PR/COM COORDINATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA RELATIONS · 2019. 7. 15. · title: pr/com coordination of...

Managing Interdepartmental Collaboration of Social Media Relations:

Investigating the PR/Com Role in the Leadership and Collaboration

of Social Media Relations Practices across Organizations

_____________________

Presented to the Faculty

Regent University

School of Communication and the Arts

____________________

In partial fulfillment

of the Requirements for the

Doctor of Philosophy

in Communication

by

Kirsten Whitten

Approved By:

John Keeler, Ph.D., Committee Chair


William Brown, Ph.D., Committee Member


Stephen Perry, Ph.D., Committee Member


April 2018

ProQuest Number:

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest

Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

10788701

10788701

2018


Regent University

This is to certify that the dissertation prepared by:

Kirsten D. Whitten

Titled

MANAGING INTERDEPARTMENTAL COLLABORATION

OF SOCIAL MEDIA RELATIONS:

INVESTIGATING THE PR/COM ROLE IN THE LEADERSHIP

AND COLLABORATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA RELATIONS

PRACTICES ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS

Has been approved by her committee as satisfactory completion of the dissertation

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Approved By:

John Keeler, Ph.D., Committee Chair


William Brown, Ph.D., Committee Member


Stephen Perry, Ph.D., Committee Member


April 2018

ii

PR/COM COORDINATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA RELATIONS

iii

Copyright © 2018

Kirsten D. Whitten

All Rights Reserved.


iv

Abstract

The planning of an organization’s social media interactions with its publics is vital in

building relationships in today’s marketplace - and can ultimately lead to the success or failure.

While CEOs, PR/Com (Public Relations/Corporate Communications) and marketing executives

all agree that using social media is instrumental in providing efficient customer care, many are

still struggling with best practices to collaborate and coordinate these efforts across the business

enterprise. This study used collaborative planning theory and actor network theory as lenses to

examine the PR/Com role in convening and translating stakeholder participation to collaborate

across function. Using an online survey of PR/Com and social media executives, this report

describes how PR/Com executives’ use of authentic leadership and collaborative planning

methods, as well as organizational culture, affect the establishment of well-coordinated plans for

social media relations across organizational functions. Based upon the findings of this study, new

means for examining interdepartmental coordination emerged by supporting an existing scale for

authentic leadership and in the form of a new scale for measuring collaborative planning

methods in an organizational setting. Implications for public relations scholarship and practice

are discussed and recommendations for future research are suggested.


v

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my son, Corey Matthew Garneau. I started this journey in

the summer of 2012 when he was only three years old. I am now planning his ninth birthday

party for less than two weeks from now. As Easter approaches and I reflect on this journey of the

last five-and-a-half years, it is my hope that the sacrifices we made will sow a seed that enhances

the future for our son. I leave this in God’s hands.


vi

Acknowledgements

I must say I was a bit surprised when God sent me on this path. It has been a personal,

professional and spiritual journey that I never expected to take when I started working in public

relations more than 25 years ago. I went back to school for my M.A. after 10 years in the work

force in hopes of building my knowledge and professional credibility in the field. At that time, I

never saw myself teaching or doing research to improve upon the field for the future. When I

discovered teaching, I knew I had found a rewarding means to make a career of my passion for

public relations. When I decided, at the age of 40, that this was what I wanted to do with the rest

of my life, I was immediately referred to Regent University. Once I explored the campus, met

the professors and the many wonderful people who make up this great university, I knew God

was guiding my future and gave myself to Him to lead me down this path.

This research project is the culminating result of this five-year journey, which provided

me with some of the most challenging – and the most rewarding – years of my life. I took this

leap of faith in pursuit of the calling God put in my heart, which is to be a full-time professor.

And while my love and faith of God grew ever stronger throughout this journey, which is the

greatest reward, it is also my hope that the sacrifices my husband and I made (in the form of

time, money and stress) will also culminate in a full-time job that I love while also providing

benefits for my family and a secure future for my son.

That is the goal of every parent – to make life better for their children than it was for

them. That is what my mom did for me and that is the ethics she instilled in me to do for my son.

To my mom, Jacqueline A. Whitten, I acknowledge and thank you for the struggles and pains

you endured as a single parent to raise me as a good Catholic with these solid, ethical


vii

foundations. I know it was not easy and I appreciate your love, encouragement and inspiration –

and especially how proud you are of me for achieving this goal.

To my loyal and loving husband, Edward T. Garneau, you are the person I have to thank

the most, as you are the one who sacrificed your time and financial well-being to support me

(and us) as I worked toward this goal in hopes it will provide a better future for our family. If

you had not been there as my rock, my sounding board and my best friend through these

challenging years, I would never have made it through this program. I love you with all my heart

and I thank you for your never-ending love and support.

To Nancy Garneau, my incredibly helpful sister-in-law and awesome, fun-loving aunt

and Godmother to my son. If it were not for your loving commitment to my son, I would never

have been able to take the time that was necessary to accomplish this task while working full-

time. You helped us greatly by loving and caring for my son as his full-time “Nanny.” I will

always love and appreciate you for this.

To my dissertation committee, I must thank you for your time, commitment and support

to me and my research project. Your support, guidance and never-ending encouragement (as my

professors and as my committee) fostered my development and fueled my desire to pursue and

finish this Ph.D. in Communication. To Dr. John Keeler, my advisor and dissertation chair, thank

you for being you! Your faith-filled encouragement, guidance, positive attitude and friendship

throughout these five years has meant the world to me and was instrumental in my success. To

Dr. William Brown and Dr. Stephen Perry, thank you for your guidance, support and

encouragement as I worked through this dissertation process and learned the essence and

importance of the impact that can be made through hard work and research. You allowed me to


viii

get to know you both personally over these years and it was an honor and a pleasure, and greatly

appreciated.

To Dr. Colleen Malachowski, I want to thank you for your hours of time, help and

support as my guide, mentor and outside reviewer for my dissertation. Your commitment to me

and love for research energized me to make it through the data analysis stage of this project.

While I was not gifted with a natural ability for quantitative research, I knew it was the direction

I had to take to explore the problems that face this industry in hopes of finding a way to make a

difference during this critical time in the field of public relations. I would never have been able

to do this (and I definitely would not have found this passion) if it were not for your time,

patience and guidance throughout this process.

While this journey was not easy, God gave me the gifts of all of you to help me make it

through. I appreciate all of you more than words can say. I know this dissertation is not the end

of my journey, but just the beginning, and I look forward to what lies ahead.


ix

Table of Contents

Abstract iv

Dedication v

Acknowledgements vi

Table of Contents ix

List of Tables xii

List of Figures xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 5

Purpose of the Study 14

Definition of Terms 18

Significance of the Study 21

Practical and Theoretical Significance 25

Summary 26

Chapter 2: Literature Review 28

Social Media Connects PR, Marketing and Customer Service 28

Collaborative Planning Theory (CPT) 31

Long Term Effects of CPT Implementation 35

Collaborative Planning Dimensions 38

The Nurse Physician Collaboration Scale 41

Collaborative Efforts to Preserve Farmland 44

Actor Network Theory (ANT) 49

Translation 51

The Role of Convening Power 52

Institutional and Development (IAD) Framework 54

Collaborative Leadership 55

Authentic Leadership (AL) 56

Studies Assessing AL 59

ALQ Dimensions 62

Research Questions and Hypotheses 65

Summary 68


x

Chapter 3: Methodology and Procedure 69

Research Design 70

Target Population and Sample 71

Instrument 73

Data Collection and Handling 80

Reliability and Validity 80

Pre-Testing of Data 81

Independent Variables 82

Dependent Variables 83

Summary 83

Chapter 4: Findings 84

Understanding of Respondents 84

Demographics 84

Education Levels 86

Management Position 87

Type of Organization 88

Size of Organization 89

Departments Using Social Media 90

Examining Variables 92

Authentic Leadership 93

Collaborative Planning Methods 94

Well-Coordinated Plans 96

Organizational Culture 98

Analysis of Research Questions and Hypotheses 99

Reliability of Variables 99

Correlations Between Variables 100

Analysis of Research Questions 101

Research Question 1 101




Analysis of Hypotheses 105


xi

Hypothesis 1 109

Hypothesis 2a 109

Hypothesis 2b 111

Post Hoc Analysis 112

The Use of Collaborative Planning Methods 112

A Comparison of Authentic Leadership Dimensions 116

Summary of Findings 117

Chapter 5: Discussion 118

Key Discoveries 120

Organization Size and Type Are Not Predictors 122

A Post Hoc Inspection of CPM 124

Implications for Public Relations 127

Public Relations Scholarship 128

CPT and ANT as a Dual Perspective 128

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire 130

Collaborative Planning Methods 131

Conclusion 132

Public Relations Practice 132

Championing Coordination/Collaboration of Social Media 133

Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Relationships 134

The Importance of Self-Awareness in Authentic Leadership 135

Summary 137

Limitations of the Study 138

Recommendations for Future Research 139

Conclusion 142

References 145

Appendix A: Sample Recruitment Messages 162

Appendix B: Research Instrument – Survey 164

Appendix C: NPCS Items, Factors, and Descriptive Statistics 173

Appendix D: Correlations of Dimensions of the Four Variables 176


xii

List of Tables

Table 1: Margerum’s 7 Planning Criteria used in Evaluating the Collaboration Process 36

Table 2: Four (4) Criteria for Evaluating the Collaboration Process 39

Table 3: NPCS Original Scale Items to Measure Collaborative Planning Dimensions 42

Table 4: Scales Measuring Steps in the Model of Collaboration 47

Table 5: Datta’s (2015) Summary of AL studies and their results 59

Table 6: Items Used to Measure Authentic Leadership Dimensions 62

Table 7: Three Planning Elements Used in Evaluating Convening/Leadership Traits 63

Table 8: Revised Terms for Scale Items to Measure Collaborative Planning Dimensions 77

Table 9: Revised Items to Measure Collaborative Planning Process Dimensions 77

Table 10: Sex, Age, Education, and Ethnicity 86

Table 11: Sub-Survey. Position, Type, Size, Location, Service Concentration, and Depts.

using SM 91

Table 12: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and Frequency of Authentic Leadership 94

Table 13: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and Frequency of Collaborative Planning Methods 96

Table 14: Cronbach’s alpha (a) coefficients and Frequency of Well-Coordinated Plans 98

Table 15: Cronbach’s alpha (a) coefficients and Frequency of Organizational Culture 98

Table 16: Correlations of AL Dimensions 99

Table 17: Correlations of CPM Dimensions 100

Table 18: Correlations of AOWCP Dimensions 101

Table 19: Correlations of AL and CPM Dimensions 103

Table 20: Correlations of AL and AOWCP Dimensions 104

Table 21: Correlations of CPM and AOWCP Dimensions 106

Table 22: Correlations of AL and CULT Dimensions 108

Table 23: Correlations of CPM and CULT Dimensions 110

Table 24: Correlations of AOWCP and CULT Dimensions 112

Table 25: Component Matrix for CPM (Sub-survey A & B combined) 114

Table 26: Correlations between WCP and the four dimensions of AL 116

Table 27: Regression results: 4 dimensions of AL 117


xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1: USC Annenberg Three-Fold Hypothesis Points Supported by this Study 141

Figure 2: USC Three-Fold Hypothesis Points NOT Supported by this Study 142

Figure 3: Study Results Provide Resources to Support USC Three-Fold Hypothesis 134


1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Imagine you are at the airport and you get your boarding passes only to find out that

your six-year-old son is sitting two rows behind you on the plane. What would you do if you

approached the customer service agent and were told there was nothing she could do? Or…

imagine that you spent nearly $200 on a new baby monitor from a quality brand name company

and it stopped working less than a month later? “If you are like millions of consumers around the

globe, you would jump on… your social media site-du-jour… and complain to friends, family…

and the world” (The Wharton School blog, 2014). If you are mad enough, you would even search

for the company’s Twitter handle, Facebook page or a corporate blog to complain directly. Will

someone in the company respond? How quickly? Will they offer to pass on your complaint to

someone else? Or will they offer an immediate solution to change your seat or replace your

monitor? The answer to this question makes a world of difference in terms of brand reputation.

The interactive and empowering nature of social media makes them a global business

with 2.46 billion social network users in 2017 (Constine, 2017), and the region with the highest

penetration rate of social networks is North America, where 81% of the U.S. population now

have a social media profile, compared to 24% in 2008 (Constine, 2017). According to the Pew

Research Center’s 2016 reports, “Nearly eight-in-ten online Americans (79%) use Facebook.

This is more than double the share that uses Twitter (24%), Pinterest (31%), Instagram (32%) or

LinkedIn (29%). On a total population basis in 2016 (accounting for Americans who do not use

the internet at all), that means that 68% of all U.S. adults are Facebook users, while 28% use

Instagram, 26% use Pinterest, 25% use LinkedIn and 21% use Twitter” (Pew Research Center,

2016). These numbers equate to billions of users!

Today, Facebook boasts 1.32 billion daily active users and 2.01 billion users each month

(Facebook, 2017), making Facebook the largest social app in terms of logged-in users. This is


2

above YouTube’s 1.5 billion, WeChat’s 889 million and Twitter’s 328 million in more than 35

different languages (Constine, 2017; Twitter, 2017). “Snapchat estimated 255 million users

(extrapolated from its December 2015 ratio when it had 110 million daily and 170 million

monthly users). Beyond YouTube, only Facebook’s other apps have more than 1 billion,

including WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, with 1.2 billion each. Instagram might soon join

that club as it recently rocketed past 700 million” (Constine, 2017).

With these numbers consumers are apt to turn to social media to complain about products

and services the instant a situation arises. The expectation is that they will not only receive

immediate responses to inquiries, but instant resolutions to problems. With so many avenues for

posting these consumer complaints – from social networking sites to online rating sites and video

platforms – the impact on a company’s reputation can be instantaneous. And with still less than

half of the world’s population using these platforms, this leaves even more room to expand. In

fact, Statista claims that it expects the number of worldwide users to reach some 2.95 billion by

2020, around a third of Earth’s entire population, with an estimated 650 million of these users

expected to be from China and approximately a third of a million from India (Constine, 2017).

It is for this reason that even the threat of posting a complaint on social media can (and

should) result in an instant resolution. For example, imagine this scene in which this researcher

was involved. I was at the checkout in a department store where I held a VIP credit card and was

buying over $200 in items. I questioned the price of a 10-dollar pair of shorts that I thought was

on sale for five dollars. I was told that the shorts had been placed on the wrong rack and I could

not have the five dollars off (even though they were the exact same brand and looked just like the

pair that was on sale). Rather than allowing a VIP customer making a large purchase to just have

the five dollars taken off at the register, the manager instead insisted on taking me over to the


3

other end of the store to personally prove the difference in the styles. At this time, I pointed out

the importance of being a VIP customer spending a significant amount of money and suggested

that she “just approve the five dollars off.” When the manager responded that “this is her job,” I

asked for her full name and title in order to go onto the department store’s social media pages to

let company executives know what “a fine job” she was doing. At this point, the manager angrily

marched back up to the checkout and approved the five dollars off, without saying a word.

While this situation was unpleasant, it exemplified the changing nature of customer

service in our digital media era. The manager in this situation knew her actions would have

ramifications if they were made public via social networking. Not only could this have possibly

resulted in some professional consequences for the manager, but it would display an aura of bad

customer service for the brand, effecting bad publicity to the world of online users.

When these situations do occur, it is up to the Public Relations/Corporate

Communications/Social Media (PR/Com) team for the organization to respond online

immediately in some way to resolve the situation and recoup the brand reputation in this public

arena. PR/Com has had the responsibility of communicating and interacting with internal and

external publics (across all sectors, including for-profit business, non-profit agency or

government) on social media since the emergence of these platforms. This is because social

media not only offer various channels for satisfying consumer and client demands quickly, but

also provide an opportunity to maintain and even improve a company’s image through customer

engagement and dialogue. Today, 84.7% of U.S. companies (with 100+ employees) use

Facebook (eMarketer, 2015), with more than 65 million businesses hosting their own Facebook

pages and another 5 million businesses registered on Instagram business profiles (Salman, 2017).

Social media have led to a paradigm shift that affects all business operations, but most especially


4

public relations, corporate communications and marketing functions. Recently there were 4

million businesses advertising on Facebook alone, generating advertising revenue of $8.62

billion for fourth quarter 2016, up 53% over the year prior (Salman, 2017). This does not even

take into consideration the number of businesses advertising on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube

and other social networking sites.

While scholarly studies focusing on social media platforms and their influence on

consumer buying behaviors, brand reputation and corporate profitability abound, there has not

been a great deal of focus on corporate operations in terms of interdepartmental integration and

collaboration of social media relations responsibilities across organizations. While organizational

marketing scholars such as Shields (2016) and Benmark (2014) have focused on the importance

of high-level media management and strategy of social media as well as their impact on

productivity, one group of scholars (Andzulis, Panagopoulos & Rapp, 2012) took this

conversation one step further by examining organizational ownership of social media. And while

this conversation has emerged from a sales and marketing perspective, there have been even

fewer studies focusing on the role of PR/Com in the leadership and coordination of these

interdepartmental plans for social media relations responsibilities (surprising, considering

PR/Com’s experience in providing these corporate responsibilities functions). This void in

scholarship – in both the organizational marketing communication and the PR/Com areas of

study – leaves unanswered questions regarding best practices for managing social media across

organizational functions. This includes the important question regarding which function should

be in charge in terms of leading and managing communication decisions associated with social

media consumer relations and online issues management across organizational functions.


5

The University of Southern California (USC) Annenberg Strategic Communication and

Public Relations Center (SCPRC) seventh and eighth biennial Communication and Public

Relations Generally Accepted Practices studies (GAP VII, 2012 and GAP VIII, 2014) addressed

social media’s direct impact on the increase in PR/Com responsibilities in the areas of social

media monitoring and participation and providing customer relations and issues management in

recent years (2009 - 2013). The GAP VIII study (USC Annenberg, 2014) even focuses on the

lack of strategic planning capabilities of PR/Com executives in terms of direct reporting lines to

the company CEO/President (43%), but none of these studies directly explore the actual efforts

of PR/Com professionals in working to improve the management of these additional

responsibilities. This study seeks to do just that by exploring the efforts of PR/Com professionals

to establish interdepartmental plans for managing social media responsibilities across

departments. This will be done by exploring whether PR/Com professionals are using authentic

leadership practices and/or collaborative planning methods to enact interdepartmental social

media plans and, if so, whether they affect the development of well-coordinated plans for social

media relations across organizational functions.

Statement of the Problem

The rapid surge in popularity of social networking sites that occurred during the last

decade did not allow corporate executives and PR/Com professionals (those working at PR/Com

agencies or those working in-house at a non-profit organization, private company, publicly

traded company or other organizations) to strategically plan for the deluge of responsibilities that

would arise in association with these public platforms. No one could have predicted the

excessive flood of customer service inquiries, consumer relations comments or product

management issues and complaints that would be funneled through these sites. This includes


6

both public consumers and business-to-business customers who are using these platforms to

reach the organization directly and to share with other users of social media.

It is for this reason that PR professionals have consistently reported significant increases

in primary budgetary functions and responsibilities associated with social media monitoring

since 2008 (USC Annenberg, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016). These responsibilities grew significantly

between 2009 and 2011 from 55.4% to 72.6% and saw another small growth to 79% by 2013 –

up nearly 24% in only four years as reported by a group of nearly 350 respondents to the USC

Annenberg GAP studies (2012, 2014). Respondents to the GAP Study VIII (2014) also reported

a growth in their social media participation responsibilities from 71% in 2011 to an astounding

81.3% in 2013 – a 10% increase in only two years (USC Annenberg, 2014). Another “function

for which all [PR/Com executives] have primary budgetary responsibility [included] customer

relations responsibilities on social media [which] surged from 11.6% to 25.1% between 2009

and 2011” (USC Annenberg, 2012, functions chart). Most importantly, the managing of issues

that arise online (issues management) jumped 13% between 2011 and 2013, from 58% to 71%.

“[This increase] in issues management can be seen as web-related, given that issues often first

emerge on the web” (USC Annenberg, 2014, Slide 58).

A surprising fact is that these added responsibilities did not result in additional

compensation. Per the USC Annenberg GAP VII study (2012), 63% of respondents reported no

change in budget from 2010 – 2011 despite all these added responsibilities. And while the GAP

VIII study (2014) revealed more companies reporting budget increases from 2012 to 2013 than

those reporting reduced or flat budgets, the USC Annenberg Global Communications Report1

1 In 2016, the USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations expanded and renamed what was formerly known as the GAP

Study. It is now called the Global Communications Report (GCR) and the Center will conduct the study annually in collaboration

with its global partners: the Holmes Report, the Institute for Public Relations, the Global Alliance for Public Relations and

Communication Management, the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication, the PR Council,

the Worldcom PR Group and PRSA.


7

(GCR, 2016) of 460 industry professionals revealed a decline in revenue per capita in early 2016

(down to an average of $155,000 compared to $158,000 the previous year), even though the PR

agency industry is at an all-time high of $14.2 billion. “The decline in revenue per head is

perhaps the most troubling aspect of our survey this year… these numbers suggest PR is still

seen by many clients as a commodity rather than a value-added service” (Holmes, 2016, p. 44).

PR scholars and practitioners have worked diligently for nearly three decades

encouraging scholarship and practices that view and position PR as a management function

within organizations rather than focusing on the profession and industry research based on

tactical functions. However, the USC Annenberg GCR (2016) supports that this is still a problem

in today’s market. While CEOs, Marketing and PR/Com executives/professionals all agree that

social media sites “…are an integral part of the culture [and] using them for customer care is…

[a] business necessity” (Wharton, 2014), many are still struggling with best practices. This was

the message from panelists at a recent Wharton Social Media Best Practices Conference during a

session titled, “The Real Value of Social Media for Customer Service.” Panelists representing

the airline, banking and credit card industries reported that their companies reported that they

“have set up Twitter handles and, in some cases, a second handle dedicated solely to customer

support… which they also referred to as ‘customer care’ or ‘social care’” (Wharton, 2014).

However, according to Beagle Research, while this is becoming a common practice

among some forward-thinking companies, it is not yet the norm. Denis Pombriant, founder and

managing principal at Beagle Research, said, “It’s being undervalued… Most organizations, they

say, have not yet developed adequate procedures and policies for dealing with customer service

interactions initiated on social media” (Klie, 2014, p. 19). This is supported by a Facebook report


8

(2016) stating that 87% of posts on this platform were still being left unanswered in 2015.

According to Holmes:

At a time when engagement, authenticity, transparency, credibility—the things that PR is

good at—are increasingly critical to successful brand-building, it is disturbing to see

industry growth slowing… That suggests PR firms are either not adapting to the new

multichannel communications landscape, or they have not yet convinced clients that they

can deliver all of those things. (2016, p. 44)

“Seventy-one percent of consumers who've had a good social-media service experience with a

brand are likely to recommend it to others” (Benmark, 2014, p. 11). Social media provides a

platform to redefine the delivery of service to customers - changing the way consumers think

and talk about an organization or a brand while drastically lowering service costs (Benmark,

2014; Shields, 2016). But this leaves the question, “How can organizations and leaders maximize

the business value of social media platforms?... a question that organizations of all sectors and

sizes have been asking for [over] a decade” (Shields, 2016, p. 7).

The USC Annenberg GAP VII (2012) study revealed that while 75.6% of respondents

agreed with the statement, “My company provides social media guidelines for its employees”

(USC Annenberg, 2012, social media attitudes chart), only 40% actively participated in

corporate strategic planning (slide 17), with a mere 3% having a solid reporting line linking their

role directly to strategic planning (slide 38). These numbers are even more revealing when

combined with the GAP VIII results, which report that 88.8% of PR/Com professionals use

social media to communicate with external audiences (USC Annenberg, 2014). These responses

suggest that while PR has primary responsibility for social media relations with external

audiences, they are not highly involved in the strategic planning of these initiatives.


9

This contrasts with the GAP VII (2012) report in which 84.6% of all respondents agreed

with the statement, “PR/Com lead the development of our social media guidelines” (USC

Annenberg, 2012, social media attitudes chart), where this researcher interpreted “our” as

meaning, “for the company.” It also contrasts with the numbers reported in the GAP VIII study,

where only 72.6% agreed that they have extensive control over social media. So, while 84.6% of

PR/Com professionals helped lead the development of social media guidelines between 2009 -

2011, only 72.6% reported extensive control over social media between 2012 - 2013.

These numbers showcase a high level of planning involvement by PR/Com executives,

but a lower ability to maintain a management function over social media relations across the

organizations they represent. This could be due in part to the fact that 65.1% of respondents

stated that the marketing/sales department also used social media to communicate with external

audiences and a whopping 43.8% revealed that the marketing/sales department had extensive

control over social media in their companies (USC Annenberg, 2014). So, while PR/Com

professionals helped lead the development of social media guidelines (85%) and they are the

ones using social media to communicate with external audiences more than any other department

(nearly 90% compared to 65% of marketing/sales), only 72.6% reported extensive control over

social media (up from 50% in 2011) because 43.8% reported that marketing/sales has this

control. These numbers suggest some “sharing” of control between these two departments.

These reports also revealed that only 35.4% of customer service departments use social

media to communicate with external audiences, with only 6.6% having extensive control over

social media (USC Annenberg, 2014). In fact, GAP VIII respondents indicated that as many as

“six separate organizational functions have some degree of use and control over social media in

their companies” (USC Annenberg, 2014, slide 65). To add to this, only 33% of respondents of


10

the GAP VIII study categorized their company’s level of social media coordination as “well-

coordinated,” while 55.3% categorized it as “moderately coordinated” (USC Annenberg, 2014,

slide 66). These results suggest “a lack of consistency… raising the possibility of multiple voices

and muddled messages… [and] room for improvement” (USC Annenberg, 2014, slides 65 and

66) in terms of coordinating social media communication with external audiences across

organizational departments. This is especially true regarding coordination between the functions

of PR/Com, Marketing/Sales, and Customer Service/Relations. It is for this reason that

progressive PR/Com experts and consultants across the U.S. have initiated a call for industry

professionals to step up and lead the collaboration of these services among the various functions

that provide social media relations.

For example, Lisa Goldsberry of Axia Public Relations (FL and GA) posted a blog article

titled, “Why collaboration in PR is important for success.” In this article, she discusses the

importance of PR professionals taking a leadership role by providing counsel, fresh ideas and a

different perspective (Goldsberry, 2015). Goldsberry focused on PR’s role as important in

collaborating communication across internal and external messaging – including social media,

where PR has “led the way” (2015). Like others in the industry, she highlighted the two

important roles of leadership and collaboration as keys to success in building consensus and

coordinating measurement across organizations.

Ron Young, founder and CEO of Shocase, is another enthusiastic advocate encouraging

PR professionals to lead collaboration across functions by promoting its importance in

companies’ abilities to tell great stories and engage users. Young has been publicizing this

message to industry professionals via any avenue he could access. Some of these platforms

included his blog (CoverageBook.com, 2015, Nov. 6), a PRSA International conference panel


11

discussion (Atlanta, 2015, Nov. 9), and an article in Adweek (2015, Nov. 23), to name a few. In

these discussions, Young (2015) pointed out, “The lines between marketing disciplines have

blurred [and that] there is no reason to label a great idea as PR, advertising or social. Consumers

don’t care about these labels and neither should marketers” (Young, 2015, Nov. 23). He

highlighted the great, new opportunity this creates for PR professionals, “who must reach outside

of their comfort zone” (Young, 2015, Nov. 6).

These experts have pointed out that collaborating across marketing functions “provides

greater insight to what is driving consumer behavior and allows PR to support marketing

campaigns across all platforms” (Young, 2015, Nov. 6). They also noted that as new digital

opportunities arise, PR, marketing, social media and advertising functions must all become more

integrated with common goals and companies who resist these types of collaborative

approaches won’t realize ultimate success.

These industry experts have highlighted the importance of PR professionals reaching

across boundaries to lead this effort and work in collaboration with teams of experts in social

media, sales and marketing and customer service to create engaging content across all platforms.

Young endorsed PR as the natural leader for the collaboration of social media relations for these

reasons:

1) PR is typically a key driver of strategic message development… [and] this is at the

core of any successful collaborative program.

2) Messages must constantly be reevaluated, which is an asset of public relations…

[which] has always led stakeholder engagement.


12

3) PR professionals can easily support and amplify messages in an ad campaign… [as]

social media experts can help drive engagement in tandem with experiential

marketers.

(Young, 2015, Nov. 6)

The topic of collaboration in PR is popular in other countries as well. For example, the

Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA), based in England, features an article

on its web site titled, The Future of PR lies in Collaboration. The article, by Joyce Lorigan, CEO

of Golley Slater PR and Margaret Street PR, pointed out the importance of getting “better at

working alongside our marketing brothers and sisters to find a position that can really effect

change and move our clients’ businesses forward” (Lorigan, 2016). Lorigan highlighted the

importance of consumer and media insight “to provide compelling content… [across] digital

channels… [to] fuel engagement” (Lorigan, 2016).

In fact, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) – the U.S. equivalent of the

PRCA – focused an entire conference on this topic in May 2016, titled, PRSA 2016 Strategic

Collaboration Conference. The gathering featured panels and presentations that “focused on the

critical… skills needed to advance a career in the new collaborative environment” (PRSA, 2016).

It featured discussions that focused on the importance of “multidisciplinary knowledge and

actionable approaches to become and stay relevant to an organization’s communications

strategies” (PRSA, 2016).

FleishmanHillard, one of the largest U.S.-based international PR firms, also promoted

this message in its corporate blog last year, pointing out “the need for collaboration and

integration across marketing communications functions and with other strategic groups and units

within your organization and beyond” (fleishmanhillard.com, 2015, June 16). This was the topic


13

on June 16, 2015, which put a call out to industry professionals: “As corporate communications

and marketing professionals, we are on the front lines of this escalating need… [to] align

marketing and communications… [to] get everyone aligned inside and outside the organization”

(fleishmanhillard.com, 2015, June 16). In addition to highlighting the problem and calling out to

professionals to take action, FleishmanHillard also created a model for collaborative success

called The Organizing Principle. The firm claims that this model helps organizations “align

marketing and communications activities across functions, divisions and geographies… to

realize their collaborative potential and encourage new models for integration”

(fleishmanhillard.com, 2015, June 16).

FleishmanHillard is among the progressive PR firms, counselors, strategists and

educators who have offered models that focus on the importance of collaboration and

collaborative leadership as keys to success in PR. In fact, Jean Egmon, EdD., creator of KALE

(Kellogg Lab Action Experience) and former Director of the Architectures of Collaboration at

Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, Evanston, IL, introduced a Framing

Model for Collaborative Leadership as part of the KALE hands-on learning program sponsored

by FleishmanHillard at Northwestern in May 2015. Egmon’s model is based on four key

collaborative planning elements: “1) properly framing the situation; 2) mapping the situation

space using creativity as well as concept and network linkages; 3) creating a small version of the

solution with key players; and then 4) bringing the plan to a larger scale where multiple

stakeholders win simultaneously” (Egmon, 2016). Based on interviews and case studies of over

80 different companies, Egmon (2016) said, “Whenever collaboration didn’t happen, a key factor

was that the situation or challenge wasn’t framed properly to begin with.”


14

Egmon (2016) highlighted that the problem needs to be framed as a question on a larger

scale so that everyone can see their side and have mutual interests in coming to creative

solutions. Egmon (2016) compares the collaborative planning process to making a stew, where

all ingredients contribute to the end result. Focusing on the importance of this shared view,

where all stakeholders have information to contribute, results in the creation of new ideas and a

shared vision. Egmon (2016) explains collaboration is an investment in “learning capital,” which

fosters a win-win environment and leads to “patterns of profitability.”

KALE offered participants a unique three-way view of the benefits of collaboration,

beginning with Egmon’s model identifying the behaviors of the most collaborative organizations.

In addition, Professor Harry Kraemer, an executive partner with Madison Dearborn Partners,

Chicago, IL, and a Clinical Professor of Strategy at Northwestern, emphasized the necessity of

leaders to understand and exemplify collaboration and addressed the fear of letting go of

perceived power. The third presenter was marketing Professor Greg Carpenter, Director of the

Center for Market Leadership, who spoke about the role that collaboration has played in helping

the most successful companies sustain their success (also the subject of his new book,

Resurgence). The two-day event, which brought senior executives together to discuss solutions

to complex challenges, made it “evident… that finding solutions to the barriers to integration

was real and urgent… [and] that there’s not only burgeoning need for collaborative practices, but

readiness to invest in adopting the new tools needed and to learning how to collaborate”

(www.fleishmanhillard.com).

Purpose of the Study

When agency and client-side PR/Com executives were asked about specific services that

will drive future growth for the industry, the top two answers were increased demand for content

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/egmon_jean/


15

creation (81%) and social media (75%) (USC Annenberg GCR, 2016). The GCR Summary

Report stated that

while more traditional activities such as brand reputation (70%), measurement and

evaluation (60%)… and traditional media relations (55%)… all still rank relatively high

for both corporate and agency leaders, advertising/paid media (18%) ranked last of 18

possible growth drivers. (2016, p. 2)

Aligning with this service need, respondents ranked writing skills as more critical (89%) than

strategic planning (84%), which was followed closely by social media expertise (76%) and

multimedia content development (76%) (GCR Summary Report, 2016, p. 4).

The media landscape is changing and business models are adapting. Communicators are

now working across more channels with “less than a third of the average corporate department’s

media budget (31.9%)… being spent on earned media —the traditional focus for corporate

communications” (GCR Summary Report, 2016, p. 6). Slightly more (32.1%) is being spent on

owned media (such as websites and blogs), while 17% is being spent on paid media and 16.4% is

being spent on shared media (social media). “In contrast, agencies report that more than 50% of

their revenue is currently derived from earned media activities, followed by 20.5% from owned

media, 17.2% from shared media and 9.3% from paid media” (GCR Summary Report, 2016, p.

