2-Sriramesh1996 - Having Useful Explanation of Two Thought Schools Purist and Pragmatist

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]
On: 19 April 2015, At: 19:38

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Public Relations

Research
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20
Observation and
Measurement of
Two Dimensions of
Organizational Culture and
Their Relationship to Public
Relations
K. Sriramesh , James E. Grunig & David M.
Dozier
Published online: 19 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: K. Sriramesh , James E. Grunig & David M. Dozier (1996)
Observation and Measurement of Two Dimensions of Organizational Culture and
Their Relationship to Public Relations, Journal of Public Relations Research, 8:4,
229-261, DOI: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_02
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_02
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
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 is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 19:38 19 April 2015
JOL'RSAL01: PLlBLlC RELATIONS RESEARCH. 8!1). 229-261
Cop?ri_ehtC 1996. Lawrence Erlbaum .Asrociatrc Ins
Observation and Measurement of

Two Dimensions of Organizational
Culture and Their Relationship to
Public Relations
K. Sriramesh
Department of Communication
Prcrdue Lhirersir).
James E. Grunig
College of Jo~rrnalisrn
L:nicersit\- of M a n l a d College P a r k
David M. Dozier
School of Commrmicarion
San Diego Stare Cniversir)
The concept of organizational culture entered the fields o i organizational studies.

management. and organizational communication nearlq I5 years ago. but public
relations theorists seldom have used it to explain u.hy organizations practice public
relations as they do or to explain the effect of public relations acti\\ties on culture.
This article reviews the literatureon organizational culture. It addresses thequestions
of whether culture can be measured with quantitative scales. or whether ir must be
ob.\erved qualitatively, and whether culture can be managed. We reason that culture
can be measured quantitatively. and we developed 48 questionnaire items based on
cultural concepts in the literature. These items were included in a questionnaire
adninistertd 10 4,631 employees in 321 organizations in the United States. Canada.
and the United Kingdom that w r e included in the International Association of
Business Communicators Research Foundation-sponsored project. Excellence in
Public Relations and Communication Management. Faclor analysis produced indices
Requests for reprints should be sent to K Srinmesh. Purdue Umverrity. Depanmenr of Cammuni-
c~ricn.1366 Literal Arts and Education Building 21 11. West Lafa)cnr. IS 47907-1366.
of two dimensions of organizational culture--of panicipatory and authoritarian
dimensions of culture. These indices then were correlated with 55 variables that were
used to produce an index of excellence in public relations. Results suggest that culture
is neither a necessary nor a sufticient condition for excellence in public relations.
Participatory culture provides a nunuring environment for excellence: excellence also
can occur in an authoritarian culture. Participatoryculture correlates strongly. however,
with several variables describing the organizational context-a symmetrical system of
internal communication. organic structure,and job satisfaction-suggesting that sym-
metrical internal communication may be the entr) point for public relations practitio-
ners to affectorganizational culture and, in turn. to begin anincrementalprocess toward
excellence in puhlic relations.
The concept of culture is not new. Ethnographers have studied the cultures of
various societies (societal culture) since the 17th century (Garbarino. 1977).
However, assessing the impact of culture on organizational processes is relatively
new (Smircich & Calas. 1987). Much of the work in this area has taken place since
the early 1980s. Scholars studying organizations have used the concept to under-
stand the behaviors of organizations that go beyond the "merely logical or eco-
nomic" (Jelinek. Smircich. & Hirsch, 1983): focusing mostly on organizational
culture. Societal culture has a profound influence on every aspect of a society
including interactions among members of an organization and between an organi-
zation and its environment (Sriramesh, 1992; Sriramesh &White. 1992). Yet. the
nexus between the societal culture and puhlic relations remains underexplored.
In this article, we follow the lead of other organizational scholars (e.g., Wilkins,
1983a) by using orsanizational culture to explain variables of primary interesr to
scholars in our field of public relations. In particular. we use corporate culture to
explain the nature of the communication system inside organizations and the
external communication that organizations have with publics outside the organiza-
tion-public relations. Whereas this study focuses on the linkage between organ-
izational culture and puhlic relations. it is important to note that societal culture can
and does influence organizational culture (Adler. 1991; Sriramesh, 1992: Sriramesh
& White. 1992). The domain of public relations will benefit greatly from future
studies that attempt to link societal culture with puhlic relations practices and the
impact that societal culture has on organizational culture.
Since the advent of the concept of organizational culture, empirical and inter-
pretive scholars have disagreed about urhether the concept can be measured
quantitatively or whether it can be interpreted only on the basis of qualitative
observation. Although we have used thequantitative method in this study. for many
areas of research we believe culture should be measured qualitatively. Sriramesh
(1992) argued that qualitati~emethods (particularly the ethnographic method) have
distinct ad~rantagesover traditional suwey research methods for certain kinds of
public relations research. For example, ethnographic methods are most suited to
ORGASIZATIOSAL CULTURE AND PLBLIC RELATIOM 231
exploring new public relations processes and phenomena, especially in countries

where empirical data on public relations practice is minimal or nonexistent. This
method is useful in regional studies. as evidenced by Serini 11994).urho explored
how public relations professionals of a Midwestern organization in the United
States defined what it meant to be a public relations "professional" and how that
definition affected their activities. DiSanza (1995) used this method to study the
contlicting messages that were given to new bank tellers and the resulting problems
the tellers experienced in assimilating to their new surroundings.
Ethnography helps us understand the semantic and cultural idiosyncracies of the
research "subjects." informnrs in ethnographic parlance. U7e argue that the quan-
titative researcher will need this critical information to design effective survey
research instruments, which are often the bases for quantitative measurement. A
research instrument that is not sensitive to the semantic and cultural uniqueness of
the research subjects is bound to gather misleading data. Therefore. the efficacy of
qualitative methods in various types of research endeavors never can be overstated.
\Te also recognize, however: that researchers must be able to measure culture
quantitatively if they are to do comparative research among a number of organiza-
tions. Qualitative and ethnographic methods often cost more than quantitatil-e
methods in time and money. In this article. then. we report our effort to isolate
dimensions of corporate culture that we believe should help researchers conduct
quantitative measurements of corporate cultures. U'e also report dataon the relation
between these quantitative indices of organizational cultures and several variables
describing the practice of public relations as a first step in exploring the relationship
between organizational culture and public relations.
We begin b: reviewing literature on organizational culture to identify the term
and its importance in understanding organizational activities. We then describe
dimensions of organizational culture that have appeared in the literature: shared
mission, collective responsibility. rewards, style of decis~onmaking, holistic con-
cern for people, long-term employment. social atmosphere. collective values, speed
of evaluation and promotion. innovation versus efficiency. extent of integration.
authoritarianism versus participation. importance of tradition, consert7atismversus
I~beralism,open versus closed system, domination versus cooperation, and consen-
sual beha~ior.
We then present evidence from a database of 4.631 employees of 321 organiza-
lions in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom that suggests that 45
indicators of these characteristics of organizational culture can be explained to a
large extent by two major dimensions of culture identified by exploratory factor
analysis-two factors we call the participative and authoritarian dimensions of
culture. Finally. we correlate these cultural differences with characteristics of
internal communication and other characteristics of organizations and of commu-
nication with external constituencies in an exploratory analysis of the impact of
corporate culture on the public relations activities of organizations.
232 SRIRAMESH. GRUSIG. DOZIER
CONCEPT O F ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
In anthropology. the field in which the concept of culture originated, culture

(societal culture) does not have asinpledefinition. .4nthropologisrs have interpreted
culture in hundreds of ways (Kroeher 6; Kluckhohn. 1963). Most anthropologists
credit Tylor (1871) with providing the first comprehensive definition of the term.
Tylor saw culture as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief. an,
morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member
of society" (p. 1). Subsequently. however. hundreds of definitions have been given.
Hofstede (1980). among the first to link societal culture with organizational
behavior. maintained that values are among the building blocks of culture. He saw
culture as a "system of values" and "the collective propmrning of the mind which
distinguishes themembers of one human group from another" fp. 25). Heconceded
that his definition was not comprehensive. hut that it covered what he was able to
measure. Thus. he provided an example of the malleable nature of the concept and
the difficulty in measuring it. Culture is penerally viewed as a construct that
describes how people reduce ambipuity and facilitate interaction in social settings.
Crucial elements of culture. latently embedded in individuals and groups. emerge
as shared meanings or synbols (Mitroff, 1983). The difficulty, however. is in
identifying and measuring cultural idiosyncracies because most individuals are
unaware of many of their own cultural traits.
When theorists connect a malleable concept such as culture, which has so man?
diverse definitions; with the equally popular but variously described concept-or-
ganization-they inevitably produce complex theories and semantic confusion
(Schein. 1985). In their attempts to define the term organizational culture, scholars
have provided an array of concepts. Deal and Kennedy (1982) saw it as the set of
dominant valuesespoused by an organization. They posited that these "core values"
determine organizational activities ranging from deciding what products get manu-
factured to how workers at various le\.els are treated. Peters and Waterman (1982)
saw corporateculture as the set of values that help"in unif!ing the social dimensions
of the organization" (p. 106). facilitating financial stability. In the course of their
intense analysis of 14 American corporations. the authors found that corporate
excellence does not result from organizational structure alone but a combination of
several factors including "shared values," an aspect of corporate culture.
Organizational culture has been referred to as the rules of the game for getting
alonp in the organization. or as the ropes that a newcomer must learn in order to
become an accepted member. Wallach (1983) referred to corporate culture as "the
shared understanding of an organization's employees-how we do things around
here" (p. 26). Schein (1984. 1985) addressed it as the synthesis of "basic assump-
tions and beliefs" that members of an organization share. He saw the beliefs shared
by employees as "learned" responses by the group to counter problems of survival
in its external environment and its problems of internal integration. These beliefs
operate unconsciously and help group members define their view of the organiza-
tion and its relationship with its environment. These perspectives highlight the
importance of employees in maintaining colporate culture.
Our study designed a separate questionnaire to measure perceptions of employees
in the sample organizations primarily because we did not want to study the culture
of the sample organizations only from the eyes of senior managers. Communication
among employees. in formal and informal settings. often indicates the type of culture
present in an organization. For example. although many large organizations have
formal orientation procedures to acclimate new employees to the organizational
norms, acculturation takes place at other informal levels. Comer (1991) studied how
new members acquire "technical" as well as "social" information during their
socialization. She found that newcomers acquired "technical" information from their
peers overtly through the "active explicit" channel. and "social" information (learn-
ing the "ropes" of the organization) using nonverbal implicit channels as well as
oven explicit channels. Cox and Kramer (1995) assessed communication between
managers and employees during employee lay-offs.
hlarshall and Stohl (1993) recognized the efficacy of a participatory manage-
ment system and emphasized the importance of developing an "inventory of
organizational knowledge" (p. 395). They argued that although employees u h o
interacted with many of their peers may garner more information (often related to
organizational politics). very often this information may not be critical in the eyes
of senior managers and consequently not beneficial to the upward mobility of the
employee. Their study identified "two communicative activities that significantly
contribute to one's level of organizational knowledge: cultivating suong relation-
ships with managers and engaging in various leadership activities over time" lp.
399).
It is important to note that members of the dominant coalition are not always in
a position to impose their values on the organization. Finet's (1993) study of the
impact of boundary spanning on organizational legitimacy is a case in point.
Defining legitimacy as the minimally fettered freedom accorded organizations;
especially those operating in static environments. Finet studied what happens when
the CEO of an organization publicly clashes with a boundary-spanning lower-level
manager. The boundary spanner had high credibility among the media and activist
groups whereas the CEO, by virtue of not having a communication link with these
critical publics, did not. This public feud between a superior and subordinate
threatened the organization's legitimacy. and the CEO was forced to offer a public
apology. Finet's study also proved that dynamic environments force organizations
into symmetrical behaviors.
Ouchi's (1981) work has guided us in selecting some of the concepts we have
included in ourtheorizing. Shiraki (1989) tested someof theseconcepts in his study
of a Japanese organization. One of the concepts. philosophj. was used by Ouchi,
as well as Pascale and Athos (1981). These scholars saw organizational culture as
the philosophy that guides an organization's policy toward employees and custom-
ers. Wilkins and Ouchi (1983) used the term clan to refer to culture and posited
that it is only under certain circumstances that corporate culture makes organiza-
tions more efficient. The authors specified key conditions that encourage the
development of "thick" social understandings unique to each organization: (a) long
organizational history and stable membership of employees in the organization, (b)
in absence of cultural alternatives to the employees within the organization, and (c)
lack of continued interaction among all members of the organization. According
to the authors, these three conditions result in the formation of clans within
organizations. A longer membership also helps facilitate the sharing of the corpo-
rate rituals, myths. and stories that Deal and Kennedy (1982) found so vital to the
existence of a "strong" organizational culture.
The preceding review of some of the scholarly works on organizational culture

