UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA

CORRELATES OF PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS' ROLE TYPES IN MALAYSIA

LING LIONG ING

FPP L 1993 10

CORRE LATE S OF PUBLIC RELAT I O NS PRA C T I T I ONERS' ROL.E TYPES I N MA LAYSIA

By

LING l I0NG I NG

MAST ER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSIT I PERTANIAN MAL.AYSIA

1993

CORRELATES OF PUBLIC RELATIONS PRA CT ITIONERS' ROL E TYPES I N MALAYSIA

By

LING l IONG I NG

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in

the Center for Extension and Continuing Education Universiti Pertanian Malaysia

March, 1993

DEDICATION

T his thes is is dedica ted to my

husband who suppor ts me so

unc onditionally throughout my

career and personal l ife.

To him with

love and thanks.

A CKNOWLEDGME N TS

I wish to express my most s incere appreciat ion and gratitude to

my cha irman , Professor D r. Sula iman Mohd . Yass in , my two members

of the committee, Dr. Tu r iman S u a n d i and Mr. Mohd. H a n i m M o hd .

Ta h i r f o r t h e i r c o n s tr u c t i v e i d e a s , g e n t l e pro d d i n g , c o n c e r n , a n d

cr i t ic i sm a p a rt from g iv ing ass istance and encouragement without

ever compla in ing .

I am a l s o very m u c h i n d e bt e d t o P n . S a o d a h Wo k w h o

i n i t i a t e d a n d p a v e d t h e w a y f o r t h i s t h e s i s a n d i n c h o o s i n g t h e

s t a t i s t i c a l t o o l t o u s e f o r a n a l y s i n g t h e d a t a . T h a n ks a r e a l s o

e xtended t o Professor Madya Dr. Fadzi l a h K a msah a n d Dr. N a p s i a h

M ahfoz, for their useful suggestions particular ly dur ing the formative

stage. To Mr. Abdul Azizal Abdul Aziz and Mr. Rahmat Ismai l , I thank

them for their suggestions and evaluation of the research instrument.

T h a n ks a r e a l s o d u e to D r. S y e d A r a b i S y e d I d i d of U K M f o r h i s

suggest ions and many of the constructive ideas .

To m y f e l l o w gr a d ua t e fr i e n d s , Ji l, Ti p, Pak M e i , F a r i d a h ,

M ic h a e l , A d a m , San u n , Va n aja , Nors iah and many others I say t h a n k

y o u for your constant ass istance a nd suggestions .

F i n a l l y, I t h a n k C E C E for g i v i n g m e a c h a n c e t o p u rs u e m y

M a ste r s , U PM f o r t h e r e s e a rch f u n d , M i n i stry o f E d u c a t i o n for m y

s t u d y l eave, a l l the respond ents for t h e i r kind ness and coo perat i o n ,

a n d a l l the lecturers in C E C E . Thank YOll.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N OWLE D G E M E NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i

L I ST O F TABLES.. ... . . ... .. . . .. .. .. ... ... .......... .. . . .. ...... . .. . . x

L I ST O F F I G U R E S . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi i

A B STRACT . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . XIV

A BSTRA K .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

C HA PT E R

/I

I NTRO DUCTIO N .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Prob lem . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 O bjecti ves of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 1 2 S ign ificance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1 2 Scope and Lim itations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Def in it ions of Terms . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

LITERATUR E R E Vi EW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H i story and Researches on Role Types . . . . . . . . Role Types of PRPs in O rgan isat ions . . . . . . . . . . .

E xpert Prescriber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communication Faci l i tator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prob lem-Solv ing Process Faci l i tator . . . . . . Communicat ion Techn ic ian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ro le Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annua l Salary . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I nvo lvement i n O rgan isationa l Decis ion-mak ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Communication Funct ions of PRPs in Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .

PR Writ ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Promotiona l Writ ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Customer/Management Communicat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Med in Rc lntion s . . . .. .. . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... .. . . .. . ... . Speak ing . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary and C rit ique of Previous Rcscllrch . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .

