Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(4):404427, 2009 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1062-726X print=1532-754X

online DOI: 10.1080/10627260902966391

An Analysis of the Influence of Public Relations Department Leadership Style on Public Relations Strategy Use and Effectiveness
Kelly Page Werder
School of Mass Communications, University of South Florida

Derina Holtzhausen
School of Journalism and Broadcasting, Oklahoma State University

A survey of Public Relations Society of America members (N 885) suggests that 2 leadership styles are present in public relations environments. Inclusive leaders are collaborative, share decision making, and engage in participative practices. Transformational leaders have a clear vision for the future, motivate change, are good policy makers, inspire others through communication, and are innovative risk takers. Results indicate that inclusive leadership style is positively related to use of facilitative and cooperative problem solving strategies and effectiveness of informative and facilitative strategies. Transformational leadership style is positively related to use of power strategies and effectiveness of persuasive and cooperative problem solving strategies.

In todays uncertain, complex, and changing business environment, effective leadership is a key to achieving organizational goals. Despite the importance of leadership to the study and practice of public relations, it is an area of scholarship that has received little attention. As a result, public relations

This research was funded by a grant from the Plank Center for Leadership in Public Relations. Correspondence should be addressed to Kelly Page Werder, School of Mass Communications, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CIS1040, Tampa, FL 33260-7800. E-mail: kgpage@cas.usf.edu

404

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

405

scholars have minimal knowledge of how leadership presents itself in practice, how leadership styles in public relations compare to those of other disciplines, and how leadership styles affect other aspects of public relations practice. As public relations strives to gain the stature and respect other organizational disciplines enjoy, this level of scrutiny is important. This study seeks to further theory-driven research in public relations by examining the relationship between perceived department leadership styles and public relations strategy use and effectiveness.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Leadership is one of the most widely researched phenomena in the social sciences (Lipshitz & Mann, 2005). In addition to providing vision and motivation, leaders play a central role in creating and sharing organizational knowledge (Bryant, 2003). Although organizational leadership is well researched in the disciplines of management, business, and marketing, there is no strong scholarly discourse on leadership in public relations (Aldoory & Toth, 2004, p. 157). The literature provides many definitions and theoretical approaches to leadership studies. Northouse (2007) identified process, influence, group activity, and goal attainment as the four components of leadership, supporting McWhinneys (1997) contention that leadership is the process by which influencers and change makers affect a population. Much leadership theory focuses on style, particularly transactional and transformational leadership styles, which has provided a foundation for the study of leadership among disciplines during the last 2 decades (McWhinney, 1997; Vance & Larson, 2002). Leadership Style Transactional leaders exchange something valued with their followers to achieve consistent performance that meets agreed upon goals (Bryant, 2003, p. 37). The main components of transactional leadership, also called authoritative leadership, are rewards for meeting expectations or aversive reinforcement for poor performance (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 2000; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Due to the impersonal leaderfollower relationship, workers only do what is expected of them (Bryant, 2003; Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997). Transactional leaders use organizational bureaucracy, culture, standards, policy, power, and authority to maintain control. They are influential because it is in the best interest of followers to do what the leader wants (Davidhizer & Shearer, 1997; Kellerman, 1984; King, 1994; Northouse, 2007; Tracey & Hinkin,

406

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

1998); however, this makes these leaders risk averse (Mink, 1992). Thus, they are most effective in stable environments and are unlikely to produce change because they do not reward ideas that are incompatible with existing plans and goals (Bryant, 2003; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Schuster, 1994). In contrast to transactional leadership, which is based on an economic transaction, transformational leadership is a social exchange based on relationships. Transformational leaders are change agents (Eisenberg, Goodall, & Tretheway, 2007) whose actions influence others and who are also then changed (Vance & Larson, 2002, p. 166). Their deeply held beliefs of integrity and justice play an important role in uniting followers and changing their goals and beliefs because there is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Transformational leaders appeal to followers ideals and moral values, define a vision for the future, and are credible. They are innovative, charismatic, and accomplish goals by motivating people to a higher standard than that of their own self-interest, for the good of the group or organization. Other qualities of transformational leaders are self-confidence and inner strength to stand up for what they believe is right and good (Bass, 1985, 2000; Davidhizer & Shearer, 1997; King, 1994; Northouse, 2007; Schuster, 1994; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998). Effective transformational leadership requires competent communication, which consists of careful transmission of messages, openness, dialogue, frankness, careful listening, and informality (Bass, 2000; Klauss & Bass, 1982). In fact, new perspectives on leadership view communicative ability as the most important attribute of a leader and argue for communication as the essential component of inspiration and change (Eisenberg et al., 2007, p. 280). Transactional and transformational leadership styles are not mutually exclusive or dichotomous. Instead, leaders are often viewed as situational, exhibiting traits of both styles and emphasizing one style more than the other as the situation demands (Bass, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Some argue that transformational leadership is an extension of transactional leadership rather than a substitute for it (Bass, 1985, 1998; Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yammarino, Spangler, & Dubinsky, 1998). According to Howell and Avolio (1993), transformational leadership complements transactional leadership, and effective leaders often supplement a transactional style with a transformational style. Bass (1998) called this augmentation, which is the degree to which transformational leadership styles build on the transactional base in contributing to the extra effort and performance of followers (p. 5). Similarly, Avolio (1999) stated that transactions are at the base of transformations (p. 37), suggesting that transactional competence may influence transformational leadership effectiveness.