helps us appreciate the diversity of the concept. We feel it is necessary to unif) the
concept and arrive at comprehensive measures to identify it in organizations. Why
is it important to study corporate culture? The next section attempts to answer this
critical question.
HOW IMPORTANT IS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE?
Achieving organizational effectiveness is the ultimate aim of most managers.

Therefore, organizational theorists have proposed many methods to help managers
fulfill this objective. Scientific management, stakeholder management (Freeman,
1984). organizational structure (Mintzberg, 1979; Robbins. 1983, 1987). and
corporate strategy are some of the perspectives that scholars have suggested to
improve organizational effectiveness. Although at various times these propositions
looked sound, managers soon found them to be inadequate and looked beyond these
perspectives for their success. LikeTichy (1982). we feel that organizational culture
may have a profoundly intricate and pervasive influence on organizational effec-
tiveness. According to Smircich (1983a). understanding and managing corporate
culture may be key to managing an effective organization. Yet. as we have noted,
corporate culture is also an elusive concept. We, therefore, feel a strong need to
identify ways by which we can qualitatively and quantitatively assess the impact
of this elusive phenomenon on organizations.
Schein (1985) listed three reasons for studying culture in organizations. First.
organizational culture is highly "visible" and "feelable." It is real and has an impact
on a society, occupation, or organization. Second. by understanding corporate
culture one can evaluate organizational performance and gain knowledge of how
people behave and perceive the organization. Finally, the concept facilitates the
formulation of a "common frame of reference" for employees. Schein (1985)
contended that the term corporate culture "should bc reserved for the deeper 1eb.el
0RGASIZ.ATION.AL CULTURE AND PUBLIC RELATIONS 235
of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization.

that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic 'taken-for-granted' fashion
an organization's view of itself and its environment" (p. 6).
Stating that organizational leaders committed to participative management styles
are moving beyond the traditional mindset of focusing only on valuing employee
input and supporting a team approach; Glaser (1994) identified anemployee's ability
to work cooperatively in teams as an important ingredient of a participative organi-
zation. Her case study, a "communication-focused team-building intervention."
charted the improvement in team spirit among members of the sample organization
over a 3-year period. Interview at the end of the study revealed that the employees
themselves noticed a marked improvement in the dynamics of the organization. The
organization. afflicted with dissention and mistrust at the beginning of the study, was
transformed into one characterized by mutual respect among members, more open
to managing conflict and committed to team work and innovation three years later.
As social entities; organizations are held together by what Tichy (1982) called a
"normative glue" typified by the sharing of certain important behefs by organiza-
tional members. Consequently. organizations must analyze and determine what
norms and values members should share and, more critically; which groups within
the organizational system should share which values.
Koprowski (1983) viewed the "myths" of culture as clues to effective manage-
ment. He saw a need to evaluate corporate culture because of what he called the
three contemporary management challenges: (a) the changing role of women in the
work force, (b) the attribution of Japanese success to their management philosophy,
and (c) the manager's role as a cultural hero (i.e. the pivotal role that managers play
in establishing corporate culture because of their leadership posit~onsin organiza-
tional settings).
In hisanalysis of why culture has somuch influenceon organizational life; Sathe
(1983) asserted that culture is an asset that begets efficiency when shared beliefs
facilitate and economize communication and shared values induce higher levels of
participation and dedication among organizational members. The author stated that
culture becomes a liability, however. when beliefs held by employees are not
consonant with the needs of the organization. its members, and its constituencies.
Holladay and Coombs (1993). in their experimental study, investigated the role
that delivery of a message plays in the recipients' determination of a leader's
charisma, especially as it pertains to communicating an organization's vision to
employees. They found that differences in message delivery resulted in differences
in perceptions among message recipients of the leader's credibility and charisma.
DiSanza's (1995) ethnographic study revealed the problemsencountered by organi-
zations with weak corporate cultures. New tellers in the sample regional bank
received conflicting information on work procedures. Then assimilation to the new
environment was "conducted in a context of systematic contradictions" (p. 21 I).
Exasperated new tellers reported that their organization frequently tlouted rules that
they had been taught in training programs. They also received conflicting instruc-
tions at different points in time over the same issue. DiSanza noted that especially
in dynamic environments, where organizations compete for customer patronage,
such practices (an indication of a weak corporate culture) could adverselv affect
employee job satisfaction. morale. and retention.
Once theorists recognized the strong effect of culture on organizational proc-
esses-including communication-they quickly began to ask whether organiza-
tional culture can be "managed." The word manage refers to changing the corporate
culture of an organization or among a section of its employees usually at the
mandate of the dominant coalition. It is not uncommon for external consultants to
be contracted to help in making this change (e.g. KAIZEN consultants who
advocate "continuous improvement").
Martin. Sitkin; and Boehm (1 985) identified two schools of thought on the issue
of managing culture. Cultural pragmatists argue thar corporate culture can be
"managed" or changed. They view culture as a key to organizational efficiency and
profitability and argue that it can be managed to suit organizational goals set by
senior executives.
Scholars belonging to the second school of thought. or purists. contend that
culture is innate and therefore cannot be managed. Purists argue that an organiza-
tion's culture develops. not with the conscious effort of a CEO or the dominant
coalition. but rather from unconscious evolution among a majority of members in
an organization. Purists contend that the goals of the CEO or the dominant coalition
often are incongruent with those of lower level employees. Martin, et. al. (1985)
noted thar for many purists, the debate on this issue extends beyond whether it is
possible to manage culture. These scholar5 also question the ethics of the activity,
"particularl) if it were being managed in the name of increased productivity or the
almighty dollar" (p. 97).
The scholarly literature on the subject covers the spectrum identified by hlartin
et al. (1985). We feel that researchers such as Deal and Kennedy (1982). Lundberg
(1985). Ouchi (1981). Peters and Waterman (1982). and Tichy (1982) are cultural
pragmatists arguing that corporate culture can be managed (changed). We also have
found purists in the literature. such as Gregory (1983). and Martin. Sitkin. and
Boehm who do not believe that organizational culture can be changed. Putnam
(1983) advocated an interpretivist ideology that recognizes the complexity of
concepts such as culture because they are subjective, socially constructed meanings
emanating from human interactions.
Berg (1985. pp. 297-298) also propounded the purist view by opposing the use
of the term culture as "'just another variable in the organization equation" because
of the symbolic nature of organizational processes. Berg strongly ad\.ocated against
pigeonholing elements of an organization's environment but rather saw them as
situational "contexts" in which the organization chooses to exist. He argued [hat
"by treating the environment as a context. it becomes a matter of definition-a
ORGINIZ-ZTIOSAL CULTURE AND PllBLIC RELATIONS 237
symbolic reality-rather than being something unambiguously given beforehand"

(p. 294). Berg. however, did not rule out the possibility that culture could be
managed. He took the position that even if one concedes that it is possible to
strategically develop an organization's culture. it is difficult to be definitive on this
issue because of the paucity of clear theoretical conceptions of this concept and the
lack of empirical evidence. \Ye agree with Berg on the need to find evidence on
this subject. It is hoped that studies like this one will help fill that lacuna.
Others scholars have offered variables that determine the efficacy of an organi-
zation's efforts at managing culture. Fairhurst (I9933 identified five framing
devices that, she argued. affected the implementation of a new vision (based on
Deming's Total Quality philosophy) in the organization she studied. "Meaning is
assigned through framing and reframing," she noted. "and because frames directlv
impact behavior, this produces behavior that is consistent with the vision" (p. 3621.
The author concluded that although the new vision may be proposed by the CEO
or members of the dominant coalition, it is the employees at lower levels (the "foot
soldiers") who largely influence whether the organization adopts the new vision
because they are the purveyors of the vision.
Ouchi (1983 ) represents the pragmatist school arguing that organizational
culture can be managed strategically. In his comprehensive study of American
corporations, he found that the typical American organization (Type A organiza-
tions) has an "authoritarian" culture characterized by decision making at the top.
When he analyzed similar companies in Japan (Type J organizations), he found
consensual decision making among organizational members. He prescribed demo-
cratic decision making as a primar). key to orpanizational success. He developed a
strategic formula for turning Type A organizations into "Type Z" (American
corporations with Type J characteristicsI.
Siehl (1985) analyzed the change in an organization's culture during a change
in organizational leadership. especially when there is a shift in values between the
incoming and outgoing leaders. Her study did not identify. definitively. whether
culture could be managed. It did suggest. however, that during this transition the
expression of cultural values possibly could be managed (p. 139). She suggested
that once the desired value system was identified and articulated. the entire
workforce (not just the managers) may have to strive to change or manage the
organization's culture.
Deal and Kenned? ( 1 982. pp. 159 ff) argued that even organizat~onswith strong
cultures may sometimes find themselves in "poor alignment" with a dynamic
environment The authors listed fi\.e situations in which managers should consider
managing lor changing) corporate culture. If one organization does not respond to
the demands of the changing environment. a responsive sompetinp o~ganization
will drau business away from the first organization.
Further, as many purists remind us. it is important to note that an organization
may nor have a single culture at a given time. It is not uncommon for organizations
to have one dominant culture (often the one espoused by the dominant coalition).
and one or more subcultures or even countercultures embraced by factions within
the organization (Martin & Siehl, 1983). Wilkins (1983b) extended the notion of
subcultures by suggesting that an organization's culture hemmes most apparent
when one or more of its subcultures collide:
The conflict between cultures provides a clear picture of the dominant subculture (A)
because subculture B adherents are much more aware of differences than are those
of subculture A. As a minority group. they feel as if they are son of mutual protection
society that must assert its differences with the majority clearly and defend in
members from being overwhelmed .. .. Thus one group's descriptions of the other
and their conflicts can produce rich information about the culture and its subcultures.
(P.35)
Therefore, as the purists and pragmatists remind us, it is vital for those who attempt
to measure organizational cultures to be aware of the possible presence of subcul-
tures and countercultures so that they can identify exactly which segment of the
organizational culture they are tapping into.
We acknowledge that the purists make persuasive arguments regarding the
relation between culture and organizations. We are in agreement with the purists
that culture is malleable and often unobtrusive to the native and therefore Yery
difficult to measure. Further, a single effort to measure an organization's culture
will only provide us with a "snapshot" of the culture prevailing at the time of the
study. We hope that this study, predicated on our belief that culture can be measured
and managed, is the harbinger of many more attempts that will provide definitive
answers to some of these concerns.
CORPORATE CULTURE, COMMUNICATION, AND