6). This shows that both in-house and agency respondents are finding approximately 17% of

their overall budget/revenue to be directly associated with (shared) social media activities. In

addition, the GCR study found that

in-house respondents expect the shift away from earned media to continue over the next

five years. They project that by 2020, slightly more than a quarter of their media budget

(26.6%) will be focused on earned channels, with 31.3% to owned media, 22.8% going to


16

shared (social media), and 17.3% being spent on paid media. The largest increase in this

five-year projection is on shared/social media increasing from a current 16.4% of budget

allocation to 22.8% in the year 2020.

These shifts prompted inquiries as to “who in the company rightfully ‘owns’ social media and its

associated implementation across all channels” (Andzulis, et al., 2012, p. 306) and “Are they

assigning the right organizational owner to those efforts? Although social media channels have

become powerful and cost-effective tools for customer service, management may be in the

wrong hands” (Benmark, 2014, p. 11). While many scholars have examined these questions from

a sales and marketing perspective (Andzulis, et al., 2012; Benmark, 2014), PR industry scholars

and professionals believe that PR should be leading this charge across organizational functions

(Goldsberry, 2015; Young, 2015; Lorigan, 2016; FleishmanHillard, 2015). This is supported by

the results of USC Annenberg (2012) GAP VII Study, which reveals that half of corporate

respondents reported PR as having more than 70% budgetary control of social media, compared

to only 41% who reported marketing as having majority control. In addition, 54% of

respondents reported that PR has at least 70% strategic control over social media, compared to

37% who reported that marketing has majority control. Adding to this argument, a majority of

GAP VII respondents also agreed with the following statements: “It is the job of PR/Com to

define corporate/organizational voice across all media (79.7%)” and “Public relations should be

responsible for socializing corporate/organizational voice through the organization (71.8%)”

(USC Annenberg, 2012, PR Attitudes II chart).

While many organizations have realized that “effective social media management is

dependent upon a strong connection to high-level strategy... [with] the organization’s goals…”

(Shields, 2016, p. 8), many of these companies are still struggling with how to effectively


17

integrate social media across the enterprise, leaving many to take (and experiment with) different

approaches. Shields (2016) pointed out the importance of productivity in terms of “…enhancing

the ways in which people work through the use of social media platforms… When deployed

strategically, these tools can help people collaborate more effectively and thus get more and

better quality work done in less time” (Shields, 2016, p. 15).

The purpose of this study was to bring some further insight to this subject by examining

the current efforts (or lack thereof) of PR/Com professionals to collaborate social media

responsibilities across organizational functions and determining how these efforts affect

coordination. More specifically, the study used collaborative planning theory and actor network

theory as a basis for examining the following:

1) Whether PR/Com professionals are using collaborative planning methods to enact

interdepartmental plans for social media relations.

2) Whether PR/Com professionals are utilizing authentic leadership practices.

3) Whether authentic leadership and/or collaborative planning methods effect the

establishment of interdepartmental plans for social media relations – and how.

This study also included an examination of whether there were differences in

collaborative planning methods or the establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media

relations based on the type or size of an organization. The study included PR professionals who

were employed in-house (meaning they work for one organization), as well as those who worked

at PR firms/agencies or as independent practitioners (meaning they work for several client

organizations) in terms of how they worked in conjunction with their clients. A quantitative

research approach (that will be described in Chapter 3) was used to facilitate these goals.


18

Wake Forrest University claimed, “The primary uses of communication research are to

describe, predict, and explain human communication and to effectuate and increase

control/management of human communicative events” (college.wfu.edu, 2016). It is for this

reason that this study set out to further support the three-fold mission of USC Annenberg’s

Center for Public Relations. This organization hosts annual studies to: a) advance the study,

practice and value of the communication/public relations function; b) help bridge the academic /

practitioner gap; and c) inform/drive PR/Com curricula (USC Annenberg, 2012). It was the hope

of this researcher that this study would add value to the discussion on interdepartmental

collaboration in social media relations and shed some light on the role of PR/Com in this effort.

It was also the goal of this researcher to contribute to the discussion of interdepartmental

coordination of social media relations by grounding the study in collaborative planning theory

and actor network theory to examine effects of interdepartmental plans. Past research efforts in

this subject area have often lacked a theoretical anchor, instead depending primarily upon

perceptual measures of performance, and the PR/Com role in these efforts has largely been

ignored. In addition, it was hoped that the results of this study would suggest areas for

improvement in practice and further study as the PR/Com industry works to manage

collaboration of these efforts across organizational functions.

Definition of Terms

While most of the study did not employ technical terms, some words are more widely

known amongst PR professionals and may not be as well understood in other areas of

communication, and other terms deserved special emphasis because of their significance to this

study. It is for this reason that I clarified these terms and provided their definitions here.


19

Organization: This term was used to refer to any of the following entities: for-profit

corporation, government agency, non-profit organization, educational institution, humanitarian

organization, society or cause. Organizations create a public presence known as a brand and

often work to establish individual brand recognition for specific products or services they offer.

Public: This term often refers to specific groups of people that organizations target as

audiences of their communication messages in hopes of building a customer-base through

relationships. For purposes of this study, public referred to any individual or group with whom

the organization is working to create, maintain or foster a relationship. These people could hold a

positive or negative interest toward the organization or it could be an inactive or latent public.

Public Relations: “A strategic, management function to build and maintain mutually

beneficial relationships between an organization and the various publics on whom its success or

failure depends” (Wilcox, Cameron, Reber, and Shin, 2011, p.6).

PR/Com Executives: This study targeted public relations (PR) and communication (Com)

professionals (including social media professionals) who held a title of executive, director,

assistant director, controller, supervisor, manager, assistant manager or other position that

allowed them the ability to make decisions that affect the organization in a management capacity

(regardless of the organization’s size or type).

Management Function: The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) (2016) web

site, defines PR as a management function, and as such it encompasses the following:

• Anticipating, analyzing and interpreting public opinion, attitudes and issues that

might impact, for good or ill, the operations and plans of the organization.

• Counseling management at all levels in the organization with regard to policy

decisions, courses of action and communication, taking into account their public


20

ramifications and the organization’s social or citizenship responsibilities.

• Researching, conducting and evaluating, on a continuing basis, programs of

action and communication to achieve the informed public understanding

necessary to the success of an organization’s aims. These may include marketing;

financial; fund raising; employee, community or government relations; and other

programs.

• Planning and implementing the organization’s efforts to influence or change

public policy. Setting objectives, planning, budgeting, recruiting and training

staff, developing facilities — in short, managing the resources needed to perform

all of the above.

(www.prsa.org)

Multimedia: The use of various media forms including, but not limited to, photos,

graphics, videos, video files, video games, audio files, various social media and online platforms,

all of which are used to enrich a communication experience.

Social Networking Sites (SNS): Social networking sites are “web-based services that

allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; (2)

articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and (3) view and traverse their

list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of

these connections may vary from site to site” (Boyd and Ellison, 2007, p. 210). A sampling of

these platforms includes blogs, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Instagram and Google+.

Social Media: A broader category that encompasses social networking sites as well as

other platforms for computer-mediated communication (CMC) such as e-newsletters; producing

and sharing of online videos via websites like YouTube; direct-to-consumer coupons and


21

promotions sent via phones and email; intranet sites; and network tools like Salesforce’s Service

Cloud and Salesforce Chatter and Oracle Chat, to name a few.

Social Media Practices: For purposes of this study, social media practices referred to

customer service, consumer relations and sales/product issues management practices – in terms

of responding to consumer comments, inquiries and complaints – that arose via social

networking sites. Solis and Breakenridge (2009) claimed that social media practices complement

traditional PR and if used properly, can not only increase exposure, but also help build a positive

image that helps shape opinions.

Customer Relations (in Business English): “The way that a company or organization

deals with its customers, and the relationship it has with them” (Dictionary.Cambridge.org).

Customer Service: “The degree of assistance and courtesy granted those who patronize a

business; more than what you say or do for your customers – it also means giving customers a

chance to make their feelings known” (Entrepreneur.com).

Facilitators: Members of the group who make sure the conditions and ground rules of the

dialogue are followed as they work through issues, and that the practices become shared norms

in the group (Innes & Booher, 2014, p. 15).

Stakeholders: Participants in the planning process who are “legitimate representatives of

an interest, and [are able to] provide accurate and comprehensible information” (Innes & Booher,

2014, p. 15).

Significance of the Study

The GAP VIII Study Findings Report (2014) posed a three-fold hypothesis, titled “A

Process for Optimizing the CCO Role and the Communication Function” (USC Annenberg,

GAP VIII, 2014). This hypothesis proposes the following:


22

1. Championing coordination / collaboration (i.e. fostering a culture of integration) is an

effective strategy for creating an internal environment in which the PR/Com function

can be optimized...

2. Such optimization can lead to an enhanced role in organizational planning, internal

credibility for the function, etc. …

3. That enhanced role leads to greater influence on external factors such as Success,

External Reputation, etc.

(Slide 36)

It is the argument of this researcher that this process can only be successful when PR

executives champion collaboration of a specific problem for which they have a primary

responsibility and expertise. Since it has been determined that the PR/Com department has

primary responsibility for social media relations, which also affects multiple departments within

the organization, it seems an appropriate avenue for examining the first two claims (related to

internal functions) of this hypothesis. It was therefore the hope of this researcher that the

outcome of this study would help support or deny these two claims by examining: a) whether

PR/Com executives are “championing coordination / collaboration (i.e. fostering a culture of

integration)” for social media relations responsibilities across organizational functions – and how

(in terms of using authentic leadership practices and/or collaborative planning methods); and b)

whether these plans are being identified as successful (defined as “acceptance of outcomes” and

“well-coordinated”).

The USC Annenberg GCR summary report (2016) showed social media ranked second

on a list of 18 potential growth drivers (over the next five years) among agency respondents

(falling closely behind content creation). Social media also ranked third among in-house

respondents (falling closely behind content creation and brand reputation). These respondents


23

saw “increasing demand for content, adoption of new technologies and expansion of

communication channels” (GCR full report, p. 25) as the top three factors causing the structure

of their department to change over the next five years. Another area of growth in social media

relates to measurement. GCR (2016) respondents identified social media evaluation as

“unsophisticated” (p. 10), with the most common metrics being a simple count of followers

(78%), reach (77%) and interactions, in terms of likes or comments (76%). Fewer respondents

reported tracking sentiment (62%), social listening, in terms of real-time monitoring of

conversations (47%) or changes in opinion/action (36%)” (USC Annenberg, GCR, 2016, p. 10).

These findings display a need for leadership in collaborative efforts for social media

initiatives and evaluation. “Everyone agrees that… [social media is] a huge growth opportunity

but few seem to have figured out an integrated approach to determining the real return on

investment for communications” (Cook, 2016). The GCR (2016) summary report stated that

“client-side respondents cited strategic insight as the single most important reason to bring in

outside agencies (3.73 on a scale of 1 to 5), followed by creative thinking (3.67)” (p. 8). It is

encouraging that agency partners are now being chosen for strategic and creative input rather

than just providing “additional arms and legs” (USC Annenberg, 2016, p. 8). These findings

support the importance of investigating the state of the PR industry in terms of its role in the

collaboration of social media responsibilities across business functions to heed industry’s appeals

to examine “The Ignored Side of Social Media” (Wharton, 2014).

Internal integration, also known as cross-functional, inter-functional, and

interdepartmental integration, is defined as the mutual alignment of cross-functional

interdependencies through interaction, information-sharing, and collaboration (Kahn and

Mentzer, 1998; Morash and Clinton 1998; Pagell 2004; Margerum, 2002, 2008; Egmon, 2016).


24

Research into the effects of internal integration and collaboration is still emerging. To date,

“most scholarly work in [this] domain… has been descriptive and theoretically underdeveloped,”

(Frankel and Mollenkopf, 2013, p. 18). Those studies that do exist either focus on effects on

profitability (Swink & Schoenherr, 2015; Shah, 2010; Kahn, 2001; Kahn and Mentzer, 1998) or

they are focused on geography (such as urban studies), natural resource planning, forest

management or political science. Those that do examine specific collaborative planning, internal

integration and leadership methods in work environments are often centered in educational,

healthcare or government employment settings or focus specifically on supply chain processes.

And even many of these evaluated the success of collaborative initiatives by asking participants

to describe key characteristics of the process (Gray, 1989; Schuett et al., 2001; Conley & Moote,

2003; Thompson and Prokopy, 2016). It is for this reason that Swink and Schoenherr (2015)

pointed out that

current research falls short of providing the strong evidence needed to make a solid

business case for investments in organizational changes, training, and technologies

typically required… [because] organizational, political, and resource-related challenges

make high levels of integration difficult to achieve and maintain. (p. 69)

It is for this reason that Swink and Schoenherr (2015) advocate for more rigor and relevance in

studying internal integration’s operational influences and effects to convince managers and

executives of the benefits.

When examining the PR field specifically, no studies could be found to measure the use

of leadership practices and collaborative planning methods in interdepartmental cooperation

between PR, marketing and other departments who take part in social media communication on

behalf of the organization. While the USC Annenberg GAP studies VII and VIII did ask about


25

collaboration, they did not study planning methods specifically. And scholars who do study

social media practices seem to focus mostly on how PR practitioners use social media in various

geographical locations (many of which are outside the U.S.). This leaves a gap in research that

focuses on specific methods that may provide pragmatic solutions for leading collaborative

planning initiatives across organizational functions.

Practical and Theoretical Significance. This study could prove significant to several

constituencies, all of which have a deep stake in the PR discipline’s role – and future growth – as

a management function. Utilizing research as a means “to describe, predict, and explain [how PR

executives are] effectuat[ing] and increase[ing] control/management of… communicative

events” (Wake Forrest, 2015) is imperative in demonstrating the discipline’s current standing

and supporting its advancement as a management function. PR/Com executives who find

themselves struggling with this issue today will be able to learn from the findings of this study.

It was the hope that any successful collaborative social media strategies identified herein

can be implemented by other PR/Com executives in their own organizations (or in working with

their clients’ organizations). It was the hope that this study would enhance PR’s role in

collaborative planning of social media relations across organizations – and as a result, possibly

affect internal credibility and status as a management function (as the USC Annenberg GAP VIII

predicts).

Educators may find the information useful in teaching PR principles and social media

courses. It is important to teach future PR/Com professionals about authentic leadership and

collaborative planning methods as tools to effectively coordinate and manage social media

policies and procedures across functions. Understanding the importance of having inter-related


26

departments working together is imperative in any communication, marketing or business

classroom.

It was also the hope of this researcher that this study would identify questions, themes

and patterns that can be studied by communication theorists and academics in more detail in the

future. Academics in various fields – communication, management and marketing – may find the

study useful in focusing their research on another aspect of the management or evaluation of

social media across organizational departments. In addition, examining business models for

managing interdepartmental strategies and evaluation in any service or operations area is a

worthy effort for finding solutions to strengthen models of interdepartmental collaboration in any

business in any field.

PR Communication theorists may find this study’s examination into the leadership and

collaboration of interdepartmental responsibilities for social media relations (in terms of

providing consumer relations, customer service and product issues management via social media

channels) an inspiration to further inspect the state of the PR/Com discipline and its progress in

other management function areas. One example could be to examine the role of PR/Com

executives in establishing processes for combining global integration with local accommodation

strategies. In addition, communication and marketing theorists alike may find this study’s use of

actor network theory and collaborative planning theory advantageous for future studies and

experimentation into the management function of strategy implementation.

Summary

While many recent examinations into the efforts of PR/Com professionals and scholars

provide actionable data on key issues associated with PR strategy and management of social

media trends and best practices (Briones, 2011; Wharton, 2014; FleishmanHillard, 2015; Egmon,


27

2016), most of these efforts are exploratory and explanatory in nature. Those that do provide a

detailed analysis of the role of social media management and evaluation in the future growth of

the PR industry (USC Annenberg, 2012, 2014, 2016) focus more on the connection between

collaboration and C-Suite access and optimization of the function. What is needed now are

investigations into whether PR/Com professionals are successfully making this happen – and if

so, how.

It took scholars and academics over 20 years to elevate the PR function to a management

status. What is needed is a conversation that centers on whether PR/Com professionals are

working to sustain this status – and if so, how. It is the hope of this researcher that an

examination into the effectiveness of specific types of leadership styles and collaborative

planning efforts, specific to social media relations, might reveal some pragmatic guidance for

PR/Com executives to champion collaborative efforts for social media across organizational

functions. This is being done to not only support the optimization of PR function, but also as a

platform for other researchers to study leadership styles in conjunction with collaborative efforts

in other domains.


28

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 2 will provide a review of literature and research relating to the study. This

chapter will be divided into five sections. The first section explains how social media evolved to

connect the functions of public relations, marketing and customer service. The second and third

sections will discuss the theories that form the framework of this study – Collaborative Planning

Theory and Actor Network Theory – as well as examples of studies that have utilized these

theories, providing dimensions to be used in this study. The fourth section will outline the

research questions and hypotheses for this study, while the fifth and final section will conclude

with a summary highlighting the benefits of combining these theories to create a unique

inspection for this topic.

Social Media Connects PR, Marketing and Customer Service

Elihu Katz’ uses and gratifications theory can be used as a basis to argue that people use

social media to gratify different needs. The focus of this theory is that people are motivated to

use media to seek specific benefits from them in different fashions. Literature discussed in this

and the previous chapter indicate that people use social networking sites, such as Facebook,

Twitter and various blogs, for many reasons. Among them is their use as a platform to meet their

need to complain about product and service problems and to discover a method to solve these

issues. “Drawing upon social interaction theory (Ben-Zira, 1980), it can be argued that when

customers are involved in service encounters where they have less knowledge and solutions than

the service provider, as is the case when requesting after-sales customer service [or expressing a

service or product complaint], evaluation of the service is at least partly based on the affective

component of the provider’s communication” (Verhagen, et al., 2014, p. 534). This is supported


29

by the fact that “auto-posting to Facebook decreases likes and comments by 70%” (Hubspot,

2016).

This theoretical grounding helps explain why social media evolved as a necessary

component of corporate public relations so quickly. As such, it left very little time for PR

professionals to plan appropriately and strategically in terms of how to handle the types of

conversations that evolved on these community platforms. Thus, the Internet was seen as “the

Wild West… [where] anything goes; There are no rule books, no textbooks to learn from” (Fitch,

2009a, p. 5). By 2012, PR professionals found themselves bombarded with customer service

questions, issues and complaints that were being funneled via Facebook, Twitter and blogs.

Today, the evolution of CMC tools, which include live chats, online customer

communities/forums and blogs, in addition to social media, have “allow[ed] various

organizational departments the ability to… provide information, answers and solutions for

consumers” (Verhagen, van Nes, Feldberg & van Dolen, 2014, p. 529) in real time. This has

changed the corporate landscape as public relations, corporate communications, marketing and

customer service are quickly converging. “In the past, service and marketing communication

were two distinct marketing concepts with little overlap” (Bacile, Hoffacker & White, 2014, p.

34). This evoked a need for corporations to reassess these services and responsibilities…

something that many PR/Com and marketing professionals are still struggling with today in

terms of finding best practices for breaking down responsibilities across corporate functions,

including PR/Com, Marketing, Brand Management and Customer Service (Andzulis, et al.,

2012; Bacile, Hoffacker & White, 2014; Klie, 2014; Komodromos, 2014; USC Annenberg,

2014, 2016).


30

But that is not to say that PR/Com executives are not aware of the problem and searching

for solutions. For example, Briones (2011) explored how the Red Cross used social media tools

to build relationships by conducting 40 in-depth interviews with employees who either deliver or

manage social media communication. The study pointed out that “…organizations must update

their strategies and tactics to build… stronger relationships with the public [because] such

guidelines could enhance trust by providing consistency [across the organization]” (Briones, et

al., 2011, p. 41). And some PR/Com executives (mostly at mid- to large-size PR firms) are doing

just that by convincing their clients about the importance of decentralizing their organization’s

social media efforts in a strategic fashion across these departments (Whitten, 2013).

Utility companies are one industry that seems to have led the way in integrating social

media seamlessly across departments. “One Fortune 500 utility company knew it needed to

create and build a social media strategy to interact with existing customers and reach new ones in

unregulated markets,” (Johnson & Pedersen, 2014, p. 26) so it hired PricewaterhouseCoopers

LLC (PwC) to help “understand the platform, create an effective strategy and build an engaging

presence” (Johnson & Pedersen, 2014, p. 26). Another large, regional utility company looking to

integrate a similar strategy worked with its large, international PR firm’s Boston office to help it

streamline social customer service across its PR/Com, Sales/Marketing and Customer Service

departments (Whitten, 2013). In both cases, a team of PR/Com social media specialists worked

with key personnel at their client companies to develop a comprehensive strategy for providing

online customer service, issues management and service marketing across functions.

“Online service encounters are critical to a customer’s image of service providers and

therefore central to determining the success of the firm” (Verhagen, et al., 2014, p. 529). One of

the leading all stars in providing customer service in social media space is JetBlue Airways,


31

which ranked highest according to J.D. Power’s 2016 North America Airline Satisfaction study

of Fortune’s category for “Best in Customer Service” among the low-cost airline segment for the

11th consecutive year. “Stranded customers love to vent on Twitter and Facebook... JetBlue

Airways always… responds in real time” (Hempel, Mansour & Southward, 2013, p. 133). With

2.1 million followers on @JetBlue (TwitterCounter.com) and more than 1.3 million likes on its

Facebook page (Facebook.com/JetBlue/), “the airline has had a dedicated social media support

team since 2010, whose 26 members have the same training and ability to rebook flights as their

call-center counterparts” (Hempel, et al., 2013, p.133). And with 2,500-2,600 Twitter mentions

every day, JetBlue still has a dedicated team of 25 employees under the direction of Laurie

Meacham, Manager of Customer Commitment, who “cover their social media accounts 24/7 and

read every single tweet that comes in. And, impressively, they average a 10-minute response

time” (Kolowich, 2017). Many could learn from their example.

Collaborative Planning Theory

Collaborative planning theory (CPT), sometimes called the collaborative model or

communicative planning theory, emerged in the 1980s. Drawn largely from Jürgen Habermas’

(1984, 1987a) theory of communicative action / theory of communicative rationality, CPT refers

to the earlier work of numerous scholars (John Friedman, 1969, 1998, 2011; John Forester, 1980;

Patsy Healey, 1992, 1997a; Charles Hoch, 1984, 2002; Howard Baum, 1998; and James

Throgmorton, 1992) who conducted interpretive research on planners and planning processes

using concepts from social theorists “to develop normative perspectives on practice” (Innes &

Booher, 2014, p. 4). The research demonstrated what Habermas (1989) had claimed— “that

communication is a form of acting on others, rather than a clear channel through which one

conveys facts” (Innes & Booher, 2014, p. 4). This change in focus tempted new theorists to


32

challenge prevailing theories “about what planning is, how it works, and how it ought to be

done” (Innes & Booher, 2014, p. 2).

One major refocus centered on the concern that theory be linked to practice (de Neufville,

1983, 1987; Forester 1980). By the early 1990s, a whole new theory of planning came to be

articulated around the idea of planning as a procedural process of communication and

negotiation. Theorists like Sager (1994) spoke of a new communicative planning theory, while

Innes (1995) pointed to an emerging paradigm in planning theory concerned with communicative

action and interactive practice. “Whenever people communicate with each other, plans and

planning processes are at play” (Berger, 2008, Ch. 7, p. 1). Berger makes a distinction between

the two terms:

Plans are hierarchal knowledge structures that represent goal-directed action sequences,

but planning is a process that produces a plan or plans as its product. Planning includes

assessing the situation, deciding what goal or goals to pursue, creating or retrieving plans,

and then executing them.” (Berger, 2008, Ch. 7, p. 4)

The idea is that each person will approach a conversation with his or her own subjective

experience in mind and that from that conversation shared goals and possibilities will emerge

(Berger, 1997). Healy (1997a) adds to this point in defining collaborative planning as a process

by which participants arrive at an agreement on an action that expresses their mutual interests…

making participation fundamental to the planning process. It was at this point that a new civics-

based model of planning emerged that “delegates responsibility for planning directly to

stakeholders who engage in face-to-face negotiations to seek consensus [on] solutions to

common problems” (Day & Gunton, 2003, p. 5). Healey (1997a) defined seven key emphases in

communicative planning theory:


33

a. Recognition of the social construction of knowledge and the exercise of both practical

reason and scientific knowledge.

b. Acknowledgement of the different forms for the development and communication of

knowledge (analysis, storytelling, expression).

c. Internal within social contexts acknowledged as of importance.

d. Identification of diverse interests and the subordination of interests through relations

of power.

e. The concept of stake holding, spreading ownership and the range of knowledge and

reasoning.

f. A shift from competitive interest bargaining to collaborative consensus building.

g. Recognition of planning activity as being embedded in day-to-day relations; the

linking of practice and context.

(Healey, 1997a, p. 29-30)

Following this, Gray (1998) introduced her six key features of collaboration: 1)

Interactive process to deal constructively with differences; 2) Creation of shared rules, norms &

structures the govern; 3) Joint decision making about the domain; 4) Stakeholders assume

collective responsibility for the domain; 5) Collective authorization of some to act on others’

behalves; 6) An emergent and fragile process that must be continually reconstituted.

Continuing the evolution of the features of collaboration, Castelfranchi and Falcone

(2001) were the first to point out the importance of delegation and trust in organizational

communication. In addition, Innes and Booher (2014) later pointed out the importance of conflict

as the driving force in collaborative processes: “Stakeholders would not be there if their interests

did not differ” (p. 10). They also coined the term collaborative rationality:


34

The basic idea is that a decision can be collaboratively rational if it incorporates diverse

and interdependent stakeholders who engage in authentic dialogue around a shared task.

The ground rules of this dialogue establish expectations that participants will speak

sincerely, be legitimate representatives of an interest, and provide accurate and

comprehensible information. Professional facilitators and members of the group make

sure these conditions are met as they work through issues, and the practices become

shared norms in the group.

(Innes & Booher, 2014, p. 15)

In recent years, a multitude of scholars in various industries have offered recommendations for

the dimensions that should be considered when examining collaborative planning processes,

adding to the long list of options. For example, Patrick Sanaghan, Ed.D, is president of an

organizational consulting firm that specializes in collaborative strategic planning and leadership

transitions in higher education. His firm offers clients a 5-Phase Collaborative Strategic

Planning Process, which includes five essential elements: “1) Meaningful [face-to-face]

engagement of institutional stakeholders; 2) Information gathered throughout the planning

process is shared with everyone. Transparency is essential; 3) The role of the consultant(s) is to

help tap into and build the capacity of the internal stakeholders and guide the planning process

not direct it; 4) Attention is paid to the external issues and trends… [so] stakeholders don’t focus

too much on their own world; and 5) External stakeholders… are an important part of the

process” (Sanaghan, 2016). This process has been implemented at various educational

institutions, such as Saint Joseph’s University, Bellarmine University, and The University of the

West Indies.


35

As Harris (2002) pointed out, these models highlight that “[C]ollaborative planning… is

intended by its proponents to serve as both a framework for understanding and as a framework

for practical action…” (p. 23). And while these models provide pragmatic solutions to

collaborative planning and leadership, there is still a void in terms of research support for these

principles – especially in the PR field.

Berger (1997) summed up an important point early 20 years ago when he said that, “The

effectiveness of any action plan aimed at achieving a social goal is the joint product of the plan,

and the skills and attributes of the social actor who carries out the plan” (p. 87). He stated that

these skills and attributes must include specific domain knowledge (information about the topic)

and general domain knowledge (information about how to communicate). Using this as a basis

for the focus of this dissertation research, it can be said that PR/Com professionals have specific

and general domain knowledge regarding social media communication. Therefore, this study

will take a pragmatic approach to exploring CPT by examining whether PR/Com executives are

using collaborative planning methods to build interdepartmental plans and procedures for

providing social consumer relations across organizations.

Studies employing CPT

Long-Term Effects of CPT Implementation. Margerum (2002), who also took a

pragmatic approach to collaborative planning, studied the long-term effects of implementation by

evaluating “the process effects, and outputs of a growth management case study in the state of

Queensland, Australia” (p. 180). The South East Queensland 2001 (SEQ 2001) regional planning

process launched in 1990. Pledging a collaborative approach, the process had been in the

implementation phase for more than five years, allowing Margerum (2002) to examine “the


36

fundamental question [of]… how a collaborative approach to regional growth management

influenced local government planning and management” (Margerum, 2002, p. 180).

The examination of the process between 1990 and 1994, which explored the factors that

made SEQ 2001 more effective and less effective. The study was limited to environmental

planning of six representative local governments, including: 1) content analysis of plans prepared

before and after the regional planning process (using the environmental and land use criteria of

SEQ 2001); 2) interviews with 16 staff involved in strategic planning; 3) written evaluations by

staff; 4) written evaluations by elected officials; 5) documents, reports and materials; and 6)

interviews with seven state agency staff involved in open space planning, conservation and

regional planning efforts (Margerum, 2002, p. 180). The seven criteria used for evaluating the

collaboration process, which were erected from a literature review of previous collaboration

studies and models, are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Margerum’s 7 Planning Criteria used in Evaluating the Collaboration Process ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Elements / Criteria Sources ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1) Include the full range of stakeholders Gray, 1989; Innes, 1996;

Margerum & Born, 1995;

Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987;

Sokol, 2012

2) Include public participation and involvement Born & Sonzogni, 1995; Margerum,

1999a; Margerum & Born, 1995;

Moote, et al., 1997; Sokol, 2012

3) Support (advocate) and facilitate the process Gray, 1989; Innes et al., 1994;

Julian, 1994; Margerum, 1999;

Sokol, 2012

4) Establish a common problem, definition Gray, 1989; Innes et al., 1994;

or shared task Margerum, 1999a; Margerum & Born,

1995; Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987;


37

Susskind, et al., 1999

5) Organize the process in terms of Gray, 1989; Innes & Booher, 1999a;

ground rules, agendas, etc. Jullian, 1994; Margerum, 2002; Selin

& Chavez, 1995; Jullian, 1994;

6) Engage participants, jointly search Gray, 1989; Innes, 1996; Innes &

information, and invent new options Booher, 1999b; Selin & Chavez, 1995;

Susskind, et al., 1999

7) Reach agreement through consensus Innes & Booher, 1999a, 1999b;

Margerum, 2002; Moote, et al., 1997 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Margerum, 2002, Table 2, p. 183)

While interpretation of indirect effects hindered the analysis, Margerum (2002) identified

three weaknesses: (1) stakeholder and public interest was limited; (2) power concentrated in the

highest-level committees; and (3) the Regional Planning Advisory Group could not reach

consensus on some key issues (Margerum, 2002). However, the strengths of the process were

many. Some of the effects included improvement in personal trust and connection between

councils; a shared understanding of information and data; five of the 15 local government staff

indicated that the SEQ 2001 agreements and strategies clearly produced a regional perspective

among local governments (Margerum, 2002). Other strengths included the creation of an

institutional structure for implementation, improvements in policies and perceptions, raised

awareness about regional concerns and the formation of new collaborations beyond SEQ 2001

(Margerum, 2002).

Margerum (2002) highlighted that while it was difficult to evaluate whether SEQ 2001

influenced outcomes, the project uncovered some important discoveries about evaluating

collaborative planning. He stated:

First, it substantiated many of the process criteria identified as important for effective

consensus building... Second, the research supported the importance of examining direct


38

and indirect effects… Third, the research provided additional detail of and insight into the

criteria for evaluating the outputs of a consensus building effort. (Margerum, 2002, p.

191)

Collaborative Planning Dimensions. Six years later, Margerum (2008) subdivided his initial

seven steps into four common characteristics of collaboration and three (3) steps in convening

(2011). “Using institutional theories about levels of decision-making provides a way of

classifying collaboratives along a spectrum from action level to organizational level to policy

level” (Margerum, 2008, p. 487). Margerum (2008) found four common characteristics in the

literature on collaboration:

1) First, collaboration involves a wide range of stakeholders representing a cross-section of

organizations, interest groups, and people with a stake in the outcome (Healey 1992;

Innes & Booher 1999a).

2) Second, collaboration engages the participants in an intensive and creative process of

consensus building (Gray 1989; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), which leads to more

creative solutions and increased likelihood of acceptance (Innes & Booher 1999;

Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Weber 2003).

3) Third, it works to achieve consensus on problems, goals, and proposed actions (Innes &

Booher 1999; Sommarstrom 1999; Weber 2003; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

4) Finally collaboration requires a sustained commitment to problem solving (Gray 1989;

Selin and Chavez 1995; Weber 2003).

- Margerum, 2008, p. 487

A detailed literature review of quantitative studies, qualitative case studies and various

collaborative process models (listed in Table 2) supports the argument that there are four

common characteristics of the collaborative planning process. However, the resulting four


39

criteria (as outlined in Table 2, along with the scholars who posited each) differ slightly from

Margerum’s model. These are the four criteria for evaluating the collaboration process: 1)

include a full range of diverse and interdependent stakeholders willing to take action of a shared

task to address an issue or problem; 2) sharing of information for social learning and consensus

building; 3) cooperativeness; and 4) acceptance of outcomes.

Table 2

Four (4) Criteria for Evaluating the Collaboration Process ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources Elements / Criteria ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987; 1) Include a full range of diverse and

Gray, 1989; Healey, 1992; interdependent stakeholders willing to

Innes, 1996; Margerum & Born, take action of a shared task to address an

1995; Born & Sonzogni, 1995; issue or problem. “Civic (organizational)

Margerum & Born, 1995; Holland, 1998; engagement, joint participation and

Margerum, 1999a; 2002; Moote, et al., involvement.”

1997; Susskind, et al., 1999; Innes &

Booher, 1999a, 1999b, 2014;

Schuette, et al., 2001; Wondolleck and

Yaffee 2000; Day & Gunton, 2003;

Javidi, 2003; Sheppard & Meitner, 2005;

Fisher, et al., 2007; Ushiro, 2009; Sokol,

2012; Vacika, 2014; Thompson & Prokopy,

2016; Egmon, 2016; Sanaghan, 2016.

Gray, 1989; Innes, 1996; Innes & 2) Sharing of information to build consensus.