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

407

Eisenberg et al. (2007) stated that theorists often define leadership styles in terms of a particular cultural and political time period. For instance, the idolized Western democratic leader of World War II became the preferred leadership style after the war, whereas the change agent model came into fashion during turbulent times following the Cold War. This indicates a theoretical link between societal culture and the way in which theorists define leadership styles, particularly in terms of value judgments. Although leadership in public relations environments has been minimally explored, Aldoory and Toth (2004) argued that developing leadership theory in public relations should begin with assessing leadership styles and perceptions about styles (p. 158). They examined practitioner perceptions of the best leadership styles for public relations and found a strong preference for transformational leadership over transactional leadership among practitioners. However, there was also strong evidence for a preference for situational leadership (p. 157), and support for a pluralistic leadership style characterized by shared decision making and participative management. Their results also indicated gendered perspectives on leadership style, which manifest in different evaluations of the leadership of men and women in the workplace (Eisenberg et al., 2007). Findings from the Aldoory and Toth (2004) study began the development of a theory of leadership style for public relations (p. 158). This study attempts to contribute to this research agenda by positing that the unique environment in which public relations is practiced will influence the fields leadership styles. Recent literature points to the inclusive nature of public relations, emphasizing its strong foundation of collaboration, shared decision making, and participative practices (see Spicer, 1997). Heath (2001) stated that the emerging vocabulary of the discipline includes relationships, shared control, and collaborative decision making. In fact, the well-known symmetrical model of public relations (Grunig & Hunt, 1984), later termed dialogical public relations by Grunig (2001) due to its emphasis on unity of multiple voices, is characterized by participative culture and two-way communication between organizations and their stakeholders with the aim of balancing self-interest with the interests of others, or what Spicer (1997) called collaborative advocacy. If leadership is situational, the inclusive nature of public relations practice may produce an inclusive leadership style uniquely characterized by collaboration, shared decision making, and participative practices, similar to the pluralistic leadership style examined by Aldoory and Toth (2004).

408

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

Message Strategy Use and Effectiveness Like leadership style, public relations strategy use and effectiveness is an area of scholarship that has been largely overlooked by scholars. This area of inquiry focuses on the message variable in the communication process. Hallahan (2000) argued that creating effective messages to reach strategically important publics is a critical function of public relations; however, theorists have failed to develop message strategies for communicating with publics. One promising theoretical framework for understanding public relations messages is found in Hazleton and Longs (1988) public relations process model (see Werder, 2005). This model, based in systems theory, describes public relations as goal-driven communication strategies organizations use to interact with their target publics. According to the model, organizational factors impact public relations in terms of how environmental inputs are transformed into communication goals, objectives, and campaigns and can serve as constraints in the public relations decision process (Hazleton & Long, 1988). The decision process provides the impetus for organizational goal achievement through communication. However, goals must be translated into strategies that define appropriate and effective actions for goal achievement (Hazleton, 1993). This establishes a theoretical link between organizational variablessuch as leadership styleand public relations strategy use. Drawing from Zaltman and Duncans (1977) social change literature, Hazleton (1992) identified a taxonomy of seven public relations strategies organizations most often used: informative, persuasive, facilitative, cooperative problem solving, promise and reward, threat and punishment, and bargaining. These strategies support public relations goals by influencing the meaning that audiences attribute to messages. Although research on the taxonomy of public relations strategies is limited, the findings of several studies indicate that it is a valid conceptualization of the public relations behavior of organizations (Page, 2000a,b; Page & Hazleton, 1999; Werder, 2005). The strategies have unique usage characteristics, meaning organizations use some strategies more than others and some not at all, depending on the situation (Page & Hazleton, 1999). Specifically, persuasive and informative strategies have consistently been found to be the most frequently used strategies in organizations. In contrast, power and bargaining strategies have been found to be the least frequently used (Page, 2000a,b). In addition, research suggests that the use and effectiveness of public relations strategies depends on the characteristics of the public to whom the strategy is directed (Page & Hazleton, 1999; Werder, 2005).

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

409

According to Liu and Horsley (2007), the value of Hazleton and Longs (1988) public relations process model (1988) is that it provides a roadmap of the entire public relations process . . . [and] incorporates the importance of unique environments (p. 382). This study advances the model by exploring the subsystem dimensions it proposes. Limited understanding of these subsystem dimensions is a weakness that has been identified in reviews of the model (Liu & Horsely, 2007). No scholarship has been devoted to determining managerial variables that may impact strategy selection by practitioners or the effectiveness of those strategies. The purpose of this study is to examine the theoretical link the public relations process model proposes between organizational factors and strategy choicewith specific attention to leadership styleand proposes the following research question, hypothesis, and related propositions:
RQ1: What leadership styles do public relations practitioners perceive in their department=agency? H1: Perceived leadership style of the public relations department influences public relations strategy use and perceived strategy effectiveness in organizations. P1.1: Perceived transformational leadership style influences use and perceived effectiveness of informative and facilitative strategies. P1.2: Perceived transactional leadership style influences use and perceived effectiveness of persuasive and power strategies. P1.3: Perceived inclusive leadership style influences use and perceived effectiveness of cooperative problem solving strategies.