PUBLIC RELATIONS
We find corporate culture to he an important variable that may help explain the
communication and public relations activities of organizations. If an organization's
culture cannot he changed or "managed," we can do little more than to use the
concept to explain why organizations have the type of communication systems they
have. On the other hand, if culture can be changed, then it is possible to change its
communication system in order to make the organization more effective. The
relation between culture and communication is also areciprocal one. Not only does
culture define the nature of communication in an organization, but communication
is one of the ways by which organizations develop and maintain their cultures. We
reason, therefore, that changing the communication systems of an organization may
he one of the ways of changing the culture of an organization. We are. in essence,
reasoning that culture and communication have a symbiotic relation and changing
one wdl facilitate a modification of the other.
Many scholars have taken a communication perspecti\.e to organizational
culture (Barley, 1983; Bormann, 1985; Broms & Gahmberg, 1983; Edelstcin, 1983;
Glaser. 1994;Marshall &Stohl. 1993;Pacanowsky &Trujillo. 1983;Schall. 1983).
Pacanowsky and Tmjillo (1983) viewed organizational communication as acultural
performance. They viewed organizations as theaters in which the same members
perform \,arious roles based on the situation. their status, and responsibilities. They
observed that although the notion of organizations as theaters implied a paning of
ways from the established practice of viewing them as machines or organisms, it
also suggested that organizational communication is "situationally relative and
variable" (p. 130). They further contended that organizational performances were
dialogues staged by multiple actors and organizational communication was a
cultural performance that lead to rituals, sociality, politics, and passion.
Bormann (1985) took a similar view defining communication as "the human
social processes by which people create, raise, and sustain group consciousness"
(p. 100). He saw public consciousness as a significant constituent in the culture of
a group or organization. He added that in the communicative framework, culture
is "the sum total ways of living. organizing, and communing built up in a group of
human beings and transmitted to newcomers by means of verbal and nonverbal
communication" (p. 100). Bormann saw communication as an inevitable cause of
the development of organizational culture, reasoning that components like stories,
rites, rituals, artifacts, and technology are vital for the development of organiza-
tional culture. Schall(1983) took a similar view positing that cultures are "created,
sustained, transmitted and changed through social interaction-through modeling
and imitation, instruction, correction, negotiation, storytelling. gossip, remedia-
tion, confrontation, and observation" (p. 560).
In our view, the linkage between corporate culture and communication is
important for public relations scholars. We see public relations as communication
activity. Like other forms of communication, public relations is both a product of
culture and also an agent of culture. We define public relations as the management
of communication between an organization and its internal and external publics
(1. Grunig & Hunt. 1984). Thus: public relations consists of the portion of
organizational communication that is managed by professional communicators.
Since 1976, J. Grunig has developed what he called the four "models" of public
relations that typify the public relations strategies and activities of organizations.
He has reasoned that under certain conditions, organizations practice a symmet-
rical rather than an asymmetrical model of public relations-a model that strilres
to resolve conflict between an organization and its publics and to benefit organi-
zation and publics equally rather than to persuade publics to do what the organiza-
tion wants them to do.
The model of public relations practiced by an organization is chosen by the
power holders-the "dominant coalition" of an organization that makes policy
decisions. The model chosen by the dominant coalition, a choice that is influenced
by the organization's schema for public relations (its conceptual understanding of
public relations), is based to a large extent on the potential of the public relations
department to practice different models and the culture of the organization (J.
Grunig. 1992a). Corporate culture thus influences public relations by providing a
broad base of world\,ieu,. meaning, and values affecting all decisions in the
organization-including the choice of a model of public relations and the deuelop-
ment of a schema that defines public relations and its purpose.
Public relations practitioners have the greatest impact on decisions made about
public relations when one or more of them are included in the organization's
dominant coalition. If a public relations practitioner is not part of the dominant

coalition, which is frequently the case, public relations practitioners function more
in the implementation of decisions about public relations than in their formulation.
Corporate culture also has indirect effects on public relations. Corporate culture is
affected by the power holders in the dominant coalition, and it affects which key
managers gain enough power to be in the dominant coalition.
Finally. public relations can affect corporate culture in addition to corporate
culture affecting public relations. In particular. internal communication affects
organizational culture and, in turn. is affected by it. Externally, both public relations
practitioners and power holders must know the prevailing societal culture or
cultures in the organization's environment so that they can make appropriate
strategic choices of constituencies as well as communication strategies for interact-
ing with these key constituencies. Such an understanding also will help public
relations practitioners improve their capabilities for communicating successfully
across cultural boundaries.
AUTHORITARIAN AND PARTICIPATIVE

DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE
As Sriramesh (1992) has argued, the culture external to an organization (societal

culture) can, and often does, impose a worldview upon the organization. A national,
regional. or local culture (societal cuture) can affect an organization directly
because employees are acculturated outside the organization as well as inside
(Adler. 199 1: Sriramesh & White. 1992). External culture also affects the environ-
mental interdependencies of an organization. Organizational culture need not be
consonant usith a society's culture but it cannot help but be affected by it.
OKGANIZATIOSAL CULTURE AND PUBLIC RELATIOSS 241
I. Grunig (1989) has theorized that worldviews about public relations range on
acontinuum from asymmetrical to symmetrical and that these worldviews of public
relations covary with broader presuppositions that we now see to be essentially
cultural presuppositions. Likewise, J. Grunig's (1992b) review of literature on
organizational communication suggests that research on organizations has been
filled with theories of centralized versus decentralized structures and authoritarian
and segmented versus integrated and participatory management styles and organ-
izational climates. Sriramesh and White's (19921 review of literature on societal
culture suggests that a major dimension of external culture consists of a continuum
from an open, pluralistic. or democratic system to a closed, authoritarian, or
autocratic one. Sriramesh. I. Grunig, and Buffington's (1992) review of organiza-
tional culture suggests that essentially the same continuum describes a major
dimension of culture internal to organizations as well. Several theorists have

constructed typologies of organizational cultures that approximate the continuum
from participatory to authoritarian (e.g., Ernest. 1985: Gordon, 1990: Kanter, 1983:
Schein, 1985: Wallach. 1983).
When we take a broad view both of public relations and culture, we cannot
escape the conclusion that presuppositions about public relations are embedded in
broader presuppositions of both organizational culture and societal culture. Thus,
a public relations manager or external counselor would have an extremely difficult
job implementing a normative theory of how public relations should be practiced
in order to contribute most to the effectiveness of an organization when the way
public relations is practiced is shaped and constrained by both organizational and
societal culture.
This conclusion, then. relates to the literature on the management of cultural
change. If one takes the purist view that organizations are cultures that are the
product of everyone in the organization over a long period of time. one would have
to conclude that changing a culture and its presuppositions about public relations
will be extremely difficult. if not impossible. Although we reject the absolutism of
this view, we acknowledge that it articulates the difficulty of changing the way an
organization practices public relations.
The pragmatic vie=,, in contrast, identified the strategic opportunities that open
a window for changes in cultureand in presuppositions about public relations: when
a founder passes from the scene: when an organization's culture is misaligned with
its environment: when the environment changes; when the organization performs
poorly: or when the organization expands, grows rapidly. or is divested. Therefore,
the public relations manager who wants to gain power in the organization or who
is waiting for a strategic opportunity to suggest a new. more effective model of
public relations. should be aware of these windows of opportunity to make a
political move in the organization or suggest changes in public relations policy.
Thus, public relations managers will most likely change the model of public
relations practiced in an organization when organizational culture changes.
MEASUREMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Not all researchers who have studied organizational culture believe that it can be
measured quantitatively. Ethnographers and interpretive scholars of organizational
communication generally advocate observing culture with qualitative or ethno-
graphic methods, such as participant observation; analysis of myths, stories; texts,
and anifacts; structured interviews; or immersion in the culture (e.g., Agar, 1980;
Spradley, 1979, 1980; Mishler, 1986). Sriramesh (1992) used ethnographic meth-
ads to analyze the public relations activities of Indian organizations. On the other
hand, organizational psychologists and sociologists generally have used the pre-
dominant method of those fields, quantitative measurement, to observe and measure
organizational cultures (e.g., Robbins, 1990; Schwartz & Davis. 1981).
We believe both ofthese methods are useful in analyzing organizational cultures.
Qualitatixre and ethnographic methods work best in case studies and in a deep
analysis of a small number of organizations. Qualitative methods provide the
greatest depth of understanding of individual cultures and a better understanding
of the origins of those cultures. Qualitative methods also are most useful when little
or no data exist on a phenomenon. Public relations is a young domain and little
scientific information currently exists about its practice in most countries. Such
information is best elicited by using ethnographic methods (see Sriramesh, 1992,
for a review of the qualitative vs. quantitative debate).
On the other hand. quantitative methods work best in cross-sectional analyses
of a large number of organications. It urill be expensive and time consuming to do
an ethnographic analysis, for example, of arelatively large sample of organizations
(in different countries) as a means of relating organizational culture to other
characteristics of organizations. Like other social and behavioral scientists, we have
developed indices of culture by isolating variables in the literature that describe the
cultures of organizations and then by developing items for questionnaires to be
completed by members of organizations.
To analyze the relation between corporate culture and the communication and
public relations activities of organizations, we used factor analysis to reduce the
large number of items we developed to two dominant factors-factors that seem to
correspond to the concepts of authoritarian and participative cultures. We then
correlated factor scores from these cultural dimensions with the communication
StNCtUres and activities of those organizations. With such a procedure, each
employee provides a "snapshot" of the culture of an organization, and the aggre-
gated responses of these employees provide a more comprehensive "picture" of
that organization's culture.
This article reports the results of research to identify quantitative dimensions of
organizational culture as part of the multi-year study on Excellence in Public
Relations and Communication Management sponsored by the IABC Research
Foundation (1. Gmnig. 1992a). We theorized that employees would be the best
sources of information that would lead to an understanding of organizational
culture. Therefore, we measured culture in a questionnaire administered to 4.631
employees in 321 organizations in the United States, Canada. and the United
Kingdom. These organizations included corporations, government agencies, asso-
ciations, and not-for-profit organizations. The sample also included both large and
small organizations.
In constructing our questionnaire, we drew concepts from many sources. Several
of these characteristics came from questions developed by Ouchi (1981) and tested
first by Shiraki (1989) in a study of aJapanese company in the United States. These
characteristics compare what Ouchi called Theory J (Japanese style) with Theory
A (US. style) organizations:
Collective versus individual responsibility.

