Relationship
Measurement Case Study
Relationships
Audit Reveals Precise Public Relations Weaknesses
"The
client
even applauded at the end of our presentation!"
by
Forrest W. Anderson
(Editor's
Note: After reading this article, you can learn more about measuring
relationships in Katie Delahaye Paine's
new almost-hot-off-the-press book "Measuring
Public Relationships" here.)
Until
I tried it, I dismissed the idea of measuring relationships. However,
I've changed my thinking since using these measures in a communications
audit led by Paul Raab at Denver-based Linhart
Public Relations.
The relationship measures gave us unexpected insights that led to
solid business and communications recommendations. The client, the
National Governing Board (NGB) for a U.S. Olympic sport, even applauded
at the end of our presentation! They tell us they refer to it and
use it every day -- the COO actually cuts and pastes our recommendations
when assigning communications tasks to staff!
Relationship
measurement is a fairly recent development. As
you may know, in 1999 Jim
Grunig and Linda Childers Hon published a paper on how to
evaluate relationships. One of their premises
is that the real business of public relations is managing relationships.
Using professional and academic information, they derived six factors
that
collectively
measure the strength of a relationship from the stakeholder's
point of view:
- Mutual
Control
- Trust
- Satisfaction
- Commitment
- Exchange
- Community
Grunig
and Hon also developed specific questions to measure these factors.
For our NGB audit, we used these questions to survey
current and potential team athletes, their
parents and
coaches,
donors
and
trustees.
The data showed relationships were strong across all
but two of the six
relationship factors: Exchange and Mutual Control.
We disallowed
the Exchange factor results, which showed that stakeholders
did not believe the organization did anything without expecting something
in return. Considering the particular
situation, this seemed appropriate.
However,
the Mutual Control issue was different. Our client wants commitment
from athletes and coaches to training and integrity, and
to their organization. And
it needs money from donors. The athletes and coaches want financial and
logistic support from the organization. Donors want to see performance,
integrity
and support for the organization from the athletes who reach the podium.
The survey results, however, showed that most
stakeholder groups believed the client didn't listen or respond
to their wants and needs. The data enabled us to demonstrate to the
client that to achieve its goals, it needed to listen better and actually
respond
to stakeholder concerns, rather than ignore them.
I was surprised by
how sensitive this technique is. Not only did it tell me the relationship
was weak, but it told me how. As a communications
professional, the recommendations for addressing that kind of issue
were second nature.
Until
now, I had not given the approach much attention, mostly because
it doesn't
get at sales or share price, the issues I've always believed
CEOs really care about. Now I think evaluating the strength of relationships
would be useful for any organization. It obviously makes sense for
public and community affairs. Other applications could include assessing
relationships with customers, employees, shareholders, financial analysts,
technical analysts and so on. It also offers a benchmark against which
to evaluate the success of communications programs. 
Forrest
W. Anderson is an insight consultant helping
organizations communicate better through better understanding their target
audiences. He is a founding member of the IPR Commission on PR Measurement
and Evaluation.
Paul
Raab, APR, is senior vice president and partner at Linhart
Public Relations.
Recent Comments