METHODOLOGY An online survey of public relations practitioners was conducted to examine the research question and test the hypothesis and related propositions of this study. Variables of interest included practitioner perceptions of the leadership style of their department=agency, frequency of public relations strategy use in their organization, and perceived strategy effectiveness. Instrumentation The literature reviewed for this study indicates that two leadership styles transactional and transformationalhave been consistently observed in

410

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

organizations. This study suggests that a unique inclusive leadership style may exist in public relations environments. Thus, 16 items were created to measure practitioner perceptions of these three leadership styles. To measure transactional leadership style, the following four items were used: (a) The leaders of my department strongly adhere to organizational procedures; (b) It is important for the leaders of my department to be in control at all times; (c) The leaders of my department are good policy makers; and (d) The leaders of my department offer rewards for good performance. To measure transformational leadership style, the following nine items were used: (a) The leaders of my department manage with integrity; (b) The leaders of my department motivate people to work for the greater good; (c) The leaders of my department create personal connections with employees; (d) The leaders of my department are innovative; (e) The leaders of my department have the ability to motivate change; (f) The leaders of my department enhance others self worth; (g) The leaders of my department are not afraid to take risks; (h) The leaders of my department are effective at inspiring others through communication; and (i) The leaders of my department have a clear vision for the future of the department. Finally, to measure inclusive leadership style, three items were used: (a) The leaders of my department are collaborative; (b) The leaders of my department practice participative management; and (c) The leaders of my department share decision-making power. Hazleton (1993) identified six functions of messages in his matrix for the analysis of public relations symbols: informative, persuasive, facilitative, cooperative problem solving, bargaining, and coercive. In related research, he (Hazelton, 1992) separated coercive strategies into promise and reward strategies (positive coercion) and threat and punishment strategies (negative coercion). In this study, promise and reward and threat and punishment strategies were operationalized as a single message strategy labeled power in an effort to limit potential social desirability bias in survey participant responses. In addition, bargaining strategies were not examined in this study due to prior research suggesting infrequent use (Page, 2000a, 2000b; Page & Hazleton, 1999). The operational definitions for the five strategies examined in this study are provided in the following section.

Informative strategy. An informative=education strategy is based on the presentation of unbiased facts. Informative messages do not draw conclusions, but presume that the target public will infer appropriate conclusions from accurate data. Informative messages may suggest a variety of alternative solutions to problems and are characterized by the use of neutral language.

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

411

Facilitative strategy. A facilitative strategy is accomplished by making resources available to members of a public that allow them to act in ways that they are already predisposed to act. Resources may be tangible artifacts, such as tools or money (i.e., a postage-paid return envelope), or they may be directions that tell someone how to accomplish a particular action (i.e., a directional billboard). Persuasive strategy. Persuasive strategies are characterized by appeals to a publics values or emotions. They may include a selective presentation of information. They may use language that is not neutral, language that reflects the importance of the issue and the involvement of the organization in the situation. Persuasive messages provide a call for action, either directly or indirectly. Cooperative problem-solving strategy. Cooperative problem solving messages reflect a willingness to jointly define problems and solutions to problems. They are characterized by an open exchange of information to establish common goals and to share responsibilities about the situation. These messages create a sense of interdependence between an organization and its public and use inclusive language such as we. Power strategy. Power strategies involve the direct or indirect exercise of power to gain compliance. There are two main types of power strategies: promise and reward strategies and threat and punishment strategies. Promise and reward strategies imply that the organization controls an outcome desired by the public. Threat and punishment strategies imply that the organization controls an outcome feared or disliked by the public. Items used to test variables related to the strategies were replicated from previous research (Page & Hazleton, 1999; Werder, 2005). To test frequency using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (frequently). Four items were used to measure practitioner perceptions of strategy effectiveness. To create a balanced measure, two items measured strategy effectiveness in achieving organizational goals, and two items measured strategy effectiveness in achieving the goals of the target public (Werder, 2005). The following items measured perceived strategy effectiveness: (a) Generally, when my organization uses strategies, the outcome is favorable for my organization; (b) Generally, when my organization uses strategies, the outcome is favorable for the target public; (c) strategies are typically successful in achieving the goals of my organization; and (d) strategies are typically successful in achieving the goals of the target public. The items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

412

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

In addition, practitioners were asked to respond to categorical demographic variables including gender, position=title, salary, education, and organization type. Continuous variables included tenure in current position and years of experience in public relations. Sampling Procedures Members of the Public Relations Society of America were selected as the population of interest for this study, and the PRSA online membership database, with nearly 22,000 members, served as the sample frame. Calculation of the sample size required to produce generalizable results for this study followed the procedure articulated in Stacks (2002). According to Stacks, statistical law holds that the distribution of people chosen randomly from a population becomes more evenly distributed as more random selections are made. Thus, the average of all samplings will eventually estimate the true population characteristic (p. 162). The number of final observations needed for generalizability from the sample to the parent population is calculated using the following formula: Sample size Qp1 p Q 1E =C 2 p1 p

where Q is the population size, C is the sampling confidence required, E is the measurement error allowed, and p is the expected outcome. For a population of 22,000, a final sample size of 377 is needed to produce findings with a 5% margin of error at a 95% confidence level (Austin & Pinkleton, 2001; Dillman, 2000; Stacks, 2002). Therefore, 377 was set as the minimum number of questionnaire responses needed to produce meaningful results. Because several previous studies indicated a low response rate for this population (Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Page & Hazleton, 1999; Werder, 2005), an oversampling strategy was employed, and the names of 8,000 randomly selected public relations practitioners residing in the United States were supplied to the researchers by representatives of the PRSA Research Committee. Although membership information was not supplied for practitioners, an effort was made to exclude educators and retirees. Data Collection Procedures Due to the availability of practitioner e-mail addresses and the benefits of Internet-based surveys (Couper, 2000; Dillman, 2000), an online mode of