IV

18 1 8 30 30 31 32 33 33 34

34

3 5 3 5 40

36 38 40

41

Page

III M ETH O DOLOGy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Organi sationa l Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Persona l F actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . 4 5 Psychologica l Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 46

Research H ypotheses . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 50 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Sampl ing . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Data Co l lect ion Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Developrl1clll o f Inslrumcn t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 Development o f Scales for Measuring the Dependent and I ndependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Criter ia for Measur ing the Dependent Variab le . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 58 Rel i ab i l i ty of the Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 D ata Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 62 Operationa l isat ion of Var iables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Role Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Communicat ion Funct ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 Communicat ion Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Print Media Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Organ isationa l Cl imate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 Encroachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Sense o f Responsib i l ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Need for Achievement . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

IV FINDIN G S AND DiSCUSSiO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Characteristics of the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Sex, Age, Race and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 Ed ucationa l Attainment, Tra in ing and Courses Attended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 Experience in P R F ie ld and Present Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4

O rgan isationa l Type a n d Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 Role Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 Communicat ion Funct ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Communicat ion Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Print Media Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 88 Organ isationa l C l imate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Encroachment from Non-PR Department . . . . . . 9 7 Psych,Jlogica l Profile . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Testing of Hypo theses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Relationsh ip Between Communi -cat ion Functions and Role Types . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Speaking and Role Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Relationsh ip Between Communi-cation Practices, Pr int Media Exposure and Ro le Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 09

v

v

Relat ionsh ip Between O rgan i ­sat iona l C l imate ( PR Environment)

Page

and Role Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 Re lat ionsh ip Between Encroa-chment and Role Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 Re lat ionsh ip Between Organi -sat iona l Type, Size and Role Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Relationsh ip Between Age, Gender, Experience, Education and Tra in ing with Role Types . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1 1 5 Re lationship Between Psychologica l Pro f i le and Ro le Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7

SUM M ARY, CO NCLUSIO NS, IM PLICATIO N S A N D REC O M MEN DATIO N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O bjectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . The F ind ings . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conc lusions and I mp l ications . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommend ations for Further Research . . . . . . .

1 20 1 20 1 20 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 24 12 9 1 34

BIBLIO G RAPHY

APPEN D ICES

1 37

A . Questionnaire in Engl ish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 43

B. Quest ionnaire i n Bahasa Ma laysi a . . . . . . . 1 5 5 C. Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 68 D. Membersh ips o f IPR M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 72

BIO G R APHIC A L S K ETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1 74

VI

Tab le

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LIST O F TABLES

Distribut ion of Respondents From Four Types of IPRM's Membership . . . .... . .. . ... . .

Re l iab i l ity Coeffic ient of Grouped I tems . . . . . . . . . .

Distr ibut ion of Respondents by Sex, Age, Race and I ncome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribut ion of Respondents by Educat iona l Atta inment and Tra in ing Rece ived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distr ibut ion of Respondents by Exper ience . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D istribut ion of Respondents by Selected Organisationa l Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Respondents: Frequency and Percentages in Performing the 24-Roles as Sugges ted by Broo m and Smi th ( 1 979) . . . . . . . . . . .

Distr ibut ion of Respondents by Ro le Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D istr ibut ion of Respondents by Commun ication Funct ions Items

1 0 D istr ibut ion of Respondents by

Page

54

6 0

7 1

73

74

7 6

7 8

8 1

8 3

Communication Funct ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

1 1 D istr ibut ion of Respondents by Communicat ion Pract ices. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. 86

1 2 COl nmuni:::at ion Practices of the PRPs : I nteraction with the Pub l ics and with Other PRPs by Frequency and Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

1 3 Distr ibut ion of Respond ents by Read ing H abit . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9

1 4 Distribut ion o f Respondents by Rank of Three M ost I mportant Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

\' II

Table

1 5 D istr ibution of Respondents by Rank of Three Most I mportant Profess iona l!

Page

Trade Publ ications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1

1 6 D istribut ion of Respondents by Frequency and Percentage of the PR Journa ls!Newsletter Read . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

1 7 Responde nts' Perception of Their Organ isat iona l Types .... .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... 96

1 8 D istribut ion of Respondents by Organ isationa l Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 9 7

1 9 Respondents ' Perception of Extent o f E ncroachment from Non PR Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

20 D istr ibu t ion or Rospondonts by Extent of Encroachment from Non-PR Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

21 Respondents' Perception of Their Need for Achievement and Sense of Responsib i l i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 00

2 2 Psychologica l Prof i le of the PRPs: Need for Achievement and Sense of Responsib i l ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 02

23 Test of D ifferences for Standard Correlat ion Coeff ic ients Between Ro le Types and Communication Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 09

24 Test of D ifferences for Standard Correl at ion Coefficients Between Ro le Types for Communicat ion Practices and Print Media Exposure . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1

25 Test o f D i fferences for Standard Correlat ion Coeffic ients Between Role Types and Organisationa l C l imate . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3

26 Test of D ifferences for Standard Correlat ion Coeff ic ients Between Role Types and Encroachment . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . 1 1 4

VIII

Tab le

27 Test of D ifferences for Standard Correlat ion Coeffic ients Between Role Types for Organ isationa l

Page

Type and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5

2 8 Test o f D ifferences f o r Standard Correlat ion Coe ff ic ients Role Types and Selected Demographic Var iables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 16

29 Test of D ifferences for Standard Correlation Coe ff ic ients Between Role Types and Psycholog ical Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8

30 Summary of the Test of Signif icance for Standard Correlation Coeffic ients Between Role Types and Selected I ndependent Var iables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

IX

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

x

A bstract of the thesis submi tted to the Senate of Universit i Pertan ian Ma l a y s i a in p a rt i a l f u l f i l l me n t o f the r e q u i reme n t f o r t h e D e g re e of Master of Science.

