Uncovering the Role of Strategic Orientation in Translating Communication Strategies to Organizational Performance: An Analysis of Practitioners From Two Chinese Societies

Abstract

Integrating strategic process theory and resource orchestration view, this study challenges and extends the prior model supporting the direct effect of communication on organizational performance by examining the mediating role of practitioners’ strategic orientation. Employing two data sets of communication practitioners in China and Hong Kong, results of the structural equation model show that reputation orientation and organization-public relationship orientation represent two strategic value systems fully mediating the relationship between communication strategies and the organizational goal attainment. The findings support the proposition that business outcomes and competitive advantages at the organizational level depends not simply on various communication strategies formulated by senior executives and top communication managers, but more importantly, on how frontline communication professionals implement these strategies and translate resources into strategic communication processes. Moreover, the contextual sensitivity of findings indicates a relational shift underway in the strategic communication paradigm, but organization-public relationship is still far from a dominant cultural mechanism thoroughly endorsed by the industry.

Keywords

strategic orientation organization-public relationship reputation organizational performance practitioners

As the expenditure of communication activities has increased year by year, demands from CEOs and managers for accountability have become more tenacious (Cardwell et al., 2017). However, the mystery of how communication contributes to value creation has not yet been unlocked. Top executives and communication professionals lack a consistent long-term agreement on the enhanced role of communication (Zerfass et al., 2014). Moreover, strategic managerial values of communication professionals differ across generations (Kiesenbauer & Zerfass, 2015), post levels (Zerfass et al., 2014), and affiliated firm types (Hou et al., 2013), making the integration of communication strategies and management models remain in its infancy.

In recent years, considerable efforts have been made to explore the value creation process through communication and to expand evaluation models for public communication practices (e.g., Macnamara, 2018; Macnamara & Gregory, 2018; Zerfass & Viertmann, 2017). This line of literature has produced a variety of applicable methods and indicators for measuring and evaluating communication effectiveness. However, the role of frontline practitioners’ mind-set in aligning communication objectives with organizational goals is rarely reflected on. Prior research has accentuated the strategic managerial role of communicators in transforming communication activities into organizational effectiveness (Grunig, 2000; Macnamara, 2006). Contemporary management theories also extensively suggest that the top-down “strategic control” approach in which strategies are implemented as predetermined by top executives is increasingly problematic (Mirabeau & Maguire, 2014). Instead, it should be replaced by what Van Ruler (2016) has demonstrated as the “agile” approach in which communicators listen, speak, and respond in a two-way interactive process linking strategic planning and implementation (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008; Macnamara & Gregory, 2018).

Strategic orientation, a concept frequently used in strategic management, marketing, and entrepreneurship (e.g., Blocker et al., 2011; Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997), reflects the strategic direction executed and internalized by a firm to form competitive advantages and create sustainable superior value for its stakeholders (Narver & Slater, 1990). The resource-based view (RBV, Barney, 1991) suggests that strategic orientation constitutes a firm’s intangible yet inimitable core corporate resources of competitive advantages. Therefore, variances in such capabilities and resources may give rise to performance gaps across firms and industries (Hitt et al., 2001). Based on the RBV, the resource orchestration theory recognizes the significance of taking practitioners’ subjective initiative into account (Sirmon et al., 2011). Compared with the identifiable and nonsubstitute resource infrastructure constructed from daily operations (Brush et al., 2001), the process in which communication managers and practitioners orchestrate resources proves to be more adequate in unlocking potential advantages for continuous superior performance (Morrow et al., 2007; Sirmon et al., 2011).

This theorization concurs with Bourgeois and Brodwin’s (1984) strategic process theory, which identifies strategic formulation and strategy implementation as two distinct process stages. In view of the fact that strategies formulated by top-level managers or senior communication officers have to be implemented autonomously and purposively by frontline practitioners to foster intended outcomes, the assumed positive effect of communication strategies on organizational performance is also reliant on their implementation of strategic orientations. Combining RBV, resource orchestration, and strategic process theory, this study contends that practitioners’ strategic orientation instantiates the cultural integration system that is critical for translating communication strategies into organizational performance. Moreover, this study focuses on the strategic orientation embraced by professional communicators (Verhoeven et al., 2011) rather than that situated only within the top executive team or organizational culture (Kortmann, 2014). Building on their prior experiences and resource base, practitioners manifest their strategic orientations to provide alignment with or adjustment to formulated strategies. In this way, strategic orientations are implemented to facilitate favorable reputation, that is, reputation orientation, and positive organization-public relationship (OPR), that is, OPR orientation, and eventually promote the attainment of organizational goal, such as revenue generation and cost reduction (Heath, 2001; Ramirez, 1999).

Employing two data sets of communication practitioners in China (n = 202) and Hong Kong (n = 203), this study examines the mediating role of reputation orientation and OPR orientation on the relationship between communication strategies and organizational performance. The significance of this study is threefold. First, by synchronizing strategic process theory with resource orchestration approach, this study challenges and extends the prior model underpinning the direct effect of communication activities on organizational goal attainment. The findings support the proposed mediation framework that business competitiveness and outcomes at the organizational level depend not simply on the communication strategies formulated by senior management, but more importantly, on how frontline communication professionals implement these strategies and translate resources into strategic communication processes. Second, this research contributes to the present deliberation on the split between academics and practitioners with regard to the two-way and audience-centric approach to strategic communication (Macnamara, 2006; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). While the relative strength of OPR orientation indicates a relational shift underway in the strategic communication paradigm, this study shows that it is still too early to abandon one strategic value system in favor of the other. Third, a cross-validation between two Chinese societies is provided to investigate the contextual contingency that may affect the strategic orientation adopted by practitioners to mobilize, integrate, and coordinate resources to realize intended strategic plans and achieve organizational goals. Both top-level communication officers and frontline communication practitioners can draw a lesson from the findings and keep culturally sensitive to the strategic communication market and stakeholders they are serving.

Conceptualization

Communication Strategies and Organizational Performance

The shift from emphasizing the technician role of the communicator to stressing the strategic role of the communication manager (Bowen et al., 2010) suggests that practitioners have increasingly defined corporate communication strategies as existing and functioning within the context of strategic management. The growing popularity of the Integrated Marketing Communication approach has further underscored the importance of the managerial role of practitioners (Cardwell et al., 2017). Despite the argument that the autonomy and power of a communication department is the key to an organization’s success (Marra, 1998), the value creation process through which communication transforms resources into higher financial value is neither clear nor systematic. Professionals explain the contribution of communication to organizational effectiveness using multifarious rationales, which have further increased ambiguity among top executives and impeded the managerial institutionalization of communication functions. An emerging body of literature in strategic communication has extensively addressed this issue. By systematizing existing knowledge published in 36 international journals, for example, Zerfass and Viertmann (2017) have developed an interdisciplinary framework called the Communication Value Circle, which consists of 12 communicative objectives within four communicative value dimensions, to explain the process of value creation through communication in both academia and practice. Another line of research urges attention to the stasis of the organization-centric evaluation of strategic communication practice and contends to reconceptualize evaluation models in response to the “stakeholder turn” (Heath & Johansen, 2018; Macnamara & Gregory, 2018). These recent approaches to an updated understanding of communication value, either control-focused or stakeholder-centric, together manifest the impact of communication activities on organizational performance.