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

413

survey administration was used to collect data for this study. A questionnaire was posted on the sponsoring universitys Web server, which added legitimacy to the survey by associating it with an academic institution. The likelihood of participation in the survey by individuals not included in the sample was minimized by using a secure server with a unique access URL known only to PRSA members asked to participate. To ensure respondent confidentiality, online survey responses were not linked to e-mail addresses in any way. This resulted in anonymous responses; however, it prevented response tracking. Practitioners in the sample were contacted via e-mail three times. Contacts included a prenotification, a request for participation, and a reminder notice. A pretest was conducted prior to data collection. Of the total sample of 8,000 public relations practitioners, 343 practitioners were identified as ineligible and 675 practitioners had invalid e-mail addresses. This resulted in a valid sample of 6,982. Of these, 885 completed the online questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 12.7%. Fifty-eight practitioners refused to participate, resulting in a refusal rate of 0.8% and a completion rate of 11.1%. The total number of survey respondents (N 885) constitutes approximately 4% of the total population (PRSA membership N % 22,000) and was significantly more than the 377 required for generalization to the parent population. In addition, frequencies for demographic variables were compared to previous research (Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Werder, 2005) to confirm that the low response rate did not compromise the external validity of the results. Although not identical, there appeared to be enough similarity to generalize the results of this study to the parent population. Data Analysis Procedures Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 15.0 for Windows. A p .05 significance level was used for all statistical tests performed. The survey instrument used a repeated measures design in which practitioners were asked to read the definition of each public relations strategy and then answer items related to the use and effectiveness of that strategy; therefore, some respondents were likely to skip or partially complete items related to strategies they did not use. In addition, the complete questionnaire tested five concepts (not all examined in this study) and included 100 items, which may have contributed to respondent fatigue for later items. As a result, partially completed questionnaires were used in data analysis and the number of respondents varied for each statistical test. To examine Research Question 1, descriptive statistics of the 16 items used to measure perceived transactional, transformational, and inclusive

414

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

leadership styles were assessed. Next, the dimensionality of the 16 items was assessed using maximum likelihood factor analysis. Factor analysis was considered appropriate due to the large sample size (N 885) and the large ratio of observations to variables (55:1). The factorability of the correlation matrix was also assessed. The KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy was .964, indicating an adequate sample. In addition, Bartletts Test of Sphericity was significant (p .000). Finally, an examination of descriptive statistics indicated the skew (1.365.849) and kurtosis (.8061.153) of the individual leadership style items were smaller than the recommended threshold for questioning the adequacy of maximum likelihood estimation (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). The analysis was conducted in two stages (Green, Salkind, & Akey, 2000). Factor extraction in stage one was conducted using principal components analysis. Four criteria were used to determine the appropriate number of factors to extract: (a) a priori conceptual beliefs about the number of underlying dimensions of the leadership style construct; (b) the latent root criterion; (c) the scree test; and (d) the interpretability of the factor solution. The maximum likelihood procedure with Varimax rotation was used in stage two. Items with low loadings and items that loaded on multiple factors were removed. Reliability analysis was conducted to determine the internal consistency of items loading on the rotated factors, then items in each index were combined to create composite measures for hypothesis testing. Correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship of the composite leadership styles. Exploratory bivariate regression analysis was conducted to assess the theoretical proposition that inclusive leadership influences transformational leadership. A series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted with each department leadership style as the dependant variable and demographic variables as independent variables. Specifically, gender, position, and organization type were examined. Only significant results are reported. Prior to testing Hypothesis 1, a repeated measures ANOVA was performed to examine frequency of public relations strategy use in organizations. The within-subjects factor was strategy type with five levels, and the dependent variable was frequency of use. Paired t-tests using the Bonferroni procedure were conducted for follow-up pairwise comparisons. Next, a series of one-way ANOVA tests were conducted to determine if demographic characteristics were related to strategy use. Specifically, the frequency of use measure for each of the five strategies was entered as the dependent variable and demographic variables were entered as independent variables. In addition, Cronbachs alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the multiple-item effectiveness index prior to testing Hypothesis 1. Item

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

415

analysis was conducted separately for each strategy. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to examine differences in strategy effectiveness across the five strategies. The within-subjects factor was strategy type with five levels, and the dependent variable was strategy effectiveness. To test Hypothesis 1 and its related propositions, multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the public relations department leadership style most relevant to prediction of strategy use and perceived effectiveness for each of the five strategies. In the analysis for each strategy, measures of perceived transformational and inclusive leadership styles served as predictor variables and frequency of strategy use and perceived strategy effectiveness were criterion variables.

