Public Relations Role of School Leaders Peer Reviewed Articles

Writer

• Juan Meng, University of Georgia

Introduction

Organizations are operating in environments characterized by rapid change and increasing communication complexity. Thus, the development and education of communication leaders who are able to navigate and respond effectively and strategically in such dynamic environments has become equally critical for organizations. Equally a event, the implications for integrating leadership education, training, and development into public relations curriculum are profound. If nosotros, every bit educators, tin can enhance both communication skills and leadership development for public relations majors, our graduates will exist able to develop a sustainable competitive reward and provide long-term value to organizations. Although the profession has advocated for leveraging the roles of public relations to a managerial and strategic level, the bodily effort in building up the pipeline of time to come leaders in the profession is delayed. In college education, at that place is a remarkable scarcity in designing, integrating, and delivering leadership in public relations teaching and teaching.

Therefore, this study uses a twin-survey to compare the perceptions of disquisitional leadership dimensions in effective public relations practice between two groups (current leaders vs. future leaders). The purpose of this comparative research is trifold. First, it compares the level of agreement and/or disagreement on previously established leadership dimensions (Meng & Berger, 2013) between senior public relations executives (current leaders) and public relations majors (future leaders) in the U.S. to determine gaps. 2nd, identified perceptual gaps between the 2 groups may suggest potential pedagogical utility of leadership development in public relations education. Finally, the study aims to generate a give-and-take among public relations educators regarding how nosotros can integrate leadership initiatives into public relations education.

Literature Review

Recently, the topic of public relations leadership has received significant attention. A plethora of research in leadership in public relations practice has focused on how public relations practitioners could utilize unlike aspects/streams of leadership skills and behaviors (i.eastward., strategic decision making, ethical leadership, emotional leadership, and transformational leadership) to better the effectiveness and organization-wide influence of public relations do, with its roots in excellence inquiry in public relations, managerial leadership research, and organizational communication studies (due east.g., Berger, Reber, & Heyman, 2007; Jin, 2010; Lee & Cheng, 2011; Meng & Berger, 2013; Shin, Heath, & Lee, 2011; Werder & Holtzhausen, 2009).

Although existing research has investigated critical concepts related to public relations leadership, such equally managerial role enactment, gender role, preferred leadership styles in crunch, effective behavioral factors, individual traits, and dimensions of first-class public relations leadership from the perspectives of public relations practitioners, only a few studies have addressed public relations majors' perceptions (Erzikova & Berger, 2011) or take considered revamping a core public relations course by integrating leadership grooming (Neff, 2002). Other issues, such as investigating the well-nigh important skills, sources to learn leadership skill sets, and areas where nosotros can help students, are however unresolved. Therefore, this report extends previous enquiry on public relations leadership and compares the perceptual gaps in leadership dimensions between ii groups with the ultimate goal of discussing potential pedagogical implications. One leading research question is proposed:

RQ: Do significant differences exist between senior public relations practitioners and students majoring in public relations regarding their perceptions of critical dimensions of leadership in public relations?

Research Method

Research design and sample

This study used a purposive sampling strategy to recruit respondents from two separate populations: senior public relations executives (electric current leaders), and public relations students in an upper-division standing (futurity leaders). Specifically, an online twin-survey was conducted.

Survey instrument

The writer adopted the same survey musical instrument from Meng and Berger'south (2013) study although the wording of statements was geared toward the understanding from the students' point of view. The descriptive/demographic department was also revised to capture the student sample'due south features. A complete list of items is presented in Tabular array 1. Student respondents were asked to rate on a vii-point calibration how unimportant/important or helpful/unhelpful they found each of the items. The second role of the questionnaire gathered profile/demographic information.

Method of analysis

Two split up models were created, each with the respondent designation (current leaders vs. futurity leaders) beingness independent variables and each of the six split up leadership dimensions serving every bit the dependents (see Table 1). The one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used every bit at that place are multiple dependent variables correlated with each other.

Results

Respondent profiles

Overall, the "current leader" group consisted of 222 senior public relations executives nationwide. The recruitment procedure was achieved through Heyman Associates, Inc, a senior PR executive search firm in New York City. The majority of online survey participants are key organizational informants by residing every bit senior leaders in communications in the organization. They accept been working in the field of public relations/communication for more fifteen years (north = 170, 76.58%). The descriptive data indicated that 40.1% of the sample were male (n=89), and 59.nine% were female (n=133). Most of them work for public corporations (north=83, 37.40%), private corporations (n=43, nineteen.40%), or public relations agencies (n=39, 17.60%). Most in the sample were Caucasians (89.2%), with African Americans and Hispanics comprising the next ii largest groups (three.6% respectively).