CORRELATES OF PUBLIC RELATIONS PRA CTITIONERS' ROLE TYPE S IN MALAYSIA

By

LING LlONG ING

March , 1993

Cha i rman Professor D r. Sula iman Mohd . Yass in

Facu l ty Center for Extension and Cont inu ing Educat ion

The o b je c t i v e s of th i s s t u d y were (1) to dete r m i n e the r o l e

t y p e s t h a t c o u l d b e u s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e P R P s ' r o l e s i n t h e i r

o r g a n i s a t i o n s i n Ma l a y s i a a n d ( 2 ) t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s

b et w e e n s e le c te d p ers o n a l fa c t o r s , org a n i s a t i o n a l f a c to r s a nd

psycholog ica l factors with the role types that had been identif ied .

A t o t a l o f 2 0 8 n a m e s w e r e r a n d o m l y d r a w n f r o m IPR M's

m e m b e r s h i p. D a t a w a s g ath e r ed e m p l o y i n g th e m a i l q u e s t i o n naire

method . Seven hypotheses were fo r m u l a ted to be tested u s i n g a t-

test for correlated samples o f which the correlat ion coeffic ients o f the

s el e c te d i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s w e r e t r a n s f o r m e d i n to s t a n d a r d

corre l a tions or the Fishe r 's Z scores .

The study reve a l ed th a t th e two ro le ty p e s a s s u g g e s ted b y

s e v e r a l researchers c o u ld a lso be u sed to d e scr ibe the types of r o l e s

t h e P R P s in Malaysia performed . The study found that the P R P s ' ro le

XI

Abstract of the thesis submitted to the Senate of Un iversit i Pertan ian M a l a y s i a in p a rtia l f u l f i l l me n t o f the req u i re m e n t f o r t h e D e g ree o f M aster of Science.

C ORRELATES OF PUBLIC RELATIONS PRA CTITIONERS' ROLE TYPES I N MA LAYSIA

By

LING LIa NG I NG

Marc h , 1993

Chairman Professor Dr. Su la iman Mohd. Yass in

Facu lty Center for Extension and Cont inu ing Educat ion

The o bj e c t i v e s of th is study were ( 1) to d et e r m i n e the r o l e

t y p e s t h a t c o u l d b e u s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e P R P s ' r o l e s i n t h e i r

o r g a n i s a t i o n s i n M a l a y s i a a n d ( 2 ) t o d e te r m i n e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s

b e t w e e n s e l e c t e d p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s , o r g a n i s a t i o n a l f a c t o r s a n d

psycholog ica l factors with the role types tha t had been identif ied.

A t o t a l o f 2 0 8 n a m e s w e r e r a n d o m l y d r a w n f r o m I P R M ' s

m e m b e r s h i p. D at a w a s g athered e m p l o y i n g t h e m a i l q u e st i o n n a i re

method . Seven hypotheses were formu lated to be tested u s i n g a t -

test for correlated samples of which the correlat ion coeffic ients of the

s e l e c t e d i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s w e r e t r a n s f o r m e d i nt o s t a n d a r d

correlat ions or the Fisher' s Z scores.

The stu d y reve a l ed t h a t the two r o l e types as s u g g e sted by

severa l researchers c o u l d a lso be u sed to d escr ibe the types o f ro les

the PRPs i n M alaysia performed . The study found that the PRPs ' role

XI

types In M a l ay si a c o u ld be so rted i nto the c o m m u n icat ion m a n a g e r

r o l e type a n d t h e communication techn ic ian role type.

Sever a l se lected i n d e p e ndent var i ab les of the study cor re lated

s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the two r o l e types . The P R P s ' r o l e t y p e s w e r e

s i g n i f icant ly i nf luenced by ( 1 ) t h e types of c o m m u n i cat ion funct ions

they per formed such as PR wr it i n g , custo mer/management re lati o n s,

med ia re lations , and speaking , (2 ) the PRPs' communication practices

suc h as i nteraction with the publ ic and interaction with other PRPs, (3)

the o rg a n i sat iona l c l i m ate i n whi ch the PRPs w o r k , (4) the a m o u n t of

e n c roac h ment f rom othe r non PR d e p a rtment , ( 5 ) the PR Ps' ag e and

exper ience i n the PR fie ld , (6) the PRPs' psychologica l p rof i les such as

their sense of respons ib i l ity and need for achievement .