RESULTS Research Question 1 asked what leadership styles public relations practitioners perceive in their department=agency. The results of this study suggest that practitioners perceive transformational and inclusive leadership styles in their departments=agencies, but not transactional leadership style. Hypothesis 1 posited that perceived department leadership style influences public relations strategy use and effectiveness. Results indicate that perceived department leadership style influences use of all of the strategies except the persuasive strategy and perceived effectiveness for all of the strategies except power. Thus, partial support was found for Hypothesis 1. Limited support was found for Propositions 1.1 and 1.3. Proposition 1.2 could not be tested. Demographics The average respondent was a nonaccredited woman with a bachelors degree and a supervisory=director=manager title. She had nearly 15 years of public relations experience (N 810, M 14.74, SD 9.981), had been in her current position for 5 years (N 811, M 5.07, SD 5.695), and made between $50,001 and $75,000 per year. Perceived Department Leadership Style The means and standard deviations for items used to test perceived department leadership style are shown in Table 1. Means ranged from 4.74 to 5.69. In the factor analysis, both the latent root criterion and the scree test suggested a two-factor solution, rather than the three-factor structure hypothesized. Consequently, two factors were rotated. The rotated solution,

416

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

TABLE 1 Mean and Standard Deviation for Leadership Style Items Variable Transactional leadership style The leaders of my department strongly adhere to organizational procedures. It is important for the leaders of my department to be in control at all times. The leaders of my department are good policy makers. The leaders of my department offer rewards for good performance. Transformational leadership style The leaders of my department manage with integrity. The leaders of my department motivate people to work for the greater good. The leaders of my department create personal connections with employees. The leaders of my department are innovative. The leaders of my department have the ability to motivate change. The leaders of my department enhance others self worth. The leaders of my department are not afraid to take risks. The leaders of my department are effective at inspiring others through communication. The leaders of my department have a clear vision for the future of the department. Inclusive leadership style The leaders of my department are collaborative. The leaders of my department practice participative management. The leaders of my department share decision-making power. N M SD

823 825 824 825

5.15 4.99 4.83 4.74

1.562 1.756 1.686 1.881

823 823 822 824 820 821 823 822 824

5.69 5.31 5.13 5.06 5.01 4.94 4.86 4.85 4.84

1.597 1.629 1.788 1.685 1.743 1.776 1.777 1.821 1.712

824 822 822

5.44 5.12 5.00

1.555 1.731 1.725

shown in Table 2, yielded two interpretable factors labeled transformational leadership style and inclusive leadership style. Six items loaded on the transformational leadership style factor, which accounted for 38.9% of the item variance (eigenvalue 10.084). The rotated solution included five items from the transformational leadership style measures and one item from the transactional leadership style measure. Three items loaded on the inclusive leadership style factor, which accounted for 25% of the item variance (eigenvalue 1.079). The rotated solution included the three items intended to measure inclusive leadership style. Together, the two-factor solution explained 64% of the variance in the leadership style items. Cronbachs alpha coefficient was .94 for the transformational leadership style index and .90 for the inclusive leadership style index, indicating strong internal consistency. Means for the composite measures indicated that

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

417

TABLE 2 Factor Loadings for Leadership Style Items Item The leaders of my department have a clear vision for the future of the department. The leaders of my department have the ability to motivate change. The leaders of my department are good policy makers. The leaders of my department are effective at inspiring others through communication. The leaders of my department are innovative. The leaders of my department are not afraid to take risks. The leaders of my department practice participative management. The leaders of my department are collaborative. The leaders of my department share decision-making power. Note. Maximum likelihood with Varimax rotation. Transformational .788 .781 .780 .770 .740 .672 .517 .495 .475 Inclusive .302 .405 .334 .461 .403 .316 .731 .711 .688

practitioners perceive inclusive leadership style (n 814, l 5.19) in their department=agency more frequently than transformational leadership style (n 814, l 4.91). Correlation analysis indicated a strong positive relationship between the leadership style measures (r .803, p .000). Regression analysis indicated that approximately 64.5% of the variance in transformational leadership style was accounted for by its linear relationship with inclusive leadership style, R .803, R2 .645, F(1,812) 1476.426, p .000. Results of ANOVA indicated differences in perceptions of leadership style according to gender, position, and organization type. Gender had a significant effect on perceptions of the transformational leadership style, F(1,791) 5.442, p .020, partial g2 .007. Specifically, men (n 270, l 5.06) reported higher means for this leadership style than women (n 523, l 4.80). The position=title of practitioners influenced perceptions of both transformational leadership style, F(4,783) 12.859, p .000, partial g2 .062, and inclusive leadership style, F(1,785) 12.827, p .000, partial g2 .061. Specifically, means for transformational leadership style were highest among practitioners who categorized themselves as senior managers (l 5.33), others (l 5.20), and supervisors=directors=managers (l 4.85). Results were similar for inclusive leadership style, with the highest means reported by senior managers (l 5.55), others (l 5.28), and supervisors= directors=managers (l 5.22). In addition, transformational leadership style was influenced by organization type, F(11,780) 2.458, p .005, partial g2 .034. Mean scores were