The comparative "hereafter leader" grouping consisted of 226 public relations majors property an upper-division standing in the U.Southward., including 54 from the private academy and 172 from two public universities. The final sample consists of 44 male students (19.five%) and 182 female students (lxxx.5%). The average age of students was 21.86. For ethnic backgrounds, the largest category was Caucasians (91.2% or n = 206), followed past African Americans (four.nine% or n = eleven), Asians (2.2% or north = 5), and Hispanics (one.8% or n = iv). A big percentage of the surveyed students were seniors (72.i% or north = 163) and 27.9% were juniors (n = 63).

RQ: Perceptions of importance of leadership dimensions

Tabular array 1 provides the results of all means difference testing. Equally depicted in the table, differences were found for all seven leadership dimensions (run across Table 1). For each of the significant differences tests, additional means comparisons and item-level ANOVA tests were undertaken to sympathise the nature of the differences between the 2 groups. Since there are only two groups compared in all models, post hoc tests are non performed. Using Wilks'south statistic, Wilks'southward Λ = .831, F (vii, 440) = 12.74, p = .000, the only meaning perceptual deviation between the ii groups existed on two of the vii leadership dimensions: squad collaboration and communication knowledge management capability. Separate univariate ANOVAs were carried out as the follow-up tests on the outcome variables at the item-level. The results revealed that several more than specific skills, behaviors, and qualities were plant to exist salient to public relations students. A breakdown of group differences at the dimension- and item-levels is presented in the following paragraphs.

Table 1

Summary of Means Comparisons at the Dimension- and Particular-levels

	Dimension-Level/Item-Level Means(Standard Means)		Dimension-Level Multivariate/Univariate Results
Leadership Dimensions/Items	Senior PR Executives (n = 222)	PRMajors(northward = 226)	F Ratio	p a
List of dimensions/measuring items
Self-dynamics	68.14 (half dozen.19)	67.72 (6.xvi)	.49	.483
Be undecayed	6.35	six.55	five.55	.019
Be proactive	6.47	6.26	7.49	.006
Appoint in decision-making	6.27	6.twenty	.69	.407
Act as a changing agent	6.xvi	6.08	.88	.348
Apply various strategies	5.69	v.72	.08	.779
Be forward looking	vi.23	half dozen.09	3.25	.072
Vision PR as a managerial function	5.85	5.85	.00	.985
Enlist others in shared vision	v.95	6.13	4.88	.028
Predict potential changes	6.40	half-dozen.35	.34	.56
Provide a vision about PR value	6.42	six.23	5.xl	.021
Align PR goals with system goals	six.35	6.26	1.30	.256
Team Collaboration	xxx.26 (6.05)	31.02 (6.20)	5.00	.026
Define PR strategies with members	half-dozen.13	6.32	5.76	.017
Develop a proactive team	6.35	six.39	.42	.519
Facilitate positive interdependence	5.79	half-dozen.05	viii.02	.005
Bring diverse groups together	5.82	six.06	half dozen.54	.011
Inspire other members	six.18	6.xix	.00	.951
Ethical Orientation	31.92 (6.28)	31.92 (six.38)	.00	.996
Maintain professional standards	6.50	6.54	.39	.534
Integrate core values into actions	6.41	6.54	3.18	.075
Correct erroneous communications promptly	half dozen.55	6.38	6.43	.012
Represent consistent behaviors	6.46	half dozen.29	5.36	.021
Sympathize cultural ethical differences	vi.00	six.18	3.22	.074
Relationship Building	49.42 (6.xviii)	50.thirteen (6.27)	2.61	.107
Foster trust with organizational leaders	v.94	5.85	1.08	.299
Develop coalitions	6.61	6.45	5.23	.023
Mentor and help professionals achieve success	6.59	half-dozen.xvi	29.55	.000
Provide advice and counsel to executives	5.59	5.92	9.23	.003
Provide regular briefs about PR programs	5.58	6.07	25.91	.000
Cultivate human relationship with external publics	6.24	6.49	10.28	.001
Foster trust with media representatives	six.45	6.61	v.32	.022
Understand the needs for key publics	6.43	6.59	five.13	.024
Strategic Decision-Making Capability	25.15 (six.29)	25.15 (6.29)	.00	.992
Interpret information from publics to organizational decision makers	half-dozen.17	6.28	1.75	.187
Know system's business and surroundings	vi.27	6.35	1.02	.314
Know organization's decision-making procedure	vi.25	half dozen.25	.000	1.00
Exist a fellow member of strategic controlling teams	six.47	6.27	5.69	.018
Advice Knowledge Management	47.64 (5.96)	50.51 (6.31)	33.16	.000
Apply PR cognition to crises	5.78	6.32	36.57	.000
Evaluate communication programs to amend	six.02	6.30	xi.57	.001
Obtain sufficient resources to back up efforts	6.42	6.53	2.eleven	.147
Use media knowledge to communication better	5.95	6.28	fourteen.30	.000
Employ new technologies to interact with publics	v.58	6.17	36.03	.000
Know how to employ research to develop strategies	6.00	6.xvi	3.47	.063
Know how to use inquiry to solve problems	6.04	6.39	xx.28	.000
Convert cognition about publics and policies into effective advocacy	5.86	6.36	30.99	.000
Supportive Organizational Culture	36.49 (six.08)	37.09 (6.18)	two.45	.118
Share a common reporting relationship	v.69	5.95	5.65	.018
Supports open up communications	6.26	half-dozen.42	4.16	.042
Value public relations efforts	6.55	half dozen.40	3.62	.058
Have access to organizational leaders	vi.54	half-dozen.36	5.77	.017
Report straight to organizational leaders	5.98	5.92	.29	.589
Value and do diversity	5.48	6.03	21.54	.000