Gauging organizational performance has long been an imprecise science, since the assumed judging criteria and weighting priorities differ across organizations and stakeholders. The goal-attainment approach conceptualizes organizational effectiveness as “the extent to which an organization as a social system, given certain resources and means, fulfills its objectives without incapacitating its means and resources and without placing undue strain upon its members” (Georgopoulos & Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 535-536). Considering the difficulty of obtaining a concrete formula for measuring organizational performance, this definition proposes certain criteria that should be met. First, measures of effectiveness should tie in with organizational objectives. Second, organizational goals should be viewed as functional wholes and measures of big-picture performance. Third, criteria should be system relevant and applicable across organizations.

In specific, organizational goal attainment suggests the efficiency with which an organization achieves its goal, chiefly the increase in financial value produced by the organizational system, or minimization of expenditures on human and material resources (Ramirez, 1999). Stressing that organizations strive to be productive without waste, Heath (2001) also bifurcated the value of corporate communication to organizational goal attainment into measures reflecting revenue generation and cost reduction. On one hand, effective communication strategies can help organizations survive and make money by maximizing revenues from other organizational functions (Hon, 1998). This spillover effect was also longitudinally corroborated that a corporation’s communication efforts can positively influence its organizational returns across different industries and business models (Kim, 1997). Hence, CEOs and other top executives believe that only if communication strategies are able to increase the net profitability can communicators fulfill organizational goals most effectively (Kim, 2001). On the other hand, cost reduction effects highlight the strength of communication in conflict resolution and crisis management. Excellent communicative acts increase organizational effectiveness by defusing conflict and shunning associated costs (Dozier et al., 2013). Moreover, as the role of strategic communication in crisis management is increasing (Fall, 2004), top-level communication officers formulate specific strategies not only to relieve external sources of pressure but also to render synergistically integrated crisis communication strategies. As thus, we posit the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: The formulation of communication strategies precedes organizational performance in revenue generation and cost reduction.

The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations

Based on strategic process theory, the direct effect demonstrated above has been challenged because the implementation of strategic orientation is crucial for transiting communication strategies to organizational performance. Accordingly, while communication practice relates to strategy formulation, that is, the managerial activity of strategic planning and decision making based on internal and situational analysis (Coombs, 2007; Hillman & Hitt, 1999), strategic orientation signifies strategy implementation, which specifies an administrative task in deploying pertinent means to realize the intended strategic plans (Kortmann, 2014). Top executives and senior communication managers make choices of strategies and practitioners successively engage in identifying, implementing, and internalizing strategic orientations to achieve the desired communication effects. Hence, business outcomes at the organizational level depend not only on formulated communication strategies that are planned to be executed but also on how multiple strategies are implemented by practitioners.

For this reason, communication practitioners’ strategic worldview and philosophy of resource allocation should be considered in order to explicate the performance predicament in linking communication activities to organizational ups and downs (Garnett et al., 2008). To transform formulated strategies to organizational performance, two strategic orientations—reputation orientation and OPR orientation—are of specific relevance to strategic communication. Reputation orientation refers to the disposition to pinpoint communication value as creating, defending, and restoring the organizational reputation (Gibson et al., 2006), which generally exhibits the cumulative impression various stakeholders have of an organization (Fombrun, 1996). CEOs and top managers interpret the ultimate goal of strategic communication as being the dissemination and communication of an organization’s self-image. Similarly, practitioners continue to expound on the importance of building and maintaining corporate reputation, especially in crisis communication scenarios such as ethical or business scandals (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Sims, 2009). However, corporations that overemphasize reputation orientation, and thus, an aggregation of symbolic activities undertaken from the organizational stances (Heath & Toth, 1992), may lose sight of relational outcomes subjectively experienced or objectively represented by organizations and their constituencies. Hence, a balanced approach to communication practices requires practitioners to implement an OPR orientation, which evaluates the long-term communication value that leads to mutual benefits for both the organization and its publics (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). This perspective underlining the transition from informational to relational PR and communication management (Van Ruler & Vercic, 2005) is also valued by practitioners in each strategic management stage. This distinction between two types of strategic orientation can be more explicitly expressed in practitioners’ understanding of the value-based management: the reputation orientation equates corporate value with share-holder value, which highlights economic return on investment and thus focuses on creating and maintaining a favorable image in the communication marketplace and among investors; while the OPR orientation pays closer attention to the stakeholder value which incorporates various stakeholders’ expectations and interests into the management framework and goes beyond a company’s positioning in marketplace to its cultural and social environment (Zerfass & Viertmann, 2017).

Communication Strategies and Strategic Orientation

The RBV theorizes strategic orientation and organizational culture, intangible in nature, as particularly important internal resources with the potential to deliver sustainable competitive advantages to a firm (Barney, 1991). Hence, different levels of valuable and nonsubstitutable resources may give rise to performance gaps (Hitt et al., 2001). Applying this organization-level logic into the communication department comprising frontline managers and practitioners, however, is necessary but not sufficient to decipher the communication value. In addition to being equipped with resources, the resource orchestration view recognizes the process in which practitioners orchestrate resources to fully unleash potential advantages (Morrow et al., 2007; Sirmon et al., 2011). That is, the formulation of communication strategies represents the initial resource base practitioners are able to access, while the implementation of strategic orientation denotes how practitioners mobilize and integrate various resources for particular use. They develop and configure existing resources generated from routine practices into a firm’s strengths that enhance the probability for wealth creation (Brush et al., 2001). As a result, the development of strategic resources derived from strategy formulation constitutes vital assets for the communication department as well as the organization because it renders foundation for the strategic orientation toward developing favorable reputation or positive OPR. It is thus posited that

Hypothesis 2: The formulation of communication strategies supports the implementation of both (a) reputation orientation and (b) OPR orientation.

Strategic Orientation and Organizational Performance

While the reputation orientation specifies public reputation as a fundamental notion reflecting direct communication effectiveness, OPR orientation concludes that communication practice drives the growth of organizational effectiveness through building a long-term relationship of trust and helping balance the organizational goal with the expectations of strategic publics (Dozier et al., 2013). Nevertheless, no matter what immediate objectives are fulfilled—a sound reputation or a positive OPR—those are rarely ultimate organizational goals (Hutton et al., 2001). The resource orchestration view suggests that practitioners’ strategic orientation defines the configuration of resources that delivers more competitive advantages in strategic communication marketplaces and activities. Figuring this configuration out can reinforce a practitioner’s capability to discern and mobilize adequate resources to either align with or adapt to dynamics of external environment and expectations from multiple stakeholders. Hence, the strategic orientation enhances possibilities for high financial performance and business returns (Brush et al., 2001). In addition, the set of beliefs and values deeply rooted in strategic orientation increases the likelihood of an organization’s exceptional performance in crisis management as it expresses “the extent to which a given form is positioned to effectively tackle adverse environmental circumstances” (Sheaffer & Mano-Negrin, 2003, p. 580). This study thus posits that

Hypothesis 3: Organizational performance benefits from the implementation of both (a) reputation orientation and (b) OPR orientation.