418

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

higher for transformational leadership style in manufacturing=industrial organizations (n 34, l 5.39), public relations agencies (n 156, l 5.25), associations=nonprofits (n 186, l 4.96), and health-related organizations (n 90, l 4.93). In contrast, mean scores for transformational leadership style were lower in travel=tourism (n 32, l 4.33), technology (n 23, l 4.38), sports=entertainment (n 16, l 4.39), and utilities= telecommunications (n 27, l 4.42) organizations. Inclusive leadership style was similarly influenced by organization type, F(11,781) 2.733, p .002, partial g2 .037. Mean scores were higher for inclusive leadership style in manufacturing=industrial organizations (n 34, l 5.69), public relations agencies (n 155, l 5.51), associations=nonprofits (n 187, l 5.32), and health-related organizations (n 90, l 5.20). In contrast, mean scores for inclusive leadership style were lower in sports=entertainment (n 17, l 4.53), food=beverage (n 1, l 4.58), technology (n 24, l 4.61), and utilities=telecommunicammunications (n 27, l 4.83) organizations. Frequency of Strategy Use Multivariate ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in frequency of use across the five strategies, Wilks K .307, F(4,838) 472.43, p .000, multivariate g2 .693. The eta-squared score indicated that strategy type accounts for approximately 69% of the variance in frequency of strategy use measures. The mean and standard deviation scores for frequency of strategy use are shown in Table 3. The results indicate that the persuasive strategy is the most frequently used strategy, followed by the informative, facilitative, cooperative problem solving, and power strategies. Results of pairwise comparisons indicate the following: (a) Informative and persuasive strategies are used significantly more often than facilitative, cooperative problem solving, and power strategies; (b) facilitative strategies are used significantly more often than cooperative problem solving and

TABLE 3 Mean and Standard Deviation for Frequency of Strategy Use Strategy type Persuasive Informative Facilitative Cooperative Power N 842 842 842 842 842 M 4.73 4.68 3.94 3.52 2.01 SD 1.813 1.706 1.820 1.791 1.523

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

419

power strategies; (c) cooperative problem solving strategies are used significantly more often than power strategies; and (d) power strategies are used significantly less than all other strategies examined in this study. Results of ANOVA indicated that gender has a significant effect on use of facilitative, F(1,795) 7.755, p .000, partial g2 .010, and informative, F(1,800) 3.680, p .055, partial g2 .005, strategies. Specifically, women (n 529, l 4.06) reported using the facilitative strategy significantly more than their male (n 268, l 3.69) counterparts. The informative strategy also was used significantly more often by women (n 529, l 4.76) than by men (n 273, l 4.52). The results of the ANOVA indicated that organization type has a significant effect on use of the informative, persuasive, and power strategies. Specifically, 2.5% of the variance in use of the informative strategy is explained by organization type, F(11,789) 1.867, p .040, partial g2 .025. Results indicated that organizations in healthcare (n 90, l 5.02) and government (n 132, l 5.02) use informative strategies more than other types of organizations. In contrast, organizations in the food=beverage (n 11, l 3.45), sports=entertainment (n 18, l 4.28), and financial industries (n 37, l 4.30) use informative strategies less often. Travel=hospitality-related organizations (n 32, l 5.13) and public relations agencies (n 157, l 5.11) reported using persuasive strategies more than other types of organizations. Manufacturing=industrial (n 34, l 4.15), food=beverage (n 11, l 4.27), financial (n 36, l 4.28), and technology (n 24, l 4.29) organizations use persuasive strategies less often. Finally, power strategies are used most often in sports=entertainment (n 17, l 3.06) and utility=telecommunication (n 26, l 2.54) organizations. Association=nonprofit (n 190, l 1.73), manufacturing=industrial (n 33, l 1.76), and healthcare (n 88, l 1.80) organizations use power strategies the least. Public Relations Strategy Effectiveness Alpha coefficients for the multiple-item strategy effectiveness index ranged from .90 to .96, with an average of .93, indicating reliability; thus, the items were combined into a composite effectiveness measure for each strategy. Multivariate ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in effectiveness across the five strategies, Wilks K .393, F(4, 751) 289.77, p .000, multivariate g2 .607. Strategy type accounted for approximately 60% of the variance in effectiveness measures. The mean and standard deviation scores for strategy effectiveness are shown in Table 4. Results indicate that the informative strategy is perceived to be the most effective,

420

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

TABLE 4 Mean and Standard Deviation for Perceived Strategy Effectiveness Strategy type Informative Persuasive Facilitative Cooperative Power N 755 755 755 755 755 M 5.12 4.95 4.78 4.74 2.94 SD 1.170 1.257 1.285 1.415 1.516

followed by the persuasive, facilitative, cooperative problem solving, and power strategies. Results of pairwise comparisons indicate the following: (a) Informative strategies are perceived to be significantly more effective than all of the other strategies; (b) persuasive strategies are perceived to be significantly more effective than facilitative, cooperative problem solving, and power strategies; (c) facilitative and cooperative problem solving strategies are perceived to be significantly more effective than power strategies; and (d) power strategies are perceived to be least effective among the strategies examined in this study. Public Relations Department Leadership Style and Strategy Use The results of the regression analysis for the informative strategy revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles accounted for approximately 2.3% of the unique variance in informative strategy use, R .151, R2 .023, F(2,807) 9.382, p .000. However, neither leadership style measure was significant as a unique predictor of informative strategy use. The regression analysis for the facilitative strategy revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles accounted for approximately 1.1% of the unique variance in use of the facilitative strategy, R .106, R2 .011, F(2,804) 4.586, p .010. Both the transformational measure and the inclusive measure were significant as unique predictors of facilitative strategy use; however, the transformational style is negatively related to facilitative strategy use, b .131, t(805) 2.217, p .027, and the inclusive style is positively related to facilitative strategy use, b .177, t(805) 3.01, p .003. The regression analysis for the cooperative problem solving strategy revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles accounted for approximately 2.8% of the unique variance in use of the cooperative problem solving strategy, R .166, R2 .028, F(2,801) 11.415, p .000. The inclusive measure approached significance as a unique positive predictor of cooperative problem solving strategy use, b .104, t(802) 1.771, p .077.