Booher, 1999b, 2014; Selin & Chavez; Engaged participants in social learning;

1995; Susskind, et al., 1999; jointly search information; collective action;

Holland, 1998; Wondolleck and Yaffee, increase transparency; authentic, sincere

2000; Schuette, et al., 2001; Margerum, dialogue; (bring together different knowledge,

2002; Sheppard and Meitner, 2005; experiences, perspectives and values).

Fisher, et al., 2007; Ushiro, 2009 Be legitimate, active representatives of an

Innes & Booher, 2014; Vacika, et al., interest, and provide accurate and

2014; Thompson & Prokopy, 2016; comprehensible information.

Egmon, 2016; Sanaghan, 2016.

Gray, 1989; Susskind and Cruikshank 3) Cooperativeness and mutuality

1987; Selin and Chavez 1995; Holland, Collaboration requires a sustained

1998; Innes & Booher 1999; Lochner, commitment and willingness to work

1999; Sommarstrom 1999; Wondolleck cooperatively as a team to solve problems,


40

and Yaffee 2000; Schuette, et al., 2001; support creativity and innovation. It

Purdue, 2001; Javidi, 2003; Weber, 2003; works to invent new options to achieve

Fisher, et al., 2007; Margerum, 2008; consensus on problems.

Ushiro, 2009; Vacika, 2014; Thompson

& Prokopy, 2016; Egmon, 2016.

Gray, 1989; Susskind and Cruikshank 4) Acceptance of outcomes. Achieving

1987; Holland, 1998; Sheppard & consensus on problems leads to agreement on

Meitner, 2005; Fisher, et al., 2007; goals and proposed actions that produce

Margerum, 2008; Vacika, 2014; understandable results and documents that

Innes & Booher, 2014; Egmon, reduce complexity. This leads to an increased

2016; Thompson & Prokopy, 2016. likelihood of acceptance and well-coordinated

plans that result in a win-win environment. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

These four collaborative planning process dimensions (joint participation, sharing of

information, cooperativeness, and acceptance of outcomes) are best demonstrated by two studies

that were conducted to examine collaborative efforts in the fields of healthcare and land

preservation, respectively. Specifically, this dissertation study uses the Nurse-Physician

Collaboration Scale (NPCS) scale developed by Ushiro (2009) and one dependent variable

dimension from Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) Conceptual Model of Collaboration. While

numerous models for collaboration abound in marketing and organizational communication

(mostly in the form of whitepapers, books and manuals), most do not provide quantitative

analysis of interdepartmental collaboration within an organization. Since a majority of scholarly

articles for organizational collaboration focus on supply chains or external public stakeholders,

studies with quantitative data available for forming dimensional scales are not as widely

available in an organizational context. However, various quantitative studies are available on

collaboration in the healthcare and urban planning segments. As a result, the following two

studies were chosen as dimensions to form scales for this dissertation study due to their focus on

information management processes that were used in decision-making and problem-solving.


41

The Nurse Physician Collaboration Scale. The Nurse Physician Collaboration Scale

(NPCS) is based on the work of Simon (1977), Innami (2002) and Miyagawa (2004), who

focused on “information management processes that are used to solve problems or in decision-

making” (Ushiro, 2009, p. 1499). Innami and Miyagawa suggested three basic elements in the

information management process: shared information, decision-making/consensus building and

action. Ushiro (2009) added and refined this inspection by focusing on the idea that “healthcare

institutions are staffed by diverse professionals, [making] it is especially important to solve

patients’ problems from diverse standpoints” (Ushiro, 2009, p. 1499). It was this direction that

lead Ushiro to form a concept of collaboration that assumes the following three constructs:

sharing of patient information, joint participation in the decision-making process, and

cooperativeness.

Ushiro (2009) noticed a gap in studies of interactions between healthcare professionals in

Japan, specifically of nurse–physician cooperation, which lead her to develop and test the

psychometric properties of the NPCS. Ushiro (2009) devised a step-by-step process that

consisted of item design, refinement and testing for reliability, and validity. According to Ushiro:

Items were designed on the basis of a sequential process that consisted of literature

review; observation of nurse–physician exchanges in each unit/ward of three acute care

hospitals in a large city in Japan; key-informant interviews of seven nurses and nine

physicians from the same hospitals by means of a semi-structured format. (2009, p. 1499)

Nine categories of items were originally created and eventually reduced to the final three

constructs. The resulting scale contained 69 items, which were refined to 51 items common to

both nurses and physicians.


42

Additional testing resulted in 27 final items: “shared patient’s information” consisted of

nine items, “joint participation in the cure/care decision-making process” consisted of 12 items,

and “cooperativeness” consisted of six items. Cronbach’s α coefficients for the nurses’ responses

to the NPCS were (a = 0.91) for sharing of patient information, (a = 0.92) for joint participation

in the cure/care decision-making process, and (a = 0.80) for cooperativeness. When Cronbach’s

α coefficients of the item-total correlations were compared with those obtained when an item had

been eliminated, no item was found to lower the coefficient value. The item-total correlation

values were high, ranging from 0.423 to 0.787. (The NPCS items, factors and descriptive

statistics can be seen in Appendix C). The original scale items for each of the three dimensions

and the Cronbach’s alpha values from their original studies are listed in Table 3.

Table 3

NPCS Original Scale Items to Measure Collaborative Planning Process Dimensions

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study Items

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ushiro (2009) Joint participation (a = 0.91)

1. The nurses and the physicians exchange opinions to resolve problems

related to patient cure/care.

2. In the event of a disagreement about the future direction of a patient’s

care, the nurses and the physicians hold discussions to resolve

differences.

3. The nurses and the physicians discuss whether to continue a certain

treatment when that treatment is not having the expected effect.

4. When a patient is to be discharged from the hospital, the nurses and

the physicians discuss where the patient will continue to be treated and

the lifestyle regimen the patient needs to follow.

5. When confronted by a difficult patient, the nurses and the physicians

discuss how to handle the situation.

6. The nurses and the physicians discuss the problems a patient has.

7. The nurses and the physicians together consider their proposals about

the future direction of patient care.

8. In the event a patient develops unexpected side effects or

complications, the nurses and the physicians discuss the issues.

9. In the event a patient no longer trusts a staff member, the nurses and

the physicians try to respond to the patient in a consistent manner to

resolve the situation.


43

10. The future direction of a patient’s care is based on a mutual exchange

of opinions between the nurses and the physicians.

11. The nurses and the physicians seek agreement on signs that a patient

can be discharged.

12. The nurses and the physicians discuss how to prevent medical care

accidents.

Sharing of information (a =.91)

13. The nurses and the physicians all know what has been explained to a

patient about his/her condition or treatment.

14. The nurses and the physicians share information to verify the effects of

treatment.

15. The nurses and the physicians have the same understanding of the

future direction of the patient’s care.

16. The nurses and the physicians identify the key person in a patient’s

life.

17. In the event of a change in treatment plan, the nurses and the

physicians have a mutual understanding of the reasons for the change.

In the event of a change in strategy, PR/Com and the other stakeholder

departments have a mutual understanding of the reasons for the

change.

18. The nurses and the physicians check with each other concerning

whether a patient has any signs of side effects or complications.

19. The nurses and the physicians share information about a patient’s

reaction to explanations of his/her disease status and treatment

methods.

20. The nurses, the physicians, and the patient have the same

understanding of the patient’s wish for cure and care PR/Com and the

other stakeholder departments and the patient have the same

understanding of the consumer’s wish for a resolution and care.

21. The nurses and the physicians share information about a patient’s level

of independence in regard to activities of daily living.

Cooperativeness (a = 0.80)

22. The nurses and physicians can easily talk about topics other than those

related to work.

23. The nurses and physicians can freely exchange information or

opinions about matters related to work.

24. The nurses and physicians show concern for each other when they are

very tired.

25. The nurses and physicians help each other.

26. The nurses and physicians greet each other every day.

27. The nurses and physicians take into account each other’s schedule

when making plans to treat a patient together.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Ushiro, 2009, Figure 1)


44

“Data for testing came from samples of 27 of all 87 acute care hospitals listed by the

Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health, Metropolitan Government, Japan” (Ushiro, 2009, p.

1500). Questionnaires were returned by 1,246 nurses and 459 physicians (response rate 78·7%

for nurses and 54·4% for physicians). Valid responses were obtained from 1217 nurses (average

age, 29·34 ± 6·05 years) and 446 physicians (average age, 37·07 ± 8·13 years). The study

concluded that the Nurse–Physician Collaboration Scale can be used to establish standards for

nurse–physician collaboration to measure the frequency of collaborative activity and to verify

unit-specific relationships between collaboration and quality of care.

The three constructs of the NPCS scale directly align with the first three criteria for

evaluating the collaboration process identified in Table 2. In addition, the three-tiered purpose

for the development of the NPCS also aligns directly with the purpose of this dissertation study.

This NPCS scale was developed “to allow the study of the relationships between collaboration

and quality of hospital care, to analyse {stet} factors that promote collaboration, and to devise

collaborative system planning” (Ushiro, 2009, p. 1500). While this dissertation study analyzed

the relationships between collaboration and the development of interdepartmental plans (as

opposed to the quality of hospital care), these three purpose statements align the NPCS with this

dissertation study to examine interdepartmental collaboration of social media care in an

organizational setting.

Collaborative Efforts to Preserve Farmland. Thompson and Prokopy (2016) set out to

inform sustainability education efforts and understand how stakeholders’ attitudes and priorities

influence collaborative planning success. These researchers wanted to understand “the

collaborative process as a critical aspect of building community capacity to respond to change


45

and uncertainty in the landscape” (Thompson & Prokopy, 2016, p. 1). They did this by focusing

on place-based relationship building in difficult land use decisions.

The conceptual model of collaboration used in Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) study

was adapted from Gray (1989) and highlights collaboration as a process that emphasizes local

participation and ownership of decisions to address a challenge. Thompson and Prokopy (2016)

emphasized the importance of three formative steps in determining the acceptance of outcomes

of the collaborative process: civic engagement, development of a common definition of the

problem, and capacity to collaborate (Gray, 1989; Hibbard & Lurie, 2000; Schuett et al., 2001).

A more detailed description of each step is provided below:

• Step 1: Civic engagement, conceptualized here as the willingness of stakeholders to act

to address an issue, is a critical first step in the formation of a collaborative

initiative. Stakeholders become involved through a process of individual problem setting,

recognizing that an issue exists and determining that action must be taken (Gray, 1989).

• Step 2: The development of a common definition of the problem involves establishing

consensus among stakeholders on what issues exist as a result of the perceived common

problem. Schuett et al. (2001) describes this step by stating that a collaborative initiative

must have a specific purpose or goal early in the formative stage to be successful. This

process can be described as the development of a shared vision or broad set of goals that

facilitates developing mutually beneficial solutions for all parties (Gray, 1989;

Wondelleck & Yaffee, 2000).

• Step 3: The commitment to collaborate or the willingness of stakeholders to work

together in order to arrive at a common solution represents the foundation for collective


46

capacity of participants, which includes trust, social capital, leadership, shared vision,

resource management, broad representation, and the ability to establish partnerships

(Lochner, 1999; Purdue, 2001). This step is essential because the ability of individuals

participating in a collaborative process to collectively explore a problem, share

information, and determine mutually beneficial agreements is based on the strength of the

relationships and willingness to work as a team (Gray, 1989; Schuett et al., 2001).

(Thompson & Prokopy, 2016, p. 4-5)

Thompson and Prokopy (2016) point out that

while “a number of intervening steps are acknowledged to exist in between… [these three

essential] formative steps and the acceptance of outcomes… [they] are predominantly a

function of the decision-making process, or direction setting phase, used to arrive at an

agreement or outcome. (p. 5)

They also align directly with Ushiro’s three steps of joint participation, sharing of information

and cooperativeness.

The research was coordinated with the Harrison County Farm, Forest, and Open Space

Task Force (FFOSTF). The evaluation of the collaborative process was conducted by surveying a

random sample of community residents in Harrison County by phone to collect data on their

attitudes regarding the collaborative initiative and their efforts to protect farmland and open

space. The study was conducted during the summer of 2006 and the final sample size was 586

completed and 75 partial interview responses (a participation rate of approximately 60 percent).

The survey and associated analysis design were developed to address two research

objectives related to the model of collaboration: 1) Determine if support for the formative steps

in the collaborative process influence the acceptability of outcomes; and 2) Determine what

factors influence an individual’s support for the steps in the collaborative model.


47

The first objective, which sets “acceptance of collaborative outcomes” (a = 0.710) as the

dependent variable, was tested using multiple linear regression with the three independent

variables (civic engagement, a = 0.828; common definition of the problem, a = 0.673; and

commitment to collaborate, a = 0.816) representing the formative steps in the collaborative

process (see Table 4).

Table 4. Scales Measuring Steps in the Model of Collaboration

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study Items

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thompson and Civic Engagement1 (a = 0.828)

Prokopy (2016) 1) Attend a public meeting focusing on the future of the county.

2) Participate in an informal meeting of community members that

discusses the future of my community.

3) Join an organization that works to preserve the character of the

community.

4) Recruit friends to participate in an activity that benefits the community.

Common Definition of the Problem2 (a = 0.673)

5) Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their

needs.*

6) Developers have an obligation to build new housing subdivisions

because of the demand for housing outside of Louisville.*

7) Property owners have the right to convert farmland and other open

space to new development in Harrison County.*

8) Urban growth and development should be directed in ways that

preserve open space.

9) The main focus of the county planning department should be to

preserve natural resource industries, such as farming and forest

products.

10) If conversion of farmland and open space to new development

continues, Harrison County will soon become a place that current

residents will no longer wish to call home.

11) The so-called urban sprawl problem facing Harrison County has been

greatly exaggerated.*

12) Conservation of open spaces is one of the most important issues facing

Harrison County.

Commitment to Collaborate2 (a =0.816)

13) In general, I trust people in my community.

14) I trust the community leaders of Harrison County.

15) I feel that I am an important part of my community.

16) If a problem arises, I am willing to work together with other

community members to solve it.


48

17) My neighbors and I want the same things from my community.

18) I can depend on my friends and neighbors to help if I have a problem.

19) People in my community feel that what happens in our community can

affect them.

20) If a problem arises, people in my community work together to reach a

solution.

21) People in my community work together to solve differences about

community issues.

22) Local officials in my community represent the residents’ views.

Acceptance of Outcomes1 (a = 0.710)

23) Support a program that protects farmland in Harrison County that uses

some county funds.

24) Support a program that protects farmland, forests, and open space in

Harrison County that does not use county funds.

25) Personally contribute money toward a program that protects farmland,

forests, and open space in Harrison County.

26) Support changes in Harrison County’s policies that impose strict

limitations on development that threatens open space.

27) Support limiting new development to areas currently served by

existing sewer and water service.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Measured using a 5-point response scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2). 2) Measured using a

5-point response scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2.). * Item reverse coded for

analysis.

(Thompson and Prokopy, 2016, Table 1, p. 8)

The results of the regression model for the first research objective indicate that all

independent variables have a significant relationship with the acceptance of collaborative

outcomes, which aligns with the fourth construct for evaluating the collaboration process in this

dissertation study (as identified in Table 2). In addition, Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) first

research objective directly aligns with this study: to determine if support for the formative steps

in the collaborative process influence the acceptability of outcomes (in the form of well-

coordinated plans).

Actor Network Theory (ANT)


49

Monge and Contractor (1999) determined that clusters of communication relationships

(known as emergent networks) can be detected and linked together (connectedness) to establish

organizational networks. The lines of communication and influence these networks have depend

upon many factors, including size, connectedness and centrality. This set of ideas, to which many

researchers have contributed, is most notably known today as network theory. Network theory

evolved into actor network theory (ANT) when Bruno Latour (1993, 2005) made note of the

problem that social sciences allowed for “the social to be construed as a kind of material or

domain [not allowing for inspection of] the precise ingredients that are entering into the

composition of the social domain” (Latour, 2005, p. 1). Latour’s task therefore was to “redefine

the notion of social [by going back to its] original meaning and making it able to trace

connections again by reinstating and redefining the differences between a social actor and a fact.

While Latour argued that ANT is a “theory… about how to study things… or rather, how

to let the actors have some room to express themselves” (Latour, 2005, p.143), he also referred to

it as a “method.” ANT is unique in “its resistance to the modern reification of boundaries which

prevent us from seeing the ways in which the ‘social,’ the ‘technical’ and the ‘natural’ are

intermingled in a seamless web” (Somerville, 1999, p. 9). The focus of these social actors, in

regard to epistemological positioning, is not based on notions of identity but of agency

(Somerville, 1999; Wise, 1997). “This is because what matters to the analysis is not the self-

consciousness or ‘natural state’ of the actor but, rather, its ‘relations’ with others actors”

(Somerville, 1999, p. 10). This interconnectedness, including how the different elements in an

actor-network interact with and influence each other, is explained through the process of

translation. Somerville (1999) pointed out that translation rests on the idea that “actors within

networks will try to redefine the meaning of other actors, ‘speak’ on their behalf, and enroll


50

(manipulate or force) the other actors into positions with them” (Sarker, Sarker, & Sidorova,

2006, p. 82). According to Somerville (1999), “When an actor’s strategy is successful and it has

organised {sic} other actors for its own benefit it can be said to have translated them” (p. 9).

This notion of translation is extremely important to the role of PR/Com, as Clark and

Salaman (1996) pointed out, PR executives “possess something that… managers value which

leads them to bestow high status upon [them]” (p. 175). These authors pointed out that PR

consultants’ authority depends on their ability to master techniques that “convey the impression

that they possess authority and expertise in areas which clients value” (Clark & Salaman, 1996,

p. 175), such as social media consumer relations. Clark & Salaman (1996) asserted that

consultancy success is achieved through knowledge, which is produced and displayed through

this process of translation. Callon (1986) defined four stages of translation as: 1)

problematization, where the problem is identified, as well as the relevant actors and delegates

who will represent the different groups; 2) interessment, where translators and primary actors get

the other actors interested and negotiate the terms of their involvement; 3) enrollment, where

actors agree to and accept the roles that were defined for them during interessment; and 4)

mobilization of allies. It is here where the enrollment becomes active support (Callon, 1986;

Zammar, 2010).

So, according to Clark and Salaman (1996), with regard to management consultancy,

“One actor (i.e. a management consultant) convinces another actor (i.e. a client) that their

interests coincide – ‘I want what you want’ – by redefining the ‘problem’ in terms of a solution”

(p. 176). Thus, the “value” attributed to a consultant relies on his or her ability to enroll and

translate and “is dependent upon the belief that they are able to offer something valuable to their

clients” (Somerville, 1999, p. 10-11), or in the case of this particular study, to the organization.


51

So, in specific terms of this study, in order to translate, the PR/Com executives/ professionals

need to enact their agency by emphasizing their expert knowledge in social consumer relations to

convince company officials and other department managers that their interests coincide. It is here

that Somerville (1999) introduced ANT as an alternative lens through which to examine and

discuss the role of PR/Com.

In direct translation to the topic at hand, the ANT approach places the role of the PR/Com

executive/professional as an actor who affects agency based on his/her ability to impress

expertise and indispensability for providing consumer relations in social media – an environment

that also encompasses agency. The social media environment is inherently different from any

other communication channel in terms of the dialogue that takes place, the speed of expected

reply and the types of relationships it fosters. It is a community platform where the consumer

expects not only to be heard but to have their issues, problems and complaints replied to and

solved instantaneously. In this age where CMC and social media play such dominant roles in the

processes of forming relationships and building brands, impressing expertise and indispensability

in this area – where PR has demonstrated primary responsibility (USC Annenberg, 2014) – is of

the utmost importance in enacting agency to lead several departments in enacting multi-

department collaboration.

Translation.

The Role of Convening Power. Early studies highlight the importance of coupling

leadership/convening skills with collaborative planning… that the two go hand in hand and must

be considered as one. For example, when discussing collaborative planning, Gray (1989)

identified “the identity and role of the convener [as] another critical component [that possesses

agency] in the problem-setting phase… it is up to the convening organization to invite and/or


52

persuade other stakeholders to participate” (Gray, 1989, p. 70), also known as translation. As

such, this researcher wondered about the agency of the convener’s role as the first ground-setting

phase in collaboration and inquired about its specific effect on the success of the collaborative

process as a whole.

Convening power can emerge from holding a formal office, from having a reputation of

trust and/or experience with stakeholders, or from having a reputation as an expert on the issue at

hand. Gray (1989) pointed out that “whether the convener is a stakeholder or a third party, it is

essential that other stakeholders believe the convener has legitimate authority to organize the

domain” (p. 71). Conveners also need to envision a purpose to organizing the domain (Sarason &

Lorentz, 1978; Gray, 1989) and appreciate the future potential value of collaborating (Vickers,

1965; Emery, 1977; Friend, Power, & Yewlett, 1974; Gray, 1989). Finally, “conveners need to

propose a process by which this purpose can be carried out… have a sense of timing… the

ability to create the appropriate context for the negotiations… [and] they need to identify other

stakeholders” (Gray, 1989, p. 72). In essence, “leadership is the process of influencing a group of

individuals to achieve shared objectives” (Datta, 2015, p. 62). This is also defined by ANT as

translation.

This leads to a theme emerging from the literatures on management, organizations, and

public policy: the importance of collaborative leadership (Chrislip and Larson 1994; Huxham &

Vangen 2005, Margerum, 2011). Collaborative leadership, including theories such as

transformational leadership, facilitative leadership, integrative leadership, team leadership and

authentic leadership, views leaders as enablers that possess agency because they allow people to

increase their performance through processes of communication and support (Pearce & Sims

2000; Northouse 2007; Morse 2010; Huxham & Vangen 2005; Chrislip & Larson 1994;


53

Margerum, 2011). The leader is not necessarily seen in a traditional CEO role, but more as a

person who possesses agency because he/she helps convene people, communicate ideas, and

allows them to work together effectively.

Leadership is the process of influencing a group of individuals to achieve shared

objectives (Yukl, 2011; Northouse, 2013; Datta, 2015). While the primary function of leadership

is to produce change and movement, the primary function of management is to provide order and

consistency to organizations (Northouse, 2013; Datta, 2015). Therefore, leaders cannot be titled

as such based solely on the position they hold in organizations (Kellerman, 2013). Scholars

focusing on collaborative and integrative leadership describe this as a catalyst role (Chrislip &

Larson, 1994; Morse, 2010; Crosby and Bryson, 2005). In particular, researchers examining the

role of interagency and boundary-spanning efforts cite the communication networks and external

relationships of these individuals as important to building bridges across organizations (Crosby

and Bryson, 2005; Morse, 2010). Historically, research has focused on

how relationships are structured in collaborative partnerships…. [but] when attention is

turned to the role of leadership in partnership development, we discover [that]…

boundary organizations are intermediary structures that serve to bring together actors

across boundaries to facilitate the co-production of knowledge and boundary actions.

(Morse, 2010, p. 239)

Two scholars, Ostrom (2005, 2011) and Egmon (2016), developed frameworks to analyze and

identify these collaborative individuals/groups.

Institutional and Development (IAD) Framework. Ostrom’s (2005) institutional and

development (IAD) framework focused on an action arena that contained actors and an action

situation, which she defines as “the social spaces where individuals interact, exchange goods and


54

services, solve problems, dominate one another, or fight… [etc.]” (p. 11). In 2011, Ostrom

realized that a majority of theoretical examinations stop at this action situation, an approach that

“takes the variables specifying the situation and the motivational and cognitive structure of an

actor as givens…” (p. 11). Therefore, she revised the IAD to focus on the action situation

leading up to the interactions and outcomes because it “can be used to describe, analyze, predict,

and explain behavior within institutional arrangements” (Ostrom, 2011, p. 11). Then, when one

looks at the component parts of the action situation, one can specify how one is analyzing the

actor at that level. “Thus, a key part of the framework is the identification of an action situation

and the resulting patterns of interactions [among actors] and outcomes, and evaluating these

outcomes” (Ostrom, 2011, p. 10).

Ostrom (2011) pointed out that an actor in a situation can be thought of as a single

individual or as a group functioning as a corporate actor. “The term ‘action’ refers to those

behaviors to which the acting individual or group attaches a subjective and instrumental

meaning” (p. 12). Irving and Longbotham (2007) pointed out that societal and organizational

observations [such as these] are even more relevant today as leaders seek to answer the question

of how to lead organizations in the increasingly decentralized and team-based structures that are

a growing mark of systems in the 21st century” (p. 98). This leaves us at a crossroads of

leadership research and practice, which supports the importance of this dissertation study.

Ostrom (2011) pointed out that “all analysts of microbehavior use an implicit or explicit

theory or model of the actors in situations in order to derive inferences about the likely behavior

in a situation (and thus about the pattern of joint results that may be produced)” (p. 12-13).

Assumptions must be made about participants, including what they value, believe, how they


55

process information and what resources or information they may have and what internal

mechanisms they use to make decisions regarding strategies (Ostrom, 2011).

Ostrom (2011) aligned with the principle of actor network theory when she summarized

the IAD framework in this way: “One can think of actors interacting in action situations

generating interactions and outcomes” (p. 22). This statement also aligns directly with this study,

which posits PR/Com professionals as actors who exhibit agency. The use of this theory allows

for an examination into their efforts to demonstrate expertise, counsel and leadership, while also

allowing for analysis of interactions (in the form of collaborative efforts) and outcomes in terms

of well-organized plans for social media relations across organizational functions.

Collaborative Leadership. Egmon (2016) aligns with Margerum (2011) in that she also

identifies and promotes the differences between collaborative planning and collaborative

leadership. Her Framing Model for Collaborative Leadership is a pragmatic guide that

encompasses the four key collaborative planning elements (which were specified earlier in the

“Statement of the Problem” section and outlined again here): “1) properly framing the situation;

2) mapping the situation space using creativity as well as concept and network linkages;

3) creating a small version of the solution with key players; and then 4) bringing the plan to a

larger scale where multiple stakeholders win simultaneously” (Egmon, 2016). The model also

“identifies 10 different elements used by three types of leadership personas that are found to be

present and collaborate in successful growth and innovation initiatives” (Egmon, 2016). The first

persona is identified as Thomas Edison. This type of leader is an idea-generator, a person with a

“can-do” attitude who has passion and leads with ideas. The second type of leader is likened to

Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade. This type of leader is methodical, scientific operations-

focused, and “they make balanced decisions” (Egmon 2016). The third type among the triad of


56

leadership personas is likened to Saint Paul. “After St. Paul was converted to Christianity, he

went back, across boundaries, to convince key players and influencers in order to convert them”

(Egmon, 2016).

These convening, IAD and framing concepts align directly with the topic of collaborative

leadership, “a theme emerging from the literatures on management, organizations, and public

policy (Chrislip & Larson 1994; Huxham & Vangen 2005)” (Margerum, 2011, loc. 1952).

Recent studies in this area (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson 2008; Morse

2010; Ceri-Booms, 2012; Datta, 2015; Egmon, 2016) highlight that “organizational effectiveness

requires contributions by leaders at multiple levels rather than just top executives” (Margerum,

2011, loc. 1956). A leader is a person who helps convene people, communicates ideas, and

allows them to work together effectively (Margerum, 2011). Egmon (2016) defines a “St. Paul

type leader” as “a facilitator and an influencer… one who can cross boundaries to convene and

convince key players.”

Authentic Leadership. So how does one examine the effectiveness of a leader? ANT

emphasizes the importance of enacting agency and its role in translation, which links the topics

of leadership and the facilitation of a collaborative climate together when studying

effectiveness. Although many leadership and team effectiveness theories exist, including Servant

Leadership (Irving & Longbotham, 2007); Integrative Leadership (Crosby & Kiedrowski, 2008);

and Relational Leadership (Osipina & Foldy. 2010), this researcher chose Authentic Leadership

(Gardner, et al., 2005) as a means for measuring agency in this organizational setting. And while

many models and tools were feasible for studying collaboration, such as the Leadership Practices

Inventory (LPI) (Posner, Kouzes, 1993), the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA)

(Laub, 1999), and the Team Effectiveness Questionnaire (TEQ) (Larson & LaFasto, 2001), this


57

researcher chose to use the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Avolio, Gardner, &

Walumbwa, 2007).

The ALQ was found to be the best tool to use as a resource and a process (internal

mechanism) to examine participant actors’ values and beliefs as they decide upon strategies for

leading the collaboration of interdepartmental plans for social media relations. Although the

concept of authenticity is generally recognized to have its roots in ancient Greek philosophy (“to

thine own self be true”) the current conception of authenticity “involves both owning one’s

personal experiences (values, thoughts, emotions and beliefs) and acting in accordance with

one’s true self (expressing what you really think and believe and behaving accordingly)”

(Gardner, et al., 2005, p. 344-345). Gardner, et al. (2005) pointed out that authenticity is “not an

either/or condition… people… can best be described as being more or less authentic or

inauthentic” (p. 345).

The Gardner, et al. (2005) study described the process of achieving authenticity through

self-awareness, self-acceptance, and authentic actions and relationships. In authentic leadership

these relationships include those with followers and associates. Authentic leaders demonstrate

agency through transparent decision-making, confidence in worthy objectives, consistency

between words and actions, and emphasis on follower development. They are in touch with their

emotions and their effects on themselves and on others, resulting in both integrity and high

ethical standards (Gardner, et al., 2005; Ceri-Booms, 2012), factors that are of extreme

importance to PR professionals.

Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) define authentic leadership

as


58

a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological

capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized

moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the

part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development. (p. 94)

These researchers define these terms throughout their early works. Self-awareness (SA) refers to

“being able to understand one’s own talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core values, beliefs and

desires” (Walumbwa, et al., 2008, p. 324). Balanced Processing (BP) refers to being “inclined

and able to consider multiple sides of an issue and multiple perspectives [when] assess[ing]

information (Gardner, et al., 2005, p. 317). Relational transparency means “the leader displays

high levels of openness, self-disclosure and trust in close relationships” (Gardner, et al., 2005, p.

347). The Ethical/Moral (E/M) dimension refers to the degree to which the leader sets a high

standard for moral and ethical conduct by his/her own decisions and behaviors (Gardner, et al.,

2005).

This four-component definition was developed and validated by Walumbwa, et al. (2008)

using deductive and inductive approaches for item generation to assess how leaders exhibit

authentic leadership among five separate samples obtained from China, Kenya, and the United

States. “Initial content specifications were developed based on an extensive review of the

literature … on authentic leadership theory and development and discussions with a leadership

research group consisting of faculty and graduate students” (Walumbwa, et al., 2008, p. 96). Five

initial domains were reduced to four, which were then examined through an additional literature

review for the extent to which they distinguished authentic from ethical and transformational. An

initial pool of 35 items was reduced to 22, which were then subjected to a content validity

assessment, resulting in a final pool of 16 items. The items that were retained for further analysis


59

in the four categories include: self-awareness (SA, 4 items), relational transparency (RT, 5

items), internalized moral perspective (IMP, 4 items), and balanced processing (BP, 3 items).

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in two separate studies of full-time

workers in the United States (n = 224) and China (n = 212) to examine “whether a second-order

authentic leadership factor existed and whether it explained the relationships among the four

lower order factors” (Walumbwa, et al., 2008, p. 98). Both studies compared the fit of three

different factor structures, with the results of both studies finding the second-order factor model

as the best-fit. “Results of this study demonstrate that the four factors… are not independent and

that a single second-order factor accounts for this dependence” (Walumbwa, et al., 2008, p. 101).

“Because theory and research suggests {stet} that organization climate or culture may

enhance or mitigate perceptions of authentic leader behavior (Avolio et al., 2004; Luthans &

Avolio, 2003), [Walumbwa, et al., 2008] controlled for organization climate in this study…

using a 5-item Benevolence Dimension Scale (Victor & Cullen, 1988). The internal consistency

of this scale was 0.73” (Walumbwa, et al., 2008: p. 115).

Studies Assessing AL. Gardner et al. (2009) have encouraged research on the positive

effects of authentic leadership outcomes related to areas such as job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and employee and organizational performance, to name a few. Several authors

have heeded this call to explore ethical conduct among leaders by studying the concept of

authentic leadership (Gardner, et al., 2005) with varied results. Datta (2015) compiled a list of

some recent studies and their results, which is summarized here and presented in the form of a

table (Table 5).

Table 5

Datta’s (2015) Summary of AL studies and their results. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources AL study results ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


60

Ceri-Booms (2012) AL plays a moderating effect between transactional

leadership and trust in leader.

Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang AL leads to trust in management and positively

& Avery (2009) affects group performance measured by unit sales

growth.

Hassan & Ahmed (2011) AL promotes subordinates’ trust in the leader and

contributed to work engagement.

Laschinger, Wong & Grau (2012) AL has negative direct effect on workplace bullying

and emotional exhaustion and a positive effect on

job satisfaction.

Peterson et al. (2012) AL behavior exhibited by leaders is positively

related to follower job performance.

Peus et al. (2012) Followers’ satisfaction with supervisor,

organizational commitment and extra effort, and

perceived team effectiveness were outcomes of AL.

Hmieleski, Cole, & Baron (2012) Found that shared AL has a positive indirect effect

on firm performance.

Leroy, Palanski & Simons (2012) AL is related to follower affective commitment and

work role performance.

Rego et al. (2012b) AL predicts employees’ creativity.

Rego et al. (2012c) AL predicts team affective commitment and team

potency.

Walumbwa et al. (2008) Found a positive relationship between AL and

supervisor rated performance.

Walumbwa et al. (2010) Found that AL was positively related to supervisor

rated organizational citizenship behavior and work

engagement.

Woolley, Casa & Levy (2011) Reported a positive relationship between AL and

followers’ psychological capital, partially mediated

by positive work climate and a significant

moderating effect from gender.

Walumbwa et al. (2011) Found AL to positively affect desired group


61

outcomes like group level performance and

citizenship behavior.

Gardner et al. (2009); Giallonardo, Found relationships between AL and leader/

Wong, & Iwasiw (2010); follower engagement, empowerment and

Quick, & Cooper (2009); well-being.