By synthesizing strategic process theory with resource orchestration approach, this study argues that resources formulated in communication strategies may trigger organizational performance only if practitioners mobilize, leverage, and coordinate resources in a pattern meeting the demands of a specific market. This assertion echoes Ray et al.’s (2004) reflection that “firms that fail to efficiently and effectively translate their resources and capabilities into business processes cannot expect to realize the competitive advantage potential of these resources” (p. 26). It is through the cultural mechanism represented by the strategic orientation that “resources and capabilities get exposed to market processes where their ultimate value and ability to generate competitive advantages are realized” (Ray et al., 2004, p. 35). In other words, the positive influence of the resource base formulated in communication practices on a firm’s performance largely depends on “what practitioners do” rather than “what practitioners have.” This is also associated with the two-step perspective in PR, which assumes that reputation or OPR reflects the communication effectiveness at the department level, whereas organizational goal attainment captures the “ultimate” value of strategic communication (Huang, 2012; Kim, 2001). In essence, strategic orientation can serve as a key mediating variable in translating various communication strategies into organizational performance. Figure 1 shows the proposed mediation framework.

Hypothesis 4: The implementation of strategic orientation mediates the relationship between the formulation of communication strategies and organizational performance.

Figure 1.

Proposed mediation framework.

Sensitivity to Context: China and Hong Kong

The complete process of formulating, implementing, and evaluating communication activities exists within a specific context. It should thus be recognized that the context in which communicators and stakeholders interact varies overtime and necessitates adjustments in both communication strategies and strategic orientation to achieve an organization’s intended goal. Theories of strategic communication have long made normative assumptions about Western cultures and societies, neglecting to analyze contextual contingency and management localization that may influence specific practices of practitioners and communication managers (Huang et al., 2016). Coupled with modernization and modern transformation since the reform and opening-up, the evolution of China’s communication industry mirrors “the history of individual and organizational attempts to establish the legitimacy of PR practices” (Hu et al., 2015, p. 276). With the common heritage from collectivistic Confucian culture, Hong Kong played an intermediary role in the introduction of corporate communication and PR to China in the early 80s and shares a pressing need for two-way communication strategies and a licensing professional body (Ngai & Ng, 2013). However, Hong Kong enjoys unique political, economic, and media environments, rendering subtle attitudinal and perceptual variations in codes of professional conduct and managerial orientations (Chan & Lee, 1991; Lo et al., 2005). This article thus examines relative effects of two competing strategic orientations as mediating the relationship between communication strategies and organizational performance between two Chinese societies and proposes the following research question:

Research Question 1: What are the differences of the mediating role of strategic orientation between two samples?

Method

Data Collection and Sample

This study is part of a comprehensive project targeting specifically professional communicators from firms located in China and Hong Kong. Simultaneously examining the same model across two Chinese societies provides an opportunity to cross-validate the mediating role of strategic orientation between communication strategies and organizational performance.

Sample 1

A complete sampling frame of Chinese communication practitioners was not accessible in the absence of a national industry association in mainland China. Hence, we conducted an omnibus survey with a convenience sampling targeting members of China International Public Relations Association (CIPRA) and practitioners in major Chinese communication agencies. Established partly to take charge of the central government’s work on overseas publicity (Chen & Culbertson, 1992), CIPRA now comes closest to serving as a national industry association for corporate communication in China. In total, respondents returned 202 valid paper-form questionnaires with the participant consent form signed. A majority of respondents were female (63.9%); ages ranged from 20 to 45 years, with 28 as the median (M = 28.86, SD = 4.33). Education level was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from “primary school or lower” to “doctoral degree,” with the median at “bachelor’s degree” (M = 3.15, SD = .38). Working seniority in the communication industry was measured on an 8-point scale ranging from “no more than 2 years” to “20 years or more,” with the median at “2 (including 2 years) to 4 years” (M = 2.52, SD = 1.44).

Sample 2

Online surveys were conducted targeting communication practitioners employed by Hong Kong Fortune 500 corporations and communication agencies, and members of both local and multinational associations in Hong Kong. Respondents returned 203 completed questionnaires. Similarly, respondents were mostly female (73.9%); ages ranged from 20 to 57 years with a median at 28 (M = 30.27, SD = 7.59). Respondents also appeared more educated (M = 3.28, SD = .57) and more experienced in corporate communication industry (M = 2.86, SD = 2.02) than those in Sample 1.

Measures

Communication Strategies

Communication strategies derive from the four models of PR introduced by Grunig and Hunt (1984): (a) press agentry/publicity, (b) public information, (c) two-way asymmetrical, and (d) two-way symmetrical. This fourfold typology has received critiques for a low average reliability and criterion validity (Leichty & Springston, 1993), as well as a perceived weakness of cross-cultural adaptation (Grunig et al., 1995). This study seeks to move beyond current disputes by introducing three essential dimensions that account for both previous scholarship and cultural variations across Chinese societies: mediated communication, two-way symmetrical communication, and networking.

Mediated communication, in contrast to interpersonal communication which commonly occurs in face-to-face scenarios, consists of communication activities conducted through channels afforded by mass media such as newspaper, television, and specialized magazines (Huang, 2004). Moreover, information and communication technologies have enriched practitioners’ digital toolkits, empowering them to communicate with strategic publics in a dialogic manner (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Two-way symmetrical communication defines both the direction and the purpose of communication practices (Dozier et al., 2013). The presence of feedback throughout the communication process has distinguished two-way communication as a method for exchanging information via dialogue, as opposed to one-way communication, which disseminates messages via monologue. Determination of whether communication is symmetrical rests with practitioners’ openness to adjustments in the flow of information. In contrast to asymmetrical communication, which remains fundamental to organizational endeavors to change public opinion, symmetrical communication exhibits a balancing worldview that seeks to reconcile the relationship between organizations and public stakeholders. Networking embraces typical Eastern cultural characteristics represented by guanxi, which is defined by Bian (2006) as “a dyadic, particular and sentimental tie that has the potential of facilitating favor exchanges between the parties connected by the tie” (p. 312). The multiplexity of guanxi, which blends emotional values into instrumental functions, serves as the key to understanding multiple logics and identities of communication practices in China (Hou et al., 2013). In practice, networking activities fulfill a diversified set of functions and create productive benefits that facilitate the formation of interpersonal resources for Chinese practitioners (Huang, 2000).

Grounded on the above discussion, the formulation of communication strategies was measured in line with the instrument adopted by Dozier et al. (2013) and Huang (2004). Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of adopting three essential categories of strategies, that is, mediated communication, two-way symmetrical communication, and networking on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (usually). Items constituting these communication strategies are summarized in Appendix A (see supplemental material available online).

Organizational Performance

The goal-attainment approach to measuring organizational effectiveness was adopted by asking respondents to rate the extent to which communication practice contributes to two subdimensions of organizational goal attainment; namely, revenue generation and cost reduction on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all contributive) to 4 (very contributive). Four items investigating the financial perspective in the balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), which allows professionals to crystallize the connection between communication activities and organizational bottom line, measured respondents’ perceptions of communication value vis-à-vis revenue generation by increasing (a) business and sales, (b) stock value, (c) financial performance, and (d) return on investment. Four items capturing key concepts in crisis management and conflict resolution (Dozier et al., 2013) measured respondents’ perceptions of communication value vis-à-vis cost reduction resulting from (a) crisis, (b) public complaints, (c) lawsuits, and (d) opposition and activist pressure.