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

421

Finally, the regression analysis for the power strategy revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles accounted for approximately 5% of the unique variance in use of the power strategy, R .223, R2 .050, F(2,802) 20.994, p .000. Both the transformational measure and the inclusive measure were significant as unique predictors of power strategy use, but the transformational style was positively related to power strategy use, b .111, t(803) 1.923, p .055, and the inclusive style was negatively related to power strategy use, b .302, t(803) 5.230, p .000. Perceived Department Leadership Style and Perceived Strategy Effectiveness Results of the regression analysis for the informative strategy revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles accounted for approximately 4.8% of the unique variance in effectiveness of the informative strategy, R .219, R2 .048, F(2,800) 20.228, p .000. However, only the inclusive leadership style measure was significant as a unique positive predictor of informative strategy effectiveness, b .163, t(801) 2.823, p .005. The regression analysis for the facilitative strategy revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles accounted for approximately 2.2% of the unique variance in use of the facilitative strategy, R .148, R2 .022, F(2,786) 8.829, p .000. Only the inclusive measure was significant as a unique positive predictor of facilitative strategy effectiveness, b .163, t(787) 2.758, p .006. The regression analysis for the persuasive strategy revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles accounted for approximately 3.5% of the unique variance in use of the persuasive strategy, R .187, R2 .035, F(2,791) 14.335, p .000. The transformational measure approached significance as a unique positive predictor of persuasive strategy effectiveness, b .104, t(792) 1.782, p .075. Finally, the regression analysis for the cooperative problem solving strategy revealed that the linear combination of leadership styles accounted for approximately 3.7% of the unique variance in strategy effectiveness, R .192, R2 .037, F(2,774) 14.736, p .000. The transformational measure approached significance as a unique positive predictor of cooperative problem solving strategy effectiveness, b .113, t(775) 1.906, p .057.

DISCUSSION This study examined the relationship between public relations leadership style and public relations strategy use in organizationstwo underdeveloped areas

422

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

of scholarship. It extends knowledge in public relations by identifying relationships between organizational variables and the communication practices of organizations. In addition, it measured practitioner perceptions of the existence of specific leadership styles in public relations environments. The results of this study support the hypothesis that perceived department leadership style influences public relations strategy use and perceived effectiveness in organizations (H1). However, the findings offer mixed support for propositions related to this hypothesis. Perceived department leadership style significantly influenced use of all of the strategies except persuasive, and it influenced perceived effectiveness for all of the strategies except power. Proposition 1.1 posited that perceived transformational leadership style influences use and perceived effectiveness of informative and facilitative strategies. Only partial support was found for this proposition. Transformational leadership style was negatively related to use of facilitative strategies and positively related to use of power strategies, and it was positively related to effectiveness of persuasive and cooperative problem solving strategies. Proposition 1.2 posited that perceived transactional leadership style influences use and perceived effectiveness of persuasive and power strategies. The transactional leadership style was not observed in this study, so this proposition was not tested. Proposition 1.3 posited that perceived inclusive leadership style influences use and perceived effectiveness of cooperative problem solving strategies. The results indicate limited support for this proposition. Inclusive leadership style was positively related to use of facilitative and cooperative problem solving strategies, and negatively related to use of power strategies. In addition, it was positively related to effectiveness of informative and facilitative strategies. Research Question 1 asked what leadership styles practitioners perceive in their department=agency. Results indicate support for the transformational and inclusive styles of leadership in public relations, but not the transactional style articulated in the literature of other disciplines. Factor loadings suggest a transformational style that is supported by existing perspectives, characterizing the transformational leader as visionary, innovative, risk-taking, and an inspirational change agent (Eisenberg et al., 2007; Northouse, 2007). However, factor loadings for the transformational style retained one transactional variablethe ability to make policy. The inclusion of expertise in policy making is not surprising, because many argue that organizational change requires changes at a structural and policy level (Holtzhausen, 2002). Empirical support was found for an inclusive leadership style in public relations departments. This study argues that the inclusive nature of public

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

423

relations practice produces inclusive leadership. Although this study could not demonstrate this relationship, tacit support exists for this conclusion. Regardless, this study extends knowledge in public relations by identifying leadership characteristics unique to public relations practice. There is no direct explanation for the absence of a transactional leadership style in public relations departments; however, it is possible that this leadership style is not functional for practitioners in the social and political climate of todays organizations. The transactional leadership style depends on organizational hierarchy and structural stability (Davidhizer & Shearer, 1997; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998), but the current environment reflects increased breakdowns in workplace hierarchy and changes in structure (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006). The results of this study indicate situational leadership in public relations. Mean scores for the inclusive and transformational styles suggest that both are used at a moderate level, which is a first indication that practitioners use both styles. The strong correlation between the two styles confirms this. In addition, the two styles together explained frequency of use of most of the public relations strategies. In addition, the findings indicate that practitioner gender, practitioner position, and organization type influence perceptions of leadership style. Specifically, male practitioners perceived the transformational leadership style in their departments more than women. Not surprisingly, practitioners who categorized themselves as having a position of leadership in their department (i.e., senior manager and supervisor=director=manager) reported higher means for both leadership styles than did practitioners in entry-level= technician and specialist=coordinator=assistant=junior positions. It is expected that leaders would rate themselves highly on variables they perceive to be positive and desired, which may be the case in this study. This is supported by Aldoory and Toths (2004) finding that practitioners prefer transformational leadership style to transactional leadership style. Therefore, one limitation of this research is the likelihood that social desirability bias is present in the data. A second limitation of this study is its 12.8% response rate. However, the response rate is consistent with prior literature suggesting modest participation from the PRSA member population (Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Page & Hazleton, 1999; Werder, 2005). In addition, the studys validity is supported by the sampling method used (Stacks, 2002), its large number of respondents, and its consistency with prior research (Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Werder, 2005). A third limitation of this study is that it measured practitioner perceptions of leadership style, rather than actual leadership styles. Thus, it measured perceptions of behavior rather than actual behavior. Although