Collective versus individual decision making.
Collective versus individual values.
Holistic concern versus lack of such concern for people.
Long-term versus short-term employment.
Slow versus fast evaluation and promotion.
Nonspecialized versus specialized career paths.
We gleaned other characteristics from the literature on organizational culture as

foll0u.s:
Shared Mission (Mitroff, 1983: Ouchi, 1981: Schein, 1985; Smircich, 1983b;
Tichy. 1982).
Rewards for performance rather than personal connections (Schein, 1985).
Social atmosphere among employees and managers off the job (Schein, 1985:
Ouchi 1981).
Integration versus individualism (Kanter. 1983; Schein. 1985: Wallach. 1983).
Emphasis on time as a measure of objective culture (Schein, 1985).
Decision making by tradition. rational process, open debate. trial and error,
scientific research, or authority (Schein. 1985).
Consensual processes (Ouchi, 1981; Pascale & Athos. 1981).
Finally, we took several characteristics from previous research on the relations

between organizational ideology and presuppositions and models of public rela-
tions (1. G ~ n i g 1989:
, J. Grunig & L. Grunig. 1989). Based on these studies, we
wrote several questions to measure authoritarian and participative cultures directly.
These variables are:
1. Importance of innovation, tradition, and efficiency as organizational values.

2. Participative versus authoritarian management style.
3. Liberal versus conservative values.
4. Cooperation versus domination in relationships with publics.
5 . System open versus closed to its environment.
We expected the characteristics on the left to characterize panicipative cultures and

those on the right to characterize authoritarian cultures. although a few of these
variables are not specified as opposites. We would also like to caution that the
presence of competing concepts may not be discreet. That is. authoritarian organi-
zations may have elements of participative concepts and vice versa. Further. we
reasoned that innowtion was a characteristic of a participatory organization and
adheres to the tradition of an authoritarian corporate culture. However, there is
evidence to suggest that this may not always be the case. Sriramesh (1992) found
that a strong participatory corporate culture may sometimes require modifications
of traditional activities rather than innovation of new ones. Under these circum-
stances. following tradition may be more efficient and useful to the holistic nature
of an organization than innovation.
In addition, it is possible that items developed to measure these cultural concepts
might factor into more than two dimensions in an exploratory factor analysis. To
test whether these concepts of organizational culture can be integrated into dimen-
sions of organizational cultures, therefore. we developed 18 items that were
administered to employees in the 321 organizations included in the Excellence
study. We then used exploratory factor analysis to determine if the items could be
placed on two factors that could be described as pmicipatoy and authoritarian or
whether additional factors are necessary.
The first research question (RQ) posed, therefore, was:
RQI: Can the characteristics of culture identified in the literature on orgmira-

tional culture be factor analyzed into dimensions that can be described as
participatory and authoritarian or are additional dimensions necessaql
We then were able to explore therelation between organizational cultureand public

relations by including the indices of culture in a set of variables that the Excellence
research team theorized would describe excellent public relations programs. These
variables were measured in questionnaires administered to the senior public rela-
tions person. the CEO or other person in the dominant coalition, and 10 to 25
employees in each organization (1.Grunig et a].. 1991j. The variables included the
models of public relations and the nature of internal communication. as described
abo\.e, and several variables related to the managerial role of public relations. the
involvement of public relations in strategic management. and the suppon and value
accorded to public relations by the dominant coalition.
Our second RQ was:
RQ2: Is there a relationship between indices of participatory and authoritarian

organizational culture and the public relations and communication ac-
tivities of the organization?
For RQ 2; however. we present only preliminary. exploratoly results from the

Excellence study. A more complex exploration of the relation between culture and
public relations will require additional analyses of the large body of data gathered
in the study and more space than is available here. These more complex analyses
will be presented in L. Gmnig. J. Gmnig, and Dozier (in press). The major purpose
of this article, therefore. is to present evidence related to dimensions of organiza-
tional culture along with an exploratory analysis of the extent to which these
dimensions correlate with several public relations variables.
METHODS
In 1985. James Grunig and Larissa Gmnig of the University of Maryland; David
Dozier. San Diego StateUniversity: Jon White. City Uni\rersity ofLondon;William
Ehling. Syracuse University: and Fred Repper, Gulf States Utilities of Texas. began
an extensive study of the public relations profession funded through a $400,000
grant from the IABC Research Foundation. K. Sriramesh. while a doctoral student
at the University of Maryland. was one of four graduate assistants to work on the
project. Sriramesh was responsible primarily fordeveloping thecultural component
of the study.
In its totality. the Excellence study sought answers to two fundamental RQs:
1. How. why. and to what extent does public relations make an organization
more effective and how much is that contribution wonh in a monetary
sense?
2. What characteristics of the pubhc relations function in an organization
increase the contribution that communication management makes to organ-
izational effectiveness'?
The research team began the project with a thorough review of literature that would
shed light on the first question, effectiveness. as well as literature on each of 1 1
characteristics of what the team called excellenr public relations departments and
of the organizational context in which these departments were found. Partic~pative
culture was one of the variables making up the organizational context. The results
of the literature review and conceptualization were published in Excellence in
Public Relations and Communication Management (1. Grunig, 1992~).
The team concluded that public relations increases organizational effectiveness
when it builds long-term relationships of trust and understanding with strategic
publics of the organization-those that affect or are affected by the organization as
it identifies and pursues its mission. The research team then operationalired the I4
characteristics of excellence as well as three effects of communication excellence
on relationships: (a) meeting communication objectives: (b) reducing the costs of
litigation. regulation, and activist pressure: and (c) employee job satisfaction-in
the form of three questionnaires. The questionnaires, which contained about 1,700
items (before they were combined into indices), were administered to the senior
public relations manager. to one of the senior executives of the organization (the
CEO when possible). and to an average of 14 employees in each organization. All
three questionnaires were completed by 270 organizations, although a total 321
organizations participated in the survey by completing at least one of the three
questionnaires. Two hundred twenty-six of these organizations were in the United
States, 58 were in Canada, and 37 were in the United Kingdom. The organizations
also represented corporations (148). government agencies (71). not-for-profit or-
ganizations (58). and trade or professional associations (44).
In the initial analysis of the data set produced by the three questionnaires
administered in 321 organizations, 1. Grunig et al. (1991) developed 55 indices of
variables identified in the conceptual analysis (J. Grunig, 1992a) as characteristics
of excellent public relations departments. The indices for employee variables were
developed from data on individual employees, but these scores were aggregated
into a single average score for all employees in each organization. Thus, it was
possible to correlate scores based on several employee questionnaires for culture
and related variables with the scores on scales based on the single responses of
heads of public relations and members of the dominant coalition.
Exploratory factor analysis reduced these 55 indices to factors that described
excellent and mediocre public relations. A third factor identified internal
characteristics of organizations with excellent public relations departments.
including internal communication. structure. job satisfaction. conditions for
female employees, and culture. Culture and the conditions for women, howe\-er,
loaded on both the factors-identifying excellent public relations and organiza-
tional conditions.
To develop an index of excellent public relations, then. the variables loading
highest on the Excellence factor were factor analyzed separately by specifying that
the computer generate only one factor. This single factor produced an excellence
factor or index of excellent public relations. The single factor also was submitted
to an analysis of reliability. The index of excellent public relations was highly
reliable. The total Cronbach's alpha was .84. No trariable increased Cronbach's
alpha more than .O1 if deleted. and the item-total correlations ranged from .33 to
.60, with the exception of participative organizational culture, which had the lowest
item-total correlation at .14; and the treatment of women, which had an item-total
correlation of .28.
The purpose of this article is not to report all of these data bur rather to isolate
the relation of dimensions of organizational culture to other variables related to
excellence in public relations. A complete explanation of these results and the
measures that went into them are available in an Inirinl Data Analysis (1. Gmnig et
al., 1991) and in Dozier, L. Gmnig, and J. Gmnig (1995). In addition, a third and
final book in this excellence series (L. Gmnig, 1. Gmnig; & Dozier, in press) will
provide complete results of the study.
The variables on the Excellence factor fit into six categories: public relations
roles (for a review, see Dozier, 1992). models of public relations (J. Gmnig &
White. 1992; 1.Gmnig & L. Grunig, 1992). the role of public relations in strategic
management (J. G ~ n i & g Repper, 1992). the value placed on public relations by
the dominant coalition (Ehling. 1992; L. Grunig, J. Gmnig, & Ehling. 1992),
conditions for women in the organization (Hon, L. Grunig, & Dozier, 1992). and
organizational culture (Sriramesh, J. Grunig, & Buffington, 1992). Specifically, the
excellence factor contained the following variables:
I . From the CEO questionnaire: involvement of public relations in strategic

planning, support for public relations by the dominant coalition. the value assigned
to the public relations function. the perceived importance of communicating with
external groups, preference of the dominant coalition for both the two-way sym-
metrical and two-way asymmetrical models. and preference that the senior public
relations person perform a managerial or senior advisor role.
2. From the public relations head's questionnaire: involvement of public rela-
tions in strategic planning, perceived support of the dominant coalition for public
relations, estimate of the value the dominant coalition would assign to public
relations, estimate of the preference of the dominant coalition for both the two-way
symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models, performance of the managerial
and senior advisor role by the senior communicator. knowledge needed to perform
the two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models in the public relations
department. knowledge to perform the managerial role in the public relations
department, and the conditions for women in the organization.
3. From the employee questionnaire: Participative organizational culture. (Em-
ployees also responded to the same questions about the conditions for women as
did the heads of public relations and CEOs. However, the estimates produced by
public relations heads had the highest loading on the excellence factor.)
The complete set of questionnaires used in the Excellence study are available
from the second author. Readers interested in the exact items used to measure
organizational culture will find them in Table I. The items used to measure other
concepts reported in this article as well as reliability coefficients (Cronbach's a)
are included in the upcoming footnotes.
RESULTS
The first RQ asked whether the two cultural dimensions, participatory and authori-
tarian, can integrate the characteristics of organizational culture described in the
literature parsimoniously or whether additional dimensions are necessary. An
exploratory factor analysis (principal components axis, varimax rotation) of the 48
items describing organizational culture initially produced 10 factors with an eigen-

value greater than 1.O. However, the eigenvalue of the first and second factors was
9.87 and 6.65, respectively. The eigenvalues of subsequent factors were 1.99, 1.57,
1.52, 1.38, 1.30. 1.22, 1.10. and 1.07. The first factor accounted for 21% of the
variance and the second for 14%. The third factor accounted for 4%. of the variance.
the next five for 3% of the variance each, and the last two for 2% each.
Based on the small eigenvalues and low percentage of variance explained by
factors extracted after the first two, we concluded that the variance produced in the
correlational mabix of 1 8 cultural items could be explained well by the two
dominant factors. Therefore, we conducted a final factor analysis specifying two
factors, as shown in Table I. The first factor can be described as a Participative
factor and the second as an Authoritarian factor. All hut five of the 48 variables
included in the analysis loaded clearly on one of the factors. If more than two factors
are rotated, these items could become additional factors. but we did notjudge them
to be strong enough factors to merit calling them additional dimensions of culture.
Although we cannot say that the two dimensions we identified through factor
analysis are the only two dimensions of organizational culture, we can conclude
that they are two dominant dimensions-at least when the items we generated to
measure organizational culture are used as indicators.
The variables on the two factors in Table 1 load logically. Organizations with
participative cultures emphasize collective responsibility, decision making and
values; whereas organizations with authoritarian cultures emphasize individual
values and responsibility. Managers in a participative culture have a holistic
concern for people. Managers in authoritarian organizations have little concern for
the lives of employees outside the organization. Employees in participativecultures
generally are employed for long terms. In authoritarian cultures, employees move
frequently from organization to organization.
Employees in participative cultures share a mission whereas those in authoritar-
ian cultures separate their personal goals from organizational goals. In participative
cultures, employees advance on the basis of performance. In authoritarian cultures.
TABLE 1
Factor Analysis of 45 Indicators of Organizational Culture
p>cror
C d l c i t i ~ vs.
s individual rc\ponsibilir)
Each project in this urqaniraliun. crcn if it is a
complicatrd nnc rsquirinq a team effort. usuall! is
dividsd into tasks and subtarks. Each employee is
assignsd s u b t a k s and is solely responsible for the
result-. of his or her work.
hfost proicas are don* hsrs through teamvork.
Each individual is expected to cuntributc to the itam
cffort. but the ream as a whole is ultimately held
accountable and rewarded or puoishsd for its elfort>.
Cullscrirc vr. individual decision m a k i p