Strategic Orientation

The implementation of two strategic orientations, that is, reputation orientation and OPR orientation, was operationalized. The Harris-Fombrun Quotient, a multistakeholder-based business reputation model (Fombrun et al., 2000; Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004), was consulted for measuring practitioners’ reputation orientation. Respondents were asked four questions regarding the extent to which communication contributes to increasing the public impression that the organization (a) supports good causes, (b) maintains high standards in the way it treats people, (c) functions as an environmentally responsible entity, and (d) offers high-quality products and services. The OPR orientation was operationalized to keep the questionnaire succinct and of reasonable length after consulting prior multidimensional measures (e.g., Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Huang, 2001). We accentuated three key features of OPR by asking respondents the extent to which communication practice contributes to (a) increasing the maintenance and cultivation of relationships with stakeholders, (b) developing new networks (e.g., new community groups), and (c) maintaining important networks (e.g., opinion leaders within community groups). Both strategic orientations were measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all contributive) to 4 (very contributive).

Control Variables

Both firm-level and individual-level control variables were included to enhance the explanatory strength of the proposed model. As larger and more established companies tend to show more industry-matched performance (Mikkelson et al., 1997) and allocate more communicative resources to organizational reputation (Hutton et al., 2001), the size and age of firms were controlled by means of the estimated number of employees and years since the firm’s establishment. Prior research emphasizes the ownership structure as a predictor of managers’ perceptions of organizational rules, procedures, and goals (Hou et al., 2013; Lan & Rainey, 1992). Therefore, ownership structure was controlled by adding a dummy variable (1 = communication agency, 0 = private enterprise, state-owned or public enterprise, foreign enterprise, government agency, or nonprofit organization). Finally, individual-level demographics including age, gender, education level, and working seniority in the field of communication industry were also set as covariates to control for potential extraneous effects.

In addition to controlling for the ownership structure, the typical principal-agency relationship should be recognized that for practitioners working in communication agencies, the business value created for the agent differs from that created for their client organizations. Therefore, we asked agency respondents to reflect communication value and strategic orientation on the organizational clients rather than their own agencies. Although agency practitioners might work for clients in various industries that define organizational performance in diverse approaches, measuring their activities and general attitudes toward communication’s contribution to organizations they served is assumed to have aligned with the current concern and minimized the potential impact of sample heterogeneity. Appendix A (see supplemental material available online) presents an overview of constructs and item loadings.

Analyses and Results

To test the proposed model, we employed the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), which is frequently used in marketing and strategic management research. Compared with covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM), PLS shows advantages in handling complex conceptual models with mediating effects and analyzing datasets with relatively small sample size (Hair et al., 2017). SmartPLS (Version 3; Ringle et al., 2015) was used under guidelines provided by Hair et al. (2017). Inner weightings were generated using a path approach and the t-statistics were estimated with 5,000 bootstrapping subsamples.

Validity and Reliability

Drawing on Hair et al. (2017), the measurement model was assessed by means of (a) internal consistency reliability, (b) convergent validity, and (c) discriminant validity. Internal consistency reliability assesses the extent to which an item loads on its purposed construct. It was evaluated by means of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR), adopting the .7 benchmark for moderate reliability. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, all measures other than the mediated communication (Cronbach’s α = .56, CR = .76) exceeded this benchmark (China: .71/.82 and Hong Kong: .77/.84), thus ensuring the internal consistency. Convergent validity refers to the degree to which an indicator correlates positively with alternative indicators of the same construct. The criterion used to evaluate the convergent validity is the average variance extracted (AVE), which is the grand mean of the squared loadings of the items associated with the construct. In both samples, the suggested cutoff value (AVE >.5) was exceeded by each of the measures (China: .53 and Hong Kong: .53). Discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is empirically distinct from other constructs. In PLS, discriminant validity is evaluated through the Fornell-Larcker criterion that the square root of each construct’s AVE value should be greater than its correlation coefficients with other measures (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As presented in Tables 1 and 2, the criterion was met by each construct encompassed in the proposed model. Moreover, the confirmatory factor analysis conducted to substantiate the assessment indicated that each indicator’s outer loading on the associated construct was greater than any of its cross-loadings on other constructs (see Appendix B in supplemental material, available online). Because all conditions stipulated by Hair et al. (2017) were fulfilled, it can be concluded that proposed measures showed acceptable validity and reliability.

Table 1.

Psychometric Properties of Measurement Scales (China).

Constructs		Descriptive					Correlation
Constructs		M	SD	CR	CA	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1	Mediated communication	3.17	0.77	.82	.71	.61	.75 ^a
2	Two-way symmetrical communication	3.52	0.55	.86	.80	.60	.39***	.75 ^a
3	Networking	3.02	0.60	.82	.73	.53	.25***	.36***	.71 ^a
4	Reputation orientation	3.17	0.69	.91	.89	.71	.23**	.18*	.11	.82 ^a
5	OPR orientation	3.31	0.63	.78	.76	.55	.27***	.29***	.26***	.48***	.71 ^a
6	Revenue generation	2.96	0.74	.88	.85	.64	.10	.35***	.11	.22**	.40***	.78 ^a
7	Cost reduction	2.93	0.71	.88	.86	.65	.17*	.19*	.22**	.46***	.46***	.50***	.75 ^a
8	Age	28.86	4.33	—	—	—	.19*	.16*	.05	.08	.09	−.03	−.02	NA ^a
9	Gender	1.65	0.48	—	—	—	.06	.14	.05	.08	.19**	.13	.01	−.09	NA ^a
10	Education level	3.15	0.38	—	—	—	.10	−.04	.05	−.01	.08	−.07	−.08	.21**	.05	NA ^a
11	Working seniority	2.52	1.44	—	—	—	.25***	.21*	.10	.07	.08	−.01	.04	.69***	−.01	.08	NA ^a
12	Firm size	7.92	1.42	—	—	—	.02	−.06	.09	.06	.01	−.01	−.05	−.01	−.13	.10	.07	NA ^a
13	Firm age	5.04	1.54	—	—	—	.07	.04	−.03	−.07	.02	.02	−.06	.10	−.03	.15*	.15*	.50***	NA ^a
14	Ownership type	0.84	0.37	—	—	—	.04	−.00	.02	−.08	−.03	.01	.11	−.10	−.22**	−.05	.05	.02	.10	NA ^a

Note. n = 202. AVE = average variance extracted; CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; NA = not applicable; OPR = organization-public relationship.

Value on the diagonal is the square root of AVE (bold).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Psychometric Properties of Measurement Scales (Hong Kong).