424

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

this study contributes to general understanding of the leadership styles present in public relations, the topic requires a triangulated methodological approach. Future studies should seek to observe leadership practices and styles through in-depth interviews and focus groups with public relations leaders, as well as through participant observation and case studies in a variety of organizational contexts. This study advances understanding of Hazelton and Longs (1988) public relations process model. Findings are consistent with previous studies of public relations strategy use and effectiveness in organizations (Page, 2000a,b; Werder, 2005). The results offer further validation of Hazletons (1993) public relations strategy taxonomy and deepen understanding of the influence of organizational variables on strategy use and effectiveness. Specifically, the findings of this study support the notion that message strategies are outcomes of organizational goals set by organizational leaders. Future research should aim to identify other organizational variables that contribute to the use and effectiveness of public relations strategies. Such variables might include practitioner role, practitioner decision-making style, and organizational structure. In addition, this study makes an important contribution to the understanding of leadership styles in public relations practice. It conceptualized an inclusive leadership style and identified it as the most frequently observed style in public relations environments. Transformational leadership was equally well defined, but less observed, and perceived to contribute less to the frequency and effectiveness of public relations strategies. As such, it appears that these two leadership styles may be directed differently. It is possible that an inclusive leadership style is more outwardly directed, but transformational leadership is more directed at change management within the organization, and more action-oriented, aimed at specific outcomes. It is clear that these two styles are not mutually exclusive. This provides support for theorists who argue that leaders use different styles under different circumstances. Furthermore, inclusive leadership style was a significant predictor of transformational leadership style, which supports the importance of collaboration, shared decision making, and participative practices in effecting change in public relations environments.

REFERENCES
Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: Perceived effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership styles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 157183. Austin, E. W., & Pinkleton, B. E. (2001). Strategic public relations management: Planning and managing effective communication programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

425

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441462. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 932. Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 7(3), 1840. Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), 3244. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464494. Davidhizer, R., & Shearer, R. (1997). Giving encouragement as a transformational leadership technique. Health Care Supervisor, 15, 1621. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Eisenberg, E., Goodall, H. L. J., & Tretheway, A. (2007). Organizational communication. Balancing creativity and constraint (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford=St. Martins. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational=transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 569589. Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 1130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T.M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hallahan, K. (2000). Enhancing motivation, ability, and opportunity to process public relations messages. Public Relations Review, 26, 463480. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory. Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Hazleton, V. (1992). Toward a system theory of public relations. In H. Avenarius & W. Ambrecht (Eds.), Ist public relations eine wissenschaft? [Is public relations a science?] (pp. 3346). Berlin: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hazleton, V. (1993). Symbolic resources: Processes in the development and use of symbolic resources. In W. Armbrecht, H. Avenarius, & U. Zabel (Eds.), Image und PR: Kann image Gegenstand einer Public Relations-Wissenschaft sein? (pp. 87100). Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hazleton, V. J., & Long, L. W. (1988). Concepts for public relations education, research, and practice: A communication point of view. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 7787. Heath, R. L. (2001). Shifting foundations: Public relations as relationship building. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

426

WERDER AND HOLTZHAUSEN

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2002). The effects of a divisionalized and decentralized organizational structure on a formal internal communication function in a South African organization. Journal of Communication Management, 6, 323339. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891902. Kellerman, B. (1984). Leadership: A multidisciplinary perspective. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall. King, S. (1994). What is the latest on leadership? Management Development Review, 7(6), 79. Klauss, R., & Bass, B. M. (1982). Interpersonal communication in organizations. New York: Academic Press. Lipshitz, R., & Mann, L. (2005). Leadership and decision making: William R. Ruckelshaus and the Environmental Protection Agency. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 4154. Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 377393. McWhinney, W. (1997). Paths of change: Strategic choices for organizations and society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mink, O. (1992). Creating new organizational paradigms for change. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 9, 2123. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Page, K. G. (2000a, March). An exploratory analysis of goal compatibility between organizations and publics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern States Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Page, K. G. (2000b, June). Prioritizing publics: Exploring goal compatibility between organizations and publics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico. Page, K. G., & Hazleton, V. (1999, May). An empirical analysis of factors influencing public relation strategy usage and effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco. Schuster, J. (1994). Transforming your leadership style. Association Management, 46(1), L39L43. Spicer, C. (1997). Organizational public relations. A political perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stacks, D. W. (2002). Primer of public relations research. New York: Guildford. Tracey, J., & Hinkin, T. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group & Organization Management 23, 220236. Vance, C., & Larson, E. (2002). Leadership research in business and health care. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34, 165171. Werder, K. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the influence of perceived attributes of publics on public relations strategy use and effectiveness. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 217266. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975995.

ANALYSIS OF PR DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP STYLE

427

Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205222. Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 2754. Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York: John Wiley & Sons.