H o w e v e r, th e stu d y fai l e d to f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n

b e t w e e n s e v e ra l s e l e c t e d i n d e p e n d e n t v ar i ab l e s . N o s i g n i f i c an t

c o r re lati o n was f ou n d f or (1) the c o m mu n i cati o n fu n c ti o n o f

promotiona l writing , (2 ) amount of pr int media exposure in PR re lated

i s su e s , (3) o r g a n i sat i o n a l type a n d s i ze, a n d (4) t h e P R Ps' g e n d e r,

education , and tra in ing .

x i i

A b strak tes is yang d i k em u k a k a n kepada Senat Univers i t i Pertan i a n Mal ays ia s e b a g a i sebahag ian d a r ipada k e per l u a n u n t u k mendapatkan i jazah Master Sa ins .

FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG ME MPENGA RUHI JENIS PE RANAN PENGA MAL PE RHUBUNGAN AWA M DI MALAYSIA

Oleh

LING lI0NG ING

March, 1993

Pengerusi Profesor Dr. Sula iman Mohd . Yassin

Faku l t Pusat Pengembangan dan Pend id ikan Lanjutan

Objektif kajian in i adalah untuk (1) ll1enentukan jen is peranan

yang boleh d igunakan untuk menerang kan peranan-peranan pengamal

perhubungan awam (PPA) d alam organ isas i mereka d i M alaysia dan ( 2)

m e n e n t u k a n p e r k a ita n d i a n tara fa ktor-fa k tor per ib a d i terp i l i h , fa ktor

organisas i dan faktor-faktor ps iko log i dengan jenis-jenis peranan yang

tel ah d ikena lpast i .

Sejumlah 208 nama telah dipil i h secara rawak dar ipada ah l i-ah l i

In st i tut Perh u b u n g a n Raya Malays ia ( I P R MI. Data te lah d ik u m p u l k a n

d e n g a n m e n g g u n a k a n k a e d a h p e n g h a n t a r a a n b o r a n g k a j i s e l id ik

m e l a/u i p o s . Tuj u h hip o tesis te/a h d ik e m u k a k a n u n t u k d iu j i d e n g a n

men g g u n a k a n ujia n - t u n t u k sampe l -sampe l y a n g berk aitan d i m a n a

n i l a i kore las i d i tukar kepada n i l a i korelas i l azi m i a itu n i l a i F isher' s Z.

K aji a n i n i mcnunjuk k a n b nhnwll dUll jr.n is pcranlln scpmli ynng

d i c a d a n g k a n o l e h b e b e r a p a p e n y e l i d i k j u g a b o l e h d i g u n a k a n u n tu k

menerangkan jen is-jen is peranan yang d ima inkan oleh PPA d i Ma laysi a .

XIII

K a j i a n i n i m e n d a r a t i ha h a w a r e l ak s a n a n p e r a n a n P PA ho l ch

d i b a h a g i k a n k e r ad<l j e n i s pera n a n pe ngu rus k o m u n i k a s i d a n j en i s

peran an ju rutekn ik kOl1lun ikas i .

Beberapa ang kubah t idak bersandar terp i l ih d id apati mempunya i

k aitan bererti dengan dua jen is peranan itu . Jen is peranan PPA ada lah

je las d i p e n g a r u h i o leh (1) jen is fu ngs i k o m u n i k a s i yang d i l a k s a n a k a n

s e p e r t i p e n u l i s a n p e r h u bun g a n a w a m , p e r h u b u n g a n p e l a n g g a ni

p e n g u r u s a n , p e r h u bun ga n m e d i a, d a n s y a r a h a n , ( 2 ) k e b i a s a a n

k o m u nika s i sepert i i nteraks i d e n g a n pub l ik d a n interaks i d e n g a n l a i n ­

l a in P PA , (3) s u a s a n a o r g a n is a s i d i m a n a P PA b e k e r ja , (4)

pencerobohan d a r ipada j abatan b u k a n perh u b u n g a n awam, ( 5 ) UlTlur

d a n p e n g a l a m a n P PA d a l a m b i d a n g per h u b u n g a n a w a m , (6) p r ofi l

ps iko log i seperti rasa tanggungjawab dan keper luan untuk pencapa ian

mere k a .

Bagaim a n a p u n , k aj i a n i n i g a g a l u n t u k mempero l e h i sebarang

k a it a n bererti d i anta ra beberapa a n g k u bah tid a k bersandar terp i l i h .