Walumbwa et al. (2010);

Wong & Cummins (2009) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: Datta, 2015, p. 62-63

Datta (2015) also answered this call by examining whether authentic leadership can lead

to effective management and leadership performance in the Indian context. Datta (2015) used 42

items to measure seven dimensions of managerial effectiveness and five dimensions of

leadership effectiveness. In this study, 324 working executives, mainly from Eastern India, were

provided with the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Avolio, Gardner, & Walumbwa,

2007), along with 42 questions related to 12 dimensions of managerial and leadership

effectiveness of the person whom they considered as their leader in their organizations.

Respondents were required to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale.

Sixteen items of the ALQ were subjected to Principal Axis Factoring which resulted in

the first five variables (which were supposed to measure the Relational Transparency construct)

merging with the first three variables that were supposed to measure the Internalized Moral

Perspective construct. Datta (2015) concluded that respondents could not differentiate the two

constructs so they were merged and renamed Transparent and Moral Perspective (TMP). The

results confirmed the construct validity of the three dimensions of the ALQ scale in the Indian

context with high Cronbach’s alpha values (TMP, a = 0.807; BP, a = 0.653; SA, a = 0.634).

According to Datta (2015), “Seven structural equation models were tested for relationship

between managerial effectiveness and the three-factor, second order ALQ. Similarly, four


62

structural equation models were tested for relationship between leadership effectiveness and the

ALQ” (p. 67). The results found AL lead to: various dimensions of managerial effectiveness (i.e.

organizational performance, satisfaction of follower needs, and improvement in the quality of

work life); a decrease in negative attitudes and behavior of followers (i.e. absenteeism,

dissatisfaction and hostility); enhancement in positive group attitudes and behavior; and

managers achieving personal success as perceived by their followers (Datta, 2015, p. 70). This

study indicated that AL is a three-factor second order construct according to Indian respondents

and that AL improves both managerial and leadership performance.

ALQ Dimensions. This dissertation study examined whether PR/Com executives use

authentic leadership and if so, whether this positively predicted the establishment of well-

coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations. The study

furthered this examination by exploring whether authentic leadership moderates the relationship

between collaborative planning and well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media

relations across organizations.

These questions were examined utilizing the 16-item, Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire (ALQ) developed by Avolio, Gardner, & Walumbwa (2007), tested by

Walumbwa, et al. (2008) and made available with permission via Mindgarden on

www.mindgarden.com. (Only a partial listing of three items, from this scale containing 16 items,

is permitted for publishing. It is for this reason that only one question from three of the four

dimensions that make up the ALQ are included in Table 6 below).

Table 6

Items Used to Measure Authentic Leadership Dimensions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study Items ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


63

Avolio, et al. (2007) Self-awareness (a = 0.92) (Questions 13, 14, 15, 16)

As a leader I….

1. seek feedback to improve interactions with others

Internalized moral perspective (a = 0.76) (Questions 6, 7, 8, 9)

2. make decisions based on my core values

Balanced processing (a = 0.81) (Questions 10, 11, 12)

3. listen carefully to different points of view before coming to a

conclusion

Relational transparency (a = 0.87) (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ALQ scale was chosen for this study because the four components that make up the

16 item ALQ (SA, RT, IMP and BP) aligned directly with the three planning elements

(facilitation, advocacy and delegation) found to be used in evaluating convening/leadership

traits, which were identified through a detailed literature review and in the actor network theory.

These three planning elements also aligned directly with Egmon’s (2016) three types of

leadership personas which are summarized in Table 7 below.

Table 7

Three Planning Elements (Criteria) Used in Evaluating Convening/Leadership Traits ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources Elements / Criteria ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gray, 1989; Innes & Booher, 1999a, 1) Facilitation: Demonstrating sufficient

2014; Innes et al., 1994; Jullian, 1994; technical know-how as a means to organize

Selin & Chavez, 1995; the players and the process in terms of

Margerum, 1999a; 2002; 2008, 2011; priorities, ground rules, agendas, etc.

Larson & LaFasto, 2001; Javidi, 2003 Supports the process of negotiation and

Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Fisher, et al., focuses on the goal. Practices become shared

2007; Gardner, 2005; Avolio, Gardner, norms in the group. Facilitators must possess

& Walumbwa, 2007; Çeri-Booms, 2012; the SA dimensions of AL in order to

Sokol, 2012; Vacika, 2014; Datta, 2015; “understand [their] own talents, strengths,

Egmon, 2016; Sanaghan, 2016. sense of purpose, core values, beliefs and

desires” (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, pp. 324)

to assess the situation, organize and engage

players and attain the resources necessary for

the good of the organization.

*These traits align directly with Egmon’s

(2016) St. Paul persona: uses relationships

and prior knowledge to convince key players

or to convert them.


64

Gray, 1989; Innes et al., 1994; 2) Advocating: “Planners can ethically

Julian, 1994; Holland, 1998; advocate for smart growth by educating

Margerum, 1999a; 2002, 2008, 2011; participants about the benefits of working

Javidi, 2003; Innes & Booher, 2014; together to solve a problem. These traits

Fisher, et al., 2007; Sokol, 2012; Datta, “can more effectively facilitate an informed

2015; Gardner, 2005; Avolio & Gardner, decision-making process among the

2005; Avolio, Gardner, & Walumbwa, participants about the context-specific future

2007; Ceri-Booms, 2012; Datta, 2015; of their community” (Sokol, 2012, p. 43).

Egmon, 2016; Sanaghan, 2016. This is where the IMP dimension of AL

plays an important role, as it refers to the

degree to which the leader sets a high

standard for moral and ethical conduct by

his/her own decisions and behaviors.

They must also present the RT component of

AL, which indicates that the leader displays

trust, openness and self-disclosure in his/her

relationships. (This aligns with Datta’s

(2015) findings that the dimensions of IMP

and RT could not be differentiated and

resulted in the creation of the combined

construct of Transparent and Moral

Perspective (TMP).)

*These traits also align with Egmon’s (2016)

Thomas Edison persona: the idea person.

Larson & LaFasto, 2001; Day & 3) Delegation: “Organisations are based on

Gunton, 2003; Castelfranchi and Falcone, roles which are delegated classes of tasks…

2001; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Delegation as… a social act and relation…

Gardner, 2005; Avolio, Gardner, & is based on a specific set of beliefs and goals

Walumbwa, 2007; Ceri-Booms, 2012; and on a decision” (Castelfranchi and

Datta, 2015; Egmon, 2016; Sanaghan, Falcone, 2001, p. 1). This is important in

2016. building stakeholder confidence. It is here

where the AL dimension of BP is important.

“BP refers to the unbiased collection and

interpretation of self-related information.”

*These traits also align with Egmon’s (2016)

Indiana Jones persona of being data driven

and making balanced decisions. Authentic

behaviors are guided by the values, emotions,

beliefs, thoughts, and feelings of the leader,

and not by external pressures or

contingencies” (Ceri-Booms, 2012, p. 180). __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


65

The elements that compose the ALQ scale not only align with these elements for

evaluating leadership traits but also with the six elements found in the PRSA Code of Conduct

and ethical guidelines. These include: advocacy, honestly, expertise, independence, loyalty and

fairness. These associations led this researcher to choose the ALQ as the leadership measurement

approach to examine the enactment of agency and translation in this study.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Communication by itself “does not change public actions or institutions, it plays an

integral part in such change by shaping the understandings of key actors and the public” (Innes &

Booher, 2014, p. 9). As Berger (1997) pointed out, “Effectiveness of any action plan… is the

joint product of the plan, and the skills and attributes of the social actor who carries out the plan”

(p. 87). In other words, “the dialectical relationship between process and outcome” (Sokol,

2012, abstract) must also be accounted for. It is for this reason that both the authentic leadership

“skills” of the PR/Com executive (defined as the agency that fuels in his/her ability to translate)

and the collaborative planning “methods” must both be examined as independent variables –

individually and in connection with each other.

According to USC Annenberg GAP VII and VIII Studies (2012, 2014), PR/Com

executives are the ones who have the primary responsibility for the functions of building and

maintaining consumer relations in social media – meaning they are the ones who have the

specific domain knowledge and the general domain knowledge to build the most effective plans.

This enhances the PR/Com social actor’s abilities to shape other participant actors’

understandings through communication – the connection between process and outcome – to

translate them to work collaboratively. It is for these reasons that this study took a pragmatic

approach to ANT and CPT to examine participants’ authentic leadership practices and use of


66

collaborative planning methods to analyze whether these efforts affect successful coordination

success – and if so, how.

The purpose for positioning PR/Com as an actor was to make explicit the leadership

traits enacted by the PR/COM executive/professional as agency in the collaborative planning

process – one that cannot be fully explained by the person or the role/title alone (Sokol, 2012).

“To achieve this they must… be in command of something which clients [or organization

officials and other key actors] seek and value [such as social consumer relations] or which [they]

can be persuaded to seek and value” (Somerville, 1999, p. 10). As such, this study explored

whether PR/Com executives (as actors) are enacting their agency (through authentic leadership

traits and/or collaborative planning methods) and whether this fosters successful

interdepartmental plans for social media relations across all stakeholder departments (including

the functions of PR/Com, Marketing/Sales, Brand Management, Customer Service, etc). This led

to the creation of the following research model, questions and hypotheses:

Model:

(use of Collaborative H2a Planning Methods) CPM AL (Authentic Leadership traits) culture (control) H1 H2b Size

Type WCP (the establishment of Well-Coordinated Plans)

RQ1: Are there differences in the collaborative planning methods used by PR/Com

executives depending on the type of organization for which they work?


executives depending on the size of the organization for which they work?


67

RQ3: Are there differences in the establishment of well-coordinated interdepartmental

plans for social media relations across organizations depending on the type of organization for

which the PR/Com executive works?


plans for social media relations across organizations depending on the size of the organization for

which the PR/Com executive works?

H1: PR/Com executives’ use of collaborative planning methods will positively predict

the establishment of well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across

organizations.

H2a: Authentic leadership moderates the relationship between collaborative planning

methods and well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across

organizations.

H2b: PR/Com executives’ use of authentic leadership will positively predict the

establishment of well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across

organizations.

Summary

This study brings this inspection into a new focus for the PR/Com industry in a time

when companies are still struggling with best practices for adopting social media responsibilities

into their business model strategy. This is emphasized in the results of the USC Annenberg GAP

VIII study (2014), which revealed that only 33% of respondents categorized their company’s

level of social media coordination as “well-coordinated,” while 55.3% categorized it as

“moderately coordinated” (slide 66). In a time when organizations are reporting that as many as

“six separate organizational functions have some degree of use and control over social media in


68

their companies, raising the possibility of multiple voices and muddled messages” (USC

Annenberg, 2014, slide 65), it is no wonder that researchers are suggesting “a lack of

consistency… [and] room for improvement” (USC Annenberg, 2014, slide 66).

It is for this reason that this study utilized a new combination of ANT and CPT to explore

whether PR/Com executives are answering the industry’s call to step up and take a leadership

role in collaborating interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations. This

combined theoretical inquiry (using ANT and CPT) provided a new lens to examine a specific

problem (where PR/Com has already proven primary responsibility in many organizations) and

pose meaningful questions and tentative propositions for PR/Com executives. It is the hope of

this researcher that this study will provide some meaningful insight and practical suggestions

while also inviting new routes of investigation to continue improving the current situation in

business models across industries.


69

Chapter 3: Methodology and Procedure

This study used a quantitative method design to explore the research questions posed in

the previous chapter regarding the PR/Com industry’s need to take on a leadership role in the

collaboration of the social media relations business model across organizational functions /

departments. The direction for this study was inspired by the results of an ethnographic,

qualitative, regional study that was conducted three years prior (Whitten, 2013), which

confirmed that PR/Com executives across the industry agree that best practices for managing

social media relations across functions/departments is a necessity for improving PR’s status as a

management function. Since then, the PR industry has issued many urgent calls for PR

professionals to spearhead the leadership of these collaborative efforts. It is the hope that this

new study sheds some light on these important issues by examining the current efforts of

PR/Com professionals in the collaboration of social media responsibilities across organizational

functions, and how these efforts might affect coordination.

This study examined whether PR/Com professionals are utilizing authentic leadership

practices and/or collaborative planning methods to enact interdepartmental plans for social media

relations, and if either of these practices affect the coordination of interdepartmental plans for

social media relations – and how. This quantitative study was employed as a means to achieve

these goals and explore this phenomenon by applying relevant communication theory and

research. Quantitative research is a deductive approach that uses a theory as its basis to test a

hypothesis through analysis of a data set (Patton, Ch. 1, p. 11). Using a survey questionnaire

enables researchers to efficiently gather data that may be analyzed for comparative purposes,

such as describing, comparing, making inferences or explaining the knowledge, attitudes, or

behaviors of respondents (Babbie, 1990; Fink, 1995, 2002). The goal of survey research is to


70

provide “a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by

studying a sample of that population… [where] data and statistical analysis can confirm or

disprove the use of a communication theory amongst that sample through validity, reliability”

(Creswell, 2009, p. 145). The purpose of the survey was to better understand participants’ roles,

positions, behaviors and attitudes, as well as to uncover any trends associated with PR/Com

management of social media relations and engagement across departments.

Research Design

This study utilized online survey research to examine a sample of PR/Com executives

who provide social media relations on behalf of organization(s) (as an employee) or clients (as a

PR agency or independent practitioner). Results from this study, informed by insights from ANT

and CPT, were used to gain insight and suggest possible strategies for improving PR/Com’s

status as a management function by leading collaborative efforts (and taking ownership) of social

media relations across the organizations they represent. Given the scope of this project, a web-

based survey was most appropriate because, as Treadwell (2014) pointed out, “This approach is

most convenient for both respondents and researchers” (p. 163).

The survey questionnaire, described in detail in this chapter, was deployed online through

SurveyMonkey (2016), an online research tool that allows researchers to create surveys and to

collect and analyze data. This study utilized an individual subscription account that enables

comprehensive access to SurveyMonkey’s features, including unlimited questions and responses.

Upon approval of the research project and instrument, the survey was activated and a survey link

was obtained through SurveyMonkey to pretest among a pool of 25 PR/Com executives. These

respondents were recruited by email through a convenience sample over a one-month period.

Upon clicking the survey link, prospective respondents were informed about the study’s purpose,


71

duration, benefits, risks, confidentiality, incentives, voluntary participation, and right to ask

questions or express concerns. Upon their understanding and agreement of these terms,

respondents could take the survey.

After necessary adjustments were made to the survey for clarification, reliability and

validity following the pretest analysis, the survey link was then made active for a period of

approximately six months. The survey link was distributed widely through electronic mail and

popular social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. In addition, the

PRSA Boston offered to partner in promotion of the survey in exchange for exclusive rights to

publish its results upon final dissertation approval and publishing through Regent University.

Target Population and Sample

Considering the exceptionally broad population of PR/Com executives worldwide, this

study used nonprobability convenience sampling to recruit a sample of participants that were as

diverse as possible. Intentional efforts were made to promote the study through various social

media sites, including Facebook, Twitter and Linkedln, as well as through email and word-of-

mouth. Understanding that the participant pool for this survey consists of high-level PR/Com

(including social media) executives who are very busy and because, “web surveys may have a

lower response rate than more traditional methods” (Treadwell, 2014, p. 163), this researcher

used a recruitment strategy to solicit and engage in promotional partnerships through personal

connections. Focusing on diversification, partnerships were formed with industry leaders,

influencers, educators and scholars. In addition, PR/Com executives working at large,

international PR firms, mid-size agencies and independent practitioners, as well as corporate

employees, were also solicited for survey participation and sharing via a concentrated LinkedIn

campaign. Also, as a mechanism for outreach, this researcher wrote blog posts and e-newsletter


72

articles for the PRSA and the Publicity Club of New England to post and promote the survey via

their websites, social media pages and at industry events.

The goal was to obtain participants who define themselves as a public relations,

corporate communication or social media professional who holds a position that can be

considered an executive or manager (sample titles include: Owner, Founder, Director, Assistant

Director, Executive, Executive Assistant, Manager, Assistant Manager, or similar position) with

some level of management responsibility for social media communication activities. The goal

was to obtain a variety of participants representing each of the four size categories: global (home

country plus more than four others); multi-national (home country plus up to four others); U.S.

national; U.S. local or regional, for a variety of organizations, including: publicly traded

organizations; private companies; non-profit organizations; PR/Com consulting firms/agencies;

government agencies/military, as well as healthcare and education. Sample recruitment messages

used in social media and email, as well as partnership request email messages, can be seen in

Appendix A.

Purposively soliciting educators, scholars, authors, industry trade members and PR,

communication and social media professionals at PR/Com firms, for-profit, non-profit,

healthcare, education and government organizations of various sizes, with different types of

customers (other businesses as well as consumers), allowed for a more diversified sample. All

respondents who met the required criteria and completed the survey in its entirety were entered

in a random drawing to win one of five $50 Amazon gift cards in exchange for their participation

in the study. In addition, partners who helped recruit participants were also entered into a

separate drawing to receive one of five additional $50 Amazon gift cards in exchange for their

participation and additional efforts in promoting the importance of the survey. The ten $50


73

Amazon gift cards were awarded after the results were analyzed in September 2017. This

recruitment strategy was designed to elicit at least 250 completed responses from PR/Com/Social

Media executives. This minimum number was chosen (with a hope of ideally receiving 300

completed responses) to achieve a five percent margin of error and a confidence level of 95

percent. These numbers are derived from the fact that there are currently “more than 22,000

PRSA members, including professionals from public relations agencies, corporations,

government, health care institutions, military, professional services firms, associations, nonprofit

organizations, and academia” (PRSA, 2016). However, this includes approximately 2,000

Associate Members (who have less than three years of experience) and do not fit the criteria for

the respondent pool, resulting in a final population of approximately 20,000 PR/Com

professionals/executives.

The reason this researcher chose to only interview higher ranking professionals is

because they are the ones who are able to answer questions related to leadership style and social

media relations collaborative planning initiatives for the organizations they work for/with. This

approach allows for the development of themes, trends and patterns associated with PR/Com

management of social media relations and engagement across departments.

Instrument

A copy of the survey questionnaire that was used in the study, identifying variables,

corresponding items, and possible values, is provided in Appendix B. The questionnaire consists

of six areas of inquiry featuring 43 questions. The first section was the introduction, which pre-

qualified respondents, explained the study, assured confidentiality, and offered an incentive for

participation. The body of the questionnaire contained four parts before the survey’s closing (the


74

sixth part). Two forms of numeric responses that were collected included categorical/nominal

data and interval data, which were collected in three different formats.

Section two of the survey asked 16 questions under the guise of one question (Q1a –

Q1p). This section used a five-point Likert-type scale (using the categories of not at all to

frequently, if not always) to generate interval data for analysis of the independent variable

(PR/Com executives’ use of authentic leadership) in H2b and for analysis as a

moderating/mediating variable in H2a.

This study used the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) developed by Gardner, et

al. (2005) and validated by Avolio, et al. (2007) to measure four dimensions: self-awareness

(SA), balanced processing (BP), relational transparency (RT), and internalized moral

perspective (IMP). SA (evaluated in questions 13, 14, 15 and 16) and IMP (evaluated in

questions 6, 7, 8 and 9) dimensions are each composed of 4 items, RT of 5 (evaluated in

questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) and BP of 3 (evaluated in questions 10, 11 and 12). Thus, in total,

there were 16 ALQ items. The final scale items for each of the four selected dimensions from

Avolio, et al. (2007) and the Cronbach’s alpha values are listed in Table 6 (referenced under the

ALQ Dimensions section of this paper).

The final question in the first section of the survey asked respondents to specify whether

they worked “In-House” at a for-profit, non-profit, educational, healthcare, government or other

type of organization/institution, or if they owned or worked at a PR Firm/Agency or were an

Independent Practitioner/Consultant. This question specified that the reason this question was

important was because the questions in the next two sections were designed specifically for their

profession (Sub-survey A and Sub-survey B).


75

Section three of the survey (Q3 – Q20) was the most extensive. Using a seven-point

Likert scale (using the categories of strongly disagree to strongly agree), these declarative

statements were posed to generate interval data to measure the independent variable (PR/Com

executives’ use of collaborative planning methods) in H1. The variable was also analyzed in

terms of its relationship with authentic leadership as a possible moderating variable for its

relationship with the establishment of well-coordinated interdepartmental plans (H2a). Finally,

collaborative planning methods was also examined to see if they correlated with company type

or size in R1 and R2.

Specifically, this study used the three dimensions from the Nurse-Physician

Collaboration Scale (NPCS) scale developed by Ushiro (2009): a) joint participation; b) sharing

of information; c) cooperativeness (to measure three dimensions of collaboration); and one

dimension from Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) conceptual model of collaboration: d)

acceptance of outcomes.

Ushiro’s (2009) study to develop and test the psychometric properties of the NPCS

resulted in 27 items: shared patient’s information consisted of nine items, joint participation in

the cure/care decision-making process consisted of 12 items, and cooperativeness consisted of

six items. Cronbach’s α coefficients for the nurses’ responses to the NPCS were (a = 0.91) for

sharing of patient information, (a = 0.92) for joint participation in the cure/care decision-making

process, and (a = 0.80) for cooperativeness.

This study chose Ushiro’s (2009) categories to create the scales to measure the three

formative steps in the independent variable of collaborative planning methods over Thompson

and Prokopy’s (2016) scales because (a) the questions aligned more directly with this specific

focus of this organizational investigation and (b) they featured stronger Cronbach’s Alpha


76

values. In addition, Ushiro’s (2009) sharing of information category also aligns well with

Margerum’s (2008) category of consensus building, as it includes questions related to mutual

understanding. The last construct of the scale for this dissertation study, acceptance of outcomes

(5 items, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.71), was sourced from Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) scale to

examine the dependent variable of stakeholder support and commitment to the efforts and the

results of the collaborative process in terms of coordinating plans for social media relations

across organizations.

Upon careful review and evaluation of the original scales, this researcher attempted to

improve upon several items. First, 11 items that were considered irrelevant for the revised focus

on organizational planning were eliminated from the original scales. These included nine items

from Ushiro’s (2009) study (items 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 22, 28, 30, 32) and two items from Thompson

and Prokopy’s (2016) dimension of acceptance of outcomes (items 29 and 30). Second, three

nearly identical items from Ushiro’s (2009) scale were omitted (items 5, 6 and 18) and

condensed to eliminate triple barreling of variables (item 12). Lastly, one component (the end-

user, i.e. the patient) from one item in Ushiro’s (2009) scale (item 20) was omitted because it did

not align with the scope of the current study.

After the scale items were adjusted for these improvements, they were standardized for

association with this study. Since the scale items from Ushiro (2009) and Thompson and

Prokopy (2016) were used to study the industries of healthcare and farmland preservation/land

use, respectively, careful review and evaluation of the original scales lead this researcher to

replace some key terms in accordance with the focus of this study as identified in Table 8.


77

Table 8

Revised Terms for Scale Items to Measure Collaborative Planning Process Dimensions

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Scale Item Terms Revised Scale Item Terms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ushiro (2009) Revised term(s) for this study

nurses and physicians PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments

a patient a social media customer

treatment strategy

future direction strategic direction

prevent medical care accidents address customer care issues on social media

side effects or complications product or service issues

Thompson and Prokopy (2016) Revised term(s) for this study

public, county, country, community stakeholders within an organization

(as a community)

friends colleagues

specifics/initiatives organizational specifics/initiatives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final revised statements, organized by collaborative planning dimension variables,

can be viewed in Table 9.

Table 9

Revised Items to Measure Collaborative Planning Process Dimensions (via sub-survey A)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dimension Items

Variables as represented by respondents who work “In-House” (Sub-Survey A)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint 1. PR/Com exchanges opinions with other stakeholder departments

Participation to resolve problems related to customer care on social media.

of 2. In the event of a disagreement about the strategic direction of

Stakeholders customer care on social media, PR/Com holds discussions with the

(6 items) other stakeholder departments to resolve differences of opinion.

3. PR/Com discusses with the other stakeholder departments whether to

continue a certain strategy when that strategy is not having the

expected effect.

4. Together, PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments consider

each other’s proposals about the strategies of customer care on social

media.

5. The strategy for consumer care on social media is based on a mutual

exchange of opinions between PR/Com and the other stakeholder

departments.


78

6. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments discuss how to address

service, product and customer care issues on social media.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sharing of 7. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments all know what has

Information been explained to a customer in social media about his/her product

(6 items) or service issue.

8. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments share information to

verify the effects of strategies.

9. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments have the same

understanding of the strategies for customer care on social media.

10. In the event of a change in strategy, PR/Com and the other stakeholder


change.

11. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments share information

about a customer’s reaction to explanations or solutions offered for a

product/service issue on social media.

12. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments have the same

understanding of the customer’s wish for a resolution and care.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cooperative- 13. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments can freely exchange

ness information or opinions about matters related to work.

(3 items) 14. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments help each other.

15. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments take into account each

other’s schedules when making plans to meet regarding customer care

issues and planning for social media.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acceptance 16. The other stakeholder departments support and contribute funds

of Outcomes to the integrated consumer relations initiative for social media.

(3 items) 17. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments support changes in

policies that produce understandable results and improve workflow.

18. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments work together to

produce policies and documents that reduce complexity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section four of the survey (Q21 – Q29) used declarative sentences and a seven-point

Likert scale (using the categories of strongly disagree to strongly agree) to generate interval data

for further analysis of the dependent variable (well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for

social media relations across organizations) in H1, H2a and H2b, as well as RQ4 and RQ5. The

first three questions (21, 22 and 23) were taken from Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) study

(acceptance of outcomes), while questions 24, 25 and 26 were taken directly from the USC


79

Annenberg GAP VIII study (2014). These 2 dimensions (WC and AO) together constructed a

six-item scale for the dependent variable WCP. This section also asked three questions regarding

the company’s culture (Q27 – Q29) as a means to examine / control for organizational

climate/culture (as specified as necessary in the ALQ literature for this sort of examination).

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the culture scale items were not available.

The fifth part of the survey (Q30 – Q41) collected personal and professional information

using categorical, multiple choice questions to provide background information on the

respondents. This section also allowed for an examination of correlation between an

organization’s type and size in combination with the collaborative planning variables and the


organizations (R1 – R4).

The sixth section of the survey (the closing), provided a thank you note letting

participants know that they were going to be prompted to a link where they could provide their

email address to be entered into the gift card drawing and to receive the results of the study

directly. This section also encompassed the last two questions of the survey (Q42 and Q43)

regarding the means through which they were connected to the survey (email, Facebook Twitter,

LinkedIn, direct contact/word of mouth) and if applicable, to specify who referred them to the

survey, respectively.

Upon exiting the survey, respondents received an automated thank you page with the

email link to click on / enter into their web browser to be entered into the drawing and to receive

the results of the study, which will be sent upon final approval and publishing of the dissertation

by Regent University.


80

Data Collection and Handling

The final instrument, found in Appendix B, was adjusted after a pretest analysis of a

selection of 25 personal and professional PR/Com executive/professional acquaintances of the

researcher, which were used to examine the general procedure of the proposed study. This was

done to insure maximum clarity of survey instructions, questions, and possible values to verify

reliability. This pretesting utilized a selection of respondents representing a variety of

organizations of different sizes (with different types of customers) and was held over a six-week

timeframe. Results from this pretest indicated a need to revise some aspects of the survey

instrument as described in the “Data Collection and Handling” section in this chapter and in the

“Instrument” section above. The final survey was launched in November 2016 and data was

collected over a six-month period through May 2017. The researcher monitored responses over

the data collection period in hopes of exceeding the original target goal of 250 responses. Upon

closing the survey, the raw data was downloaded and examined for completeness. The final

usable data set was imported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software

application to calculate appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics.

Reliability and Validity

Field (2009) said, “One way to try to ensure that measurement error is kept to a minimum

is to determine properties of the measurement that give us confidence that it is doing its job

properly” (p. 11). The first property is validity, which is whether an instrument actually and

accurately reflects, assesses or measures the phenomenon it set out to measure (Field, 2009, p.

11, Creswell, 2009, p. 145). Reliability refers to the external and internal consistency of items

measured (Creswell, 2009, p. 145), meaning it examines “whether an instrument can be

interpreted consistently across different situations” (Field, 2009, p. 11). Reliability analysis was


81

used to evaluate the reliability of scales being used. The pre-test study, which was conducted

prior to the formal launch of the final study, helped to establish both reliability and validity of the

instrument.

Pre-Testing of Data. To ensure maximum clarity of survey instructions, questions, and

possible values, a pre-test analysis of the scale dimensions was administered over a six-week

period from August 10, 2016 through September 25, 2016 among a selection of personal and

professional acquaintances of the researcher. Additional input and pretesting of the final

instrument also occurred using a smaller selection of respondents representing various types of

organizational categories (i.e., independent, educational, small firm and large firm). The pre-test

resulted in 25 surveys being returned (approximately 10% of the full sample size) by PR/Com

professionals/executives with 23 complete (92%).

Input from pre-test respondents resulted in the collaborative planning questions (Section

3) and the interdepartmental coordination questions (Section 4) being sub-divided into two

separate sets of questions strictly for question clarity. Therefore, the original set of questions

(sub-survey A) was retained in its original form for respondents who worked directly for a

company/organization (in-house); and another set of questions (sub-survey B) for respondents

who worked at a PR firm/agency or were an independent practitioner or consultant. These newly

expanded questions contained some additional content needed to clarify the questions in relation

to the relationship between the PR firm and the other stakeholder departments housed within

their clients’ organizations. Additional statements were also needed to enhance the request to

answer the questions based on how the PR firm works with “the majority” of its clients (in a

general sense).


82

Independent Variables. Examining the first independent variable of “Authentic

Leadership” (AL) in the pre-test analysis resulted in the following Cronbach’s α coefficients for

the four dimensions of SA, IMP, BP and RT: α = 0.704 for self-awareness (four items via

questions 13, 14, 15, 16); α = 0.473 for internalized moral perspective (four items via questions

6, 7, 8, 9); α = 0.773 for balanced processing (three items via questions 10, 11, 12); and α =

0.629 for relational transparency (five items via questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

While the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for three of the dimensions were sufficient, IMP

resulted in a weak Cronbach’s alpha (α =0.473) in the pre-test where item total statistics would

not improve upon deleting any of the variables. At this point, this researcher followed Datta’s

(2015) lead and combined the five RT construct variables with the four IMP construct variables

and found this to strengthen the Cronbach’s α coefficient to α =0.604. This supported Datta’s

(2015) conclusion that respondents could not differentiate the two constructs. It was this point

that Datta (2015) merged the two constructs and renamed it the Transparent and Moral

Perspective (TMP). While this researcher would normally edit the survey at this point to either

exclude the IMP construct or utilize the strengthened TMP construct for the full study, copyright

regulations from MindGarden state that “the scale must be used in its entirety as written.” It is

for this reason that this researcher was hopeful that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for IMP

would show stronger in the full test analysis. If not, then the researcher would again examine the

possibility of adjusting for this weakness by using the TMP construct (by combining the IMP

and RT constructs) or examining the results of eliminating the IMP construct all together.

Examining the second independent variable of “Collaborative Planning” (CP), resulted in

the following Cronbach’s α coefficients for the three dimensions of JP, SI and COOP: α = 0.928

for joint participation of stakeholders (six items via questions 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16); α = 0.923 for


83

sharing of information, (six items via questions 3, 4, 9, 11, 15, 17); and α = 0.689 for

cooperativeness (three items via questions 6, 12, 18).

Dependent Variable. Examining the dependent variable of “Well-Coordinated Plans”

(WCP) resulted in the following Cronbach’s α coefficients for the two dimensions of WC and

AO: α = 0.723 for well-coordinated (three items via questions 26, 27, and 28) and α = 0.786 for

acceptance of outcomes (three items via questions 7, 13 and 19).

Summary

This study was a response to the PR industry’s call for leadership in collaborative

planning of social media strategies across organizations. It is the hope of this researcher that the

examination of authentic leadership practices and collaborative planning methods being used by

PR/Com professionals will advance the study of effective integration of social media and provide

some guidance for PR professionals looking to management integration across the corporate

enterprise. The results of this study, are shared in detail in Chapter 4.


84

Chapter 4: Findings

This study’s purpose was to advance the study of effective integration of social media

management by PR/Com executives across the corporate enterprise. As presented in the previous

chapters, the goal was to identify authentic leadership traits of PR/Com professionals and the

collaborative planning methods they used in the coordination of social media responsibilities

across organizational functions – and the success of these efforts. To accomplish this goal, this

study used collaborative planning theory as a basis to question participants’ use of collaborative

planning methods and actor network theory as a basis to examine whether authentic leadership

practices play a role in translation. Both variables were analyzed by examining whether these

efforts effected well-coordinated plans across organizational functions.

Following a six-month online data collection period (November 17, 2016 - May 16,

2017) using a web-based survey tool as described in Chapter 3, the data was extracted and

examined using SPSS (IBM Corp., 2016). The findings are reported in this chapter, and include a

description of the respondents and descriptive statistics associated with each of the major

variables studied. Finally, this chapter presents the findings associated with the research

questions and hypotheses that guided this study.

Understanding of Respondents

Demographics. Two hundred and seventy-three participants (n=273) began the online

survey during the six-month period in which it was active by consenting to participate and

answering at least one question. A total of 218 respondents finished the survey by working

through each page and submitting a completed survey, resulting in a completion rate of 79.85%.

At the end of the survey window, all cases were examined for completeness. All 273 respondents

completed the first 16 questions that made up the Authentic Leadership scale, resulting in this


85

sample being identified as suitable for analysis for this independent variable. The remaining 218

submitted responses were identified as suitable for analysis for the two additional variables:

Collaborative Planning Methods (another independent variable) and Well-Coordinated Plans for

Social Media Relations (the dependent variable).

Efforts were made to recruit as diverse a sample as possible, but the study still used a

nonprobability convenience sample (n=273). These respondents reviewed the summary of

research specifics regarding purpose and anonymity prior to taking the survey, which was

approved by The Human Subject Review (HSR) board in July 2016 upon presentation of The

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research certificate of training

completion (number 1153348), dated March 29, 2013.

As noted in Table 10, respondents who completed the survey (n=218) were

predominantly female (67.4% compared to 32.1% male), with ages ranging from 20s to 60s.