hlost dccirionr in thir orqanizauon are madc b!
individuals largely workmg a l o n s ~
hlosr dccisionr in this arpanizatian arc mads after
therough discurnion bsrwcen all proplr who will be
affected in a major \%a?.
Collcctic? >s.individual valucs
hfost smplo!sss in thir oryaniration sharc a
common smrc of mission that most think is north
htrixinp to achieve.
Must dcparrmenri in rhis orgamration do not sharc a
c e m m m mission: each has different prioriries that
conflict with rhc priarnirr r ~ otherf departmcnrs.
Halisric concern vr. lack of such concern for people
This or~anizarionis a place whcre people rend ro
SCparaIe thcir work life from rhcir home and s o c d
liic. Most superiors feel that it is not their
rcaponsibilit? nor thcir r i ~ h to t knou \sry much
about the permnal prohlmF of thsir subordinates.
People rake interest in each other in rhir organization.
It is common to find s u p c n w r s who fcel that it is
part of their job to k n m about personal problem5
that ma! he bothering thsir rubordinatss~
Long-term vs. short-term cmplo?msnt
People in this organization move frsquentl! to other
crnplnyers. includin~thors who are ruccessful as acII
as thore who arc not.
Thc t! pcal career in rhis oremiration is lonq~rerm:
thc orqanizarion rarsl? ha%t a y f f s and lermina~iuns.
S l w r 5 fast evaluation and promotion
Psrformancs k lmporranr in thir o r ~ a n u a t i o nb. u ~
pramotionr are madc only after careful sraluation
of an individual over a Ihne period of time.
People are evaluated often in t h ~ sorganirarion
rhrouqh hard measures such as sales. profirabiht!. or
pmduction. For rhow who receive favorable
cralualionr. promotion can he raprd.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Concepr ond Querriotr C~omtmtmdin
Nonrpccializsd rr, specialized career paths

hlosr pcoplc in this organization arc ~peiialistrwho
arc known outside the organization ar sxprrts in
engineering. markctins. aicounring. or a similar ficld.
hlorr people do not specialize in this organization.
The) roratc among areas such as marketing.
operation5 sales. moinccrins. personnel. i%rcimilar
function>.
Shared mla\ion
This organization has clcarly defined goals.
If I w;r< one of thc four or f i most ~ powerful
~
raecurses of rhis organ~ration.l uould manass the

organization in ths same nay as the sx?cutivcs noa
in p o w r arc managing it.
TICgoals of chi, organication are different f r i m m?
pcrronal goals.
R w a r d r for csrformanis rather than ~ s r s o n acl o n n s i t i ~ n s
Advnnccmsnt in this orsanization is based more on
.
who rou know than on how wsll w. u oerlorm.
Social atmosphcrs amon2 smployecs and manaserr off
the job
Peoplc who work here m?ct frsqucntl! off rhc job
Senior manaecrs of this organization frequently
sacialirc with othcr cmplo:ccs off rhc job.
Intcsration r.. individualism
The dqxartm<nlr in this nrganintion sscm to work
t o p l h e r likc a nsll-oiled machine.
Piearl! r.\eryonc feel\ lik; hu or ihs is part ot a rcam
in thi- oroanizatmn.
Scnwr m a n q e r s in this organimrion cars dseply
about other smploycci.
Emphasis on time
Being r m t m ; is exTrcmsl? important in this
organizanon.
Dc%non makin. by tradition. rational precess. open
detrav. trial and srmr. scientific research. or authority
Dsawn! usually arc based on tradition hcrc-
~ h uay
c things alwayr have bccn done.
Bcfor; Jciisions can be made hers. committse~
u\ually arc rct up to study the Lrruc~
hlapr deciiiuns mually are ba,;d on npsn debars
in rhis orsan~ration.
L-rually. x c make dcmlons h> trial and error. \Vc tr?
lhlngs and see it they w o k
L,~smnshcrc usuall! are b a e d on wisntilic rercarch~
D--' '
De;i\luns usuall! are based on authority h a -

the x a y the ('EO and rh* pcuple close to him or her
\\am 1hln.r done.
TABLE 1 (Conftnued)
Ccnren,ual yroscsci
E\CTYOIIC IS weatell as a n cqu.~lin llm <!rp_an17.1ticn.
E \ < r ~ o n cworh logsrhsr hcri 11, m a l c IIX
<vqanilarim cft~.cli\e.
I m p ~ l d n nt i ~innovarwn. trallllion. dnd ctfisisnc!
as o r g a n t ~ a ~ i n n\alucs
al
'I&; isr+nilation ii rrpcn tv nem idea, from o u l ~ ~ l l - .
I h i urgmlation I h k i 10 thr. luturc rarhcr rhan
re rhc pa.,.
Innwarion prohabl? i\ rhc ~ n m rimporr:lnr y a i
of lhir organiril:iwl.
LiI~cimr! probahl! I. [hi. mo>l i m p r t a n t seal
I" tlm organization.
Authorilarmn \ \ . participaliw rnanapcmcnl \1!1<
Senior managcmen, ~n chis o r g m i n r m n irclr;\i.\
lh31 il mu51 h a t e nearl! tor.8l ~ o n l n l o\cr
l
rhc b c h a ior c i d w r J i n i ! r ~ . i .
\lanagcr> In t h i ~crzanu;m%nv c m ~CIIS\C

that ernplo!<rs lark inltiatnc .m3 muit con\tnnrl!
br. +<n inrtruclwns
Sznior adminiirrarur. In this crp_anilar~mh d w ;
thar r h q k n m bssl becauw rhc! hdve mori
knnulcd$c than l w \ c r l r . \ 4 cmplo!;c\.
S<nmr m a n a p s h<re hclti.\s in the .h.mne cr poncr
a n J rcywnrihilil! nirh lo~\cr-lcvcl-mpln!~ccr
klosl people whir uork hcrr. \ e m 10h< straid
cf s;ntt.r manager..
Llh<ral \ \ ~ o n r e r \ a t i r c\dlue\
Ihi- nr.aniralwn can b; c l . w i w J 3s n,n.<r\~r:\r.
This o r p n i ~ a r i o nr.m kc c l . ~ r s ~ lar
d libr.r.t!.
(-~vp:ratirln 5 ~ dominaunm
. in rclxwnships ullh public\
' T ~ Fo r a n m t i o n u,uall! t i willm< 111 ncgotixe nlth
g r o u p o u l d c that Ji\a$rc; uvlh i t .
Thii ors.mizatien trwi ro dmminarc y c q k ~ r u t d c
who disagree uith it^
S!>lem oper: \%. d o w d t~xi r i cn\lrnnrncnl
This organization usuall! I; drmhed to ~Jca.
irnm outsidc~
'TI+ or~anirAlionI- ogcn ro ids, imm c,urlidc.
p.-.,
inray ray rrl \arimir q h i n c J
Eiqemalui
l r m
-
Factor anal!ri. u s h:wJ on the principal :,xi, mcthud v l r h \ a r m a x rorzrion. P
I m p ~ t i \ c.d.A Aurhonursan
= par^
251
their advancement depends on who they knou,. Similarly. participative cultures
integrate all members of the organization, whereas authoritarian cultures value
individualism. Somewhat surprisingly. participative cultures stress being on time
as an instance of objective culture more than do authoritarian cultures. Participa-
tive organizations strive more for equity and consensus than do authoritarian
organizations.
When authoritarian organizations make decisions, they often use tradition. trial
and error; and authority as the basis for those decisions. Both types of cultures use
rational processes and scientific research to make decisions.
As expected. participative organizations emphasize innovation as a value,
whereas authoritarian organizations value tradition. In addition. participative or-
ganizations strive for efficiency: but authoritarian organizations do not-a finding
that differs from our previous research. Participative organizations hold liberal
values and authoritarian organizations conservative values, although these two
values do not separate organizations as much as the other variables. On questions
that ask directly about participative versus authoritarian styles of management, the
variables clearly fall into the respective types of culture. Finally, in relations with
the outside world; participative organizations strive for negotiation and compro-
mise. They are open systems. Authoritarian organizations w to dominate their
organizations and are closed systems.
Some of the characteristics of Japanese organizationsdo not distinguish between
these two kinds of culture in the United States. In particular, both kinds of cultures
have specialists and do not have non-specialized career paths. Promotion can be
rapid in both kinds of cultures, although it is more likely to be slow in participative
than in authoritarian cultures. Employees also socialize off the job in both kinds of
organizations. although senior managers do not socialize with other employees in
authoritarian cultures. Shiraki (1989) also found that a Japanese organization in the
United States did not adopt these aspects of the Japanese culture.
Exploratory factor analysis, therefore. provided evidence that organizational

cultures contain two strong dimensions. which wecalled participatory and authori-
tarian. R Q 2: therefore, asked whether these two dimensions are related to public
relations and related communication processes of organizations in order to deter-
mine whether culture affects these activities. Indicators of the relationship between
participatory and authoritarian organizational culture and the characteristics of
excellence in public relations can be identified through the correlations of these
indices with the other variables and the relative factor loadings of the variables.
This correlational analysis, therefore, represents an important first step in concep-
tualizing and operationalizing the relation between organizational culture and
public relations by suggesting variables that can be included in subsequent
ORGANZATIONAL CLLTURE AND PUBLIC RELrZTIONS 253
multivariate and path analyses of data and reconceptualization suggested by the