T id a k a d a k a it a n b e r e r t i d i p e r o l e h i u n t u k (1) f u n g s i k o m u n i k a s i

p e n u l i s a n p r o m o s i , ( 2 ) j u ml a h p e n d ed a h a n med i a ceta k d a l a m i s u

p e rh u b u n g a n a w a m , ( 3 ) j e n i s d a n s a i z o r g a n i s a s i , (4) ja n t i n a d a n

pe ndidikan dan latihan PPA.

XIV

CHA PTER I

I NTRODUCTIO N

Background of the Study

P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s ( P R ) ef fo rts i s a n a t t e m p t t o h e l p o u r n o w

complex soci ety t o reach decis ions and functions more effect ively by

c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g a m o n g g r o u p s a n d

i nst i tuti o ns ( Awad , 1 983 ) . Thro u g h mutua l understa n d i n g , pr iv ate

and public policies can be brought into harmony in our society.

I n t h e m o d e r n t i m e s, t h e m i s s i o n s a n d f u n ct i o n s o f P R ar e

f o r e v e r b r o a d e n i n g an d beco m i n g more i m p o rtant b e ca u se o f n e w

c h a l l e n g e s t h a t a r e co n f r o n t e d b y t h e t o p m a n ag e m e n t i n

organ isat ions ( Greyser, 1 98 1 ) . I n other words , PR he lps to serve the

organi sations and groups to adapt to their chang ing times .

A c c o rd i n g t o D o w l i n g ( 1 9 9 0 ) , s i n ce P R i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e In

m o d e r n s o c i e t y, t h e m o st i m p o rtant r o l e o f t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s

p r act i t i o n e r s ( P R P s ) , i s b a s i ca l l y t o b r i n g r a t i o n a l i t y, re a s o n an d

i nteg rity i n the process of respo nd ing to evo lv ing deman d s . Whether

the f i e l d o f P R i s g o i n g to a d v a n ce o r fa l l d e p e n d s the fo l l o w i n g

( Les ly, 1 98 1 b) :

a } the performance o f the PRPs themselves in the f ie ld ,

b } h o w a r e t h e n e w p r act i t i o n e r s b e i n g e d u c a t e d an d

t r a i n e d ,

2

c ) h o w is t h e f i e l d p e r c e i v e d b y o t h e r s w h o n e e d i t s

services, and

d) how the f ie ld adapts i tse lf to the mult ip le demands of the

emerg ing era .

S ince the m iss ion of PR i s bro a d e n i n g , i t a lso m e a n s that the

f ie ld of PR would entai l new roles, require more capabi l it ies and i s in

need o f a more v igorous educat io n a l syste m . I n t h i s e r a o f c h a n ge,

t i m e a n d c i rc u mstances c a n both mean great opportun ity as wel l as

d a n ger to the PR f ie ld ( G reyser, 1 98 1 ) . Hence the P R Ps must often

t h i n k of w a y s to s u r v iv e, g r o w and e x c e l u n d e r the b ro a d r a n g e o f

n e w demands in modern society.

P R i s n o w a t a c r i t i c a l j u n ct i o n ( B a t e s , 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e t i d e o f

c h an ge c a n e i ther br ing i t to n e w he i ghts or be doomed . But , for the

p a st t w e n ty y e a r s , there were st i l l a r g u m e n t s on t h e s c o p e o f the

r o l e s a n d f u n c t i o n s t h a t s h o u l d be p e r f o r m e d by a P R P i n a n

organ isat ion ( Cu lbersto n , 198 5 ) . For example, are the PRPs supposed

t o b e m e r e l y w r i t i n g, e d i t i n g a n d m e s s a ge - p r o d u c t i o n s p e c i a l i s ts?

S h o u l d t h e y a l s o h e l p s e t p o l i c y and i n t e r p r e t the c l i e n t ' s s o c i a l ,

p o l it i c a l , economic and geograph ica l co ntexts? Are PR departments

c o n cerned on ly with speak ing to the pub l i cs ? O r d o the i r ro les a l so

inc lude l i stening to and interpret ing what the publ ics sa id?

Researchers today have invested great effort in researching the

r o l e t y p e s o f P R P s - e s p e c i a l l y t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e

c o m m u n i c at io n managers and commun i cat ion tech n i c i a n s . A lth o u gh

most researc h e rs a rgued that both ro le types have va lue i n P R , they

3

a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e s e n i o r p e r s o n i n a P R d e p a rt m e n t s h o u l d

p r e f e r a b l y b e a m a n a g e r f o r t h a t d e p a rt m e n t t o c o n t r i b u t e t o

organisat iona l effec tiveness ( Grun ig , 1 99 1 ) .