Respondents were also predominantly Caucasian (87.6%), with smaller representation among

other race/ethnicity categories (i.e., 4.6% Black/African, 3.2% Hispanic, 1.8% Asian, with 2.3%

choosing the category of Other). The age category of 40s accounted for the largest percentage of

respondents (29.8%); however, there was also considerable representation among those in their

30s and 50s, (as each represented 23.9%). The smaller representation of younger (20s) and older

(60s) should also be noted (11.9% and 10.1%, respectively). Additionally, it is important to note

that there were no respondents over the age of 69 (as the 70s age category represented 0.0%).

These results align directly with the demographics that make up the PRSA membership.

However, a large portion of the respondents were not PRSA members. These respondents

included: members of the Public Relations and Communication Professionals group (300,000

members); members of the Social Media Marketing Group (2 million members); members of


86

other industry-related online groups; and those who did not identify as members of any specific

industry group. This shows a trend in the demographics for the profession as a whole.

Education Levels. It is also important to note that all respondents were college-educated

to some degree, which was not unexpected because the survey pre-qualified for respondents who

were professionals working at a management level or higher. Specifically, most respondents

reported that they completed either a bachelor’s degree (n=116, 53.2%) or a master’s degree

(n=86, 39.4%), while a small portion held a doctorate (4.1%, n=9). Only a small number of

respondents held an associate’s/professional degree (n=1, 0.5%) or reported that they completed

some college/no degree (n=5, 2.3%).

Table 10

Sex, Age, Education, and Ethnicity (n=218)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Demographic Variables Frequency Percent

________________________________________________________________________

Sex

Female 147 67.4%

Male 70 32.1%

Missing 1 0.5%

________________________________________________________________________

Age

20s 26 11.9%

30s 52 23.9%

40s 65 29.8%

50s 52 23.9%

60s 22 10.1%

70+ 0 0.0%

Missing 1 0.5%

________________________________________________________________________


87

Education

Did not complete High School 0 0.0%

Completed High School 0 0.0%

Some College – no degree 5 2.3%

Associate/Professional degree 1 0.5%

Completed Bachelor’s degree 116 53.2%

Completed Master’s degree 86 39.4%

Completed Doctoral degree 9 4.1%

Missing 1 0.5%

________________________________________________________________________

Ethnicity

Caucasian 191 87.6%

Asian 4 1.8%

Black/African 10 4.6%

Hispanic 7 3.2%

Other 5 2.3%

Missing 1 0.5%

________________________________________________________________________

Management Position. The fact that a majority of the respondents held at least a

bachelor’s degree, with many reporting that they also completed a master’s degree (or higher),

added value to the findings because this aligned with the educational requirements of

professionals who hold a management position (or higher). These results were supported by all

respondents reporting that they aligned in the category of professional manager or higher (as

shown in Table 11). In fact, a plurality of respondents reported to be an Owner of a PR

Agency/Firm or an Independent Consultant (n=69, 31.7%) with the other three management

categories being represented in the following order: Senior manager - for unit or division (n=55,

25.2%), Professional manager - reporting to senior executive (n=55, 25.2%), and Most Senior

Professional - for the organization representing 18.3% (n=40).


88

Type of Organization. Respondents were provided with four choices for the variable

identified as TYPE (1: publicly traded company; 2: private company; 3: non-profit; and 4:

government agency/military). This variable was expanded from these four items to eight items

during analysis based on need as healthcare and education were revealed as popular choices (5:

PR/Com; 6: healthcare; 7: education; and 8: other). These items were expanded as explained

below and shown in Table 11.

Early in the survey (question two), respondents were asked to identify themselves as

either “working in-house for an organization/institution” (1) or as “owning or working for a PR

firm/agency or as an independent practitioner/consultant” (2). The 111 respondents who chose

number two (#2) as their answer for question number two (that they owned or worked for a “PR

firm/agency or as an independent practitioner/consultant”) were re-categorized for this variable

(TYPE) as working for a PR/Com consulting firm/agency (operationally defined as item number

five: 5). This was done regardless of a previous answer to this question (whether they chose

“publicly traded company: 1” or “private company: 2”).

Option five (PR/Com) was left off the list of choices on purpose to limit confusion for

respondents in their decision to choose between these classifications, as this question was already

asked and did not need to be answered again by these respondents. In addition, 18 respondents

who listed “publicly traded company” (1), “private company” (2) or “non-profit organization”

(3) for TYPE and also specified healthcare as their answer to Question 6 (“What is your

organization’s primary business function?”) were also re-categorized for the variable TYPE

under the new category of healthcare (operationally defined as six: 6). Also, 27 respondents who

listed 1 (publicly traded company), 2 (private company), 3 (non-profit organization) or 0 (no

answer) for TYPE and also specified education, university or higher education as their answer to


89

Question 67 (what is your primary business function) were re-categorized for the variable TYPE

under the new item of education (operationally defined as 7). Finally, four respondents who

answered 0 (no answer) or 5 (other) for TYPE were re-categorized as an 8 (representing the new

operational definition for Other).

Setting up the survey in this fashion – leaving out the choices of healthcare (6) and

education (7) – was also a purposeful attempt to limit confusion for respondents in their decision

to choose between these classifications and the options of “non-profit” and “for-profit.” Using

respondents’ answers to Question 67 (regarding primary business function) and their comments

to the question regarding type of organization, was a clear means to properly identify the

company while also decreasing confusion for respondents. (These revised numbers are shown in

Table 11.)

In addition, other sizable numbers for type of organization included 9.4% who reported

they worked for a private company (n=22) and 9.0% who reported that they worked for a

publicly traded company (n=21). These were the numbers that remained in these categories after

the re-classification described above. In addition, 6.0% reported that they worked for a non-profit

organization (n=14) and 5.6% worked for a Government agency/military organization (n=13),

which were determined to be neither a healthcare or education institution. (These resulting

numbers are shown in Table 11).

Size of Organization. When looking at the size of an organization, nearly half of all

respondents worked for a U.S. local or regional organization (n=102, 46.8%), while

approximately one third (30.7%) worked for a U.S. national organization (n=67). The smallest

categories represented were global (n=32, 14.7%), where the organization has offices in more

than five countries), and multi-national (n=16, 7.3%), where the organization has offices in up to


90

five countries. This means that nearly 80% of all survey respondents worked for organizations

that operate solely in the U.S. This is supported by the fact that 92.7% of all respondents reported

their organization’s headquarters were located in the U.S. (202). Eighteen respondents listed a

non-U.S. country as the location of their organization’s headquarters (8.3%), with four

respondents reporting both a U.S. and a non-U.S. location for their company’s headquarters

(1.8%) and two who did not answer this question (0.9%). In addition, 58.3% reported that their

company primarily services consumers (n=127), while 41.3% reported their primary business

function as business-to-business (n=90). This shows a fairly even representation among the two

service concentrations, which is important in analyzing the data.

Departments Using Social Media. Finally, the last question that needed to be asked –

but one of the most important – was, “Which departments use social media to communicate with

external audiences?” Respondents were asked to check all departments that apply. The results

showcased that the PR/Com department (which includes professionals who work in Corporate

Communication and Social Media Communication, as described in the “Definition of Terms”

section of this paper) uses social media to communicate with external audiences more than any

other department (n=202, 92.7%), exceeding Marketing/Sales (n=150, 68.9%) and Customer

Service/Relations (n=89, 40.8%). In addition, 6.9% of respondents also named other departments

(n=15) that use social media to communicate with external audiences, including seven

respondents who identified HR/recruiting (3.2%). Other than admissions, which was identified

by two respondents in education (0.1%), the following departments were identified by one

respondent each in various fields: foundation and events, donor relations, program offices,

advertising, philanthropy, investor relations, food and beverage, and student affairs.


91

These results added value to the findings because they align directly with the findings of

the USC Annenberg GAP VII (2012) and GAP VIII (2014) survey results. These findings

support that the majority of social media functions are mostly spread across the three functions

of PR/Com (92.7%), Marketing/Sales (68.9%) and Customer Service/Relations (40.8%), which

emphasizes the importance of coordinating these services across these three departments. These

findings also align with the USC Annenberg GCR (2016) survey which reported that 75% of

respondents stated that social media will be a key driver of future growth for the industry. This

helps support the need for this study for the industry overall.

Table 11

Position, Type, Size, Location, Service Concentration, and Depts. using SM

________________________________________________________________________

Demographic Variables Frequency Percent ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Position

Owner: PR Agency/Firm or Independent Consultant 69 31.7%

Most Senior Professional (for the organization) 40 18.3%

Senior manager (for unit or division) 55 25.2%

Professional manager (reporting to senior executive) 54 24.8%

Missing 1 0.5%

________________________________________________________________________

Type of Organization

Publicly traded company 21 9.0%

Private company 22 9.4%

Non-Profit organization 14 6.0%

Government Agency/Military 13 5.6%

PR/Com consulting firm/agency 111 47.6%

Healthcare 19 8.2%

Education 29 12.4%

Other 4 1.7%

One each for: DMO/media, engineering trade assn., tourism, real estate

________________________________________________________________________


92

Size of Organization

Global (home country plus more than 4 others) 32 14.7%

Multi-national (home country plus up to 4 others) 16 7.3%

U.S. national 67 30.7%

U.S. local or regional 102 46.8%

Missing 1 0.5%

________________________________________________________________________

Location of Headquarters

U.S. 202 92.7%

Non-U.S. 18 8.3%

Listed BOTH 4 1.8%

Missing / NA 2 0.9% ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Service Concentration

Consumers 127 58.3%

Business to Business (B-to-B) 90 41.3%

Missing 1 0.5%

________________________________________________________________________

Departments using Social Media (all)

PR/Com 202 92.7%

Marketing/Sales 150 68.9%

Customer Service/Relations 89 40.8

Other Departments 15 6.9%

Missing / NA 2 0.9%

________________________________________________________________________

Examining Variables

The survey utilized three different scales to measure the two independent variables and

the dependent variable. It also utilized a small, three-item scale to explore organization

climate/culture (operationally defined as CULT) as a control variable to see if its effect enhanced

or mitigated perceptions/results associated with the dependent variable.


93

Authentic Leadership. The first set of questions (1a – 1p) was organized using the

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) scale (Avolio, et al., 2007). This scale was used to

examine the agency of authentic leadership (AL) as an independent variable and a moderating

variable within an organizational setting. This scale was chosen because the four dimensions

(SA, RT, IMP and BP) that make up the 16-item ALQ align directly with the three planning

elements of facilitation, advocacy and delegation used in evaluating leadership traits, as

identified in the detailed literature review and interview process discussed in Chapter 2.

The 16-item instrument asks survey respondents to indicate how frequently each

statement provided fits their own leadership style (i.e., As a Leader I… “seek feedback to

improve interactions with others,” “make decisions based on my core values,” and “listen

carefully to different points of view before coming to conclusion”). These statements represent

three of the four dimensions (SA, IMP, BP and RT) that make up the independent variable

labeled, “Authentic Leadership” (AL).

Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from frequently, if not

always (4) to not at all (0). These items that were ranked on a scale from 0 - 4 were analyzed on

a scale from 1-5, where an answer of 0 was analyzed as a 1, and an answer of 4 was analyzed as

a 5. When examining the variable of Authentic Leadership (AL) as a whole (with 16 items)

(n=273), the reliability analysis (M = 4.17 SD = 0.42) resulted in a strong Cronbach’s a of .859.

However, when examining AL according to the four dimensions (SA, IMP, BP and RT), only

two of the dimensions resulted in acceptable reliable coefficients (SA, a = 0.75 and IMP, a =

0.74), while the other two dimensions had weaker reliability (BP, a = 0.63 and RT, a = 0.65) (see

Table 12). These results support analyzing AL using all 16 items that make up the variable, as

opposed to examining the hypotheses using the four composite dimensions.


94

Also, in contrast to the pre-test results, the dimension of IMP did not result in a weak

reliability coefficient. Therefore, the four construct items of IMP did not need to be combined

with the five construct variables of RT, as Datta (2015) did in her study (and the pre-test analysis

implied might be the case). However, because two of the dimensions had weaker reliability <

0.7, which was not consistent with the hypothesis of this study, this researcher decided to

examine the variable using the 16 items individually, as opposed to using the four composite

dimensions. However, as can be observed in the descriptive statistics for each of the four

composite variables found in Table 12, each of the AL dimensions tended to be favorable

matches among the respondents on the composite scales. This was consistent with the

hypotheses of this study.

Table 12

Reliability & Descriptive Statistics of Authentic Leadership (AL) and its 4 Dimensions

________________________________________________________________________

Items Reliability N Range Min. Max. Mean SD Variance ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AL Q1.1 – Q1.16 a = 0.86 273 2.75 2.25 5.00 4.17 0.42 0.179 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4 Dimensions of AL:

SA Q1.13, Q1.14, a = 0.75 273 3.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 0.57 0.319

Q1.15, Q1.16

IMP Q1.6, Q1.7, a = 0.74 273 2.75 2.25 5.00 4.41 0.56 0.314

Q1.8, Q1.9

BP Q1.10, Q1.11, a = 0.63 273 3.33 1.67 5.00 4.11 0.59 0.350

Q1.12

RT Q1.1, Q1.2, Q1.3 a = 0.65 273 2.20 2.80 5.00 4.15 0.47 0.216

Q1.4, Q1.5

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Collaborative Planning Methods. The second set of questions (3-7, 9-13 and 15-19)

organized via sub-surveys A and B (operationally defined as CP1AB -CP5AB, CP7AB -

CP11AB and CP13AB - CP 7AB, respectively) were created using the Nurse Physician


95

Collaboration Scale (NPCS) (Ushiro, 2009) to examine the second independent variable:

Collaborative Planning Methods (CPM) in an organizational setting. This scale was chosen

because the three dimensions of the NPCS scale align directly with the first three criteria for

evaluating the collaboration process identified in Table 2. In addition, the purpose for the

development of the NPCS aligns directly with the purpose for this study. The NPCS was

developed “to allow the study of the relationships between collaboration and quality of hospital

care, to analyse {stet} factors that promote collaboration, and to devise collaborative system

planning” (Ushiro, 2009, p. 1500). Similarly, this study was developed for a similar purpose to

study relationships between collaboration and the establishment of interdepartmental plans for

social media in an organizational setting (as opposed to quality of hospital care).

It is for this reason that this scale was revised to assess social media responsibilities

across organizational functions. The consequential 15-item scale asked survey respondents to

indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each statement, based on their current

job (i.e., “PR/Com exchanges opinions with other stakeholder departments to resolve problems

related to customer care on social media,” “PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments share

information to verify the effects of strategies,” and “PR/Com and the other stakeholder

departments help each other”). Each of these statements represents one of the three dimensions

that make up the 15-item scale for collaborative planning methods, including joint participation

(JP), sharing of information (SI), and cooperativeness (COOP). These dimensions were obtained

from the revised NPCS as described in Chapter 2.

Responses were solicited using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to

strongly disagree (1) among those who worked in-house (sub-survey A) and those who worked

at an agency, firm or as an independent (sub-survey B). When examining the variable of


96

Collaborative Planning Methods (CPM) as a whole (made up of 15 individual items), the

reliability analysis (M = 5.24, SD = 0.91) was very strong with a Cronbach’s a of .921. However,

when examining CPM according to its three dimensions (JP, SI, COOP), only two of the

dimensions resulted in reliable coefficients (JP, a = 0.83 and SI, a = 0.84), while the other

dimension (COOP) resulted in a weaker reliability (a = 0.70) (as can be observed in Table 13).

These results support analyzing CPM using all 15 items that make up the variable (as opposed to

examining the hypotheses using the three composite dimensions).

Table 13

Reliability & Descriptive Statistics of Collaborative Planning Methods (CPM)

and its 3 Dimensions ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


CPM Q3-7, Q9-13, a = 0.92 225 4.93 2.07 7.00 5.24 0.91 0.829

Q15-19 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3 Dimensions of CPM

JP Q3, 5, 9, a = 0.83 225 5.50 1.50 7.00 5.31 0.98 0.967 11, 15, 17

SI Q4, 6, 10, a = 0.84 225 5.67 1.33 7.00 5.07 1.01 1.024

12, 16, 18

COOP Q7, 13, 19, a = 0.70 225 5.33 1.67 7.00 5.47 0.95 0.893 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well-Coordinated Plans. The dependent variable of Well-Coordinated

Interdepartmental Plans for Social Media Relations (WCP) was created using two different

scales. The first three questions were adopted from the Acceptance of Outcomes dimension in

Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) Conceptual Model of Collaboration. This dimension (AOAB)

was revised from five questions to three (questions 8, 14 and 20 via for sub-survey A and B),

(operationally defined as CP6AB, CP12AB and CP18AB, respectively). These questions were

used to assess buy-in from other stakeholder departments to work collaboratively across

organizational functions. The resulting 3-item dimension, acceptance of outcomes (AOAB)


97

asked survey respondents to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each

statement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1)

based on their current job (i.e., “The other stakeholder departments support and contribute funds

to the integrated customer relations initiative for social media”). This scale was chosen because

Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) research objective aligned directly with this study, “to

determine if support for the formative steps in the collaborative process influence the

acceptability of outcomes,” (p. 5).

The second dimension used to examine the dependent variable of Well-Coordinated

Plans (WCP) was taken directly from the USC Annenberg GAP VIII study (2014). This scale

included three direct questions about how well the PR/COM, Marketing/Sales and Customer

Service departments were coordinated and integrated with each other (questions 24, 25 and 26

via sub-survey A and B). This 3-item dimension (WCPAB, operationally defined as IDC4AB,

IDC5AB and IDC6AB, respectively), also asked survey respondents to indicate the degree to

which they agree or disagree with each statement using the same 7-point Likert scale (i.e., “Our

PR/Com social media activities and functions are well coordinated and integrated with

Marketing/Sales”).

These two dimensions were combined to create a new six-item scale construct for the

dependent variable (WCP). When examining these six items that make up this dependent

variable (WCP), the reliability analysis (M = 4.96, SD = 0.94) was strong, with a Cronbach’s a

of 0.76. However, when examining the two dimensions of WCP (AOAB and WCPAB), only one

of the dimensions resulted in a reliable coefficient (AOAB, a = 0.76) while the other dimension

(WCPAB) resulted in a weaker reliability (a = 0.69) (as can be observed in Table 14). These


98

results support analyzing WCP using all 6 items that make up the variable (as opposed to

examining the hypotheses using the two composite dimensions).

Table 14

Reliability & Descriptive Statistics of Well-Coordinated Plans (WCP) & its 2 Dimensions ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


WCP Q8, Q14, Q20, a = 0.76 218 5.50 1.50 7.00 4.96 0.94 0.892

Q24, Q25, Q26 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2 Dimensions of WCP

AOAB Q8, 14, 20, a = 0.76 225 5.00 2.00 7.00 4.81 1.07 1.153

WCPAB Q24, 25, 26, a = 0.69 218 6.00 1.00 7.00 5.09 1.08 1.177 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Organizational Culture. Another variable was also examined to control for organization

culture (as specified as necessary in the ALQ literature). The three-item scale for organizational

culture (operationally defined as CULT) was also taken directly from the USC Annenberg GAP

VIII study (2014) and included three questions regarding the company’s culture (Questions 27,

28 and 29 via sub-survey A and B). These items (which were examined as IDC7AB, IDC8AB

and IDC9AB, respectively) asked survey respondents to indicate the degree to which they agree

or disagree with each statement using the same 7-point Likert scale (i.e., “I would consider the

culture of my company – not just the PR/Com function – as innovative and flexible overall”).

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for this dimension were not made available by USC

Annenberg (2014). However, as described here and observed in Table 15, when examining this

variable as a whole (3 items), the reliability analysis (M = 5.35, SD = 1.27) was strong, with a

Cronbach’s a of .79, as can be observed in the descriptive statistics reported in Table 15.

Table 15

Reliability & Descriptive Statistics of Organizational Culture (CULT) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


CULT Q27, Q28, Q29, a = 0.79 218 6.00 1.00 7.00 5.35 1.27 1.605 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


99

The research findings presented at the beginning of this chapter give insight into the

nature of the respondents through their demographic and organizational characteristics,

leadership styles and collaborative planning strategies. All of the scales resulted in strong

reliability coefficients and low variances, providing a foundation to move forward to the heart of

this study: an examination into the roles of authentic leadership and collaborative planning

methods in the establishment of well-coordinated, interdepartmental plans for social media

relations.

Analyses of Research Questions and Hypotheses

This study sought to empirically explore the relationship authentic leadership and

collaborative planning methods might have with the establishment of well-coordinated plans for

social media relations across organizational functions. Following the preliminary analysis of

data, the results were examined to answer the research questions and hypotheses that guided this

study.

Reliability of Variables. Prior to data analysis, the four variables used in this study were

tested for reliability within the sample and all of them returned a reliability threshold of > 0.7

(see Table 16 for details).

Table 16

Cronbach’s alpha for variables used in the study.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cronbach’s Number of items

alpha in the scale ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collaborative Planning Methods 0.92 15

Authentic Leadership 0.86 16

Well-Coordinated Plans 0.76 6

Culture 0.79 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


100

Correlations Between Variables. In addition, correlations between all items being

examined in the research questions and hypotheses were reviewed. The results of the Pearson r

correlations are shown in Table 17.

Table 17

Correlations between variables

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collaborative 5.24 0.91 -

Planning Methods

Authentic Leadership 4.17 0.42 .287** -

Well-Coordinated Plans 4.96 0.94 .804** .252** -

Culture 5.35 1.27 .327** .505** .536** -

Type of Org. 4.56 1.77 .039 .088 .082 .135* -

Size of Org. 3.10 1.06 -.017 .019 -.028 .091 .386** -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*p < .05; **p < .01

The independent variables, collaborative planning methods and authentic leadership,

were found to be positively correlated with each other and with the dependent variable of well-

coordinated plans, as was type of organization. The control variable, culture, was also positively

correlated with all five of the other variables. While collaborative planning methods had the

strongest positive correlation with well-coordinated plans, size of organization showed the

strongest negative correlation with well-coordinated plans. In addition, size of the organization

was positively correlated with type of organization. The correlations that were significant in the

model at the p < 0.01 level were collaborative planning methods and authentic leadership;

collaborative planning methods and well-coordinated plans; collaborative planning methods and

culture; authentic leadership and well-coordinated plans; authentic leadership and culture; well-


101

coordinated plans and culture; type of organization and culture; and size of organization and type

of organization.

Analysis of Research Questions. Research questions one through four (RQ1 - RQ4)

inquire as to whether the size of an organization or the type of an organization report differences

with collaborative planning methods (operationally defined as CPM) or well-coordinated plans

for social media relations across organizations (operationally defined as WCP) as described

earlier in this chapter.


executives depending on the type of organization for which they work?

It was suspected that there could be differences in collaborative planning methods used

by PR/Com executives depending on the type of organization the PR/Com executive worked for

(i.e., publicly traded company; private company; non-profit organization; government

agency/military; PR/Com consulting firm/agency; healthcare; education or other). To test the

research question, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted (analyze, compare means,

one-way ANOVA) using the Bonferroni procedure. Results of an ANOVA failed to indicate

differences in collaborative planning methods used based on the type of organization the

PR/Com executive worked for, as none of the comparisons between the 15 separate items that

make up CPM were significant (p > .05). (See table 18).

Table 18

One Way ANOVA for CPM by Type.

df Between Groups = 7; df Total = 220. _____________________________________________________________________

Question/Item F Sig. _____________________________________________________________________

CP1AB 1.354 .226

CP2AB .254 .970

CP3AB .756 .625

CP4AB 1.248 .278

CP5AB 1.171 .321


102

CP7AB 1.058 .392

CP8AB .499 .835

CP9AB 1.216 .295

CP10AB 1.356 .226

CP11AB .857 .542

CP13AB 1.438 .191

CP14AB 1.260 .272

CP15AB 1.087 .373

CP16AB 1.182 .314

CP17AB 1.547 .153 _____________________________________________________________________

In addition, an ANOVA was also conducted to examine differences using the three

dimensions that make up CPM. None of the comparisons between these three dimensions were

significant either (p > .05): joint participation (JPBOTH) (F (7, 220) = 1.02, p = .42), sharing

of information (SIBOTH) (F (7, 220) = 1.06, p = .39), or cooperativeness (COOPBOTH)

(F (7, 220) = 1.75, p = .10).


executives depending on the size of the organization for which they work?

It was also suspected that there could be differences in collaborative planning methods

used by PR/Com executives depending on the size of the organization the PR/Com executive

worked for (i.e., global, multi-national, U.S. national or U.S. local or regional). To test the

research question, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted (analyze, compare means,

one-way ANOVA) using the Bonferroni procedure. Results of an ANOVA failed to indicate

differences in collaborative planning methods (CPM) used based on the size of the organization

the PR/Com executive worked for, as only one comparison (question CP4AB) resulted in p < .05

(F (3, 216) = 2.96, p = .03). None of the other 14 comparisons were significant. (See Table 19).


103

Table 19

One Way ANOVA for CPM by Size.

df Between Groups = 3; df Total = 216. _____________________________________________________________________


CP1AB .632 .595

CP2AB .562 .641

CP3AB .806 .492

CP4AB 2.962 .033*

CP5AB .795 .498

CP7AB .877 .454

CP8AB 1.151 .329

CP9AB .412 .745

CP10AB .444 .722

CP11AB .163 .921

CP13AB 1.718 .164

CP14AB .283 .838

CP15AB 1.470 .224

CP16AB 1.092 .353

CP17AB .146 .932 _____________________________________________________________________

*p < .05

A post hoc test was conducted using Bonferroni and showed that question CP4AB

“PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments share information to verify the effects of

strategies” did not show a significant difference (p < .05) between those who reported working

for a U.S. national organization (choice #3) (n=67) and those who worked at a U.S. local or

regional organization (choice #4) (p = 0.058). In addition, an ANOVA was also conducted to

examine differences using the three dimensions that make up CPM. None of the comparisons

between these three dimensions were significant either (p > .05): joint participation (JPBOTH)

(F (3, 216) = .83, p = .48), sharing of information (SIBOTH) (F (3, 216) = 1.02, p = .39), or

cooperativeness (COOPBOTH) (F (3, 216) = .17, p = .92).


plans for social media relations across organizations depending on the type of organization

for which the PR/Com executive works?


104

Another area that was suspected to possibly show differences was in the establishment of

well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations

depending on the type of organization the PR/Com executive worked for (i.e., publicly traded

company, private company, non-profit organization, government agency/military, PR/Com

consulting firm/agency, healthcare, education or other). To test the research question, an analysis

of variance (ANOVA) was conducted (analyze, compare means, one-way ANOVA) using the

Bonferroni procedure.

Results of an ANOVA failed to indicate differences in the establishment of well-

coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations (WCP) based

on the type of organization the PR/Com executive worked for. An ANOVA was conducted using

the 6 separate items that make up WCP; the results showed three significant comparisons. Two

comparisons resulted in p < .05: Question CP18AB (F (7, 220) = 2.39, p = .02) and Question

IDC5AB (F (7, 216) = 2.06, p = .049). One of the comparisons resulted in p < .01: Question

IDC4AB (F (7, 217) = 2.81, p = .008). However, this means that only half of the comparisons

were significant (see Table 20) and it would seem that it would be important for “more than half”

of the comparisons to be significant to indicate differences in WCP based on type of

organization.

Table 20

One Way ANOVA for WCP by Type. df Between Groups = 7; df Total (CP6AB; CP12AB; CP18AB) = 220. df Total (IDC4AB; IDC5AB; IDC6AB) = 217. _____________________________________________________________________

Question/Item F Sig. ____________________________________________________________________

CP6AB .878 .524

CP12AB .628 .733

CP18AB 2.387 .023*

IDC4AB 2.809 .008**

IDC5AB 2.064 .049*

IDC6AB .508 .828 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*p < .05; **p < .01


105

A post hoc test was conducted using Bonferroni to further examine these three questions.

This analysis showed that CP18AB, “PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments work

together to produce policies and documents that reduce complexity” showed a significant

difference (p < .05) between those who work in healthcare (option #6) (n = 19) and those who

work in education (option #7) (n = 29) (p = 0.040), as well as a significant difference (p < .01)

between those who work in PR/Com (option #5) (n = 99) and those in education (option #7) (n =

29) (p = .016). In addition, question IDC4AB, “The functions within my PR/Com department

(media relations, corporate communication, etc.) are well coordinated and integrated with each

other” showed significance (p < .01) between those who work at a publicly traded company

(option #1) (n = 21) and those who work in PR/Com (option #5) (n = 99) (p = .008). Finally,

question IDC5AB, “Our PR/Com social media activities and functions are well coordinated and

integrated with Marketing/Sales” did not end up showing any significant relationships in the

post hoc analysis.

In addition, an ANOVA was also conducted to examine differences using the two

dimensions that make up WCP. Neither of these comparisons were significant (p > .05):

acceptance of outcomes (AOAB) (F (7, 220) = .69, p = .68) or well-coordinated and integrated

plans (WCPAB) (F (7, 217) = 1.40, p = .21).

RQ4: Are there differences in the establishment of “well-coordinated interdepartmental

plans for social media relations across organizations” depending on the “size” of the

organization for which the PR/Com executive works?

The last area that was suspected to possibly show differences was in the establishment of

well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations

depending on the size of the organization the PR/Com executive worked for (i.e., global, multi-


106

national, U.S. national or U.S. local or regional). To test the research question, an analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was conducted (analyze, compare means, one-way ANOVA) using the

Bonferroni procedure. Results of an ANOVA failed to indicate differences in well-coordinated

interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations (WCP) based on the size

of organization the PR/Com executive worked for, as only one comparison (question CP6AB)

resulted in p < .01 (F (3, 216) = 4.93, p = .00). None of the other 5 comparisons were significant.

(See Table 21).

Table 21

One Way ANOVA for WCP by Size.

df Between Groups =3; df Total = 216. _____________________________________________________________________


CP6AB 4.928 .002**

CP12AB .318 .813

CP18AB .619 .604

IDC4AB 1.663 .176

IDC5AB .844 .471

IDC6AB 1.353 .258 _____________________________________________________________________

**p < .01

A post hoc test was conducted using Bonferroni to further examine this question. This

analysis showed that CP6AB, “The other stakeholder departments support and contribute funds

to the integrated customer relations initiative for social media” showed a significant difference

(p < .05) between those who work at a global organization (option #1) (n = 32) and those who

work at a U.S. local or regional organization (option #4) (n = 102) (p = 0.018). The question also

showed a significant difference (p < .05) between those who work at a multi-national

organization (option #2) (n = 16) and those who work at a U.S. local or regional organization

(option #4) (n = 102) (p = .044). In addition, an ANOVA was also conducted to examine

differences using the two dimensions that make up WCP. Neither of these comparisons were


107

significant (p > .05): acceptance of outcomes (AOAB) (F (3, 216) = 1.64, p = .18) and well-

coordinated and integrated plans (WCPAB) (F (3, 216) = 1.80, p = .15).

It was at this point where size and type were omitted from the model in order to test the

hypotheses:

Revised Model:

(use of Collaborative H2a Planning Methods) CPM AL (Authentic Leadership traits) culture (control) H1 H2b

WCP (the establishment of Well-Coordinated Plans)

Analysis of Hypotheses

H1: PR/Com executives’ use of collaborative planning methods will positively predict the


organizations.

Regression analysis was performed (analyze, regress, linear) to test the hypothesis on the

predictive nature of collaborative planning methods (operationally defined as CPM) as an

independent, composite variable that was described earlier in this chapter. The first hypothesis

stated that PR/Com executives who use collaborative planning methods will positively predict

the establishment of well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across

organizations (operationally defined as WCP) as a dependent, composite variable, which was

also described earlier in this chapter. This assertion was tested by regressing the use of

collaborative planning methods (CPM, M = 5.24, SD = 0.91) on the dependent variable of well-

coordinated plans (WCP, M = 4.96, SD = 0.94). Results showed that CPM was a predictor of

WCP (𝛽 = 0.80, r2 = 0.65, p < .001), where a change of one standard deviation in the predictor


108

variable will result in a change of .80 standard deviations in the criterion variable and 65% of the

variance is explained and would apply outside of the sample.

The next step was to test for the effect of culture (operationally defined as CULT) as a

control variable on collaborative planning methods’ effect on establishing well-coordinated plans

for social media relations across organizations. Since the control variable resulted in low

correlation with the other variables being examined, a hierarchical regression was performed

using multiple regression analysis. The variable to be controlled (CPM) was entered in the first

step and in the next step the predictor whose effect had to be evaluated (CULT) was entered. See

Table 22.

Table 22

Linear Regression for H1: DV = well-coordinated plans. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Variable Model 1 beta Model 2 beta ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Collaborative

Planning Methods

0.80 0.72

Culture 0.18

r2 0.65 0.67

Δr2 0.65 0.02

Df1 1 1

Df2 216 215

F change 393.7 14.7

Sig f change 0.00** 0.00** ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*p < .05; **p < .01

The results showed that culture increased the effect of collaborative planning methods

(CPM) on well-coordinated plans for social media relations across organizations (WCP). Culture

increased the variance by .023 (2.3%) where r2 without culture = 0.65 and r2 with culture = 0.67.

Culture, as a control variable, increases the positive relationship of collaborative planning

methods to the establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media relations across


109

organizations. In this case, collaborative planning methods is still statistically significant at the

.001 level (𝛽 = 0.72, r2 = 0.67, p < .001) where a change of one standard deviation in the

predictor variable will result in a significant change of .72 standard deviations in the criterion

variable and 67% of the variance is explained and would apply outside of the sample. Based on

these tests, H1 was supported.

H2a: Authentic leadership moderates the relationship between collaborative planning

methods and the establishment of well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social

media relations across organizations.

As stated previously, an analysis of correlation coefficients for each path was statistically

significant and a particularly strong association was shown between the independent variable of

collaborative planning methods (operationally defined as CPM) and the dependent variable of

well-coordinated plans (operationally defined as WCP). In addition, authentic leadership

(operationally defined as AL) also showed a significant association between these variables and

scatterplots showed linear relationships between the variables. These results indicate that, at the

bivariate level, each of the conditions necessary to test for the possible role of a mediator has

been met.