correlations.
Individual correlations of the indices of culture with the other variables generally
were low or nonsignificant. Significant correlations @ <.05 or less) were found
between participatory culture and knowledge needed for the two-way symmetrical
model' (.la). playing the manager' (.09) and senior advisor roles3 (-14). and
knowledge needed for the manager role4 (.lo).
The relation between the two types of culture can be seen most clearly; however,
from their loadings on (correlations with) the Excellence factor. Participatory
culture had a significant correlation of .22 with the Excellence factor; authoritarian
culture a nonsignificant correlation of .05. Participatory culture had the lowest
loading of any of the variables loading on the Excellence factor; however. The other
loadings ranged from .29 to .76.
These results can be interpreted ar suggesting that participatory culture is neither
a necessar). nor a sufficient condition for excellent public relations. Authoritarian
cultures do not make excellent public relations imposstble because it does not
correlate negatively with the Excellence factor. At the same time, a participative
culture provides a more supportive, nurturing environment for excellent public
relations than does an authoritarian culture. Neverrheless, a participative culture
or this scale. the senior public relations person was asked toestimaterheexrenr to which the public
relatmns depanment had the "expertise or knou.ledge needed to perform" each of the following tasks:
derermme how publics react la the organization. negotiate with an activist group. use theories of conflict
resolution in dealing.wirh ~ublics.and help management to underaand the opinion of publics.
Cmnbaeh's o for the index was 7 5 .
-For the index measuring the extent to which the renior public relations perron played a managerial
role, he or she wzs asked to estimate haw well the following items described the work he or she doer
ar a public relations practitioner: I take respons~bilityfor the rucccsr or failure of my organization's
communication or public relations programs: I make communication policy decisionr: I o b r e n e that
others in the organization hold me accountable for the success or failure of communication or public
relations programs; Because of my experience and mining. athen cons~dermetheorganization's erpen
in solving communication or public relations pmblems. Cronbach's alpha was 3 6 .
he renior public relations person was s k e d to respond to the following items in the same wa) he
ur h e responded to the items measuring rhe manager mlc: I create opponuniuer for management to
hear the views of \ariaus internal and external publics; I r e p r e w t the organization at evenrs and
meetings: Although 1 don't make policy dccirionr. I provide decision makers with ruggestions.
recammcndationr.and plans: I amreniorcounselto topdecirianmakerswhencomunication orpublic
relationr issues are involved Cmnbach's alpha was 3 3 . suggesting caution in interpreting this scale.
The third item created the reliability problem. It had an item-correlation coefficient of 0%:Cronbach's
alpha rose to .60 without that item.
or this index. the senior public relations person w a asked to estimate the extent to which
knowledge available in the public relations depanment to conduct the activiries described by the
following items: Manage people. conduct evaluation research. de.relap goals and objectives for your
depanment. Prepate a depanmenral budget, perform environmental scanning. develop strategies for
solving public relationr and communication problems. use research to segment publics. and manage the
organization'< response to isrucr. Cronbach's alpha was 8 4 .
does not produce an excellent public relations department unless that department
possesses the knowledge and skills to practice public relations symmetrically; in a
two-way manner, strategically. and in a managerial role. Likewise, a department
that possesses such knowledge can practice excellent public relations even in an
authoritarian culture. All in all. howe\,er, public relations department, will find it
easier to apply their knowledge in a participatory culture than in an authoritarian
culture.
The nurturing role of culture can be seen most clearly when the two indices are
correlated with internal characteristics of organizations. Table 2 contains correla-
tions of the indices of participatory and authoritarian cultures with symmetrical"
and asymmetrical\ysterns of internal communication (1.Grunig. 1992b). organic
structure (decentralized. less formalized. less swatified, more panicipation in
decision making).' mechanical structure (centralized. formalized, stratified. little

participation in decision making:'^. Grunig. 1992b: L. Grunig. 1992). satisfaction
with the individual's job,' satisfaction with the o\,erall organizationli' (J. Grunig.
1992b). and the conditions for women in the organization as seen by employees."
Table ? also contains the loadings of these variables on the Organizational Condi-
or this index. employers were askcd to estimate the extent to which each of the fallawmg items
described communication in lheir organimion: I am cornionable m talking with administrators about
my performance. most communication bewren admimrtrators and other employees in this organization
ran be raid to be a tua-way communication. this organization encourages differences of opinion. the
purpav ofcommunicationin thisorganization is lo helpad~nirtratorstobere~ponri~r tothc problemi
ofothcrcmployees. my rupervisorencouragesdiffcrencerofopinion. Iamuruall) informcdaboutmajor
c h a n p in poliq that affrcl mylob hefore the) takc placc. and I am comfonablc in talking with m)
immediate supenisor when things are gomg wrong Cronbach's alpha was 8 4 .
'for this index. cmplo)ecs were askcd to csrimatc the exlent to which each of the following ilemr
described communication in their organization: The purpose of communication in thir organization is
to getemplo)ees to behave in the way administrators want themta behaw. hlarlcommunication in thir
organization is one-way betuccn adminisrraron la other employees. and I seldom ger feedback uhen I
communicate to adminirtrararr. Cronbach's a l ~ h wasa 6 3 ~
' F O ~ this index, employees were askedtodercribe the extent to which the following items described
-
their oreanizanon: I have a wrmnal influence on dccinons and voliries afthis or?anizatian (vanicipa~
tion in decision making). I have a great deal of freedom in making decisions about my work without
clearing rhore decisions with people ar higher levels of the organimtion idecenmdirationl. and I have
a ray in decisions that affect my job (panicipatlon in decision ma*ing). Cronbash.~alpha wm i 3 ~
*.For rhis index. ernployurs were asked to describe the extent to which the following items described
their organizarion: In thir organization. important decisions generally arc made by a few administrators
alone rather than b) people thmughout the organization ~cenrrdization]:Iris difficult for a person who
begins in the lower ranks of rhlr organization to move up to an important administratwe or supenisor)
position uithin about 10 years (rtratificationi: In this organization. there are clear m d recogmud
differences between superiors and subord~nates.These differences can be seen in larger offices. qualit)
of office furniture, close-in parking spacer. or frequency of superiors and subordinates having lunch
together ismrificatian) Cronbach's alpha was M ) .
tions factor produced b! the initial factor analysis of all 55 indices to shou the
relative relationships of the variables.
Table 2 shows high correlations among participator culture and a symmetrical
system of internal communication. organic structure. both individual and organiza-
tional job satisfaction. and favorable conditions for women in the organization.
.4uthoritarian culture. in contrast, correlates with an asymmetrical system of
internal communication. mechanical structure. low lsvels of individual and organ-
izational job satisfaction. and unfavorable conditions for women in the o r ~ a n i r a -
tion. These data suggest. therefore that culture relates to communication. manage-
ment processes istructure and conditions for women). and job satisfaction almost
'FN the index ofindi\idual job smsfacnon. smplo)cr\ were asked sl cstmnrr ham ascuratel) each
of thc following irsms described hou ,hey feel about rhrir orgoniratlon On th* uhalc. my !oh is
intsrcsrmg and challenging. I look furuard to comine ro \&arkalmost s\cp day. \ly work g h e s me 3
\ m j e ofaicomplishmcnt: \I) work fs adcad-end jab irexene ircml. hl? work is boring !reverse itcmi.
Cronba,-h'q alpha was 7 9
" F O ~ the index of organuationalpb sarisfaslion. emplo)ecr ucrc a k c d 10 r r t l m m how accumtrb
c x h ~f the followmg rremr dcrcrikd hou they feel about their organiratton In general. this organira-
rton has treated me w l l . I f e d aj rhough I hare a real chance to get ahead in rhisorpanization: The bc5t
qualtfied people usuall) are chosen for promotion in rhir organ!rarion: I am aatixfied with my pa) and
hmrfitr. Thir organization has a genuine concern for the welfare of irr m q h y s e i ; I am mtixficd *ilh
m) d3:-to~day working condition\: I am satisfied w t h the recognirmn I rrccnc fix good performance
in m? lob: I h a w found rhir organmmon to be a good place to work. Both men and women are treated
w l l in this orpaniza~ion. It is e x ) 10 ~ o r with
t m? x - w o r k e ~Therr is 3 good opponunity for
arlvmrsmsnt in m? lob. \linonnes are treated well in this organiwrian. Cronbach'i alpha w u 92.
IF^ rhis \armblc. f ~ i t o rscores from a imglc factor of 22 items wsj used Thir factor had an
ztgmxalur of 8.36 and accounted for 38G ofthc \ m m c c . Three other factmr had an rigenvalue of I
or grcnsr!1 56. 1 28. and !I-!. but each ofrhew h i t o n occaunred fcr onl) 5 - 3 ofthe vanance The
thrm oddilnonal factors gcncrall) broke rhe dominant factor mto whcate.oriri when rolated. and
*r.eundx! loxdmpr were htgh Fcr wmc analpex. all four facrors uerc used 1<55Dozier. L. Grunig 8;
J Gruntg. 1995. chap. I I 1 Empla+s u m x k s d lo estimate how accurately r ~ c h of the fallowing
i r s m dcsirikd rhcir organization. This organnration has: snacred specific poltier. procedure<. or
program h i g n e d to promote an underrtandmg of the soncemr of fcmalc employees: provided a
w p p c n i ~ cr l m m s fer uomen at work: mon~rorrdthe use of sexist languap in all realmr of the
oromizatmi%cummun~cation:rc%ieaedoraanirationol . ~olicierfor their effect on women: mmided
oppanunirirr for uomen who must relacate or u h o have rclwated. dlowcd flex lime for cmployccr:
a\oidrd "perks" (hat divide smplo\ecr~. on the barns of their eendcr and tenure. ,sch as all-male club?
or crscutivs dining rooms: eaabllrhcdcffsctirc policw to deal a i l h sexual dnssrimtnarion: developed
qpccific guidelines for handline problems of sexual harassment: qct up a ,yrtem of materntty and
pstcmiry I s a c . pmvtdcd child care rcruses: built a ,ystem of multiplc emplo:mrnt center* that allow
muhilit: for employsex: furthered the lalrntr of uomen through mentoring program: fostered me om stir
leadership abilirie,. funded or reimbursed employees for work-relared r r n r l . included msmbsrrh~pm
pror?snanal associations 3s an employee benefic: prouded opponunirier fur momen to take risk:
mcouraged women who may seem less "\enouwninded about thrircarscrrrhan men: groomcduomen
for managemen1 by celecring [hem a< "informal asirrants" lo rhore in the next-higher position: included
wnmcn inrhc informal informational network: made availablecompamhle data to help women in salary
ncgotiaoon: paid men and women equally for equal or compxable work.
TABLE 2
Correlations of Participatory and Authoritarian Organization Cultures
With Other Organizational Conditions
Culrrcrr'
Organizorional ,
ficror Porriciparke iluthorirarim Condirionr Focror"
Culture
Participative
Authoritarian
Intcrnal communication system
Symmetrical .67
A,ymmctrical -.I4
Strucrure
Organic .42
hlechanical -30
Job satirfaction
Individual .34
Organizarional 61
Conditions for female employees <<
Torrelations based on agmegated scores for 321 orgnizarionr All correlations in these two
columns are significant at p < .01. "actor loadings on the third of rhree facton in a factor
analysis of 55 variables describing excellence and mediocrity in public relarions The factor
analysis used the principal axis method with varimax rotation. This third facror had an sipcn-
mluc of 1.10 and ernlained 7.5?0 of the >ariancs.The first factor. the --excellence facror." had
~~ ~
an eigenralue of 6.51and explained 15.59. of the variance. The second factor. the ..mediocritr
factor." had an cisenvalue of 9.2 and explained 9.290 of the variance.
exactly as we conceptualized it earlier in this article. Communication affects

culture, and culture affects communication and management processes.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Although there are many cases in which it is more advantageous to observe

organizational culture using ethnographic and other qualitative methods, we have
demonstrated that it is possible to measure at least two dimensions of organizational
culture quantitatively. We also have demonsmated that nearly all of the charac-
teristics of organizational culture identified in the literature can be integrated into
panicipatoly and authoritarian dimensions. Finally, we have demonstrated that our
quantitative indices of culture can be used to compare organizations and to correlate
organizational culture with public relations and related communication and man-
agement processes and systems.
Most importantly, though, we have identified evidence that illuminates the
relationship of organizational culture to the public relations and communication
practices of organizations. Our results suggest that culture is neither a necessary
nor a sufficient condition for excellent public relations practice. Excellent public
relations is most likely to be found in an organization with a participatory culture,
but it also can be found in an authoritarian culture. A participatory culture. howe\,er,
provides the most nurturing environment for excellent public relations.
Our data also suggest that the presence of a participatory organizational culture
seems to explain why organizations have symmetrical rather than asymmetrical
systems of internal communication. organic rather than participatory structures, and
conditions that enhance the careers of female employees. The relation between
culture and the communication system is most important for public relations and
communication scholars. howe\,er. Correlational data cannot shou whether partici-
pative culture produces symmetrical communication or symmetrical communication