Annotation. a. Significance in boldface.

i. The dimension of self-dynamics: No departure was identified at the dimension level.
a. Students institute being dependable (Meandiff. = .20; p = .02) and enlisting others in a shared vision (Meandiff. = .18; p = .03) more important;
b. Students constitute being proactive (Meandiff. = -.21; p = .01) and being able to provide a vision about PR value (Meandiff. = -.19; p = .02) less important.
two. The dimension of team collaboration: Students plant this dimension more important than did practitioners (Meandiff. = .76; p = .03).
a. At the particular-level, students plant three items: to define PR strategies with team members (Meandiff. = .19; p = .02), to facilitate positive interdependence (Meandiff. = .26; p = .01), and to bring various groups together (Meandiff. = .24; p = .01) more important.
three. The dimension of ethical orientation: No difference was identified.
a. However, students showed lower perceptions on 2 items: to correct erroneous communications promptly (Meandiff. = -.17; p = .01) and to represent consistent behaviors (Meandiff. = -.17; p = .02).
4. The dimension of relationship building: No departure was identified.
a. At the item-level, students generally rated private items higher than did practitioners except for ane item: to mentor and help young professionals achieve success (Meandiff. = -.43; p = .00);
b. Students rated two items: to provide regular briefs about PR programs (Meandiff. = .49; p = .00) and to cultivate relationships with external publics (Meandiff. = .25; p = .00) equally very of import, compared to practitioners.
v. The dimension of strategic decision-making capability: No difference was identified at the dimension level.
a. At the item-level, practitioners constitute being a fellow member of strategic controlling teams more of import (Meandiff. = .20; p = .02).
half-dozen. The dimension of communication knowledge management capability: Students found this dimension more important than did practitioners (Meandiff. = 2.87; p = .00).
a. Students generally gave all eight items higher ratings than did practitioners, and at that place are four items which accept been perceived as very important among pupil respondents: to employ PR cognition to crises (Meandiff. = .54; p = .00), to utilize new technologies to interact with publics (Meandiff. = .59; p = .00), to know how to use research to solve issues (Meandiff. = .35; p = .00), and to convert knowledge about publics and policies into effective advocacy (Meandiff. = .50; p = .00).
7. The dimension of organizational culture: No difference was establish.
a. Students generally rated individual items higher than did practitioners except for i item: to accept access to organizational leaders (Meandiff. = -.18; p = .02);
b. Students perceived three items significantly more helpful than did practitioners: to share a common reporting relationship (Meandiff. = .26; p = .02), to back up and enourage open communications (Meandiff. = .16; p = .04), and to work in an organization that values and practices variety (Meandiff. = .55; p = .00).

In short, group differences found and depicted in Table 1 provide important information for understanding both dimension-level and item-level perceptual differences that may aid non only public relations students in building their own standards of effective leadership, but also aid public relations educators in revising and updating curriculum by integrating leadership grooming.