The first part of hypothesis two (H2a) states that authentic leadership moderates the

relationship between collaborative planning methods and well-coordinated plans so that the

effects of collaborative planning methods on well-coordinated plans are greater when authentic

leadership is rated higher. During this regression, a variable modeling the interaction of

collaborative planning methods and authentic leadership (CPMAL) was computed. Collaborative

planning methods (CPM) and authentic leadership (AL) were entered as independent variables

(in block one) and well-coordinated plans (WCP) was entered as the dependent variable. An


110

interaction term was created (transform, computer variable, name target variable, multiply CPM

by AL) and the newly computed CPMAL was entered as the independent variable (in block two

of two). (see Table 23 for detailed beta values).

Table 23

Multiple Linear Regression for H2a: DV = well-coordinated plans.

Moderating variable = authentic leadership.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Collaborative

Planning

Methods

0.80 - 0.03

Authentic

Leadership

0.02 - 0.43

CPMAL 1.05

r2 0.65 0.65

Δr2 0.65 0.01

Df1 2 1

Df2 215 214

F change 196.6 4.87

Sig f change 0.00 0.03* ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*p < .05

The above table shows the influence of collaborative planning methods on well-

coordinated plans and the moderating effect of authentic leadership. Results showed that the

variable modeling the interaction of collaborative planning methods and authentic leadership

(CPMAL) increased the variance by .008 (0.8%) in the relationship with well-coordinated plans

(𝛽 = 1.05, r2 = 0.65, p < .05). This shows that a change of one standard deviation in the predictor

variable will result in a change of 1.05 standard deviations in the criterion variable and an

additional 1% of the variance is explained and would apply outside of the sample. While the

variance changed only slightly with authentic leadership as a moderating variable (Δr2 =0.01),

this is still significant at the 0.5 level (p = 0.03). In fact, in field studies 0.10 is an acceptable


111

level in moderation effect. McClelland and Judd (1993) stated that when reliable moderator

effects are present, the reduction in model error due to adding the product term “is

disconcertingly low” (p. 377) and therefore affects as little as 1% of the total variance should be

considered important. Based on this test, H2a was supported.

H2b: PR/Com executives’ use of authentic leadership will positively predict the


organizations.

Regression analysis was again performed (analyze, regress, linear) to test the hypothesis

on the predictive nature of authentic leadership (operationally defined as AL) as an independent,

composite variable that was described earlier in this chapter. The second part of this hypothesis

(H2b) stated that PR/Com executives who use authentic leadership will positively predict the


organizations (operationally defined as WCP) as a dependent, composite variable that was

described earlier in this chapter. This assertion was tested by regressing the use of authentic

leadership (AL, M = 4.17 SD = 0.42) on the dependent variable of well-coordinated plans (WCP,

M = 4.96, SD = 0.94). Results showed that AL was a predictor of WCP (𝛽 = 0.25, r2 = 0.06, p <

.001), where a change of one standard deviation in the predictor variable will result in a

significant change of .25 standard deviations in the criterion variable and 5.9% of the variance is

explained and would apply outside of the sample.

The final step was to test for the effect of culture (operationally defined as CULT) as a

control variable on authentic leadership’s effect on establishing well-coordinated plans for social

media relations across organizations. Since the control variable resulted in low correlation with

the other variables being examined, a hierarchical regression was performed using multiple


112

regression analysis. The variable to be controlled (AL) was entered in the first step and in the

next step the predictor whose effect has to be evaluated (CULT) was entered. See Table 24.

Table 24

Linear Regression for H2b: DV = well-coordinated plans. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Authentic

Leadership

0.25 0.09

Culture 0.51

r2 0.06 0.29

Δr2 0.06 0.23

Df1 1 1

Df2 216 215

F change 14.7 70.2

Sig f change 0.00 ** 0.00** ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

**p < .01

The results showed that culture greatly increased the effect of authentic leadership (AL)

on well-coordinated plans for social media relations across organizations (WCP). Culture

increased the variance by .23 (23%) where r2 without culture = 0.06 and r2 with culture = 0.29.

Culture, as a control variable, increases the positive relationship of authentic leadership to the

establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media relations across organizations. In this

case, authentic leadership is still statistically significant at the .001 level (𝛽 = 0.09, r2 = 0.29, p <

.001), where a change of one standard deviation in the predictor variable will result in a change

of .09 standard deviations in the criterion variable and 29% of the variance is explained and

would apply outside of the sample. Based on these tests, H2b was supported.

Post Hoc Analysis

The Use of Collaborative Planning Methods. To better understand the respondents’ use

of collaborative planning methods, the second section of the survey included questions about the


113

frequency of various collaborative planning activities. This was addressed through 15 Likert-

scale questions, which assessed the three dimensions of CPM: joint participation of stakeholders

(operationally defined as JPBOTH); sharing of information (operationally defined as SIBOTH);

and cooperativeness (operationally defined as COOPBOTH) via sub-surveys A and B. An

examination of the participants’ responses offered valuable insights beyond the research

questions and hypotheses in terms of which dimensions were used most often.

More than 82 percent of respondents answered these questions (N = 225) using a 7-point

Likert scale to identify the degree to which they use specific collaborative planning methods

when working with other stakeholder departments. Table 13, posted earlier in Chapter 4, shows

that the dimension of cooperativeness (COOPBOTH), which contained three questions (7, 13

and 19) had the highest frequency (M = 5.48), followed by joint participation (JPBOTH, M =

5.32), which contained six questions (3, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17), with sharing of information (SIBOTH),

which consisted of six questions (4, 6, 10, 12, 16, 18) having the lowest frequency (M = 5.07).

This aligns with an analysis of the individual questions that make up collaborative planning

methods (as shown in Table 25 below).

The question receiving the highest frequency overall was Q#3 (PR/Com exchanges

opinions with other stakeholder departments to resolve problems related to customer care on

social media) with (M = 5.77), which is a component of joint participation. The next two

questions with the highest frequencies were both dimensions of cooperativeness (COOPBOTH):

Q#7 (PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments can freely exchange information or

opinions about matters related to work) with (M = 5.72) and Q#13, (PR/Com and the other

stakeholder departments help each other) with (M = 5.61). The questions reporting the fourth and

fifth highest frequencies were, again, both dimensions of joint participation (JPBOTH): Q#5 (In


114

the event of a disagreement about the strategic direction of customer care on social media,

PR/Com holds discussions with the other stakeholder departments to resolve differences of

opinion) with (M = 5.58) and Q#9 (PR/Com discusses with the other stakeholder departments

whether to continue a certain strategy when that strategy is not having the expected effect) with

(M = 5.46).

The question with the lowest frequency was a dimension of sharing of information

(SIBOTH): Q#10 (PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments have the same understanding

of the strategies for customer care on social media) with (M = 4.55), followed by a dimension of

joint participation (JPBOTH): Q#11 (Together, PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments

consider each other’s proposals about the strategies of customer care on social media) with (M =

4.93). In Table 25 below, mean scores provide an indication of relative engagement with each of

the collaborative planning methods.

Table 25

Component Matrix for CPM (Sub-survey A & B combined) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

N M Q# Detailed question represented by sub-survey A ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Joint Participation (JPBOTH)

225 5.77 3 PR/Com exchanges opinions with other stakeholder departments

to resolve problems related to customer care on social media.

225 5.58 5 In the event of a disagreement about the strategic direction of

customer care on social media, PR/Com holds discussions with the

other stakeholder departments to resolve differences of opinion.

225 5.46 9 PR/Com discusses with the other stakeholder departments whether

to continue a certain strategy when that strategy is not having the

expected effect.

225 4.93 11 Together, PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments consider

each other’s proposals about the strategies of customer care on social

media.

225 5.00 15 The strategy for consumer care on social media is based on a mutual

exchange of opinions between PR/Com and the other stakeholder

departments.

225 5.13 17 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments discuss how to address

service, product and customer care issues on social media.


115

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sharing of Information (SIBOTH)

225 5.00 4 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments all know what has

been explained to a customer in social media about his/her product

or service issue.

225 5.40 6 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments share information to

verify the effects of strategies.

225 4.55 10 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments have the same

understanding of the strategies for customer care on social media.

225 5.14 12 In the event of a change in strategy, PR/Com and the other stakeholder


change.

225 5.17 16 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments share information

about a customer’s reaction to explanations or solutions offered for a


225 5.13 18 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments have the same

understanding of the customer’s wish for a resolution and care.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cooperativeness (COOPBOTH)

225 5.72 7 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments can freely exchange

information or opinions about matters related to work.

225 5.61 13 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments help each other.

225 5.08 19 PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments take into account each

other’s schedules when making plans to meet regarding customer care


While the differences in the means were small, the results suggest that PR/Com uses joint

participation (JPBOTH) mostly to exchange opinions with other stakeholder departments (Q#3,

M = 5.77); resolve problems and differences of opinion related to customer care on social media

(Q#5, M = 5.58), and discuss whether to continue a certain strategy when that strategy is not

having the expected effect (Q#9, M = 5.46). This also suggests that while PR/Com and other

stakeholder departments do share information (SIBOTH), it is mostly to verify the effects of

strategies (Q#6, M = 5.40). This analysis also suggests that while PR/Com and other stakeholder

departments work cooperatively (COOPBOTH) to exchange information and help each other

(Q#13, M = 5.61), they do not always take each other’s schedules into consideration (Q#19, M =

5.08). These results will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.


116

A Comparison of Authentic Leadership Dimensions. This researcher explored the

independent variable of Authentic Leadership to test whether any of the four individual

dimensions of self-awareness (SA, 4 items), relational transparency (RT, 5 items), internalized

moral perspective (IMP, 4 items) or balanced processing (BP, 3 items) would positively predict

the establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media relations across organizations

(operationally defined as WCP) as a dependent, composite variable that was described earlier in

this chapter. This assertion was tested by regressing these four dimensions of authentic

leadership on the dependent variable of well-coordinated plans (analyze, regress, linear). The

analysis showed that while correlations between all items were found to be positive, none of the

Pearson r correlations were strong (< .07). In addition, all of the correlations were significant in

the model at the p < 0.01 level except for internalized moral perspective (IMP) and well-

coordinated plans (WCP), which were significant at the p < 0.05 level (shown in Table 26).

Table 26

Correlations between the dependent variable (WCP) and the four dimensions of AL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M SD 1 2 3 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well-Coordinated 4.96 0.94 -

Plans

Self-Awareness (SA) 4.02 0.57 .248** -

Internalized Moral 4.43 0.57 .153* .480** -

Perspective (IMP)

Balanced Processing 4.15 0.58 .200** .574** .507** -

(BP)

Relational 4.17 0.46 .186 .439** .458** .388** -

Transparency (RT)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*p < .05; **p < .01


117

Results of the regression showed that only the dimension of self-awareness (SA) was a

predictor of WCP (𝛽 = 0.28, r2 = 0.07, p < .05), where a change of one standard deviation in the

predictor variable will result in a significant change of .28 standard deviations in the criterion

variable and 7.2% of the variance is explained and would apply outside of the sample. Results

for the other dimensions are shown in Table 27 below.

Table 27

Regression results: 4 dimensions of AL

N=218; df Between Groups = 4; df Total = 217. _____________________________________________________________________

Item 𝛽 Sig. _____________________________________________________________________

SA .284 .046*

IMP .006 .967

BP .113 .418

RT .173 .275 _____________________________________________________________________

Dependent variable: WCP; *p < .05

Summary of Findings

This chapter presented a comprehensive look at the findings of this study using

descriptive and inferential statistics. The report of the findings was organized to describe the

respondents’ demographic information and then to address each of the research questions and

hypotheses that drove this study. This included a post hoc analysis of the responses to the

individual questions that formed the collaborative planning methods scale. The fifth and final

chapter of this dissertation will expand the discussion of these findings, draw further

conclusions, and consider their implications for PR/Com professionals and scholars interested in

the studying the implementation of well-coordinated plans for social media relations across

departmental functions.


118

Chapter 5: Discussion

Social media and social networking are predominant methods of communication between

an organization and its publics, but the organization’s ability to strategically structure effective

plans for managing these responsibilities across functions remains developmental (Klie, 2014;

Wharton, 2014; Benmark, 2014; Shields, 2016; USC Annenberg, 2016). Adding to the problem,

the focus of PR/Com’s role in leading the collaboration of these functions has typically been

based on applied, case study research, often conducted by large PR firms (such as

FleishmanHillard) with the goal of gaining new client business. Studies that do examine specific

collaborative planning, internal integration and leadership methods in work environments are

often found in other organizational settings, including education, healthcare or government

employment, or they focus specifically on supply chain processes. And even many of these

examinations evaluate the success of collaborative initiatives by asking participants to describe

key characteristics of the process (Gray, 1989; Schuett et al., 2001; Conley & Moote, 2003;

Thompson & Prokopy, 2016) rather than measuring direct results from the process.

While there are a handful of studies by trade groups and scholars that do examine PR’s

responsibilities in social media relations and provide guidelines for collaboration (such as those

conducted by USC Annenberg (2012, 2014, 2016) and Egmon (2016), respectively), there is still

a lack of descriptive exploration of PR/Com’s role in leading and collaborating interdepartmental

plans for social media relations. This gap is directly linked to the rapid evolution of social media

as a platform for business communication, which resulted in tactical solutions often preceding

strategic planning on an organizational, multi-function level.

While today’s successful organizations obviously base their tactics on strategic plans,

many of these plans are still organized by department – as opposed to organization-wide /


119

involving all departments/functions (Klie, 2014; Wharton, 2014; Benmark, 2014; Shields, 2016;

USC Annenberg, 2016). This has resulted in marketing, PR and communication professionals

looking for solutions. It is the hope of this researcher that this study helps fill this void in

academic research by using a quantitative approach to examine current efforts of PR/Com

professionals to lead and collaborate social media responsibilities across organizational functions

and provide quantitative results that may help identify some best practices for improving

coordination.

This study evolved from an investigative case study where several industry professionals

were interviewed about the history of social media and its effects on the field of public relations

and communication overall. This exploration was followed by a review of relevant literature on

leadership and collaborative planning from various academic and industry viewpoints. These

explorations resulted in the decision to use collaborative planning theory and actor network

theory as lenses for examining the question posed by Andzulis, et al., (2012), which was, “Who

in the company rightfully owns social media and its associated implementation across all

channels?” (p. 306).

Using a web-based questionnaire described in Chapter 3, this researcher surveyed a

sample of 273 PR, corporate communication and social media communication executives about

their perceptions regarding their use of authentic leadership practices and collaborative planning

methods to explore the state of the industry. This survey focused on how PR/Com executives

enact agency (a concept of actor network theory) to convene (a concept of collaborative planning

theory) and translate (a concept of actor network theory) other stakeholders in the collaborative

process. The survey asked PR/Com executives to identify specific leadership and collaborative

planning methods that they engage in with other stakeholder departments that are also involved


120

in social media relations practices for the organization(s) they work for/with. The answers to

these questions set the foundation for understanding what these working relationships looked

like and how different practices (in the form of interactions) affected the success of coordinating

interdepartmental integration of social media relations. This also included an examination of

whether the type of organization or its size reported differences with collaborative planning

methods used or the establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media relations across

organizations.

The ultimate goal of this study was to identify whether PR/Com executives were using

authentic leadership practices or collaborative planning methods (as a means to enact their

agency in order to convene and translate other stakeholder departments) to effect the

establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media relations across organizational

functions (and if so, which practices/methods were most successful in effecting these plans). The

findings of the survey were reported in Chapter Four. This chapter will discuss key discoveries

of this study and offer implications for the scholarship and practice of collaborative planning and

actor network theory as theoretical paradigms in examining PR/Com’s leadership role in

coordinating social media relations across organizational functions in this digital age. In addition,

limitations of this study will be acknowledged and recommendations for future research will be

proposed.

Key Discoveries

The findings of the study were mostly consistent with the researcher’s expectations and

the popular industry belief that collaborative planning methods are instrumental in

interdepartmental coordination (FleishmanHillard, 2015; Goldsberry, 2015; Holmes, 2015;

Young, 2015; Egmon, 2016). Specifically, in this study, PR/Com executives’ use of


121

collaborative planning methods with other stakeholder departments was found to directly affect

well-coordinated plans for social media relations across organizational functions. While many

PR/Com scholars and company executives claim this to be the case, most obtained their

understanding (and promotion) of this topic from case study analysis and/or deep inspection

from a limited number of executives (Weber Shandwick, 2014; Fleishman Hillard, 2015). Few in

the PR industry have studied collaborative planning methods in direct relation to their effect on

interdepartmental coordination – or even more specifically, in providing social media relations.

Also consistent with the researcher’s expectations, PR/Com executives who used

authentic leadership practices also reported more occurrences of well-coordinated plans for

social media across the organizations they work for/with. And while the instances of this direct

connection were not as numerous as those where respondents had used collaborative planning

methods, it was still significant. In addition, PR/Com executives who used both collaborative

planning methods and authentic leadership practices reported more instances of these well-

coordinated plans, which highlights that a good mix of both methods will yield better results for

PR/Com professionals.

Finally, the culture of the organization was also found to have a positive effect in terms

of increasing the effect of both collaborative planning methods and authentic leadership practices

with the execution of well-coordinated plans. PR/Com executives who reported working for a

company with a culture that was reported as meeting more of the three criteria of being “strategic

in nature,” “innovative and flexible,” and “putting people above profits,” slightly increased the

effect of collaborative planning methods on the establishment of well-coordinated plans for

social media across organizations. However, these responses about organizational culture played


122

an even larger role in increasing the effect of authentic leadership on the establishment of these

well-coordinated plans.

Organization Size and Type Are Not Predictors. One area where the findings of this

study were not consistent with this researcher’s expectations was in the results for research

questions one through four. This researcher originally suspected that the type of organization

(i.e., publicly traded company, private company, non-profit organization, PR/Com consulting

firm/agency, healthcare, education, government agency/military, or other) or the size of the

organization (i.e., global, multi-national, U.S. national or U.S. local or regional) that the PR/Com

executive worked for would effect differences in either the collaborative planning methods

respondents used and/or in the establishment of well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for

social media relations across organizations. However, the results of these four analyses found

that the type or size of an organization did not indicate significant differences in either of these

variables.

However, while significant differences were not found for the establishment of well-

coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations overall, three

individual questions did show significant comparisons based on the type and size of the

organization the PR/Com executive worked for. Three of the analyses for type resulted in

significant differences in two separate questions:

• Question 20: “PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments work together to

produce policies and documents that reduce complexity” showed a significant

difference (p < .05) between the 29 respondents who worked in education and…

o the 19 respondents who worked in healthcare, and the

o the 99 respondents who worked in PR/Com.


123

This researcher deduced that this suggests that PR/Com executives who work in

education might may not be as likely to work with other stakeholder departments to modify

policies and documents. (Or at least, not as often as PR/Com executives who work in healthcare

or at a PR/Com firm specifically, as these professionals need to make these connections across

functions.)

• Question 24, “The functions within my PR/Com department (media relations,

corporate communication, etc.) are well coordinated and integrated with each other”

showed a significance (p < .01) between the 21 respondents who worked at a publicly

traded company and the 99 who worked in PR/Com.

This researcher also deduced that executives who work in PR/Com at a publicly traded

company and those who work for a PR/Com company specifically might have very different

policies within the PR/Com department leading to differences in how well the functions work

together (or not) within the department.

In addition, two of the analyses for size (also in relation to the establishment of well-

coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations) also resulted

in significant differences on one question:

• Question 8, “The other stakeholder departments support and contribute funds to the

integrated customer relations initiative for social media.” The post hoc analysis for

this question showed a significant difference (p < .05) between the 102 respondents

who worked at a U.S. local or regional organization and…

o the 32 respondents who worked at a global organization, and

o the 16 respondents who worked at a multi-national organization.


124

This researcher deduced that this suggests that PR/Com executives who work at a smaller

(local or regional) organization may not be as likely to receive funds from other stakeholder

departments as PR/Com executives who work at larger organizations (global or multi-national).

However, it is noted, that while the analysis of these individual questions related to the


organizations resulted in significant differences in these few of comparisons, there were not

enough significant differences to indicate that size or type would effect differences in either the

collaborative planning methods respondents used and/or in the establishment of well-coordinated

interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations overall. The results of

these analyses are extremely important in that they suggest that the differences in these two key

variables (collaborative planning methods used and the establishment of well-coordinated

interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations) are affected only by the

actions of the individual PR/Com executive, regardless of the type or size of the organization

they work for.

A Post Hoc Inspection of CPM. This researcher decided to make a deeper inspection to

see which of the individual 15 questions associated with PR/Com executives’ use of

collaborative planning methods (when working with other stakeholder departments either in their

own company or within their clients’ organizations) received the highest and lowest agreement

in their responses – and to associate and compare to which of the three dimensions these

questions belong (joint participation, sharing of information and cooperativeness). The purpose

of this analysis was to draw some basic conclusions regarding areas of success and areas for

improvement for collaborative planning.


125

The results of this analysis showed very small differences in the range of answers along a

scale of 1-7, with one (1) representing the reply of “strongly disagree” and seven (7) representing

the reply of “strongly agree.” The average scores for these 217 responses were all between

“neutral” (4) and “agree” (6). While this demonstrates a consensus of positive replies over

negative, it still highlights that none of the averages reached a six or seven, representing “agree”

and “strongly agree,” respectively. In fact, the question that received the highest average ranking

across all respondents (5.77) was Question 3, which said, “PR/Com exchanges opinions with

other stakeholder departments to resolve problems related to customer care on social media.”

This question was a component of the dimension titled, “joint participation.”

The next two questions with the highest average ranking (5.72) was Question 7, which

said, “PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments can freely exchange information or

opinions about matters related to work,” and question 13, which said, “PR/Com and the other

stakeholder departments help each other,” with an average ranking of 5.61. Both questions were

components of the dimension “cooperativeness.” While the questions reporting the fourth and

fifth highest frequencies were Question 5, “In the event of a disagreement about the strategic

direction of customer care on social media, PR/Com holds discussions with the other stakeholder

departments to resolve differences of opinion,” with 5.58, and Question 9, “PR/Com discusses

with the other stakeholder departments whether to continue a certain strategy when that strategy

is not having the expected effect,” with 5.46. Again, both questions were components of the

dimension “joint participation.”

The question with the lowest frequency was Question 10, which said, “PR/Com and the

other stakeholder departments have the same understanding of the strategies for customer care

on social media,” which reported an average response of 4.55 from all 225 respondents. This


126

was a component of “sharing of information.” The question with the second lowest frequency

was Question 11, “Together, PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments consider each

other’s proposals about the strategies of customer care on social media,” with an average

response of 4.93. This question was a dimension of “joint participation.” Both of these questions

were rated on average between the category choices of neutral (4) and somewhat agree (5). (See

Table 25 for a comprehensive list of all frequencies listed by their dimension.)

These frequencies provide an indication of relative engagement with each of the

collaborative planning methods. As such, these numbers suggest that PR/Com executives excel

in their relationships when collaboratively planning for social media relations with other

stakeholder departments when it comes to “joint participation” for resolving problems (Q#3),

discussing unsuccessful strategies (Q#9) and differences of opinion (Q#5). PR/Com executives

are also good at “cooperativeness” when it comes to freely exchanging information or opinions

about matters related to work (Q#7) and helping each other (Q#13).

However, there were lower frequencies when PR/Com executives were asked about

strategic planning with other stakeholder departments. Specifically, there were lower numbers

for “sharing of information” and “joint participation,” respectively, when it came to mutual

understanding of strategies for providing customer care on social media (Q#10) and discussing

strategic proposals (in both the areas of mutual exchange of opinions (Q#15) or mutual

consideration (Q#11). There was also less frequency in the number of PR/Com executives

having discussions with other stakeholder departments about what has been explained to a

customer in social media about his/her product or service issue (Q#4). This was true even for

“cooperativeness,” when it came to mutual consideration of other stakeholders’ schedules when

meeting and planning in this realm (Q#19).


127

So, according to the results of this study, PR/Com executives are cooperative with other

stakeholder departments in general terms; however, they are not great at sharing information and

working in joint participation or cooperativeness when it comes to strategic planning for

customer care in social media, that is until a problem occurs or a difference of opinion arises,

and then they will gladly work in joint participation to discuss and solve these problems.

This analysis demonstrates a struggle by PR/Com executives to proactively lead strategic

planning initiatives for social media relations across departments “before a problem occurs.”

This includes a lack of discussion with other stakeholder departments about how specific service,

product and customer care issues (in social media) are addressed. Because this last issue is

specifically related to service and product issues (duties most often associated with

Sales/Marketing and Customer Service), this researcher infers a struggle still exists in the

relationship between PR/Com and Sales/Marketing.

This leads us back to the question of who in the company rightfully owns social media

(Sales/Marketing or PR/Com), which, as pointed out earlier in this study, has been a bone of

contention that enacts a vicious circle. These departments have been in direct conflict for

controlling the strategic planning of social media across organizations for years (Andzulis, et al.,

2012; Benmark, 2014). These results support that this problem still exists today as a barrier

between the stakeholder functions, specifically Sales/Marketing, and PR/Com. This problem has

been identified by industry scholars and PR/Com professionals (Andzulis, et al., 2012; Benmark,

2014; Young, PRSA) as one that needs PR/Com executives to step up and proactively take the

lead of strategic planning for these initiatives.

Implications for Public Relations


128

This study sought to advance our understanding of how PR/Com executives, collectively,

effect the establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media relations across

organizational functions. The results of this study have implications for both scholars and

practitioners of public relations.

Public Relations Scholarship. This research opened up new areas of study for PR/Com

scholars looking to investigate effective leadership practices and collaborative planning methods

in organizational settings – especially for effecting well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for

social media relations.

CPT and ANT as a Dual Perspective. This study used collaborative planning theory

(CPT) and actor network theory (ANT) as lenses to advance understanding of how PR/Com

executives utilize authentic leadership and collaborative planning methods to enact agency to

convene and translate other stakeholder departments to effect well-coordinated interdepartmental

plans for social media relations across organizations. This study advances the theoretical

framework of using CPT and ANT as a dual lens for examining the establishment of well-

coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations across organizations.

It has been emphasized throughout the literature review of this study that stakeholder

participation is essential for collaborative planning to be successful (Healy, 1997a; Gray, 1998;

Day & Gunton, 2003; Harris, 2002; Margerum, 2011, Egmon, 2016). Yet for participation to

occur, someone must step forward to convene the stakeholders and convince them that there are

common problems that require them to come together to find solutions. Yukl (2011), Northouse

(2013) and Datta (2015) define this ability as leadership, “…the process of influencing a group

of individuals to achieve shared objectives” (Datta, 2015, p. 62). Yet scholars focusing on

collaborative and integrative leadership describe this as a catalyst role (Chrislip and Larson,


129

1994; Morse, 2010; Crosby and Bryson, 2005), where efforts rely on the communication

networks and interagency relationships of these individuals to build bridges across organizations

(Crosby and Bryson, 2005; Morse, 2010). According to actor network theory (ANT), when an

actor has built these bridges and organized other actors to come together for his/her own benefit,

it means they have translated them (Somerville, 1999). It is here where the connection with

PR/Com executives as leaders is made.

PR/Com executives’ authority depends on their ability to convince others that they

possess expertise in areas that others value (Clark & Salaman, 1996). This translation can only

be achieved when the PR/Com executive has both specific domain knowledge and general

domain knowledge about a subject which instills authority (Berger, 1997). These concepts

inspired this researcher to explore whether PR/Com executives are using their specific and

general domain knowledge of social media consumer relations to convene and effect well-

coordinated plans for interdepartmental integration – and if so, how? And while many models

provide pragmatic solutions to collaborative planning and leadership across organizational

functions, there is still a void in terms of research support for these principles (Harris, 2002;

Andzulis, et al., 2012; Benmark, 2014), especially in the PR/Com field, and especially in terms

of providing social media relations specifically.

As Berger (1997) pointed out over two decades ago, “The effectiveness of any action

plan aimed at achieving a social goal is the joint product of the plan, and the skills and attributes

of the actor who carries out the plan” (p. 87). This is exactly why this study took a pragmatic

approach using CPT and ANT as the lenses to explore both the planning methods and the

leadership traits of the actor, respectively. Examining only one or the other does not examine the

joint product of the planning method and the actor’s skills to translate, which the literature


130

shows should be examined together. The resulting study thus enacted this dual-perspective by

examining both factors together: exploring whether PR/Com executives were using authentic

leadership (to enact agency) and/or collaborative planning methods (to enact the plan), and

whether either (or both) of these resulted in well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for

providing social media consumer relations across organizations. The results of this survey

support the importance of public relations and communication scholars using these theories as a

framework for examining leadership and collaborative planning together when examining

interdepartmental coordination in an organizational setting.

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire. This study added to the body of research

supporting the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) as a valid measurement scale by

introducing it to the PR/Com social media landscape. Using the ANT lens lead this researcher to

explore authentic leadership as both an independent variable and as a moderating variable in the

establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media across organizations. By using the

previously tested ALQ measurement scale (with permission from mindgarden.com), this study

helps support the importance of authentic leadership and its role in enhancing collaborative

planning methods in this effort. In addition, a post-hoc analysis of the four dimensions that make

up the authentic leadership scale resulted in only one dimension showing significant results in

positively effecting well-coordinated plans for social media across functions. According to

Walumbwa, et al., (2008), the dimension of self-awareness refers to “being able to understand

one’s own talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core values, beliefs and desires,” (p. 324).

Scholars looking to examine interdepartmental collaboration are encouraged to utilize the

ALQ scale of measurement to investigate its role in effecting successful integration of social

media practices across organizational functions and to examine its role in moderating


131

collaborative efforts. Scholars are also encouraged to further explore this dimension of self-

awareness and its specific role in effecting well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for

providing social media relations. The importance of understanding of one’s own leadership

capabilities will be discussed in more detail in the Public Relations Practice section of this

chapter, as well as in the Recommendations for Future Research section.

Collaborative Planning Methods. This study also added to the body of research

supporting the study of collaborative planning methods by using two previously tested scales.

The independent variable of Collaborative Planning Methods (CPM) evolved from Ushiro’s

(2009) Nurse-Physician Collaborative Scale (NPCS) and the dependent variable evolved from

one dimension (acceptance of outcomes) from Thompson and Prokopy’s (2016) Conceptual

Model of Collaboration. While both scales have been shown to be valid and reliable measures in

their respective contexts (healthcare and farmland preservation), this study required a specific

focus in an organizational setting which resulted in omission of some questions for duplication

and irrelevancy. The remaining questions were reworded for the specific focus on collaboration

of social media responsibilities in an organizational setting. In addition, the dependent variable

for analyzing the establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media relations across

organizational functions was found to be more effective when combining Thompson and

Prokopy’s (2016) “acceptance of outcomes” dimension with three questions used in the USC

Annenberg GAP VIII study (2014), which were used verbatim. The resulting two dimensions

(AO and WC, respectively) were combined to construct a new six-item scale for the dependent

variable of well-coordinated plans (WCP).

The new scale that emerged with one 15-item independent variable (with three

dimensions) and one six-item dependent variable (with two dimensions) was named the Public


132

Relations Collaborative Planning Scale (PRCPS). As will be discussed further in the

recommendations for future research later in this chapter, additional study should be undertaken

to test and refine the items and dimensions that evolved in this project to achieve theoretical

appropriateness, openness and parsimony, as described as criteria for theory by Littlejohn and

Foss (2005). This researcher suggests that more comprehensive study of collaborative planning

methods and their relationship with the establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media

relations across organizations is necessary before using existing scales with an organization-

specific context (Paine, 2011 and Kanter & Paine, 2012). Such comprehensive study is necessary

if collaborative planning is to continue to develop as a guiding theory within the field of public

relations and corporate communication.

Conclusion. Using the ANT & CPT dual-lens framework lead this researcher to explore

collaborative planning as an independent variable in the establishment of well-coordinated plans

for social media across organizations in conjunction with a specific leadership style (authentic

leadership). This dual perspective and the findings of this study accentuate new complexities and

opportunities for scholars of the field of public relations to more accurately define their role by

examining leadership styles and collaboration methods used across organizational functions.

Public Relations Practice. In addition to contributing to the body of knowledge about

public relations through the advancement of a new scale for measuring collaborative planning in

relation to successful coordination (PRCPS) and the advancement of a new perspective for

examining leadership and collaborative planning practices as a dual framework, this study also

has direct and practical application for PR/Com practitioners looking to lead integration of social

media practices across organizational functions.


133

Championing Coordination/Collaboration of Social Media. First, this study offers

resources for PR/Com executives to “champion coordination/collaboration,” which is a key

factor in the USC Annenberg’s three-fold hypothesis, “A Process for Optimizing the CCO Role

and the Communication Function” (Gap VIII, 2014). The first position of this hypothesis

proposes that “Championing coordination / collaboration is an effective strategy for creating an

internal environment in which the PR/Com function can be optimized.” This study further

expands the scope and potential for public relations to champion coordination/collaboration by

emphasizing new resources for establishing and measuring coordination of social media relations

across organizational functions.

This study supports the first fold of this hypothesis by suggesting that PR/Com who use

collaborative planning methods may effect well-coordinated, interdepartmental plans for social

media relations. It also suggests that those who also utilize authentic leadership practices in

conjunction with collaborative planning methods may increase this result. Finally, PR/Com who

work for a company with a culture that is strategic, innovative, flexible, and puts people above

profits slightly increased the effect of collaborative planning methods and authentic leadership

on the establishment of these well-coordinated plans for social media across organizations.

Accordingly, the USC Annenberg’s hypothesis goes on to say that “Such optimization

can lead to an enhanced role in organizational planning, internal credibility for the function,

etc.” (Findings Report, slide 36). This researcher proposes that being able to establish well-

coordinated plans for social media relations across the organizational enterprise aligns with the

goals of “creating an internal environment in which the PR/Com function be optimized” and

“enhancing [the PR/Com] role in organizational planning” (as can be seen in Figure 3 below).