produces participative culture, but these data do suggest a reciprocal relationship.
In areciprocal relationship; one can interveneat any point and affect the process.
Professional communicators can intervene most easily by changing the nature of
internal communication rather than trying to manage cultural change through other
means. By working to implement asymmetrical system of internal communication,
public relations professionals can. in turn, affect organizational culture. Organiza-
tional culture, in turn, provides a nurturing environment for excellent public
relations and for other characteristics of effective organizations such as organic
structure and employee job satisfaction.
J. Grunig (1992b) provided a conceptual model of hypothesized interrelation-
ships among internal organizational communication systems and other organiza-
tional characteristics. including culture. The results presented in this article strongly
suggest that model accurately describes internal organizational relationships, and
we anticipate testing that model further through estimation of simulation equations
(LISREL) and reporting the results in L. Grunig. J. Gmnig. and Dozier (in press).
The results reported here provide the intriguing suggestion that public relations
professionals with the knowledge needed to practice excellent public relations but
who work in an authoritarian culture should begin their path to excellence by
developing a symmetrical system of internal communication. Symmetrical com-
munication then could be the "straw that breaks the camel's back--the intervening
variable that communicators can use to begin the long path toward excellent
communication and effective organizations.
Limitations of the Study and Scope for Future Research
As noted in the literature review, scholars overwhelmingly recognize that the

malleability of culture (and its manifestation often at unconscious levels) makes
the concept difficult to measure. Culture change, then, becomes an ever harder task.
Even if one is persuaded by the cultural pragmatists (like we are) that culture can
258 SRIRAMESH. GRUSIG. DOZIER
be measured and managed. one has to be sensitive to whether one is measuring all
the cultural norms present in an organization or whether only certain aspects of the
concept are being measured.
We designed this study to measure many facets of corporate culture that ure
identified from an extensive literature review. We recognize that being the first
attempt to linkcultural variables with public relations variables, this study may not
haye tapped all the facers of the dominant culture of the sample organizations. It is
also likely that the study has tapped into one or more subcultures or countercultures
present in the organizations along with the dominant culture. We are also sensitive
to the intluence that societal culture may have had on our measurement of corporate
culture.
Follow-up studies will help us make a more definitive determination on these
issues. Future studies could also make us rethink our use of the turo cultural
dimensions (authoritarian and participatory) and funher refine the indices used in
this study. In addition, such studies should identify whether one measures aspects
of societal culture present in an organization or the corporate culture unique to it.
It is also pertinent to investigate whether different departments within the same
organization harbor unique subcultures. We believe that such attempts are vital to
thegrowth of the scholarly body of public relations and the present stud? has started
us in this direction.
REFERENCES
Adlcr. N J (1991!. /nternunonoldimensr,~ns~!for~oni:anonnlbekoaior (2nd d l . Boston: P\\-S-Kent.

Agar. >lH. i 1980). The prrqerrronul Wanper: An infi,r,murl mmroducri,m 11, erhnogroph>. Orlando. FL.
Academic.
Barley. 5 R 11983).Semiot~csand the study ofoccupational and organizational culturr.Adminirlrulive
Science Quartrrl?. 28, 393113.
Berg. P. (1985) Organization change a a rynbalic lranrfarmatian process. In P. J. Frarr. L. F \toore.
hl. R Louis. C. C. Lundkrg. & J M.Manin (Edr.). 0rqmr:ationalculrure lpp. 281-299). Bmrrl)
Hills. CA: S a g .
Bomann, E. G . I 1985j. S > m b l i c conxcrgcnce. Organizational communication and culturr In L. L.
Putnam & hl. E. Pacanowrk? 1Edr). C~~mmunican~m and ~ r ~ ~ ~ i : o n oA n rznrerprernr
: approach
(pp 99-12?), Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
Bromr. H.. 6 Gahmkrg. H. !I9831 Commun~cationto self in organizations and cultures. Admlnrrrru-
~ Y Scrence
P Quurrerl\. 28. 482193.
Comer. D. R. (1991). Organizational nr.wcomcrs' acquisition of mformatmn from pcsrr. 3fu,lu~rmenl
Communmmon Quarrcrl!. 5. 6G89.
Cox. S A. & Kramer. kt. \V. ! I 9 9 3 Communication during cmplo~ccdirmirralr .Manofleme,lt
Communication Quarrerl?. 9. 156190.
Dea1.T. E.&Kenned>. A. E. (1982). C ~ ~ ~ n m r e c u l rTherir~randrrrualrrrfcnrporarelrfe
urc Readins.
MA: Addison-Wesley.
DiSanra. J. R. (1995). Bank teller orgmirat~onalartmilation in a system of conrradicrory practices.
b a n u ~ e m e n rCommunicoriun Quarrerl?, 9. 19 1-21 8~
D o r m . D. hl 119921. The orgmirat~onalroles of communicatmn and public rslalmns practitioners. In
J. E. Grunig i E d i Errellence In publrc rrlarimr undco,nmunrcuoon ,nonugC.ernenr (pp 327-3561.
Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
.
Dozier. D h f . Grumg. L. A 81 Grunig. J E (1995) :%falonagerr guide ro excellmr-e rnpubl~crrlaeunr
,e:d rommunuulion nnnopemenr. hfahwah. VJ: Laurence Erlbaum .Associarrr. Inc.
Edel*tcin. .A. 5 . i1583!. Communication and culture. The \ d u e of compxativr. sludier J w m l (qf
(I,mmunicuri,,n.. < 302-310.
Ehlmg. \ V P 119921 Ertimat~ngthe value af public relarims and communication to an organization.
In J E G r u n ~ g(Ed.!. Lrcrllenre mpublic rrlorionr ondcmrnmuniconnn m a , q r , m m r ( p p .617478).
Hillrdalr. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asocmex. Inc
E m c x R C (15851 Corparlc cullursr and effccli~eplanning. P e r r n , ~ n r l - I d , ~ ~ ~ n ~ r1r5~4r ~
0 z. , r ,
F~lrhurst.G T. 11953) Echoes of rhe \ w o n When the resr of the organtzarton talks rotal quality.
hfut~ugemm:Crz,nmunumon Quorterlx. 4. 371-371
Flnc~.I) 8 1557, Effects of boundary spanning communlcatron on rhc roctopolitical delepirimation of
an orpvnlrvtmn. .Muna.qemenr C,,mrnunirurr,m Quurrrrl?. ; 3666.

Fr;cm~n. R E i 19811Srru:rqir tnunu.qrmrnr. Boston: Pitman.
Garbanno. 1 S i1977,. S o ~ ~ o c u i m r then?
al m un:;zropolofi,: .4 d w r : Airrun. Prospect Heighrr. IL:
\\'a\sland Pller
G l w r . S. R. 11991, Teamwork and cammunicalion A . l ~ y c a case
r dud> of change. Munugemen,
C',~nrmant~'nrr~rn Qsnnurh 7 231-196
G a r d ~ n !. 1 YYU! Culeml ~mperalivrafor indurrtyonented performance !LEE Tmnrocriunr un Pmfer-
~ i r m dC~,mmtmcurion,23. 69-95
G r q o r ) . K L I 1 9 8 3 Kali\e~uir.wparadigm<:!4ultiplc culrurs and culture iontlicr inorpanization<~
Admmrrrruriw 3cienie Quonrr&. 28. 559-376,
Grunig. J E. 11589).S>mmrtrical pre5upporinonr a< a framework for public relations theor! In C H.
R a m & V H;1~lcron. Jr. (Ed<.]. P x b i i ~ rr1u;ionr iherrr, ipp 1 7 ~ 4 1 1Htllsdalc. NJ Lawrence
Erlbmrn .Asaoaatr.s. Inc.
..
l - 3 ! Hill\dalc. XJ Laurence Erlbaum Assouxer. Inc.
Crunlg. J !1592bl. S>mmrtricd sy5tcmr of lnrernal cornmunlcarion In J. E. GrunlpiEd.!. E ~ u r l l m c e
rn publr~ rrlurlm:.~and rlrmrnantrorion mnnpemrnr ipp. 531-Xh!. Hillrdalr. S J : Laarm:e
Erlbaurn Asruaaw,. In<
Grunig. J. E 1Ed.1.i 1 9 9 2 ~ 1E.ccellm~e( W E publri rrlarronr nndiornrn-mr,urion munogemen: Hilldale.
NJ I.a~%renic Erlbaum .Awmars<. Inc
Grunlg. J E.. Sr Grunig. L A. (15891. Toward atheor) of the public relatiom bchaior oforganirarionr:
Reti?* u i a p m p r m of rc5earch. Public Relarrmr Rerrurch Annual. 1. 2 - 4 5 ,
Grunip. J E . 8; Grun~g.L. A. (19921 hlodcls of pubhi relationr and comrnunicalion. In J. E. Grunip
(Ed i. L~z:e!kt:ce 1ni)ublt~m!(l~,om ~ ~ n 0 1 1 lpp 265-326) Hillrdalc. NJ:
~ n d c ~ ~ r n m i ( n ~rnmuzernmr
Laxrmcr Erlbaum .Awoaates. Ins
.
Grunlp. J E..Grunig. L. .\. Donsr. D \I Ehling. \T. P . Rcppsr. F.C.. G\Vhirs..l. (1991j. E x r d k n ~ e
tn p:rbl:c rrlarrrmr and c,~mmunr<urrrmmunugetwnr: Icinal rluru reporr o n d v a c r i i a l rwde San
Frmcisco I.ABC Rewarch Foundanom
Grunip. J E.. & Hunt. T i 15811. .Munu~inppubli<relorions Sew York.Holt. Rlnshan 8i \Tinston.
Grump. J E . Sr Rrpper. F. 1 19921 SrraYpr rnanagemenr. publics. and i w x < In J. E Grunlg (Ed.).
E . u e ! l m < r in p b l t r rr!urr,m und ommuoxurrun mana,qernmr p p . 117-I%!. Hillrdalc. NJ
Lnnrencc Erlbaum Assoazter. Inc
Grunlp. J E . B While. J (1952). The cffccr of u o r l d r i ~ won~ public relations t h c o c and pracrlcc In
J E Grunig (Ed !. Ercrllenre in ;ublrr rrlori,,ns ond <nrnrnuntcutlrm mrmu?emmt (pp. 7 I 4 J ) .
H ~ l l ~ J d rNJ' . Laurence Erlbaum A~wsioll'r.Inc.
Grunig. L. A. (1992) Haw public relationdcomunications departments should adapt to the structure
and environment of an organization . and u.hat the) actuallr do. In J. E. Grunie (Ed). frcellence
m public relnrionr ond communicanon m g e m e n r ( p p 4674821. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum AsrociaLes, Inc.
Grunig, L. A . Gmnig. 1. E.. & Dozier. D. hl. (in press). Exrellenr publrc relorion< and effective
orgwizurionr: A care rrud? r ~ fcommunrcarion m n g e m e n r rn rhree counrrrer. hlahwah. XJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
Grunig. L. A . Gnmig. J. E.. &Ehling. W.P. I19921 What is an effective organization? In 1. E. Grunig
(Ed.). k e l l e n c e in public relorion< and communicarion mnaprrnenr ( p p 65-90) Hillsdale. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Arsociatcr, Inc.
-
Hofstede. G. (1980). Culture's conrequenccs. Beverl, Hills. CA: S a ~ e .
Holladay. S. J.. &Coombs. W.T. (1993). Cammunicatingririons: Anexplarat~anofrheroleofdelirer)
in the creation of leader charisma. U a n o ~ e m e nCommunicorion
t Quorrerl~.6. 405427.
Hon. L C.. Grunig. L. A . & Dozier. D. hl. (1992) Women in public relations: Problems and
opponuniticr In J. E. Grunig (Ed ). Orcellence in public relarrons adcornmunicnrrrm mnapemenr