Constructs		Descriptive					Correlation
Constructs		M	SD	CR	CA	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1	Mediated communication	3.36	0.61	.76	.56	.51	.72 ^a
2	Two-way symmetrical communication	3.48	0.57	.88	.81	.71	.32***	.84 ^a
3	Networking	3.01	0.60	.84	.77	.58	.12	.20**	.76 ^a
4	Reputation orientation	3.00	0.73	.88	.88	.64	.23**	.42***	.10	.80 ^a
5	OPR orientation	3.14	0.60	.84	.81	.64	.08	.23**	.13	.54***	.80 ^a
6	Revenue generation	2.67	0.68	.85	.83	.60	.33***	.22*	.22*	.46***	.34***	.77 ^a
7	Cost reduction	2.84	0.71	.92	.90	.74	.22**	.19*	.09	.44***	.41***	.26**	.86 ^a
8	Age	30.27	7.59	—	—	—	.14	.24**	.08	.14	.07	.22*	.07	NA ^a
9	Gender	1.74	0.44	—	—	—	.19**	.13	.11	.14	.10	.01	.04	−.23**	NA ^a
10	Education level	3.28	0.57	—	—	—	−.11	.04	−.06	.15	.01	−.17	−.10	.23**	.12	NA ^a
11	Working seniority	2.86	2.02	—	—	—	.23**	.40***	.15*	.27**	.07	.04	.09	.65***	.11	.26***	NA ^a
12	Firm size	7.05	3.30	—	—	—	−.07	.04	−.08	.12	.15	−.05	.01	.12	.19*	.28***	.09	NA ^a
13	Firm age	7.17	2.46	—	—	—	.07	.12	.01	.13	.10	.01	.09	.15	.12	.20**	.11	.61***	NA ^a
14	Ownership type	0.36	0.48	—	—	—	.29***	.04	.10	−.19*	−.20*	.04	−.02	−.15	−.08	−.22**	−.05	−.69***	−.40***	NA ^a

Note. n = 203. AVE = average variance extracted; CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; NA = not applicable; OPR = organization-public relationship.

Value on the diagonal is the square root of AVE (bold).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Common Method Variance

Common method variance (CMV) refers to the “variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent” (Podsakoff et al., 2003, p. 879). As both the focal explanatory and dependent variables are perceptual measures provided by one communication practitioner at one point in time, the results are subject to potential CMV that creates false internal consistency and systematic measurement errors (Chang et al., 2010).

Therefore, we detected CMV through two post hoc tests of the data. First, the extent of CMV was evaluated with Harman’s (1967) one-factor test by entering all proposed constructs into a principal component factor analysis. Evidence for CMV is present if the general factor accounts for most of the covariance among all constructs. The Harman’s one-factor test showed that the first factor only accounted for 12.35% (12.11%) of the total variance in the China (Hong Kong) sample, while seven factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 accounted for 68.92% (68.88%) of the variance. Moreover, each construct explained roughly equal variance ranging from 7.75% (6.47%) to 12.35% (12.11%). Next, we adopted a full collinearity assessment method in Kock (2015) that any occurrence of a variance inflation factor value greater than 3.3 indicates pathological collinearity as well as a model contaminated by CMV. Results showed that factor-level variance inflation factors obtained from a full collinearity test ranged from 1.10 (1.09) to 2.04 (2.41). Because both ex post statistical tests indicated absence of CMV, it can be asserted that the proposed model was free of CMV.

Model Fit

Criteria suggested by Hair et al. (2017) were employed to evaluate the model fit, which include cutoff values of .10 or lower for the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and .90 or higher for the normed fit index (NFI). The proposed model revealed excellent fit for both China (SRMR = .048; NFI = .956) and Hong Kong samples (SRMR = .042; NFI = .970). In addition, a Bollen-Stine bootstrapping procedure was performed to compute the discrepancy between the model-implied correlation matrix and the empirical correlation matrix. According to Dijkstra and Henseler (2015), d_LS (i.e., the squared Euclidean distance) and d_G (geodesic distance) are two different methods to measure this discrepancy. For both exact fit criteria, the upper bound of the confidence interval (CI; 95% point) were larger than the original value of d_LS and d_G, indicating that the computed discrepancy was nonsignificant (p > .05). It can thus be asserted that the proposed model fit was established.

Examining Direct and Indirect Relationships

China sample and Hong Kong sample were analyzed separately to control contextually sensitive factors that may confound potential findings. Tables 1 and 2 showcase an overview of descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations between all proposed variables for each sample. While Figure 2 displays the structural model incorporating both first-order and second-order constructs, all the direct effects, including control variables, are presented in Table 3. Results of both samples revealed that the formulation of communication strategies supported the implementation of both reputation orientation (China: β = .23, p < .01; Hong Kong: β = .33, p < .001) and OPR orientation (China: β = .32, p < .001; Hong Kong: β = .27, p < .001), thus supporting Hypotheses 2a and 2b. Moreover, both models featured significant direct paths from reputation orientation (China: β = .22, p < .01; Hong Kong: β = .38, p < .001) and OPR orientation (China: β = .36, p < .001; Hong Kong: β = .25, p < .01) to organizational performance. As a result, Hypotheses 3a and 3b were also well supported that organizational performance benefits from the implementation of both reputation orientation and OPR orientation.

Figure 2.

Results of structural equation modeling.

Table 3.

Results of Structural Equation Modeling.

Path		China		Hong Kong
Path		β coefficient	p	β coefficient	p
H1	Communication strategy → organizational performance	.11	.093	.09	.196
H2a	Communication strategy → reputation orientation	.23	.002	.33	<.001
H2b	Communication strategy → OPR orientation	.32	<.001	.27	<.001
H3a	Reputation orientation → organizational performance	.22	.009	.38	<.001
H3b	OPR orientation → organizational performance	.36	<.001	.25	.005
CV	Firm size → organizational performance	−.06	.357	−.09	.348
CV	Firm size → reputation orientation	.15	.027	−.05	.572
CV	Firm size → OPR orientation	.04	.675	.10	.318
CV	Firm age → organizational performance	−.00	.988	.07	.397
CV	Firm age → reputation orientation	−.11	.110	.01	.861
CV	Firm age → OPR orientation	−.02	.804	−.07	.440
CV	Ownership type → organizational performance	.07	.280	.06	.405
CV	Ownership type → reputation orientation	−.06	.418	−.20	.025
CV	Ownership type → OPR orientation	−.02	.741	−.14	.076
CV	Age → organizational performance	−.09	.316	.11	.116
CV	Age → reputation orientation	.06	.552	−.05	.571
CV	Age → OPR orientation	.09	.302	.03	.733
CV	Gender → organizational performance	−.01	.827	−.03	.586
CV	Gender → reputation orientation	.05	.528	.03	.695
CV	Gender → OPR orientation	.13	.095	.05	.482
CV	Education level → organizational performance	−.07	.294	−.13	.048
CV	Education level → reputation orientation	−.03	.703	.08	.274
CV	Education level → OPR orientation	.05	.441	−.01	.928
CV	Working seniority → organizational performance	.03	.759	−.11	.186
CV	Working seniority → reputation orientation	−.02	.794	.13	.165
CV	Working seniority → OPR orientation	−.08	.346	−.05	.560

Note. CV = control variable; H = hypothesis. Significant p values are presented in bold.