134

Figure 3. Study Results Provide Resources to Support the USC Annenberg Three-Fold

Hypothesis, “A Process for Optimizing the CCO Role and the Communication Function”

Championing Creating an internal environment Enhanced role in

coordination/ where PR/Com can be optimized organizational planning

collaboration

PR/Com use PR/Com use Well-Coordinated Interdepartmental

of collaborative + of authentic plans for social media relations

planning methods leadership

Source: USC Annenberg Gap VIII study, 2014

While this study supports the first half of USC Annenberg’s three-fold hypothesis and

provides resources to further develop this position. As stated previously, this new scale (PRCPS)

should sustain more comprehensive studies and tests to refine the items and dimensions that

evolved in this project to achieve theoretical appropriateness, openness and parsimony.

Regardless, this study provides a foundation for PR/Com executives to focus their resources. At

its core, this study showcases the importance of key leadership methods, collaborative planning

practices and corporate culture in the establishment of well-coordinated, interdepartmental plans

for social media relations. It also highlights the importance of measuring these practices to

understand their role in effecting successful collaboration across the business enterprise.

Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Relationships. Knowing what the strengths

and weaknesses are in the relationship between PR/Com and other stakeholder departments is the

key to establishing well-coordinated plans for social media relations across organizational

functions. For example, this study demonstrates that PR/Com and other stakeholder departments

are not as successful when discussing how to address service, product and customer care issues

(on social media) and knowing the reason why (because they are not “discussing exactly what


135

was explained to a customer about product/service issues) makes it much easier to create plans

for improvement in these areas. Because these two questions were based on service and product

issues specifically, this researcher finds it reasonable to infer that these results support the

commonly publicized problem that PR/Com and Sales/Marketing need to work on discussing

these specific issues on a regular basis (before problems arise) to improve social media relations

success for the organization as a whole. It is the argument of this researcher that showcasing this

need through statistical data while bringing specific strategies for improvement (and success) to

S-level executives will not only “create an internal environment in which the PR/Com function

can be optimized,” but also hopefully “lead to an enhanced role in organizational planning,

internal credibility for the function, etc.” (USC Annenberg, GAP VIII, 2014, slide 36).

For instance, being able to report to C-Suite executives that PR/Com and other

stakeholder departments are jointly participating by freely discussing information and opinions

about problems related to customer care on social media is a positive strength that can be

promoted as a benefit for the organization. However, knowing that these departments are not in

full communication (or understanding) of strategies and knowing exactly why (because they are

not mutually exchanging opinions on strategy and thus, not mutually considering one another’s

strategic proposals) reveals an opportunity for improvement to strengthen relations and outcomes

for the organization. “Leadership and communication are synonymous… you have to be a good

communicator and a good storyteller” (McWade, 2017, Oct. 5).

The Importance of Self-Awareness in Authentic Leadership. This study also revealed

some important information regarding best practices for PR/Com executives as they work to take

ownership and build respect among C-Suite executives. This includes the importance of using

authentic leadership, and being aware of one’s own talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core


136

values, beliefs and desires when looking to lead strategic planning with other stakeholder

departments and improve the effectiveness of their collaborative planning methods. This is

because, as McWade (2017) pointed out in a recent discussion on leadership, “It’s important to

remember that we can often miss our leadership moments if we are not in-tune to the opportunity

when it presents itself” (Oct. 5).

It is for this reason that the results of this study are so important. They stress the

importance of PR/Com executives being proactive in seeking feedback and using this

information to reevaluate their position on important issues and demonstrate their understanding

that their leadership actions impact others. This demonstrates that when PR/Com executives can

conduct this type of deep introspection and use it effectively as described here, it can improve

the effectiveness of their agency in collaborative planning and translation when executing well-

coordinated plans for social media relations across organizational functions. This not only

showcases the importance of PR/Com executives demonstrating the key dimension of self-

awareness in their authentic leadership but also supports the importance of examining leadership

style in conjunction with collaborative planning methods, especially when studying translation

as a means to establish of well-coordinated plans for social media across organizational

functions.

Jessica McWade, Ed.D., a specialist in leadership, strategy and message development,

supports this connection. She recently pointed out in an educational discussion that “cross-

disciplinary collaboration (a.k.a. collaboration across borders) can only happen when we better

understand one another… ask more questions and listen more… including listening to

ourselves,” (McWade, 2017, Oct. 5). She highlighted people’s innate need to be liked as a barrier

to effective leadership, but pointed out that “it is possible to be both liked and respected… and


137

that this can be achieved through self-awareness, which can also result in better leadership”

(McWade, 2017, Oct. 5).

Summary. This study supports the importance of PR/Com executives continuously

working to research, strategically plan, precisely implement and rigorously evaluate

collaborative planning methods, as well as leadership practices during this critical time when

PR/Com’s role in social media is being questioned as integrated marketing communication

continues to blur the lines between the functions of PR/Com, marketing/sales and customer

service. Using the USC Annenberg (2014) hypothesis as a starting point, it can be inferred that

collaborating across departments to organize a system for social media relations will help

PR/Com executives take ownership and build respect by “creating an internal environment in

which the PR/Com function be optimized” and “enhancing [the PR/Com] role in organizational

planning” (slide 36). The importance of this action is highlighted by Weber Shandwick, a global

communications agency, which conducted a study in 2014, titled Convergence Ahead: The

Integration of Communications and Marketing. This study highlighted the topic of “pre-

integration jitters” as a barrier to integration of communications and marketing, identifying three

main obstacles to convergence: cultural issues, uncertainty and fear and need for cross-education.

This dissertation study provides a means for PR/Com executives to overcome these

obstacles by establishing tools to measure specific methods that lead to well-coordinated plans

across these functions, specifically for social media relations. The Authentic Leadership

Questionnaire (ALQ) and the new Public Relations Collaborative Planning Scale (PRCPS) will

be effective tools for analyzing factors that promote (or hinder) collaboration between PR/Com

and other stakeholder departments. These scales provide opportunities for PR/Com executives to

itemize and measure specific practices and behaviors that improve or hinder relationships


138

between PR/Com and other stakeholders involved in interdepartmental planning of social media

relations in their efforts to establish well-coordinated plans for social media relations across

organizational functions.

Limitations of the Study

Although this study was carefully designed and executed, a number of limitations must

be acknowledged. First, because of the global and disparate nature of PR/Com and social media

executives, a random sample was nearly impossible. As a result, this study relied upon a

convenience sample with respondents recruited primarily through social networks of the

researcher, including PR contacts in various educational institutions, as well as PRSA Boston

and PRSA national networks. However, a detailed LinkedIn outreach campaign was also used to

recruit additional PR/Com and Social Media professionals, many of whom were not members of

the PRSA. Some of these respondents were members of the Public Relations and

Communication Professionals group (300,000 members), members of the Social Media

Marketing Group (2 million members), members of other industry-related online groups, and

others who did not identify as members of any specific industry group. As such, the

demographics of respondents aligned with PRSA’s membership demographics, which are

predominantly Caucasian females with a Bachelor or Master’s degrees (as noted in the

presentation of the sample’s demographics). Additionally, more of the respondents worked “in-

house” as opposed to working at a PR firm or as an independent consultant, which should not

matter in terms of affecting the results of the findings but could be critiqued.

Second, the use of an online survey is accompanied by inevitable limitations. It is for this

reason that this researcher designed the instrument using accepted best practices for online

survey research (Treadwell, 2014). However, it must be kept in mind that a survey provides a


139

snapshot of a respondent’s perception during the moment in which the survey was completed,

limiting the findings to this moment in time.

A third limitation involved the operational definition of “other stakeholder departments,”

which guided this study. While this study defined other stakeholder departments as those

departments within in their organization (sub-survey A, respondents who worked “in-house”) or

those within their clients’ organizations (sub-survey B, respondents who worked at a PR firm or

as an independent consultant) that take part in social media relations, there was still room for

misinterpretation of this term, which could skew results.

The fourth obvious limitation of this study involved the organizational context in which

respondents were asked to reflect on the direct working relationships with these other

stakeholder departments. Respondents were asked to reflect on these relationships in various

ways in terms of direct interaction and motives for strategy and execution. This leaves room for

bias regarding how the respondent felt about the organization and/or the other stakeholder

departments to which they were reflecting their response. While this is a bias that could occur for

any researcher studying collaboration, future research should explore how recent relations might

affect responses without producing potential bias in this area.

Recommendations for Future Research

In addition to the recommendations suggested in previous sections throughout this

chapter, there are many opportunities for future research by scholars to further understand how

leadership practices and collaborative planning methods effect the establishment of well-

coordinated plans for social media relations across organizational functions. As was suggested

earlier in this chapter, a principle recommendation is for scholars to continue testing, developing

and refining the PRCPS for construct validity. More relevant items could be added and tested to


140

refine the measurement scale to more precisely measure coordination of social media practices

across organizational functions. Additionally, other PR/Com professionals and scholars may

have their own measurement techniques that they could test as a scale for the establishment of

well-coordinated plans for social media relations across business functions. This scale could be

tested on its own as a new measurement scale or it could be combined with or added to the

PRCPS. These scales could then be analyzed in conjunction with the PRCPS and/or leadership

scales. For example, Egmon’s (2016) Framing Model for Collaborative Leadership could be

tested as an independent variable against the dependent variable of well-coordinated plans

(WCP) and the 10 different dimensions forming the three types of leadership personalities could

be tested as both an independent variable and as a moderating variable, as authentic leadership

was in this study. In addition, FleishmanHillard’s model for collaborative success, The

Organizing Principle, could be tested in the same fashion (if it has not been already). In addition,

Weber Shandwick’s (2014) study could also identify and provide more items to include in a

scale to measure effectiveness.

It is the hope that this study can ignite PR/Com executives to use these scales in

combination with information they have obtained from their own studies to create even more

meaningful scales that will allow them to analyze practices and procedures even more accurately

as they work to assess the dynamic nature of collaboration of social media across the

organizational enterprise.

While these examples illustrate how scholars and PR/Com executives could continue

testing, developing and refining the PRCPS as a means to examine interdepartmental

coordination of social media relations, it also illustrates how they could also utilize the ALQ

scale of measurement in the same fashion. They could even bring in new collaborative leadership


141

theories to examine their role in effecting collaborative planning and integration of social media

practices across organizational functions. Transformational leadership, facilitative leadership,

integrative leadership or team leadership could all be examined in terms of how they might effect

interdepartmental integration and how they may moderate the effectiveness of collaborative

planning methods in this examination.

Future research on PR/Com collaboration of the establishment of well-coordinated

interdepartmental plans for social media relations should also consider using qualitative methods

to obtain rich descriptions and explanations of whether PR/Com executives are leading these

unification processes, and if so, how. A qualitative analysis based on questions formed from the

ANT perspective could identify additional leadership methods and collaborative strategies that

helped translate other stakeholders to support collaboration and successful integration.

PR scholars might also choose to further investigate the validity of the USC Annenberg’s

three-fold hypothesis, “A Process for Optimizing the CCO Role and the Communication

Function” (Gap VIII, 2014). While this study supports two aspects of this hypothesis, additional

studies are needed for further support the additional facets that are not supported by this study (as

shown in Figure 2 below): whether this enhanced role in organizational planning a) creates an

internal environment where PR/Com can be optimized and thus leads to internal credibility for

the function and b) whether this leads to greater influence on external factors, such as success,

external reputation, etc.

Figure 1. USC Annenberg Three-Fold Hypothesis Points Supported by this Study

Championing Creating an internal environment Enhanced role in

collaboration where PR/Com can be optimized organizational planning

Figure 1 showcases which points from the USC Annenberg Three-Fold Hypothesis “A Process

for Optimizing the CCO Role and the Communication Function” are supported by this study.


142

Figure 2. USC Three-Fold Hypothesis Points NOT Supported by this Study

Creating an internal environment Internal credibility

where PR/Com can be optimized for the function

Enhanced role in Greater influence on external factors such

organizational planning success, external reputation, etc.

Figure 2 showcases which points from the USC Annenberg Three-Fold Hypothesis “A Process

for Optimizing the CCO Role and the Communication Function” are not supported by this study.

There is tremendous potential and need for further research on the topics of leadership

and collaboration when it comes to successful integration of social media relations

responsibilities across organizational departments/functions. Both quantitative and qualitative

methods can bring theoretical and applied insights to the understanding of this issue. It is the

hope of this researcher that the heuristic value of this study will serve as a foundation to inspire

future research into the exploration of how PR/Com can more effectively use leadership skills

and collaborative planning methods to establish successful plans for integration of social media

relations across organizational functions.

Conclusion

This is critical time when social media and integrated marketing communication continue

to blur the lines between the functions of PR/Com, marketing/sales and customer service.

Executives are asking, “Who in the company rightfully owns social media and its associated

implementation across all channels” (Andzulis, et al., 2012, p. 306) and PR/Com scholars and

professionals are calling upon industry executives to take the lead in these initiatives

(Goldsberry, 2015; Young, 2015; Lorigan, 2016; USC Annenberg, 2012, 2014, 2016). However,

this study reported that there is no specific type or size of organization to look to for specific

guidance in this area because there are no differences in use of collaborative planning methods or


143

the establishment of well-coordinated interdepartmental plans for social media relations based on

these criteria.

This makes it even more important for PR/Com scholars and executives to research,

strategically plan, precisely implement and rigorously evaluate leadership practices and

collaborative planning methods as public relations’ role is being questioned in this new era.

“When deployed strategically… [social media] can help people collaborate more effectively and

thus get more and better quality work done in less time” (Shields, 2016, p. 15). And while many

organizations have realized that “effective social media management is dependent upon a strong

connection to high-level strategy... [with] the organization’s goals… (Shields, 2016, p. 8), many

of these companies are still struggling with how to effectively integrate social media across the

enterprise, leaving many to take (and experiment with) different approaches.

It is the hope that this study can fill this gap for PR/Com executives looking for guidance

in this area. This study supports the importance of PR/Com executives being able to report direct

results about how leadership practices and collaborative planning methods can enhance or hinder

the establishment of well-coordinated plans for social media across the business enterprise. The

ability to highlight and measure practices in accordance with results will allow PR/Com

executives to show C-Suite executives the importance of these collaborative efforts and the role

of PR in the leadership of these initiatives.

This study provides tips, tools and insight for PR/Com executives to establish standards

and measure specific methods for building well-coordinated plans for social media across the

enterprise. The use of CPT and ANT as a dual framework provides insight and strategies to

analyze factors that promote or hinder collaboration between PR/Com and other stakeholder

departments. Public relations scholars and practitioners have an unparalleled opportunity to


144

examine leadership styles and the role they play in effecting successful collaboration of social

care across the organizational enterprise. Knowledge equals power and being able to use

statistical data that can show which collaborative planning methods for social media relations are

working successfully across the enterprise and which are not (and why) makes it much easier to

build plans for organizational improvement and success. It is the hope of this researcher that

providing measurement scales as tools for organizing and measuring a system for collaborating

social media relations across departmental functions will help PR/Com executives take

ownership and build respect. If this can “creat[e] an internal environment in which the PR/Com

function be optimized [and] enhanc[e] the [PR/Com] role in organizational planning” (USC

Annenberg, 2014, slide 36) at the same time, then that would be a benefit for the PR industry.


145

References

Allmendinger, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002). Communicative planning, collaborative

planning and the post-positivist planning theory landscape…planning futures. New

Directions for Planning Theory. London, England: Routledge. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2016:

http://www.academia.edu/503538/Communicative_planning_collaborative_planning_and

_the_post-positivist_planning_theory_landscape.

Andzulis, J., Panagopoulos, N., & Rapp A. (2012). A review of social media and implications for

the sales process. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 305–316.

Arman, S. (2014). Integrated model of social media and customer relationship management: a

literature review. International Journal of Information, Business & Management, 6(3),

118-131.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of

positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.

Avolio, B., Gardner, W., & Walumbwa, F. (2007). Authentic leadership questionnaire (ALQ).

Altered and used with permission. http://www.mindgarden.com.

Bacile, T., Hoffacker, C. & White, A. (2014). Emerging challenges in social media. International

Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 6(1), 34-51.

Bean, J. (2011). PR, marketing and communication trends for 2012 with Jonathan Bean at

Mynewsday Conference, Sweden, October 12-14, 2011. Retrieved via

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/us/pressroom/mynewsdesk/video/view/jonathan-bean-

trends-2012-6842.

Benmark, G. (2014). Why the COO should lead social-media customer service. McKinsey

Quarterly. 1, 11-13. Retrieved via: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-

http://www.academia.edu/503538/Communicative_planning_collaborative_planning_and_the_post-positivist_planning_theory_landscape


http://www.mindgarden.com/

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/us/pressroom/mynewsdesk/video/view/jonathan-bean-trends-2012-6842

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/us/pressroom/mynewsdesk/video/view/jonathan-bean-trends-2012-6842

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/why-the-coo-should-lead-social-media-customer-service


146

functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/why-the-coo-should-lead-social-media-

customer-service.

Berger, Charles R. (1996). The hierarchy principle in strategic communication. Communication

Theory, 6(2), 111-142.

Berger, Charles R. (1997). Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals Through

Communicative Action. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berger, Charles R. (2008). Planning theory of communication: Goal attainment through

communicative action. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging Theories in

Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives (Chapter 7). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved via Google Books:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GKrSBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT115&lpg=PT115&dq=%

22Planning+Theory+of+Communication:+Goal+Attainment+Through+Communicative+

Action%22&source=bl&ots=oQBPNT3MlS&sig=fy4vcSpWdgN-

HXAj_B1hDPu7QZI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMIh8DSrJ3ZyAIVgh

w-

Ch32Ng_6#v=onepage&q=%22Planning%20Theory%20of%20Communication%3A%2

0Goal%20Attainment%20Through%20Communicative%20Action%22&f=false

Bernstein, J. and Bernstein, E. (2011, December 31). Social media impacts customer service.

Blog post retrieved via: http://managementhelp.org/blogs/crisis-

management/2011/12/31/social-media-impacts-customer-service/.

Booher, David E. & Innes, Judith E. (2014). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming

dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 1(19), 195-213.



https://books.google.com/books?id=GKrSBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT115&lpg=PT115&dq=%22Planning+Theory+of+Communication:+Goal+Attainment+Through+Communicative+Action%22&source=bl&ots=oQBPNT3MlS&sig=fy4vcSpWdgN-HXAj_B1hDPu7QZI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMIh8DSrJ3ZyAIVghw-Ch32Ng_6#v=onepage&q=%22Planning%20Theory%20of%20Communication%3A%20Goal%20Attainment%20Through%20Communicative%20Action%22&f=false







http://managementhelp.org/blogs/crisis-management/2011/12/31/social-media-impacts-customer-service/

http://managementhelp.org/blogs/crisis-management/2011/12/31/social-media-impacts-customer-service/


147

Booher, David E. & Innes, Judith E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 221-236.

Boyd, Danah M. & Ellison, Nicole B. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history, and

scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Briones, R.; Kuch, B.; Liu, B.; Yan Jin, L. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the

American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review.

37. 37–43.

BusinessDictionary.com. (2016). Retrieved Jan. 22, 2016, via: http://www.businessdictionary

.com/definition/collaborative-planning-forecasting-and-replenishment-

CPFR.html#ixzz3xzKRtjZS.

Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. The Sociological

Review, 38(S1), 132-161.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops

and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. First published in J. Law, Power, action and belief:

A new sociology of knowledge? (pp.196-223). London: Routledge.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online (2016). Retrieved January 6, 2016 via

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/customer-relations.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online (2013). Retrieved July 14, 2013 via

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/customer-relations.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (2011). A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication, 5,

773–787.

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/21/3/221.full.pdf+html?ijkey=duQlgQIJQKXDs&keytype=ref&siteid=spjpe

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/customer-relations

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/customer-relations


148

Castelfranchi, C. and Falcone, R. (2001). Principles of Trust for MAS: Cognitive Anatomy,

Social Importance, and Quantification. Seminar. Division of AI, Cognitive Modeling and

Interaction. National Research Council, Institute of Psychology, Rome, Italy. Retrieved

via: http://www.few.vu.nl/~wissen/downloads/seminar/2001_Castelfranchi.pdf.

Ceri-Booms, M. (2012). How can authentic leaders create organizational identification? An

empirical study on Turkish employees. The International Journal of Leadership Studies,

7(2), 172-191.

Chrislip, D. & Larson, C. (1994). Collaborative leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, T. and Salaman, G. (1996). Telling tales: Management consultancy as the art of

storytelling. In Grant, D. and Oswick, C. (Eds.), Metaphor and Organisations (pp. 166-

184). London: Sage.

Conley, A. and Moote, M. (2003). Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management.

Society and Natural Resources, 16, 371–386.

Constine, J. (2017, June 27). Facebook now has 2 billion monthly users.. and responsibility. Tech

Crunch. Retrieved via: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/facebook-2-billion-users/.

Cook, F. (2016). University of Southern California, Annenberg Center for Public Relations

Global Communications Report (GCR). Accessed via: http://annenberg.usc.edu/cpr.

Creswell, John W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (Third edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crosby, B., & Kiedrowski, J. (2008). Integrative leadership: Observations from a University of

Minnesota seminar series. Integral Leadership Review, 8(3). 1-14. Accessed via:

http://www.integralleadershipreview.com.

http://www.few.vu.nl/~wissen/downloads/seminar/2001_Castelfranchi.pdf

https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/facebook-2-billion-users/

http://annenberg.usc.edu/cpr


149

Crosby, B. and Bryson, J. (2005). A leadership framework for cross-sector collaboration. Public

Management Review, 7(2), 177-201.

Datta, B. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of authentic leadership. International Journal of

Leadership Studies, 9(1), 62-75.

Day, J. and Gunton, T. (2003). The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and

environmental management. Environments, 31(2), 5-19.

Duggan, M., Ellison, N., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., and Madden, M. (2015, January 9). Social

media update 2014. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved via:

http://pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/.

Egmon, Jean, EdD (2016, June 27). Creator of KALE (Kellogg Lab Action Experience) and

former Director of the Architectures of Collaboration at Northwestern University’s

Kellogg School of Management, Evanston, IL. Retrieved via phone interview.

eMarketer. (June 18, 2013). Social networking reaches nearly one in four around the world.

Retrieved March 18, 2016, via: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Networking-

Reaches-Nearly-One-Four-Around-World/1009976.

eMarketer. (2015, April 15). Media buying, social network ad spending to hit $23.68 billion

worldwide in 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2016, via:

http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Network-Ad-Spending-Hit-2368-Billion-

Worldwide-2015/1012357.

Entrepreneur Magazine. Retrieved July 14, 2013 via

http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/customer-service.

Facebook.com. (June, 2017). “Newsroom | Company Info.” Facebook About. Accessed on

August 15, 2017, via: https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/.

http://pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/

http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Network-Ad-Spending-Hit-2368-Billion-Worldwide-2015/1012357

http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Network-Ad-Spending-Hit-2368-Billion-Worldwide-2015/1012357

http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/customer-service

https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/


150

Field, Andy (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (Third edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Fisher, R., Prabhu, R., and McDougall, C. (2007). Adaptive collaborative management of

community forests in Asia experiences from Nepal, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Bogor 16000, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Accessed

via: http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BFisher0701.pdf.

Fitch, K. (2009). Making friends in the Wild West: Singaporean public relations practitioners’

perceptions of working in social media. Prism, 6(2). 1-13. Accessed via:

http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html. Retrieved from

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/4008/1/Making_friends.pdf.

Fitch, K. (2009a). New media and public relations. In J. Chia and G. Synnott (Eds.). An

introduction to public relations (pp. 333–356). South Melbourne: Oxford University

Press.

Fitch, K. (2009b). The new frontier: Singaporean and Malaysian public relations practitioners’

perceptions of new media. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 10.

FleishmanHillard (2015). The call for collaboration within PR and beyond. FleishmanHillard

blog post. Accessed via: http://fleishmanhillard.com/2015/06/reputation-

management/the-call-for-collaboration-within-pr-and-beyond/.

Fortune.com. (2015, May, 13). If you want decent customer service, these are the airlines to fly.

Retrieved via: http://fortune.com/2015/05/13/airlines-jd-power-survey/.

Frankel, R. and Mollenkopf, D. (2013). Cross-functional integration revisited: Exploring the

conceptual elephant. Journal of Business Logistics, 36(1), 18-24.

http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BFisher0701.pdf

http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/4008/1/Making_friends.pdf

http://fleishmanhillard.com/2015/06/reputation-management/the-call-for-collaboration-within-pr-and-beyond/

http://fleishmanhillard.com/2015/06/reputation-management/the-call-for-collaboration-within-pr-and-beyond/

http://fortune.com/2015/05/13/airlines-jd-power-survey/


151

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the

real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.

Gardner, W., Cogliser, C., Davis, K., & Dickens, M. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of

literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120-1145.

Goldsberry, L. (2015). Why collaboration with PR is important for success. Axia PR blog post.

Accessed via: www.axiapr.com/blog/why-collaboration-with-pr-is-important-for-success.

Google.com. (2013). Company culture web page. Retrieved July 23, 2013 via:

http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/culture/.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems, San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.

Harris, Neil. (2002). Collaborative planning. From theoretical foundations to practice forms. In

P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.). Communicative planning, collaborative

planning and the post-positivist planning theory landscape…Planning Futures. New

Directions for Planning Theory (pp. 21-43). London, England: Routledge. Retrieved

via:http://www.academia.edu/503538/Communicative_planning_collaborative_planning_

and_the_post-positivist_planning_theory_landscape.

Healey, P. (1997a). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver,

Canada: UBC Press. Accessed via:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=psW_hMb3AH8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&

dq=healey+1997+collaborative+planning&ots=ZmnsD8I67P&sig=ylA8_hifsJx_BDVQQ

i58BnLYCM4#v=onepage&q=healey%201997%20collaborative%20planning&f=false

Healey, Patsy. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory. 2(2). 101-123.

http://www.axiapr.com/blog/why-collaboration-with-pr-is-important-for-success

http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/culture/



https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=psW_hMb3AH8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=healey+1997+collaborative+planning&ots=ZmnsD8I67P&sig=ylA8_hifsJx_BDVQQi58BnLYCM4#v=onepage&q=healey%201997%20collaborative%20planning&f=false




152

Hempel, J., Mansour, I., Southward, B. (2013, September 16). Social media all stars. Fortune

International (Asia). 168(5). 133-135. Retrieved via: http://0-eds.a.ebscohost.com.

library.regent.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=c6d3c1f2-77f0-44a3-ac90-

b09fc692b17e%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4213&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d

#AN=90052607&db=bth.

Hibbard, M. and Lurie, S. (2000). Saving land but losing ground challenges to community

planning the era of participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2),

187-195.

Holmes, P. (2016). University of Southern California, Annenberg. (2016). Global

Communications Report (GCR). Full report (64 pages) accessed via:

http://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2016-global-communications-report.pdf.

Summary report (14 pages) accessed via:

http://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/USC_REPORT_New.pdf.

Hubspot. (2012). The state of inbound marketing webinar. Retrieved via:

http://www.slideshare.net/HubSpot/the-2012-state-of-inbound-marketing-webinar.

Hubspot. (2016). The Ultimate List of Marketing Statistics. Retrieved via:

http://www.hubspot.com/marketing-statistics.

Innes, Judith E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and

interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183-189.

Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2014). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing

discourses. Planning Theory, 19(1), 1-19. Retrieved via:

http://www.csus.edu/ppa/documents/facultyscholarship/Turning%20point%20Planning%

20Theory2014.pdf.

http://0-eds.a.ebscohost.com/

http://www.library.regent.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=c6d3c1f2-77f0-44a3-ac90-b09fc692b17e%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4213&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=90052607&db=bth



http://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2016-global-communications-report.pdf

http://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/USC_REPORT_New.pdf

http://www.slideshare.net/HubSpot/the-2012-state-of-inbound-marketing-webinar

http://www.hubspot.com/marketing-statistics

http://www.csus.edu/ppa/documents/facultyscholarship/Turning%20point%20Planning%20Theory2014.pdf

http://www.csus.edu/ppa/documents/facultyscholarship/Turning%20point%20Planning%20Theory2014.pdf


153

Irving, J.A. (2004). Utilizing the organizational leadership assessment as a strategic tool for

increasing the effectiveness of teams within organizations. Journal of Management and

Marketing Research, 111-124. Accessed via:

http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/08064.pdf.

Irving, J. (2004). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams: Findings and

implications. Proceedings of the 2004 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.

Retrieved September 25, 2008, via:

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2004/irving_serva

nt_leadership.pdf.

Irving, J.A. and Longbotham, G.J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant

leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the organizational leadership

assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98-113.

Javidi, M. (2003). Collaborative change management: A systematic approach. Intercultural

Communication Studies, 12(2), 1-12.

Johnson, D., and Pedersen, C. (2014). A utility’s social media journey to customer connectivity.

Electric, Light & Power, 92(3), 26-27.

Kahn, K. and Mentzer, J. (1998). Marketing's integration with other departments. Journal of

Business Research, 42(1), 53-62.

Kahn, K. (2011). Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development

performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(5), 314-323.

Kellerman, B. (2013). Leading questions: The end of leadership – redux. Leadership, 9(1), 135-

139.

Klie, L. (2014). 10 Social customer service tips. CRM Magazine, 18(2). 18-22.

http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/08064.pdf


154

Kolowich, L. (Originally published July 28 2014, updated August 16 2017). Delighting people in

140 characters: An inside look at JetBlue's customer service success. Hubspot.com.

Retrieved via: https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/jetblue-customer-service-twitter.

Komodromos, M. (2014). A study of PR practitioners’ use of social media tools in Cyprus.

Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 1-9.

Laub, J.A. (1999) Assessing the servant organization. Development of the servant organizational

leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. Dissertation. Florida Atlantic University, Boca

Raton, FL. Accessed via:

http://olagroup.com/Images/mmDocument/Laub%20Dissertation%20Complete%2099.pdf.

Lorigan, J. (2016). The future of PR lies in collaboration. Golley Slater PR blog post accessed

via: www.prca.org.uk/thefutureofPRliesincollaborationjoycelorigangolleyslaterpr.

Low, B. (2015). Collaborative planning, organizing and coordinating: Achieving business

results. Retrieved via: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=50103cf4-

7dbf-e2eb-0ffe-be79f573784c.

Margerum, R. (2002). Evaluating collaborative planning. Implications from an empirical analysis

of growth management. Journal of American Planning Association, 68(2), 179-193.

Retrieved via: http://www.heartlandwq.iastate.edu/nr/rdonlyres/6f8e3d98-d6a5-4af6-

bfad-3c7a10f580f3/23354/a0000244.pdf.

Margerum, R. D. (2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management.

Environmental Management, 41(3), 487–500.

Margerum, R. (2011). Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management,

Cambridge, MA; London, England: MIT. Accessed via:

https://books.google.com/books?id=gNLxCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=con

vener+characteristics&source=bl&ots=r-9x-

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/jetblue-customer-service-twitter

http://olagroup.com/Images/mmDocument/Laub%20Dissertation%20Complete%2099.pdf

http://www.prca.org.uk/thefutureofPRliesincollaborationjoycelorigangolleyslaterpr

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=50103cf4-7dbf-e2eb-0ffe-be79f573784c

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=50103cf4-7dbf-e2eb-0ffe-be79f573784c

http://www.heartlandwq.iastate.edu/nr/rdonlyres/6f8e3d98-d6a5-4af6-bfad-3c7a10f580f3/23354/a0000244.pdf

http://www.heartlandwq.iastate.edu/nr/rdonlyres/6f8e3d98-d6a5-4af6-bfad-3c7a10f580f3/23354/a0000244.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=gNLxCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=convener+characteristics&source=bl&ots=r-9x-uyOm1&sig=ubyRvAwr3UzUB2iHvQobWQjnp0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit9LaPtK_NAhXI6x4KHS8eDUYQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=convener%20characteristics&f=false



155

uyOm1&sig=ubyRvAwr3UzUB2iHvQobWQjnp0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit9La

PtK_NAhXI6x4KHS8eDUYQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=convener%20characteristics&f

=false.

McWade, J., Ed.D. (2017). Lunch with Jessica McWade. An educational discussion on

leadership, strategy and message development. Stonehill College, Easton, MA. October

5, 2017.

Monge, P., and Contractor, N. (2003). Emergence of communication networks. A chapter

prepared for publication. In F. M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds.). New handbook of

organizational communication (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved via:

http://hyperion.math.upatras.gr/commorg/nosh/HOCNets.html.

Moote, M., McClaran, M. and Chickering, D. (1997). Theory in practice: Applying participatory

democracy theory to public land planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 877–889.

Morash, E. and Clinton, S. (1998). Supply chain integration: Customer value through

collaborative closeness versus operational excellence. Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, 6(4), 102-120.

Morse, Ricardo, S. (2010). Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create

public value. Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 231-245.

Osipina, S. and Erica F. (2010). Building bridges from the margins: The work of leadership in

social change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 292-307.

Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. The

Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7 -27.

Pagell, M. (2004). Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations,

purchasing and logistics. Journal of Operations Management, 22(5), 459 - 487.




http://hyperion.math.upatras.gr/commorg/nosh/HOCNets.html


156

Pearson, R. (1989). Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Coorientation, rules,

and the idea of communication symmetry. Public Relations Research Annual,

1(1-4). 67-86.

Perrin, Andrew. (2015, October, 8). Social media usage: 2005 - 2015. Pew Research Center:

Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved via: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-

networking-usage-2005-2015/Robinson, C. J., Margerum, R., Koontz, T., Moseley, C.

and Lurie, S. (2011). Policy-level collaboratives for environmental management at the

regional scale: lessons and challenges from Australia and the United States. Society and

Natural Resources, 24(1), 2-11.

Pew Research Center. (2016, November 11). Social media update 2016. Numbers, facts and

trends shaping the world. Retrieved via: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-

content/uploads/sites/14/2016/11/10132827/PI_2016.11.11_Social-Media-

Update_FINAL.pdf/.

Public Relations Society of America. (2016). Strategic collaboration conference. (May).