A c c o rd i n g l y, t h e r o l e s o f P R s h o u l d in v o l v e t h e fu l l b r o a d

spectrum of what it encompasses and should a lso be involved at the

h i g h e st l e v e l of d e c isio n-m a k in g in o r g a n i s atio n s . H o wever, m a n y

PRPs on ly perform specia l ised functions prescribed to them b y the top

m a n a g e m e nt p e o p l e. In o t h e r word , t h e y a re o n l y p e rf o rm in g t h e

c o m m u n i c a t i o n t e c h n i c i a n r o l e t y p e . T h i s i s n o t a h e a l th y s i gn

b e c a u s e PR s h o u l d a l s o be a m a n a g e m e n t f u n ctio n a p a rt f ro m a

techn ica l function .

I t i s not uncommon that P R is sti l l posit ioned in the organ isat ion

s t r u c t u r e of m a n y f i r m s u n d e r o t h e r d e p a r t m e n ts l i k e m a rket in g ,

advertising , o r finance. If the PR field i s stil l often perceived by others

in the organisat ion as being subord inate to such departments, then the

chance of a P R P to ach ieve acceptance as top manager is pro b a b ly

very m u c h d o u bted . Dilensch neid er ( 1990) a l so agreed with Bates

( 1 984) that in the flew era o f the 1 9 90s, i t w i l l be a make-or-break

t i m e fo r t h e PR p r o f e s s i o n b e c a u s e b y n o w the P RPs t h e m s e l v e s

should th ink of their profession as a serious bus iness function , rather

t helll ns n m ere nrlr.r thought nrtr.r nil Ihr. mnjor orgnn i snl io n n l

dec is ions have been made by the top management peop le.

Leuven ( 1 9 8 9 ) had i n d i c ated that there wo u l d be i ncreasin g l y

f re q u e n t a l i g n ment o f PR activ i t ies with oth er departments s u c h a s

marketing , h u man resources, personnel and communications toward

the year 2000 . Every day, PRPs have to interact with professiona ls i n

4

o t h e r f i e l d s s i n c e n o o r g a n i s a t i o n f u n c t i o n c a n e x i s t i n i s o l a t i o n .

S o m e t i m e s t h i s i n t e r a ct i o n o c c u r s d u e t o s h a re d o r g a n i s a t i o n a l

reso u rc e s o r s o m e t i me s d u e t o sh ared o r g a n i sat i o n a l g o a l s . A n d

accord ing t o h i m , when two organisationa l functions overlap i n terms

o f g o a l s , s k i l l s a n d t a s k s , o n e f u n c t i o n i s o ft e n c o n s i d e re d t o b e

substitutab le for the other. And the problem with P R i s th at i t i s often

thought of as being substitutable to other more estab l i shed d isc ip l ines

as l isted above.

G ray ( 1 990) , ho wever, was co ncerned that the PR p rofess i o n

m i g ht b e c a u g h t u n prepared for t h e c h a l l enges o f t h e 1 9 90s . She

reiterates:

. . . a p a rt f r o m t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n 1 s p e rc e p t i o n of PR a s occupy ing a second ary leve l o f m a n agement , the PRPs t h e m s e l v e s h a v e t o t a k e s o m e b l a m e f o r t h i s l a c k o f reco g n itio n fo r the professi o n . In a d iscipline in whic h p e o p l e a n d t h e i r t a l e n t s a r e t h e o n l y t r u e c a p i ta l , PR appears to be d angerously unprepared for the cha l lenges .

T h e r e a s o n P R is o ft e n t h o u g h t o f a s a s e c o n d le v e l o f

m a n agement might b e d u e t o the fact that P R has a lways had troub le

d e f i n i n g i tse l f over the years ( Fr ied m a n , 1 990) . The PRPs have al so

b e e n t a l k i n g a b o u t profess i o n a l i s m for at l e ast a century (Ja c k son ,

1 9 8 8 ) . S o i t i s i n d e e d t i m e for the P R P s t o sto p, t h i n k a n d a s s e s s

Lhe ir ro le s c leurly ( l3olftke, 1 9 90) . Tl1i ::-; C,III help Lo reduce or ,lvoid IIH!

i nc r e a s i n g aggress ive movement ( e ncroachment ) of m a rket ing, legal ,

p e r s o n n e l , a n d h u m a n r e s o u r c e s d e p a rtm e n t s i n t o P R a c t i v i t i e s

( La uzen, 1 99 1 ) .