Conclusion

To meliorate understanding and provide learning experiences that will assist public relations students develop leadership skill sets and enhance their opportunities to be successful in the increasingly competitive work environment, the significance of this written report is trifold. First, the report seeks to assess leadership perceptions held by both senior practitioners and students in the upper-sectionalisation regarding critical leadership dimensions. 2nd, this study compares the levels of agreement on various factors (public relations leadership dimensions) between the 2 groups that will help determine gaps and areas of potential enhancement. Past including the perceptions of students, it can help us proceeds a sense of what public relations students believe to exist of import in the self-actualization process every bit futurity leaders, thereby providing perspective on whether we should focus on those aspects of their public relations education that will best position them. Finally, the study aims to provide recommendations for educators to gear up students for the increasingly competitive job market and provide public relations majors with a sustainable competitive advantage in a rapidly irresolute profession and information society.
Group differences and similarities in leadership perceptions institute and depicted in Table ane provide a general picture for understanding aspects that may aid public relations students in building their ain leadership skill sets and sustainable competitive advantage. At the model level, the promising news is that the very basic desired leadership dimensions have not inverse significantly if compared to senior public relations executives. At the individual item level, a closer inspection really reflected the perceptual gaps on certain skills and qualities, which further reflect a potential opportunity for public relations educators engaging students in those relatively weak areas. Such results may exist indicative that these behaviors and weather condition are leadership qualities that are more obviously invaluable in the profession that public relations majors are not fully aware of. This finding is noteworthy and educators should continue their efforts in providing students with a competitive advantage by incorporating and addressing ethical considerations, proactive nature, and strategic decision making issues (Benn, Todd, & Pendleton, 2010; Neff, 2002).
Pedagogical Recommendations
The results yielded in this study offering some insights for public relations educators to teach, discuss, and appraise leadership learning related issues in undergraduate public relations education specific to today'due south marketplace environment. The results can exist pedagogically used in many ways, including the following:

As a leadership training situation checklist designed to summarize major leadership qualities, skills, behaviors, traits that take been valued by the profession and provide a foundation for discussing how to apply those leadership principles in each unique public relations or advice situation.
Every bit an cess tool given either before and/or after the presentation of a cadre undergraduate public relations course, such equally public relations planning and management, instance studies, and crunch communication.
As the basis for a leadership-related research assignment in which students research and write an analytical study regarding "existent-world" situations that mirror the springboard'southward leadership situations/scenarios.
As the basis for strategic planning and/or upstanding and/or crunch role play assignment in which students role play and discuss the public relations scenarios and what leadership skills and/or behaviors should be applied.
Every bit a set of assessment metrics to be applied to relevant supervised public relations experience in helping students monitor, re-check, and revise their perceptions and behaviors near initiatives, leading roles, and effective communication.

References
Benn, Southward., Todd, L., & Pendleton, J. (2010). Public relations leadership in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 403-423.
Berger, B. 1000., Reber, B. H., & Heyman, Westward. C. (2007). You can't homogenize success in communication management: PR leaders take diverse paths to top. International Journal of Strategic Communication, ane, 53-71.
Erzikova, E., & Berger, B. K. (2011). Creativity vs. ideals: Russian and U.S. public relations students' perceptions of professional leadership and leaders. Public Relations Journal, 5(3). Available online at: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Documents/2011ErzikovaBerger.pdf.
Jin, Y. (2010). Emotional leadership every bit a key dimension of public relations leadership: A national survey of public relations leaders. Journal of Public Relations Enquiry, 22, 159-181.
Lee, S. T., & Cheng, I.-H. (2010). Characteristics and dimensions of ethical leadership in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Enquiry, 23, 46-74.
Meng, J., & Berger, B. 1000. (2013). An integrated model of splendid leadership in public relations: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Journal of Public Relations Inquiry, 25, 141-167.
Neff, B. D. (2002). Integrating leadership processes: Redefining the principles course. Public Relations Review, 28, 137-147.
Shin, J.-H., Heath, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). A contingency explanation of public relations practitioner leadership style: Situation and civilization. Periodical of Public Relations Research, 23, 167-190.
Werder, K. P., & Holtzhausen, D. (2009). An analysis of the influence of public relations department leadership style on public relations strategy apply and effectiveness. Journal of Public Relations Inquiry, 21, 404-427.

Volume 1, Issue 1, August 2015
A publication of the Public Relations Partition of AEJMC
© Copyright 2015 AEJMC Public Relations Division

arringtonposeept.blogspot.com

Source: https://aejmc.us/jpre/2015/08/04/integrating-leadership-in-public-relations-education-to-develop-future-leaders/

Share this post