graphics but, rather image is a result of a complex impression formation which is created and planned with by public relations ( Moffit & Williams, 1997) Involvement on Leadership Leadership is no longer a sole contribution, but a more of a dynamic relationship based on mutual influence and common purpose between leaders and collaborators and/or public relations people in which both are moved to higher levels of motivation and moral development as they affect real, intended change (“Leading”, 2006). Leaders have now shifted into a participative leadership over the traditional style which was exercising power over the group, making decisions by himself not involving any of the members. The society has required a more participative leadership at present contrasting the traditional leadership when leaders were expected to rule with iron fists. Today’s leaders are asked to be visionaries, coaches, and facilitators. They need not necessarily be too gentle or too hard in tolerating the opinions and judgements of his members. It is not surprising that leaders practicing the old method may find it difficult to survive in the new society. New expectations and new challenges are needed to be confronted. Understanding the changes and these challenges made participative leadership necessary to make a leader become more familiar with the field he is in. Competition has as well necessitated changes in goals which have created a need for new rules and roles(“Chapter 1”, 2006). Participative leadership refers to the degree that to which other people can influence the leader's decisions (An Overview of Organizational Leadership, 2006) . Zoglio has pointed out several reasons regarding the alteration of leadership styles, particularly into the participative leadership of competition may it be on the government aspect or on the business side. These reasons of altering the leadership style are also compatible with the two issues highlighted in the two cases. The Playing Field Has Changed. The business environment and even the government system today are totally different compared to the business and government ten years ago. Competition is more rigid. The advances in technology have as well played an important role for the shift. Competition is no longer within a small scale but of global scale where a world-class standard is the biggest issue. People are able to demand better quality, better service, better and value (“Chapter 1”, 2006). The Goals Have Changed. Survival of the fittest is the most common goal nowadays. Thus, more and more establishments and group of concerned citizens have focused mainly in providing first-class quality service and products to be able to demand same high quality in return. Continuous improvement is not a fad; it is a way of doing what necessary for survival (“Chapter 1”, 2006). Utilizing participative leadership method gains more knowledge in what the people want, moreover they need. Members of the organization are able to contribute better ideas upon how to meet these elements. The Rules Have Changed. Organizational structure in any group or government department is now different. People are at this point the top, trying to do what they should and should not do. Ordinary civilians are in the middle, listening to what both the leaders and the followers are trying to impose. Leaders are at the bottom supporting the citizens who are delivering the quality. Therefore, problem solving is pushed down to the level where there is the most expertise related to the problem. Decision making now involves the people most affected by the decision (“Chapter 1”, 2006). The Roles Have Changed. The government have now made their people their partner in the whole system. Their opinions count through surveys, advisories, and focused-group discussions. The entire nation is now asked to contribute ideas for further development of the services that the government provides its people (“Chapter 1”, 2006). Utilizing participative leadership involves the participation of every member of the group or team. For an instance, a leader may make use of meetings to share ideas and involve the team in group decisions as well as problem-solving. By their actions, such leaders model good team-oriented behaviour (“Michigan Studies”, 2006). Furthermore, leaders are perceived to have empathy towards the team members and the group as a whole. The role of the leader is more of a facilitative than directive, guiding the conversation and helping to resolve differences of the team members. Each of the members will be cleared out with the different issues concerning each of them as well as the team. Transparency among everyone contributes trust and respect which are vital in the achievement of a unified goal. Apart from this, the leader is not alone the exclusive individual responsible for results; nevertheless he is not absolved of the responsibility. As such, they may make final decisions that take recommendations from the team into account (“Michigan Studies”, 2006). Leadership, when combined with the whole idea of public relation, is basically buying-in from the people their ideas and opinions on most changes and important decisions before implementing them. However, the leader is still the final decision making authority. But leadership is not about reaching consensus – if you keep looking for universal approval, nothing may be done. Implementing a change requires involvement of the team members prior to its introduction will make sure that the team is prepared for the transition. Setting goals and creating team objectives that solicits individual contribution encourages every member to grow with the team and work hard in realizing their goals or objectives. In a situation that requires technical expertise, obtaining participation of each member will make the task easier and solving complex problems is but a piece of cake such that a combined effort and expertise will be drawn from them (“Michigan Studies”, 2006). Conclusion Based on the information presented above, it can be easily concluded that public relation is a mixture of many roles. Public relation is highly involved in marketing strategies of an organization, in managing the overall corporate image and identity of the organization and even the in the general leadership requirement of an organization. Because of this, it is then strongly suggest that public relation is done by a credible and highly skilled personnel who may be able to attend to a multi-level task that is expected from such a job. Works Cited: “An Overview of Organizational Leadership and Management.” (2006) online viewed from http://www.survey-software-solutions.com/walonick/leadership.htm. “Chapter 1 Changes in the Workplace.” http://www.zoglio.com/excerpt-leader.htm, September 24, 2006. Laufer, Daniel, Silver, David H. and Meyer, Tracy (2005), "Exploring Differences Between Older and Younger Consumers in Attributions of Blame for Product Harm Crises," Academy of Marketing Science Review [Online], 7. Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/laufer07-2005.pdf “Leading.” (September 2006) online viewed from http://telecollege.dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/4directing/leading/lead.htm, “Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment.” (2008) online viewed from http://www.lippincottmercer.com/insights/a_roberts03.shtml. “Michigan Studies.” http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/actions/michigan.htm, September 24, 2006. Moffit, M. & Williams, S. 1997. “Corporate Image as an Impression Formation Process: Prioritizing Personal, Organizational, and Environmental Audience Factors”. Journal of Public Relations Research. Vol. 9:4. Read More