5

S i m i l a r l y, L a u ze n ( 1 9 9 1 ) t h o u gh t t h a t t h e r o o t of th is

e n c r o a c h m e n t m i gh t be t r a c e d b a c k t o the la c k of w e l l-d efine d

commun icat ion functions and roles of the PRPs themselves . In many

o r ga n i s a t i o n s i n c l u d i ng t h o s e of M a l a y s i a , the a b s e n c e o f a c l e a r

d e fi n i t ion o f PR prec ludes a serio u s turf war and PR usua l ly l oses out

because of the lack of boundaries .

F urthermo re, the m a n agement o f o rgan isati o n s st i l l fee ls that

a n y o n e ca n do P R wi th the a s s u m p t i o n that i t r e q u i re s li ttle f o r m a l

e d ucat ion and c o m m o n sk i l l s . Indeed many stu d i e s have i n d icated

th at a great number o f PRPs themselves are not professional ly tra ined

a n d possess few formal spec i a l i sed s k i l l s ( Lauzen , 1 9 9 1 ) . There is

l itt le po int in d iscussing professional status of PR i f the practices and

r o l e s c a n n o t b e d e f i n ed c l e a r l y. To d ate, t h e re h a v e b e e n q u i te a

n u mber of researches done on the PRPs' role types particular ly those

d o n e b y B r o o m a n d S m i t h ( 1 9 7 9 ) , B r o o m ( 1 9 8 2 ) , D o z i e r, ( 1 9 8 3 ) ,

Brody, ( 1 9 85 ) , Cottone et ill. , ( 1 98 5 ) , Culbcrston , ( 1 985) , Schneider,

( 1 9 8 5 ) , Acharya , ( 1 985) and Reagan et 9J. , ( 1 990) .

Accord i n g to some of these researchers , the P R Ps themselves

l a c k the ed ucat iona l b a c kgro und necessary to funct ion a s corporate

l e a d e r s . As a r e s u l t of th i s l a c k of t r a i n i n g, t h e P R P s f r e q u e n t l y

p e rce ived themselves a n d are perceived by others a s f u l f i l l i n g h ighly

su bstitutab le and technica l roles. In some cases, the PR functions are

a l r e a d y s u b s u m e d by t h e l a r ge r a n d m o r e p o w e r f u l m a r k e t i n g

function s ( Broo m and Tucker, 1 989) .

6

To q u o t e Wo l t e r a nd M i l e s ( 1 9 8 3 ) , t o d a y m a ny p e o p l e

p e rfo r m i n g a w i d e v a r i ety o f c o m m u ni c a t i o n f u nc t i o ns a r e c a l l e d

P R c o u n s e l o r s , p u b l i c a f f a i r s c o o r d i n a t o r s , c o r p o r a t e

c o m m u n i c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s , c o m m u ni t y r e l a t i o ns d i r e c t o r s , P R

d i r e c t o r s , i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s , m e d i a l i a i s o n o f f i c e r s ,

p r e s s s e c r e t a r i e s , a n d t h e l i k e . To Wo l t e r a n d M i l e s ( 1 9 8 3 ) ,

t h e s e m a n y t i t l e s a nd p r e t e ns i o n s o f P R no t o nl y r e f l e c t

c o n f u s i o n a nd m i s u nd e r s t a nd i n g a m o n g t h e p r a c t i t i o ne r s , t h e i r

organ isations , their cr itics , but a lso the general pub l ic.

B r o o m a nd Tu c k e r ( 1 9 8 9 ) h a d a l s o w r i t t e n t h a t t h e

b o u n d a r i e s between PR and m a r k et ing c o nt inu e s to b l u r. I n m a n y

c a s e s , P R f i rms a n d departments d o m arket ing c o m m u n i c at i o n a n d

m a r k e t i n g P R w h i l e a d v e r t i s i ng a g e nc i e s a nd m a r k e t i n g

d e p a r t m e nt s o ff e r P R s e rv i c e s . M a ny C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O ff i c e r s

( C E O s ) e v e n h a d t h e m i s c o nc e p t i o n t h a t t h e t w o f u nc t i o ns a re

just d i fferent techni ques for achieving the same a im .

To r e d u c e t h i s c o nf l i c t o f m a r k e t i ng a nd P R , H a r r i s ( 1 9 9 1 )

p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e i d e a l s o l u t i o n w o u l d b e t o m a i nt a i n a c l o s e

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t w o d i s c i p l i n e s , n a m e l y, m a r k et i ng a n d

P R o T h i s i s d o ne no t o nl y b e c a u s e o f t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f

e x p e r i e nc e a n d s k i l l s , b u t a l s o b e c a u s e o f t h e ne e d t o

i ntegrate marketing objectives with corporate o bjectives .