However, after controlling for the effect of reputation orientation and OPR orientation as two mediators, the initially significant relationship between communication strategies and organizational performance (China: β = .28, p < .001; Hong Kong: β = .29, p < .001) turned out to be insignificant (China: β = .11, p = .093; Hong Kong: β = .09, p = .196). As thus, both samples supported Hypothesis 4, while not Hypothesis 1. This suggests that the direct influence of formulated communication strategies on organizational performance was fully mediated by practitioners’ implementation of strategic orientation. With regard to the differences of the mediating role of strategic orientation between two samples (Research Question 1), specific indirect effects were closely examined using the bootstrap estimation with 5,000 bootstrap samples. Table 4 presents direct as well as indirect effects of the proposed mediation model for both samples. Results of the China sample revealed that OPR orientation mediated all six pathways from antecedent to outcome variables. By contrast, reputation orientation was merely capable of mediating the relationship between mediated communication and revenue generation (Β = .05, Boot standard error [SE] = .02, 95% CI = [.011, .112]) and cost reduction (Β = .10, Boot SE = .04, 95% CI = [.032, .186]).

Table 4.

Summary of Indirect Effects.

Independent variable	Mediator	Dependent variable	Indirect effect (China)				Indirect effect (Hong Kong)
Independent variable	Mediator	Dependent variable	Β	Boot SE	Boot CI, LL	Boot CI, UL	Β	Boot SE	Boot CI, LL	Boot CI, UL
Mediated communication	REP	Revenue	.05	.02	.011	.112	.13	.05	.044	.263
	REP	Cost	.10	.04	.032	.186	.14	.05	.055	.261
	OPR	Revenue	.08	.03	.031	.138	.04	.04	−.033	.126
	OPR	Cost	.12	.04	.055	.202	.03	.04	−.045	.136
Two-way symmetrical communication	REP	Revenue	.04	.03	−.001	.114	.20	.07	.078	.358
	REP	Cost	.08	.05	−.007	.203	.16	.07	.059	.316
	OPR	Revenue	.10	.04	.035	.203	.16	.06	.070	.306
	OPR	Cost	.17	.06	.068	.291	.17	.07	.058	.345
Networking	REP	Revenue	.02	.02	−.014	.080	.01	.05	−.087	.110
	REP	Cost	.04	.04	−.039	.132	.02	.05	−.069	.125
	OPR	Revenue	.09	.03	.032	.164	.05	.03	−.004	.122
	OPR	Cost	.12	.04	.046	.219	.06	.03	.009	.145

Note. Bootstrap samples = 5,000. Values for significant indirect effects are presented in bold. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit CI; UL = upper limit CI; SE = standard error; REP = reputation orientation; OPR = organization-public relationship orientation; Β = unstandardized effect size.

Within the Hong Kong sample, the sequence of priority in understanding the mediating role of strategic orientation appeared to be greatly, if not completely, reversed. Reputation orientation mediated the paths from mediated communication to revenue generation (Β = .13, Boot SE = .05, 95% CI = [.044, .263]) and cost reduction (Β = .14, Boot SE = .05, 95% CI = [.055, .261]). Similarly, reputation orientation also mediated the relationship between two-way symmetrical communication and two performance variables (Β = .20, Boot SE = .07, 95% CI = [.078, .358]; Β = .16, Boot SE = .07, 95% CI = [.059, .316]). On the contrary, the OPR orientation only demonstrated significant indirect effects as mediating the paths from two-way symmetrical communication to both dependent variables (Β = .16, Boot SE = .06, 95% CI = [.070, .306]; Β = .17, Boot SE = .07, 95% CI = [.058, .345]), as well as the association between networking strategies and cost reduction (Β = .06, Boot SE = .03, 95% CI = [.009, .145]).

Discussion, Implications, and Limitations

Through synchronizing strategic process theory with resource orchestration view, this study examined the role of practitioners’ strategic orientation in transiting communication strategies to organizational performance across two Chinese societies. Results demonstrated that practitioners’ reputation orientation and OPR orientation are both effective at explaining how communication contributes to organizational performance. In line with strategic process theory, the findings exhibited that reputation orientation and OPR orientation represent two strategic value systems, which deploy pertinent means to realize intended strategic plans and to achieve desired communication effects. As thus, the prior model supporting the direct effect of communication on organizational goal attainment has been challenged and extended that business success at the organizational level depends not only on the communication strategies formulated by the executive leadership team or senior communication managers, but more importantly, on how these formulated strategies are implemented by frontline practitioners. With respect to resource orchestration approach, this study indicates that practitioners derive strategic resources from routine practices and then configurate resources according to specific strategic orientations to obtain more sustainable competing advantages leading to higher business returns and lower crisis management/conflict resolution costs.

A closer inspection of the post hoc mediating effect analysis suggests a latent correspondence between specific communication strategies and strategic orientations. The mediation effect of reputation orientation is stronger for communication strategies that emphasize media publicity, whereas strategies accentuating interpersonal and two-way symmetrical communication will see a greater mediating role played by OPR orientation. One possible explanation is that frontline practitioners tend to see reputation management more relevant to the public with no direct connection to an organization, while relationship management more relevant to closely associated stakeholders of an organization such as employees, customers, and shareholders (Hutton et al., 2001). This evidence has enhanced the applicability of strategic process theory and resource orchestration view to the process-driven assessment of communication value. Practitioners implemented their logic of resource orchestration in line with the strategies formulated by top-level managers or communication officers to achieve intended organizational goal.

Examination of the differences of strategic orientation’s role between two samples provided several insights into the contextual sensitivity of results. For practitioners from mainland China, the mediation effect of OPR orientation was stronger than that of reputation orientation; while for those from Hong Kong, the opposite was true. This suggests that communication management is most effective when it is both functionally dynamic and locally specific. Although scholars advocate a participatory and stakeholder-centric approach to strategic communication (Falkheimer & Heide, 2014; Heath & Johansen, 2018), this study uses a contextual variable to demonstrate one theory versus practice contradiction frequently observed in adopting a dialogic framework for building and maintaining external relationships with stakeholders (Macnamara, 2006; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). The utopian premise that practitioners spontaneously incorporate theoretical frameworks into practices on a daily basis is problematic. In fact, academics and practitioners exist for different purposes and strive for different goals. Compared with practitioners from mainland China who tend to use two-way symmetrical communication to build and strengthen relationship with associated publics (China: M = 3.52, SD = 0.55; Hong Kong: M = 3.48, SD = 0.57), Hong Kong practitioners deploy more mediated savvy strategies from an organizational stance (China: M = 3.17, SD = 0.77; Hong Kong: M = 3.36, SD = 0.61). Therefore, it is still too premature to abandon one strategic value system in favor of the other.

The strength of relationship management indicates a relational shift underway in the PR and strategic communication paradigm, but OPR is far from a dominant strategic orientation fully endorsed by the industry. Kiesenbauer and Zerfass (2015) focused on professionals’ conceptualization of strategic communication and found that chief communication officers viewed their mission as managing relationships with various stakeholders, while future communication leaders (Generation Y) held that reputation management remained of paramount importance for communication departments. Testing the potential paradigm shift against the Chinese context, Hou et al. (2013) found that in-house practitioners saw PR as subordinate to organizational branding and marketing, while agency consultants conceived of PR as “the long-term and strategic communication through which public perceptions are delicately managed rather than as a means for developing organizational image” (p. 321). Hence, the field requires continued efforts to determine at what level either strategic orientation translates communication practice into the organization performance.