(pp 4 1 9 4 3 8 1 Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asrociates. Inc
Jelmek. .I.! Smtrcich. L.. & Htrrch. P (1983). Inmaduction: A code of man? colors. Admmirtrarn-e
Science Quarrerl?. 28. 331-33%
Kanter. R. >l.(1983). The change masers: Innomlion ond enrrepren~urrhrpm rhe Amencan corpora-
r i m New York: Simon & Schuster.
Koprowskt. E J. (1983). Cultural m)ths: Clues toeffective management. O r g ~ i z o r i o n a I ~ ~ m i39-51
cr.
Krorb~r..A. L.. & Kluckhahn. C. (1963). Culture; A criricol review ,~f?iconrepr.sand definirronr. Neu
York: Vintage.
Lundbsrg. C. C. (1985). On [he feasibility of cultural intervention in organizations. In P I . Frost. L. F.
hloorc. >i.R. Louis; C. C. Lundberg. & J. h l Mmin (Eds.). Orgonr;orionalculrure!pp 169-1851.
Beverl) Hills. CA: Sage.
Marshall. A. A . & Srohl, C. (1993). Beino "tn the know" in a paniclpative management s)stcm.
M o n o p n e n r Communicunon Quorrerlj. 6. 3 7 2 4 0 4
hlanin, J.. & Siehl. C. (1983) Organizational culture and counterculture An uneal) rymbiosis~
On.o,~rrunonul
, . 5243.
D ~ m r n r c r 12.
. ~
hlanln. J Sitkin. S. B.. B; Bwhm. hl. i1985) After the founder: A n apponuniry to manage culture. In
-
P J Frost. L F. !doore. \I. R. Louis. C. C. Lundbere. & J. hlanin iEdr). Orpanuorronol cuhsrr
( p p 99-121). Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
hlishler. E. G. 11986). Research inrentenng: Conrerrondnnrrorivr. Cambridge. M-2:Oxford Univer-
sit) Prcsr
Mintzberg. H. (1979) The rrrucrunng (florgonsorionr. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prenticc hall^
Mitroff. I 1. 11983). Srukeholders of the urganrzorioml mmd. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ouchi. W.G !1981) Theon- 2: How American burrners con meet rhe Japanese chnllenqr. Reading.
h1.A Addison-Werley~
Pacanowsky. hl. E.. & O'Donnrl-Trujillo. N. (1983). Organizational comumcarion as organizarional
performance. C~zmmunication.%fonogrophs. 50. 126-117.
Pascals. R. T.. &.rhos. A G. (1981). TheorrrflJoponae mna,qemrnr. Neu Y a k Simon & Schurrer.
Peters. T. J.. & Waterman. R. H Jr. (1982). In rennh rfercellence. S e a York: Harper & ROW.
Purnm. L. L. (1983). The interpretive perspective: An alrernarive to functionalism. In L L Putnam &
hl. E. Paianowskv (Eds.). Communicariom and orgonr;orionr: An interpretire approach (pp.
31-51) Beverly Hills. CA: Sags.
Robbmr. S. P ( 1 9 8 3 0r~oni:oriontheon. The rrnraure ond derign 01 nrqan~;nrronr. Engleuood
Cliffs. NJ: Prentia-Hall.
Rubbm. S. P (19871 0rgani:oriun rhm+ The strucrure and deripn ,<f oorgoniznlionr (2nd cd 1.
Englewwd Cliffs. NJ Prcnticc-Hall
Robbins. S. P. (1990) Orgmcalrrm rheon: Strucrure, derrgn, nndapplirorionr (3rd cd.1 Englcwood
Cliffs. NJ: Prentice- hall^
Sarhc. Y. 119831 Implications of corporate culture. A manngcr's gude to action. Orgdni:~llionol
D y w n i o . 12. 5 1 3
Schall. \I. S i1983). Arommunication-rulesapproach toar~anirariunalculture.Adm~irrmriaeS~~ren~e
Quarrerl?. 28. 557-581
Schein. E. H. (1981i. Comingto anew awareness oforganizational cultureSIom bfmunu,rernenrRevien:
25. 3-16.
Schcin. E H (19851. Orpnnzzurrvnal rulrure and lederrhip San Francisco. CA: Jossey- bass^
Schwmz. H. h i . & Davis. 5. hi (1981'1 Matching corporate culture and business strategy. Orgoniro-
l i o n o l D ~ n a m i a10, 3 M 8 ~
Serini. 5. A. (19941 Power networks and surveillance: \%ruing service ac an inrencriw component of
public relations ~mfesnanalirm.Public Relations Rerien. 2 f l 13-51.

S h i d i . 1. (1989, The relarionrhzp among rommunrcoriun, organ~zalionalsrrucrure.ondjrrb rolirfoc-
rron umong Jupmere and Arnerlcon employeer ,<f0 Japanese mullinorrono; mrpomlion in the
L h r e d S ~ o u r Cnpublished
. master's thesis. University of Mar?land. College Park. hlD
Sichl. C. (19851 After the founder: A n oppanunit) to manage culture. In P. J. Frost. L F. !doore. Xi.
R. Louis. C. C. Lundberg. 8i J. \I. Llmm (Eds.). Orqanizorional culture lpp. 125-140) Beverl)
Hills. CA Sage.
S m r c ~ h L. (1983ai. Concepts of culture and organizational anal?s!s. Admmirtrulrw Sri?nct Q u o r
red\. 28. 339-358.
Sm!rcnch. L. (1983b). Organirarionr as shared meanings In L. R Pond?. P J. Frost. G. Morgan. & T~
C. Dandridge iEdr.1. Orgonizorionalr~rnbolirmlpp 55-55) Greenwich, CT JAI.
Smirc~ch.L..&Calas.\i. B. (19871Organlratianal culture. In F. hl. JablimLL. Putnam, K. H. Robens.
L. W.Poner (Edr.1. Handbook 0f00rgonr;arionnl Communirurion (pp. ??8-263). Newbur). Park.
C4:Sage
Spndlcy. J. P 11979!. The ethnopzphr inremiex. New York: Halt. Rinehar(& \Vinrtan~
Spradley. J. P (19801. P a r r r i p m l o b ~ e n a t i r mNcu York: Holt. Rinehm & Winston.
Sriramesh. K (1992i. The rmpucr ,f lfrucrelal rulrure on public rdoliom: Elhnogmphic rvtdenre from
S w r h Indm Unpublished doctoral dnssenation. Universit) of Maryland at College Pxk. College
Park. \in.
Sriramesh. K.Gtunig. J.. 8i Buffineon. J 11992). Corponrecultureandpublicrelationc In J E.Gmnig
(Ed I. ficellence m public relanras undcommunrcawn management (pp. 577--596) Hillcdale. NI:
Lawrence Erlbaum Asroc~atrs.I n c ~
Snramerh. K .& Wtnre. 1. (19921 Socirtal cultureand public relations. In J. E. Grunip(Ed.). Ercellenre
m publu relations und communrrorion mnngernenr (pp 5 9 7 4 l 4 1 Hillsdale. NJ: Laurence
Erlbaum A w x ~ a r c r I. n c ~
Tizh). S M i19821 Managmg change strategicall): Tbc technical. political. and cultural keys.
m i59-80.
O r # o n r ~ ~ l ~ u ~ l O ~ n u11. rr.
Tllur. E. B I 1871I Primirne rulrurr London: J. hiuna)~
\Vallash. E. J. (19833 Individual and organizations The cultural match. Trainin2 and D e s e l o m ~ n l
Jr,urnul. 3 29-36.
Wilkmr. A L. f 1983ai. Efficlent cultures: Erploringthe relationship kru~ecnculrun:andorganizational
prrformance. .Adminirrrarrw Science Quurterlr. 28. 1 6 8 1 8 1
V~lkins.A. L (1983bi. The culrure audit: A tool for undersrandmg organizations. Orgonr:ani~,nul
D,numii.s 12. ZL38

2-Sriramesh1996 - Having Useful Explanation of Two Thought Schools Purist and Pragmatist

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2-Sriramesh1996 - Having Useful Explanation of Two Thought Schools Purist and Pragmatist

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]

On: 19 April 2015, At: 19:38

Journal of Public Relations

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Observation and Measurement of

The concept of organizational culture entered the fields o i organizational studies.

exploring new public relations processes and phenomena, especially in countries

CONCEPT O F ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

In anthropology. the field in which the concept of culture originated, culture

The preceding review of some of the scholarly works on organizational culture

HOW IMPORTANT IS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE?

Achieving organizational effectiveness is the ultimate aim of most managers.

of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization.

symbolic reality-rather than being something unambiguously given beforehand"

CORPORATE CULTURE, COMMUNICATION, AND

dominant coalition. If a public relations practitioner is not part of the dominant

AUTHORITARIAN AND PARTICIPATIVE

As Sriramesh (1992) has argued, the culture external to an organization (societal

dimension of culture internal to organizations as well. Several theorists have

MEASUREMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Collective versus individual responsibility.

We gleaned other characteristics from the literature on organizational culture as

Finally, we took several characteristics from previous research on the relations

1. Importance of innovation, tradition, and efficiency as organizational values.

We expected the characteristics on the left to characterize panicipative cultures and

RQI: Can the characteristics of culture identified in the literature on orgmira-

We then were able to explore therelation between organizational cultureand public

RQ2: Is there a relationship between indices of participatory and authoritarian

For RQ 2; however. we present only preliminary. exploratoly results from the

I . From the CEO questionnaire: involvement of public relations in strategic

items describing organizational culture initially produced 10 factors with an eigen-

Cullscrirc vr. individual decision m a k i p

Concepr ond Querriotr C~omtmtmdin

Nonrpccializsd rr, specialized career paths

raecurses of rhis organ~ration.l uould manass the

De;i\luns usuall! are based on authority h a -

\lanagcr> In t h i ~crzanu;m%nv c m ~CIIS\C

Exploratory factor analysis, therefore. provided evidence that organizational

multivariate and path analyses of data and reconceptualization suggested by the

decision making).' mechanical structure (centralized. formalized, stratified. little

exactly as we conceptualized it earlier in this article. Communication affects

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although there are many cases in which it is more advantageous to observe

pative culture produces symmetrical communication or symmetrical communication

Limitations of the Study and Scope for Future Research

As noted in the literature review, scholars overwhelmingly recognize that the

Adlcr. N J (1991!. /nternunonoldimensr,~ns~!for~oni:anonnlbekoaior (2nd d l . Boston: P\\-S-Kent.

an orpvnlrvtmn. .Muna.qemenr C,,mrnunirurr,m Quurrrrl?. ; 3666.

opponuniticr In J. E. Grunig (Ed ). Orcellence in public relarrons adcornmunicnrrrm mnapemenr

public relations ~mfesnanalirm.Public Relations Rerien. 2 f l 13-51.

You might also like