A n o t h e r p o s s i b l e r e a s o n for the a l i g n m e n t or s u b s u m a t i o n

o f P R d e p a rt mcn t s wi til other m o r e e s t a b l i s h e d d e p a rtmcn ts co u l d

b e t h a t t h e P R P s m a y no t b e d o i ng e no u g h t o s e l l th e i r

7

s t r e n g t h s ( S h e l l , 1 9 9 1 ) . Le s l y ( 1 9 8 1 b ) f e l t t h a t P R h a s n o t

f o l l o w e d i t s o w n p r e c e pt s b e c a u s e i t l a g s b e h i n d t h e e vo l u tio n

o f o u r s o c i e t y . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e P R f i e l d h a s n o t g r o w n

i n t e l li g e n t l y b y a s s e s s i n g t h e r o l e i t s p r a c t i t i o n e r s c a n f i ll

or def in ing the means to f i l l i t .

Le s l y ( 1 9 8 1 a) h a d a l s o r e p o rted th a t t h e r e a l s o h a v e b e e n

e m p h a s i s a m o n g th e e m p l o y e r s a n d c l i e n t s o n v i sib l e r e s u l ts

d e m a n d i n g measurab i l i ty and tang i b i l i ty ( m a n agement by object ives) .

S o m et imes it seems that PR i s c ontrad icti n g the organ isati o n a l g oals

because the growing complex ity of P R ' s cha l lenges has ca l led to focus

o n less tang ib le funct ions such as bu i ld ing up the organ isationa l image

in the long run . And so, accord i n g to Les ly ( 1 9 8 1 a ) , th is c leavage

part ia l ly accounts for the tendency of some managements to let other

s e n i o r m a n agement minded people from other d is c i p l i n e s to m a n a g e

t h e function , rather than t o accept the PR people in their ro les .

T h e r e i s a l s o a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n the o r i e n t a t i o n of m a n y

m a n ag e me n t e x e c u ti v e s a n d the r o l e s that P R Ps s h o u l d f i l l ( Le sly,

1 9 8 1 b ) . D u n h a m ( 1 9 8 4 ) c o n s i d e r e d th i s ty p e o f d i f f e re n t o r

conf l ict ing expectations as intrarole conflict. For example, most of the

managements are strongly or iented toward ear ly resu lts and immediate

m e a s u re ments par t i c u l ar ly in corporat ions where th e pressure is o n

each department' s f inanc ia l results . Accord ing t o Lesly (198 1 b ) , th is

a g a i n p u ts a b u rden on PR's ab i l i ty to ga in acceptance because PR

ant ic i pate and shape what i s deve l o p i n g , n o t to report or cope w i th

what has a lready been determined . I t is usual ly too late for PR by the

8

t i m e a n org a n i sat i o n i s confronted with attitudes o f its p u b l i c s . Yet

m a n y C E O s h a v e f a i l e d to s e e t h e l o n g -t e rm b e n e f i t s o f t h e P R

pro g rammes .

To conc lude, to change others ' att i tudes, the PRPs must f i rst

e xa m i n e t h e m s e l ve s . T h e q u e s t i o n n o w i s n o t w h et h er P R i s a

profess ion or vocation, as Jackson ( 1 985) had sa id:

. . . t h a t do the P RPs t h e m s e l ve s tru l y b e l ieve that t h is fie l d h a s a n underly ing body o f knowledge based i n the behaviora l sciences or the humanit ies, do they know the science of PR, and are they ab le to apply it to their work ?

Th is research was conducted to f ind o u t what were the types

o f ro l e performed b y the PRPs i n the org an isat io n s i n M a l ays ia and

what were the possib le factors that might corre late with the two rol e

types a s d eve loped by Broom and Smith ( 1 9 7 9 ) . I t was the a im of

t h i s re s e arc h to s h ed some l i g ht for the f ie ld o f P R i n M a l a y s i a to

acqu i re the n ec e s s ary k n o w l e d g e and s k i l l s n ee d e d to stand as a

p ro f e s s i o n a n d h e n c e t o a vo i d e n c ro a c h m e n t b y o t h e r m o re

estab l i shed fie l d s l i ke market ing , commun icat io n , advert i s ing , h u m a n

resourc e management, personnel , l e g a l a n d s o o n b y def in ing clearl y

t h e ro l e types o f t h e PRPs a n d t h e factors t h a t m i g h t inf luence the i r

rol e types.

Statement of Problem

Previ o u s l y, most of the research o n PR was des igned e i ther to

advance the profession or to improve the pub l ic ' s understanding of PR

i n s o c i e ty . T h e s c h o l a r s c o n d u c t i n g re s e a rc h on P R h a d b e e n