Practical Implications

Communication managers and practitioners can also find some takeaways in this study. First, it exhibits how the implementation of strategic orientation can serve as a catalyst in translating communication value from the department level to the organizational level. Accordingly, the role of communication practitioners in unlocking an organization’s competitive advantages for continuous superior performance is further clarified. However, untrammeled configuration and mobilization of existing resources is not always the case in practice. As an example, Cardwell et al. (2017) suggested that internal relationship dynamics and communication obligation to executive leadership have hindered strategic communication managers’ attempts to integrate dialogic theory with external relationship building. Therefore, top executives and communication practitioners still need more collaborative efforts to ensure that the formulation and implementation of communication strategies are consistent and coherent. Second, the flexibility of strategic orientation allows practitioners to tailor strategy implementation to strategy formulation. When engaging in interactions with constituencies at different levels of familiarity to an organization, practitioners can adjust the strategic orientation as well as the associated managerial means to achieve the final goal. This also provides support for Parker’s (2000) theoretical framework of proactive motivation which highlights the importance of flexible role orientation in explaining how a proactive workforce contributes to competitive advantages. Third, as an intermediary bridging the top executive team and frontline practitioners, chief communication officers can reversely formulate strategies that are congruent and compatible with the cultural mechanism of a firm at large. In this process, knowing in advance an organization’s preferential managerial value system is necessary for accumulating adequate strategic resources. For instance, an excellent reputation might be extremely important for organizations like airline companies, which think highly of sustaining flow of new passengers, as well as sincere understanding from the public in crisis situations. In this context, strategies emphasizing media publicity might be more effective than lobbying in an interpersonal way. For financial intermediaries such as investment corporations and securities broker companies, the great importance attached to the long-term productive relationship among individual and group investors might require more networking and two-way symmetrical strategies. Moreover, feedback loops linking formulation and implementation of communication strategies should be established and improved to make chief communicators and practitioners mutually informed. Fourth, the findings underscore unique cultural factors that may have an impact on the relative importance of different communication strategies and strategic orientations. Both top-level communicators and frontline practitioners have to be culturally sensitive to the specific market and stakeholders they are serving.

Limitations and Future Research

A couple of limitations of this study should be pointed out. First, this study makes a distinction between reputation orientation and OPR orientation in a purposive way. However, these two guiding strategic value systems are conceptually intertwined (Grunig & Hung, 2015). Recent work by DiStaso et al. (2015) also suggests that digital media’s interactivity and transparency enable practitioners to engage in conversational communication with their publics, thereby simultaneously developing quality OPR and maintaining organizational reputation. Hence, the contrast between two strategic values systems is not absolute—it reflects only general tendencies. It is rather the priority of sequence than the issue of “if or not” that draws most considerations from practitioners affiliated to different management cultures. Second, this exploratory study rests on the comparatively small size of both samples and different methods adopted to collect data from two Chinese societies (paper-form survey vs. online survey). The inaccessibility to a probability sampling strategy makes it impossible to generalize the findings to the wide variety of communication managers and practitioners in China and Hong Kong. A closer examination of the data shows that Hong Kong practitioners’ reputation orientation was significantly influenced by ownership type (Hong Kong: β = −.20, p < .05). However, the ratio of respondents working in communication agencies differs greatly between samples (China: 81.2%; Hong Kong: 30.0%). This gap calls for a more systematic sampling frame in further investigations. Third, the scope of this study is restricted to the Chinese context, so part of the findings may be prompted by cultural specifics. For instance, Huang (2000) demonstrated that networking strategies such as la guanxi (pull connection) and gao guanxi (work connection) were usually adopted by Chinese communication professionals to mobilize and channel resources through different social classes. It is reasonable that the mediating strength of OPR orientation prevails over that of reputation orientation in China given that guanxi has gained increasing significance in contemporary Chinese market economies (Nee, 1992; Zhou et al., 2003). Future studies should take a closer look at the subtle gradations among communication strategies and between strategic orientations, moving beyond Chinese societies in order to scrutinize other cultural specifics and their effects on organizational goal attainment through communication. Finally, the cross-sectional design adopted in this study is not sufficient to elucidate the causality among variables. Although the proposed mediation model concurs with extant theories, more convincing findings can be obtained with longitudinal data.

Supplemental Material

IJBC_Revision_Appendix – Supplemental material for Uncovering the Role of Strategic Orientation in Translating Communication Strategies to Organizational Performance: An Analysis of Practitioners From Two Chinese Societies

Supplemental material, IJBC_Revision_Appendix for Uncovering the Role of Strategic Orientation in Translating Communication Strategies to Organizational Performance: An Analysis of Practitioners From Two Chinese Societies by Xiao Wang and Yi-Hui Christine Huang in International Journal of Business Communication

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Xiao Wang

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Xiao Wang is a PhD candidate at the School of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests revolve around crisis communication, the evolution of emergency collaboration networks, privacy boundary and data protection, and sports media economics.

Yi-Hui Christine Huang is the Chair professor of communication and media at the Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include cross-cultural communication and relationship, public relations management, crisis management and crisis communication, and conflict resolution and negotiation.

References

Argenti

P. A.

Druckenmiller

(2004). Reputation and the corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 368-374. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540005

Barney

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Bian

Y. J.

(2006). Guanxi. In Beckert

Zafirovski

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of economic sociology (pp. 312-314). Routledge.

Blocker

C. P.

Flint

D. J.

Myers

M. B.

Slater

S. F.

(2011). Proactive customer orientation and its role for creating customer value in global markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 216-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0202-9

Bourgeois

L. J.

Brodwin

D. R.

(1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241-264. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050305

Bowen

S. A.

Rawlins

Martin

(2010). An overview of the public relations function. Business Expert Press.

Brush

C. G.

Greene

P. G.

Hart

M. M.

(2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(1), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4251394

Cardwell

L. A.

Williams

Pyle

(2017). Corporate public relations dynamics: Internal vs. external stakeholders and the role of the practitioner. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 152-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.11.004

Chan

J. M.

Lee

C. C.

(1991). Mass media and political transition: The Hong Kong press in China’s orbit. Guilford Press.

10.

Chang

S. J.

Van Witteloostuijn

Eden

(2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178-184. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88

11.

Chen

Culbertson

H. M.

(1992). Two contrasting approaches of government public relations in mainland China. Public Relations Quarterly, 37(3), 36-41.

12.

Coombs

W. T.

(2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

13.

Dijkstra

T. K.

Henseler

(2015). Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 81(January), 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2014.07.008

14.

DiStaso

M. W.

Vafeiadis

Amaral

(2015). Managing a health crisis on Facebook: How the response strategies of apology, sympathy, and information influence public relations. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.014

15.

Dozier

D. M.

Grunig

L. A.

Grunig

J. E.

(2013). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Falkheimer

Heide

(2014). Strategic communication in participatory culture: From one-and two-way communication to participatory communication through social media. In Holtzhausen

D. R.

Zerfass

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 361-374). Routledge.

17.

Fall

L. T.

(2004). The increasing role of public relations as a crisis management function: An empirical examination of communication restrategising efforts among destination organization managers in the wake of 11th September, 2001. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(3), 238-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/135676670401000304

18.

Fombrun

C. J.

(1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press.

19.

Fombrun

C. J.

Gardberg

N. A.

Sever

J. M.

(2000). The Reputation Quotient^SM: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2000.10

20.