Accessed via: www.prsa.org/Conferences/StrategicCollaboration/.

Public Relations Society of America. (2016). What is public relations? PRSA’s widely accepted

definition. Retrieved via: http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/PublicRelationsDefined.

Public Relations Society of America. (2016). Website statistics retrieved via:

http://media.prsa.org/about+prsa/fact+sheet.

Robinson, C. J., Margerum, R., Koontz, T., Moseley, C. and Lurie, S. (2011). Policy level

collaboratives for environmental management at the regional scale: Lessons and

challenges from Australia and the United States. Society and Natural Resources, 24(8), p.

849-859.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/pi_2015-01-09_social-media_01/



http://www.prsa.org/Conferences/StrategicCollaboration/

http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/PublicRelationsDefined

http://media.prsa.org/about+prsa/fact+sheet


157

Sager, T. (2005). Communicative planners as naїve mandarins of the neo-liberal state? European

Journal of Spatial Development. Dec 2005, 1-9. Retrieved via:

http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Debate/debate051208.pdf.

Sager, T. (2009). “Responsibilities of theorists: The case of communicative planning

theory,” Progress in Planning. 72(1), 1-51.

Salman, SH. (2017, February, 2). Facebook’s Internet.org claims 50 million users in Q4, 2016.

Medianama. Retrieved via: https://www.medianama.com/2017/02/223-facebook-

earnings-december-2016/.

Sanaghan, P. (2015). A “collaborative” strategic planning process: A 5-phase model. Retrieved

via: http://www.thesanaghangroup.com/PDFs/planning.pdf.

Sarason, S. and Lorentz, E. (1978). The challenge of the resource exchange network.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sarasota County Schools. (2010). School board of Sarasota County collaborative planning

guidelines. Retrieved via:

sarasotacountyschools.net/uploadedFiles/ .../CPGuidelinesFinals09-10.doc.

Sarker, Suprateek, Sarker Saonee, & Sidorova, A. (2006). Understanding

business process change failure: An actor-network perspective. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 23(1), 51-86.

Schuett, M.A., Selin, S., and Carr, D. (2001). Making it work: Keys to successful collaboration

in natural resource management. Environmental Management, 27(4), 587-593.

Shah, S. (2010). Correlation between new product development and interdepartmental

integration. Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(2), 222-238.

http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Debate/debate051208.pdf

https://www.medianama.com/2017/02/223-facebook-earnings-december-2016/

https://www.medianama.com/2017/02/223-facebook-earnings-december-2016/

http://www.thesanaghangroup.com/PDFs/planning.pdf


158

Shields, B. (2016, December). Social media management: Persuasion in networked culture.

Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.

Sheppard, S.R.J., Meitner, M. (2005). Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for

sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and

Management, 207, 171–187.

Sokol, M. (2012) Theorizing planning practice: Collaborative planning for smart growth on

Long Island, New York. Master’s thesis, Columbia University. Retrieved via:

http://www.arch.columbia.edu/files/gsapp/imceshared/cce2119/Maxwell_Sokol__Thesis

_Abstract.pdf.

Solis, B. (2008). Forward: The Road from PR to PR 2.0 to Public Relations. In D. Breakenridge

(Ed.) PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences (forward). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved via: Blog post @BrianSolis, April 28:

http://www.briansolis.com/2008/04/pr-20-putting-public-back-in-public/.

Solis, B., & Breakenridge, D. (2009). Putting the public back in public relations: How social

media is reinventing the aging business of PR. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press/Pearson

Education.

Somerville, I. (1999). Agency versus identity: actor-network theory meets public relations.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(1). 6-13.

Statista, (2017). The statistics portal. Retrieved via:

(http://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/).

Swink, M. and Schoenherr, T. (2015). The effects of cross-functional integration on profitability,

process efficiency, and asset productivity. Journal of Business Logistics, 36(1), 69-87.

http://www.arch.columbia.edu/files/gsapp/imceshared/cce2119/Maxwell_Sokol__Thesis_Abstract.pdf

http://www.arch.columbia.edu/files/gsapp/imceshared/cce2119/Maxwell_Sokol__Thesis_Abstract.pdf

http://www.briansolis.com/2008/04/pr-20-putting-public-back-in-public/

http://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/


159

Swerling, J. (Oct. 10, 2013). USC Annenberg launches eighth GAP study of PR/Communication

best practices and trends. University of Southern California Annenberg’s Strategic

Communication and PR Center web site. Accessed via:

http://annenberg.usc.edu/news/around-usc-annenberg/usc-annenberg-launches-eighth-

gap-study-prcommunication-best-practices-and.

Symantec, Inc. (2011). Summary report: The shocking scale of cybercrime. Retrieved via:

http://www.symantec.com/content/en/uk/home_homeoffice/html/cybercrimereport/.

Thompson, A. and Prokopy, L. (2016). The role of sense of place in collaborative planning.

Journal of Sustainability Education, 11, 1-19. Accessed

http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/2016/03/ThompsonPropoky-11-Issue-JSE-Feb-2016.pdf

Treadwell, D. (2014). Introducing communication research: Paths of inquiry (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Twitter.com. (2016). Company/About. Retrieved via: https://about.twitter.com/company.

University of Southern California, Annenberg. (2012, March 26). Communication and public

relations center seventh biennial communication and public relations generally accepted

practices GAP VII study findings report. Retrieved via:

http://annenberg.usc.edu/ResearchCenters/Strategic%20Communication%20and%20Publ

ic%20Relations%20Center/PrevGAP.aspx.

University of Southern California, Annenberg. (2014, June 26). Communication and public

relations center eighth biennial communication and public relations generally accepted

practices GAP VIII study findings report. Retrieved via:

http://annenberg.usc.edu/news/around-usc-annenberg/usc-annenberg-launches-eighth-gap-study-prcommunication-best-practices-and

http://annenberg.usc.edu/news/around-usc-annenberg/usc-annenberg-launches-eighth-gap-study-prcommunication-best-practices-and

http://www.symantec.com/content/en/uk/home_homeoffice/html/cybercrimereport/

http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ThompsonPropoky-11-Issue-JSE-Feb-2016.pdf

http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ThompsonPropoky-11-Issue-JSE-Feb-2016.pdf

https://about.twitter.com/company

http://annenberg.usc.edu/ResearchCenters/Strategic%20Communication%20and%20Public%20Relations%20Center/PrevGAP.aspx

http://annenberg.usc.edu/ResearchCenters/Strategic%20Communication%20and%20Public%20Relations%20Center/PrevGAP.aspx


160

http://ascjweb.org/gapstudy/gapviii/. Full study found via:

https://uscannenberg.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_agUBlUE7XNlucXH

University of Southern California, Annenberg. (2016). Global communications report (GCR).

Full report (64 pages) accessed via: http://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2016-

global-communications-report.pdf. Summary report (14 pages) accessed via:

http://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/USC_REPORT_New.pdf.

University of Southern California, Annenberg. (2014, June 26). Communication and public

relations center eighth biennial communication and public relations generally accepted

practices GAP VIII study findings report. Retrieved via:

http://ascjweb.org/gapstudy/gapviii/. Full study found via:


Ushiro, R. (2009). Nurse–physician collaboration scale: development and psychometric testing.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(7), 1497–1508. Accessed via:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738564/.

Vacika, H., Kurttila, M., Hujala, T., Chiranjeewee, K., Arto, H., Jouni, P., Bernhard, W.,

Tikkanen, J. (2014). Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-

based planning in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management,

144, 304-315.

Verhagen, T., van Nes, J., Feldberg, F., van Dolen, W. (2014). Virtual customer service agents:

Using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 529-545.

Wake Forrest University, Department of Communication web page. Retrieved via:

http://college.wfu.edu/communication/concentrations.

http://ascjweb.org/gapstudy/gapviii/




http://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/USC_REPORT_New.pdf

http://ascjweb.org/gapstudy/gapviii/


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738564/


http://college.wfu.edu/communication/concentrations


161

Weber Shandwick, (2014). Convergence ahead: The integration of communications and

marketing. Retrieved via: www.webershandwick.com.

The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (2014, January 2). Knowledge@Wharton

blog post. Retrieved via: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/ignored-side-social-

media-customer-service/.

Whitten, K. (2013). Defining social media relations as a management function: Public relations

professionals work to recoup the boundaries between customer relations and customer

service in social media. (Personal interviews conducted for an unpublished ethnographic

study).

Wilcox, D.; Cameron, G.; Reber, B.; and Shin, J-H. (2011). Think Public Relations, 2011 (1st

ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Young, R. (2015, Nov. 6). Marketing collaboration & the important role of PR.

CoverageBook.com blog post. Accessed via:

https://coveragebook.com/resolution/important-role-for-pr.

Young, R. (2015). 3 Reasons why PR is at the heart of marketing collaborations. Adweek. (Nov.

23). Accessed via: www.adweek.com/prnewser/pr-at-the-heart-of...collaboration/119499.

Zammar, N. (2010). Social network sites: The science of building and maintaining online

communities, a perspective from actor-network theory. International Journal of Actor-

Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 2(2). 54-62.

http://www.webershandwick.com/

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/ignored-side-social-media-customer-service/



https://coveragebook.com/resolution/important-role-for-pr

http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/pr-at-the-heart-of...collaboration/119499


162

Appendix A: Sample Recruitment Messages

1) Email request for close personal/professional contacts to take pre-launch/test survey:

Hi XXX,

As you know, I am working on my dissertation for my PhD and I am currently “PRE-testing” my

survey. This is a required step to make sure that respondents (like you) completely understand

each of the questions before sending it out to the masses. It is also a means to test reliability and

validity of my research questions and hypotheses.

Because this is a pre-test, I will basically be asking you to take my survey twice… as I am also

hoping you will take the “real” survey again next month (which will hopefully be very similar).

It should take about 10 minutes to complete.

Because I realize that this is an added burden on your already limited time, I will gladly

compensate you with a $20 Dunkin Donuts gift card. This gift is a small gesture to “thank you”

for your valuable time and effort to help me out as this is a very important step in my research.

Information regarding the details of the survey, including purpose, anonymity, and incentives,

are included in the introduction page of the survey itself. I sincerely thank you for your time and

help with this research project.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SMcollaboration

With much gratitude,

Kirsten Whitten

PhD Candidate, Regent University

PR/Com Instructor,

Curry College, Regis College, Stonehill College

Owner, GT Graphics and Marketing

[email protected]

Cell: 617-548-2237

2) Email message to be sent to select personal and professional contacts:

Dear friends and colleagues,

Please forgive the mass email, but I need your help!

I am working on my dissertation for my PhD to help identify PR professional's leadership and

collaborative planning methods and to examine their effects on internal integration of social

media relations practices across organizations.

I need a broad sample of PR, Communication and Social Media professionals (from assistant

managers to owners). Participants can hold a title of: Owner, Executive; Executive Assistant;

Director; Assistant Director; Controller, Supervisor, Manager, Assistant Manager or other

position that allows them the ability to make social media relations decisions that affect the

organization in a management capacity on behalf of the PR/Com department or field (regardless

of the organization’s size or type).

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SMcollaboration

mailto:[email protected]


163

I am hoping that you would consider helping me in two ways…

1) Take about 8-10 minutes to complete the survey this week:

All participants who complete the survey in its entirety will receive a copy of the

results prior to publishing AND be entered a drawing for one of five $50 Amazon

gift cards. INSERT LINK

2) Help me RECRUIT respondents by asking your professional contacts to participate.

If you can help me recruit pre-qualified participants by sending out emails and

posting the survey link on your social media pages (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and

professional blog), it would be a huge help. Every time a survey respondent indicates

your name as the person who referred them to the survey (in question #42), you will

also be entered into a second random drawing to receive another one of five $50

Amazon gift cards.

By agreeing to be a participant AND a partner, you have a chance to win up to $100 for

your time and efforts.

I really hope you will agree to help me by at least taking the survey, but am also hoping you will

agree to help me recruit as well. This will not only help me personally, but also help the PR

industry better understand the state of the PR as it relates to managing social media functions

across business departments. I sincerely thank you for your help with this research project…

your time and efforts are GREATLY appreciated!

With much gratitude,

Kirsten Whitten

PhD Candidate, Regent University

PR/Com Instructor,

Curry College, Regis College, Stonehill College

Owner, GT Graphics and Marketing

[email protected]

Cell: 617-548-2237



164

Appendix B: Research Instrument

PR/Com Social Media Leadership and Collaboration Survey

Managing Social Media Relations across Organizations

(70 Questions, 8 pages, Created on 11/17/2016)

1: Welcome to my survey

Pre-Qualification: Your participation in this survey is requested if you work in the fields of:

Public Relations, Communication or Social Media and you hold any type of position that allows

you the ability to make decisions that affect the organization in a management capacity,

specifically as it relates to social media relations (i.e., Owner, Consultant, Executive, Director,

Supervisor, Manager, Assistant Manager, etc.) regardless of the organization’s size or type.

Industry Need: PR professionals are actively promoting the importance of "collaboration" in

managing social media across organizational functions, and specifically, PR's role in leading this

process. However, there is a great need for studies that address these issues and their impact on

business practices. Therefore, this study aims to identify PR professional's leadership and

collaborative planning methods to examine their effects on internal integration of social media

relations practices across organizations.

Incentive: This survey should take 8-10 minutes to complete. When you finish the entire survey,

you will be invited to enter a random drawing for “one of five $50 pre-paid Amazon card prizes”

and “a report of the findings will be sent” directly to you. You will be asked to provide an email

address so I may contact you for these purposes. This email address will be disassociated from

your survey responses.

Confidentiality: Your participation in this research project is entirely confidential, therefore you

do not have to be concerned about any specific disclosure of information you provide.

Questions or concerns: Kirsten Whitten, [email protected]. Your participation in this

study is greatly appreciated! Click “Next” to begin the survey.

Next

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



165

2: Personal Leadership Style

Instructions: The following survey items refer to your leadership style, as you perceive it.

In this “self-evaluation,” please judge how frequently each statement fits your leadership style

using the scale provided.

(Altered with permission of the publisher. Questions published by Mindgarden, Inc.,

www.mindgarden.com. Only a partial listing of three questions, from this scale containing 16

questions in total, is permitted for publishing. It is for this reason that only three of the 16

questions that make up the ALQ are included in this survey posting for publication.)

1. 1. As a Leader I….

Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if not always

0 1 2 3 4

g. make decisions based on my core values (M2) 0 1 2 3 4

l. listen carefully to different points of view before coming to a conclusion (BP3) 0 1 2 3 4

m. seek feedback to improve interactions with others (S1) 0 1 2 3 4

2. Please specify whether you work "In-House" at a for-profit, non-profit, educational,

healthcare, government or other type of organization/institution... OR if you own or work at a

PR/Firm/Agency or are an Independent Practitioner/Consultant. (This is so the questions

in these next two sections will be worded specifically for your profession).

a. I work “In-House” for an organization / institution

b. I own / work for a PR Firm/Agency or I am an Independent Practitioner/Consultant

Previous Next

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 3: Collaborative Planning Practices (In-House)

SUB-SURVEY A = to be taken by PR/Com who work “in-house” at a for-profit, non-profit,

educational, healthcare, government or other type of organization.

DEFINITIONS: Customers = can be consumers or business-to-business

PR/Com = Public Relations/Corp. Com./Social Media Com. department

Other stakeholder departments = other departments (within your firm) that

take part in social media relations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.mindgarden.com/


166

Page 3 (5): Collaborative Planning Practices (PR Agency, Independent)

SUB-SURVEY B = to be taken by PR/Com who work at a PR Firm/Agency or are independent

practitioners/consultants.

DEFINITIONS: Customers = can be consumers or business-to-business

My PR Firm = The PR business I own or work for

Other stakeholder departments within your clients’ organizations that take

part in social media relations.

*Please consider these questions in regards to how your firm works with “the majority” of

your clients’ organizations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A & B) INSTRUCTIONS: For the following questions, please indicate (on a scale of 1 to 7)

the degree to which you disagree or agree with each statement (based on your current job).

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3a. PR/Com exchanges opinions with other stakeholder departments to resolve problems

related to customer care on social media.

3b. My PR Firm exchanges opinions with the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’

/30. organizations) to resolve problems related to customer care on social media.

--------------------------------------------

4a. PR/Com and other stakeholder departments all know what has been explained to a

customer on social media about his/her product/service issue.

4b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) all

/31. know what has been explained to a customer on social media about his/her product/service

issue.

--------------------------------------------

5a. In the event of a disagreement about the strategic direction of customer care on social

media, PR/Com holds discussions with the other stakeholder departments to resolve

differences of opinion.

5b. In the event of a disagreement about the strategic direction of customer care on social

/32. media, my PR Firm holds discussions with the other stakeholder departments (within my

clients’ organizations) to resolve differences of opinion.

--------------------------------------------

6a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments share information to verify the effects of

strategies.

6b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) share

/33. information to verify the effects of strategies.


167

--------------------------------------------

7a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments can freely exchange information or

opinions about matters related to work.

7b. Remember to answer based on how your firm works with “the majority” of your clients’

/34. organizations.

My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) can

freely exchange information or opinions about matters related to work.

--------------------------------------------

8a. The other stakeholder departments support and contribute funds to the integrated customer

relations initiative for social media.

8b. The other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) support and

/35. contribute to their organization’s integrated customer relations initiative for social media.

--------------------------------------------

9a. PR/Com discusses with the other stakeholder departments whether to continue a certain

strategy when that strategy is not having the expected effect.

9b. My PR Firm discusses with the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’

/36. organizations) whether to continue a certain strategy when that strategy is not having the

expected effect.

--------------------------------------------

10a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments have the same understanding of the

strategies for customer care on social media.

10b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) have

/37. the same understanding of the strategies for customer care on social media.

--------------------------------------------

11a. Together, PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments consider each other’s proposals

about the strategies of customer care on social media.

11b. Together, my PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’

/38. organizations) consider each other’s proposals about the strategies of customer care on

social media.

--------------------------------------------

12a. In the event of a change in strategy, PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments have a

mutual understanding of the reasons for the change.

12b. In the event of a change in strategy, my PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments

/39. (within my clients’ organizations) have a mutual understanding of the reasons for the

change.

--------------------------------------------

13a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments help each other.

13b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) help

/40. each other.

--------------------------------------------


168

14a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments support changes in policies that produce

understandable results and improve workflow.

14b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations)

/41. support changes in policies that produce understandable results and improve workflow.

--------------------------------------------

15a. The strategy for customer care on social media is based on a mutual exchange of opinions

between PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments.

15b. The strategy for customer care on social media is based on a mutual exchange of opinions

/42. between my PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’

organizations).

--------------------------------------------

16a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments share information about a customer’s

reaction to explanations or solutions offered for a product/service issue on social media.

16b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) share

/43. information about a customer’s reaction to explanations or solutions offered for a


--------------------------------------------

17a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments discuss how to address service, product and

customer care issues on social media.

17b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations)

/44. discuss how to address service, product and customer care issues on social media.

--------------------------------------------

18a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments have the same understanding of the

customer’s wish for a resolution and care.

18b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) have

/45. the same understanding of the customer’s wish for a resolution and care.

--------------------------------------------

19a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments take into account each other’s schedules

when making plans to meet regarding customer care issues and planning for social media.

19b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) take

/46. into account each other’s schedule when making plans to meet regarding customer care


--------------------------------------------

20a. PR/Com and the other stakeholder departments work together to produce policies and

documents that reduce complexity.

20b. My PR Firm and the other stakeholder departments (within my clients’ organizations) work

/47. together to produce policies and documents that reduce complexity.

Previous Next


169

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 4: Interdepartmental Coordination

(A & B) INSTRUCTIONS: For the following questions, please indicate (on a scale of 1 to 7)

the degree to which you disagree or agree with each statement (based on your current job).

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21a. PR/Com exerts the most control over my organization’s overall social media activities.

*Please consider these questions in regards to how your firm works with “the majority” of

your clients’ organizations.

21b/48. My PR Firm exerts the most control over my client’s overall social media activities.

--------------------------------------------

22a. Marketing/Sales exerts the most control over my organization’s overall social media

activities.

22b/49. Marketing/Sales exerts the most control over my clients’ overall social media activities

--------------------------------------------

23a. Customer Service/Relations exerts the most control over my organization’s overall

social media activities.

23b. Customer Service/Relations exerts the most control over my clients’ overall social media

/50. activities.

--------------------------------------------

24a. The functions within my PR/COM dept. (media relations, corp. com., etc.) are well

coordinated and integrated with each other.

24b. The functions within my PR Firm (media relations, corp. com., etc.) are well coordinated

/51. and integrated with each other.

--------------------------------------------

25a. Our PR/COM social media activities and functions are well coordinated and integrated

with Marketing/Sales.

25b. Our PR Firm’s social media activities and functions are well coordinated and integrated

/52. with the Marketing/Sales department (at our clients’ organizations).

--------------------------------------------

26a. Our PR/COM social media activities and functions are well coordinated and integrated

with Customer Service/Relations.

26b. Our PR Firm’s social media activities and functions are well coordinated and integrated

/53. with the Customer Service department (at our clients’ organizations).

--------------------------------------------


170

27a. I would consider the culture of my company (not just the PR/Com function) as strategic

in nature.

27b/54. I would consider the culture of my PR firm as strategic in nature.

--------------------------------------------

28a. I would consider the culture of my company (not just the PR/Com function) as

innovative and flexible overall.

28b/55. I would consider the culture of my PR Firm as innovative and flexible overall.

--------------------------------------------

29a. I would consider the culture of my company (not just the PR/Com function) as putting

people above profits.

29b/56. I would consider the culture of my PR Firm as putting people above profits.

Previous Next

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 5: Personal & Professional Information

7

30 (57). What is your gender?

1. Male

2. Female

31 (58). Specify your age category:

1. 20s

2. 30s

3. 40s

4. 50s

5. 60s

6. 70+

32 (59). Highest level of education completed

1. Did not complete High School

2. Completed High School

3. Some College – no degree

4. Associate/Professional degree

5. Completed Bachelor’s degree

6. Completed Master’s degree

7. Completed Doctoral degree


171

33 (60). Your ethnicity is primarily:

1. Caucasian

2. Asian

3. Black / African

4. Hispanic

5. Other

34 (61). Which one of the following best describes your current position at your company?

(choose only one)

1. I am an independent consultant or an owner of a PR firm/agency.

2. I am the most senior PR/Communication/Social Media professional in my

organization.

3. I am a senior PR/Communication professional responsible for managing

communications for a unit or division of my organization.

4. I am a PR/Communication professional reporting to a senior communication

executive at my organization and I have management responsibility.

5. None of the above

35 (62). What is your official job title?

36 (63). Please indicate which departments in your company (in-house) / in your clients’

organizations (PR Agency/Indep.) use social media to communicate with external

audiences. Check all that apply.

1. PR/Com

2. Marketing/Sales

3. Customer Service/Relations

4. Other / please specify

37 (64). Which of the following best describes your organization?

1. Publicly traded company

2. Private company

3. Non-Profit organization

4. Government agency/military

5. Other / please specify

38 (65). Which of the following best describes your organization?

1. Global (home country plus more than 4 others)

2. Multi-national (home country plus up to 4 others)

3. U.S. national

4. U.S. local or regional

39 (66). Where is your company headquartered?

1. U.S. (list city and state)

2. non-U.S. (list country and region)


172

40 (67). What is your organization’s primary business function (i.e.: consumer retail, B-to-B

technology, consumer technology, healthcare, etc.)?

41 (68). Does your company primarily service consumers or B-to-B?

1. Consumers

2. Business to business

Previous Next

6: CLOSING

Because you have taken the time to complete this survey, you can receive a report of the results

as soon as they are published. You may also be entered into a random drawing to receive one of

ten $50 Amazon gift cards. Upon finishing this survey, you will be prompted to a link allowing

you to provide your email address for this purpose. Your email address will be disassociated

from your survey responses. If you do not wish to receive the results directly, or to be entered in

the drawing, just simply do not click on the link when prompted. Thank you!

42 (69). Please specify the means through which you were connected to the survey link:

____ Email solicitation ____ Facebook solicitation _____ Twitter ____ LinkedIn

____ Direct Contact / Word of Mouth

43 (70). If applicable, specify who referred you to the survey

_____________________________________________________

Previous Done

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automated Thank You Page

Thank you for completing our survey! Please copy and paste the following link into a new

browser and enter your email address. This will allow us to send you the results of the survey

directly and to be entered into the random drawing for one of five $50 gift cards.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EmailFollow-Up

Done

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EmailFollow-Up:

Thank you for taking the PR/Com Social Media Leadership and Collaboration Survey. Please

provide your email address here. This response will be disassociated from the previous survey.

Your time is greatly appreciated.

Done




173

APPENDIX C: NPCS Items, Factors, and Descriptive Statistics

Table 1

Nurse–Physician Collaboration Scale items, factors, and descriptive statistics

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nurses

Physicians

Factors and Items n Mean ± SD

Factor loading

n Mean ± SD

Factor loading

Joint participation in the cure/care decision-making process

α = 0·923 α = 0·926

(J12) The nurses and the physicians exchange opinions to resolve problems related to patient cure/care

1207 3·17 ± 1·0

0·881 436 3·52 ±

0·91

0·811

(J11) In the event of a disagreement about the future direction of a patient’s care, the nurses and the physicians hold discussions to resolve differences of opinion

1209 3·07 ±

1·08

0·864 435 3·60 ±

0·98

0·811

(J16) The nurses and the physicians discuss whether to continue a certain treatment when that treatment is not having the expected effect

1208 3·01 ±

1·12

0·764 440 3·02 ±

1·10

0·737

(J10) When a patient is to be discharged from the hospital, the nurses and the physicians discuss where the patient will continue to be treated and the lifestyle regimen the patient needs to follow

1202 3·31 ±

0·98

0·737 437 3·43 ±

0·97

0·696

(J13) When confronted by a difficult patient, the nurses and the physicians discuss how to handle the situation

1210 3·40 ±

1·05

0·713 438 3·86 ±

0·90

0·700

(J8) The nurses and the physicians discuss the problems a patient has

1209 2·91 ± 1·0

0·705 438 3·31 ±

0·95

0·750

(J6) The nurses and the physicians together consider their proposals about the future direction of patient care

1211 3·17 ±

1·05

0·673 439 3·37 ± 1·0

0·571

(J15) In the event a patient develops unexpected side effects or complications, the nurses and the physicians discuss countermeasures

1209 3·67 ±

1·02

0·580 440 3·83 ±

0·98

0·676

(J14) In the event a patient no longer trusts a staff member, the nurses and the physicians try to respond to the patient in a consistent manner to resolve the situation

1212 3·81 ±

0·94

0·498 438 3·96 ±

0·88

0·665

(C2) The future direction of a patient’s care is based on a mutual exchange of opinions between the nurses and the physicians

1204 3·18 ±

0·93

0·498 437 3·52 ±

0·85

0·632


174

(J3) The nurses and the physicians seek agreement on signs that a patient can be discharged

1204 3·59 ±

0·93

0·473 439 3·74 ±

0·91

0·431

(J18) The nurses and the physicians discuss how to prevent medical care accidents

1212 2·71 ±

1·18

0·463 440 3·48 ±

1·08

0·462

Sharing of patient information α = 0·905 α = 0·911

(S4) The nurses and the physicians all know what has been explained to a patient about his/her condition or treatment

1210 3·54 ±

0·92

0·794 440 3·58 ±

0·99

0·679

(S9) The nurses and the physicians share information to verify the effects of treatment

1212 3·50 ±

0·88

0·778 439 3·65 ±

0·88

0·801

(S7) The nurses and the physicians have the same understanding of the future direction of the patient’s care

1214 3·39 ±

0·96

0·702 439 3·65 ±

0·90

0·845

(S2) The nurses and the physicians identify the key person in a patient’s life

1215 3·58 ±

0·99

0·695 439 3·86 ±

0·97

0·707

(S8) In the event of a change in treatment plan, the nurses and the physicians have a mutual understanding of the reasons for the change

1217 3·62 ±

0·89

0·688 438 3·85 ±

0·85

0·793

(S10) The nurses and the physicians check with each other concerning whether a patient has any signs of side effects or complications

1213 3·63 ±

0·94

0·676 440 3·75 ±

0·93

0·563

(S6) The nurses and the physicians share information about a patient’s reaction to explanations of his/her disease status and treatment methods

1206 3·10 ±

0·98

0·656 437 3·25 ±

0·99

0·678

(S1) The nurses, the physicians, and the patient have the same understanding of the patient’s wish for cure and care

1212 3·46 ±

0·84

0·634 439 3·79 ±

0·82

0·550

(S11) The nurses and the physicians share information about a patient’s level of independence in regard to activities of daily living

1212 3·37 ±

0·93

0·583 440 3·59 ±

0·92

0·605

Cooperativeness α = 0·800 α = 0·842

(C12) The nurses and the physicians can easily talk about topics other than topics related to work

1203 2·84 ±

1·20

0·770 438 3·69 ±

1·09

0·879

(C11) The nurses and the physicians can freely exchange information or opinions about matters related to work

1202 3·15 ±

1·05

0·761 437 3·95 ±

0·91

0·796

(C7) The nurses and the physicians show concern for each other when they are very tired

1202 2·81 ±

1·14

0·607 437 3·06 ±

1·08

0·551


175

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ J, joint participation in the cure/care decision making process; S, sharing of patient information; C, cooperativeness. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Ushiro, R. (2009). Nurse–physician collaboration scale: development and psychometric testing. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 65(7), 1497–1508. Accessed via: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738564/.

(C9) The nurses and the physicians help each other 1203 3·19 ±

0·97

0·602 436 3·79 ±

0·92

0·640

(C10) The nurses and the physicians greet each other every day

1205 4·24 ±

0·87

0·499 437 4·38 ±

0·75

0·649

(C8) The nurses and the physicians take into account each other’s schedule when making plans to treat a patient together

1203 3·41 ±

1·16

0·433 434 3·50 ± 1·0

0·447




176

Appendix D: Correlations of Dimensions of the four Variables

To test each of the variables, a Pearson Product-Moment correlation was conducted

among the dimensions that make up the variables. The results of this examination (which are

summarized in the tables below) were significant at the p < .05 level for most composite

comparisons – except for three of the dimensions of AL with the WCP, which were not

significant at the p < .05 level. The four (4) authentic leadership (AL) composites (SA, IMP, BP

and RT) resulted in moderate Pearson correlations with each other and low correlation with the

three composites (JPBOTH, SIBOTH and COOPBOTH) for collaborative planning methods

(CPM) and the two composites (AO/WCP) for well-coordinated plans (AOWCP).

Collaborative planning composites resulted in moderately high Pearson correlation with

each other and with the composites for well-coordinated plans. Composites for well-coordinated

plans also showed a moderate correlation with each other (r = 0.54). Lastly, the one composite

(CULT) for the control variable of organizational culture was highly significant (p < .01), with

every other variable yet still resulted in low Pearson correlations with authentic leadership and

moderate Pearson correlations with collaborative planning methods and well-coordinated plans

(see tables below).

These results support a conclusion that PR/Com executives are using authentic leadership

and collaborative planning methods to effect the establishment of well-coordinated plans for

social media relations across organizations and that organizational culture plays a role as a

control variable in this establishment, especially between CPM and AOWCP. (The tables below

itemize each of these correlations.)


177

Correlations of AL Dimensions (4): SA, IMP, BP, RT (N=273).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SA IMP BP RT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SA Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed) _____________________________________________________

IMP Pearson Correlation 0.50** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ______________________________________________________________________________

BP Pearson Correlation 0.59** 0.52** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

RT Pearson Correlation 0.47** 0.47** 0.42** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations of CPM Dimensions (3): JP, SI, COOP (N=225).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JPBOTH SIBOTH COOPBOTH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JPBOTH Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed) _____________________________________________________

SIBOTH Pearson Correlation 0.84** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ______________________________________________________________________________

COOPBOTH Pearson Correlation 0.67** 0.72 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Correlations of AOWCP Dimensions (2): AO (N=225) and WCP (N=218).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AO WCP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AO Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

N 225 __________________________________________________________________

WCP Pearson Correlation 0.54** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 218 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



178

Correlations of AL and CPM Dimensions (N=225).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CMP CMP CMP

JPBOTH SIBOTH COOPBOTH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AL Pearson Correlation 0.26** 0.24** 0.20**

SA Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AL Pearson Correlation 0.18** 0.15* 0.21**

IMP Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .029 .002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AL Pearson Correlation 0.25** 0.23** 0.22**

BP Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .001 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AL Pearson Correlation 0.19** 0.19** 0.17*

RT Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .005 .012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlations of AL (N = 273) and AOWCP (N = 218) Dimensions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AOWCP AOWCP

AO WCP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AL Pearson Correlation 0.27** 0.15*

SA Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .025

N 225 218 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AL Pearson Correlation 0.14* 0.12

IMP Sig. (2-tailed) .037 .078

N 225 218 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AL Pearson Correlation 0.22** 0.11

BP Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .110

N 225 218 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AL Pearson Correlation 0.22** 0.11

RT Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .119

N 225 218 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


179

Correlations of CPM and AOWCP Dimensions (N=218).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AOWCP AOWCP

AO WCP ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CPM Pearson Correlation 0.69** 0.62**

JPBOTH Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 225 218 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


SIBOTH Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 225 218 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


COOPBOTH Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 225 218 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Correlations of AL and CULT Dimensions (N=218).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CULT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AL Pearson Correlation 0.29**

SA Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


IMP Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


BP Sig. (2-tailed) .006 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


RT Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Correlations of CPM and CULT Dimensions (N=218).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CULT ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CMP Pearson Correlation 0.47**

JPBOTH Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


SIBOTH Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


COOPBOTH Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



180

Correlations of AOWCP and CULT Dimensions (N=218).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CULT ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AOWCP Pearson Correlation 0.48**

AO Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AOWCP Pearson Correlation 0.46**

WCP Sig. (2-tailed) .000 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


PR/COM COORDINATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA RELATIONS · 2019. 7. 15. · title: pr/com coordination of...

Documents

Transcript of PR/COM COORDINATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA RELATIONS · 2019. 7. 15. · title: pr/com coordination of...