Fombrun

C. J.

Van Riel

C. B.

(2004). Fame and fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations. Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

21.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980

22.

Garnett

J. L.

Marlowe

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). Penetrating the performance predicament: Communication as a mediator or moderator of organizational culture’s impact on public organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 266-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00861.x

23.

Gatignon

Xuereb

J. M.

(1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152066

24.

Georgopoulos

B. S.

Tannenbaum

A. S.

(1957). A study of organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 22(5), 534-540. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089477

25.

Gibson

Gonzales

J. L.

Castanon

(2006). The importance of reputation and the role of public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 51(3), 15-18.

26.

Grunig

J. E.

(2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core professional values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1201_3

27.

Grunig

J. E.

Grunig

L. A.

Sriramesh

Huang

Y. H.

Lyra

(1995). Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(3), 163-186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0703_01

28.

Grunig

J. E.

Hung

C. J. F.

(2015). The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. In Ki

E. J.

Kim

J. N.

Ledingham

J. A.

(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 95-145). Routledge.

29.

Grunig

J. E.

Hunt

T. T.

(1984). Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

30.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

Thiele

K. O.

(2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x

31.

Harman

(1967). A single factor test of common method variance. Journal of Psychology, 35, 359-378.

32.

Heath

R. L.

(2001). Shifting foundations: Public relations as relationship building. In Heath

R. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 1-9). Sage.

33.

Heath

R. L.

Toth

E. L.

(1992). Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations. Routledge.

34.

Heath

R. L.

Johansen

(2018). The international encyclopedia of strategic communication. Wiley-Blackwell.

35.

Hillman

A. J.

Hitt

M. A.

(1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 825-842. https://doi.org/10.2307/259357

36.

Hitt

M. A.

Bierman

Shimizu

Kochhar

(2001). Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069334

37.

Hon

L. C.

(1998). Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: Goals, objectives, and evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(2), 103-135. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1002_02

38.

Hou

Zhu

Bromley

(2013). Understanding public relations in China: Multiple logics and identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27(3), 308-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651913479926

39.

Huang

Y. H.

Zhang

(2015). Public relations and Chinese modernity: A 21st-century perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(3), 262-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1024251

40.

Huang

Y. H.

(2000). The personal influence model and gao guanxi in Taiwan Chinese public relations. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00042-4

41.

Huang

Y. H.

(2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 61-90. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1301_4

42.

Huang

Y. H.

(2004). PRSA: Scale development for exploring the impetus of public relations strategies. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100206

43.

Huang

Y. H.

(2012). Gauging an integrated model of public relations value assessment (PRVA): Scale development and cross-cultural studies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(3), 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.671987

44.

Huang

Y. H.

Cheng

(2016). Crisis communication in context: Cultural and political influences underpinning Chinese public relations practice. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.015

45.

Hutton

J. G.

Goodman

M. B.

Alexander

J. B.

Genest

C. M.

(2001). Reputation management: The new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations Review, 27(3), 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00085-6

46.

Kaplan

R. S.

Norton

D. P.

(1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.

47.

Kent

M. L.

Taylor

(2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X

48.

Kiesenbauer

Zerfass

(2015). Today’s and tomorrow’s challenges in public relations: Comparing the views of chief communication officers and next generation leaders. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 422-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.05.013

49.

Kim

(1997, September). Measuring efficiency: The economic impact model of reputation. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Public Relations Society of America, Nashville, TN.

50.

Kim

(2001). Measuring the economic value of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1301_2

51.

Kock

(2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

52.

Kortmann

(2014). The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 666-684. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12151

53.

Lan

Rainey

H. G.

(1992). Goals, rules, and effectiveness in public, private, and hybrid organizations: More evidence on frequent assertions about differences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037111

54.

Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

S. D.

(1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9

55.

Leichty

Springston

(1993). Reconsidering public relations models. Public Relations Review, 19(4), 327-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90055-H

56.

Littlejohn

S. W.

Foss

K. A.

(2008). Theories of human communication. Thomson/Wadsworth.

57.

V. H.

Chan

J. M.

Pan

(2005). Ethical attitudes and perceived practice: A comparative study of journalists in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Asian Journal of Communication, 15(2), 154-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980500118656

58.

Macnamara

(2006, September). The fork in the road of media and communication theory and practice. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Summit on Measurement, Portsmouth, NH.

59.

Macnamara

(2018). A review of new evaluation models for strategic communication: Progress and gaps. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(2), 180-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1428978

60.

Macnamara

Gregory

(2018). Expanding evaluation to progress strategic communication: Beyond message tracking to open listening. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1450255

61.

Marra

F. J.

(1998). Crisis communication plans: Poor predictors of excellent crisis public relations. Public Relations Review, 24(4), 461-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80111-8

62.

Mikkelson

W. H.

Partch

M. M.

Shah

(1997). Ownership and operating performance of companies that go public. Journal of Financial Economics, 44(3), 281-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(97)00006-8

63.

Mirabeau

Maguire

(2014). From autonomous strategic behavior to emergent strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1202-1229. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2149

64.

Morrow

J. L.

Jr. Sirmon

D. G.

Hitt

M. A.

Holcomb

T. R.

(2007). Creating value in the face of declining performance: Firm strategies and organizational recovery. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.579

65.

Narver

J. C.

Slater

S. F.

(1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251757

66.

Nee

(1992). Organizational dynamics of market transition: Hybrid forms, property rights, and mixed economy in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393531

67.

Ngai

C. S.

P. P.

(2013). Transforming into the new era: Public relations industry in Hong Kong and China. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 575-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.10.001

68.

Parker

(2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 447-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00025

69.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

70.

Ramirez

(1999). Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199901)20:1<49::AID-SMJ20>3.0.CO;2-2

71.

Ray

Barney

J. B.

Muhanna

W. A.

(2004). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.366

72.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J. M.

(2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com

73.

Rybalko

Seltzer

(2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004

74.

Sheaffer

Mano-Negrin

(2003). Executives’ orientations as indicators of crisis management policies and practices. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 573-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00351

75.

Sims

(2009). Toward a better understanding of organizational efforts to rebuild reputation following an ethical scandal. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 453-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0058-4

76.

Sirmon

D. G.

Hitt

M. A.

Ireland

R. D.

Gilbert

B. A.

(2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390-1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695

77.

Van Ruler

. (2016). Public relations: Too little emphasis on communication. Communication Management Review, 1(1), 6-27. http://doi.org/10.22522/cmr20160101

78.

Van Ruler

Vercic

(2005). Reflective communication management, future ways for public relations research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 29(1), 239-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2005.11679049

79.

Verhoeven

Zerfass

Tench

(2011). Strategic orientation of communication professionals in Europe. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(2), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2011.561080

80.

Zerfass

Schwalbach

Bentele

Sherzada

(2014). Corporate communications from the top and from the center. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 8(2), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2013.879146

81.

Zerfass

Viertmann

(2017). Creating business value through corporate communication: A theory-based framework and its practical application. Journal of Communication Management, 21(1), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-07-2016-0059

82.

Zhou

Zhao

Cai

(2003). Embeddedness and contractual relationships in China’s transitional economy. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 75-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088903

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB