An Institutional Approach to Public Relations Professional Project

An Institutional Approach to Public Relation’s Professional Project A Case Study of Nigeria Oludotun Kayode Fashakin Ph. D Student Department of Management Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University

Agenda Overview of dissertation Response 1: How can NIT and institutional logics contribute to the study of PR’s professional project? Response 2: How broad and how deep does the collected empirical data for this study develop the understanding of the public relations profession in Nigeria? Response 3: How will this study change and improve the way public relations researchers conduct national studies of the public relations profession? Future research?

What is the problem? Legitimacy of PR as a profession is called into question in the workplace arena in country specific contexts Inability of traditional approaches in the sociology of professions to cope with the shift of professional work to organizational settings (Merkelsen, 2011; Muzio, Brock & Suddaby, 2013)

Key concepts Public Relations Boundary spanning organizational function for managing relations and communication with key stakeholders Profession “Professions are exclusive occupational groups applying somewhat abstract knowledge to particular cases” (Abbott, 1988, p. 8) Legitimacy “A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574)

Research questions How and why could the perspectives of top management, the professional association (NIPR) and PR educators influence PRs professional projects and thereby contribute to professional legitimacy? RQ 1: Which perspectives affect the legitimacy of PR? RQ 2: How do these perceptions of the respective actors contribute to the underlying perspectives on the legitimacy of PR in Nigeria? RQ 3: How can we develop an institutional approach to the legitimacy in PR based on empirical evidence from a country-specific context?

Theoretical framework – Sociology of professions 1) Traits approach (Greenwood, 1957, Pieczka & L'Etang, 2001; Hoffmann & Hamidati, 2016) Body of knowledge Formal education Professional association Code of conduct Autonomy 2) Power approach (Pieczka & L'Etang, 2001; Freidson, 1986) Occupational dominance 3) Institutional approach (Muzio, Brock & Suddaby, 2013) Management determined workplace reality

Theoretical framework - Neoinstitutional Theory Definitions: “To institutionalize is to infuse with value beyond technical requirements of task at hand” (Selznick, 1957) Institutions as “comprising regulative, normative, and cultural cognitive elements that together with associated activities and resources provide stability and meaning to social life” (Scott, 2008) Characteristics: ü Describes and explains a phenomenon in a non rationalist manner ü Emphasizes relations between organizations and their environment

Research design

Some key findings 1) Fragmented corporate expectations 2) Unmet expectations arising from reliance on traditional approach 3) Unfounded assumptions of workplace autonomy 4) Disagreement between corporate expectations and profession’s practice

Conclusion An institutional approach to legitimacy process model Identify Institutional logics Examine Constellation of logics Understand Institutional complexities Meet expectations for Legitimacy (as perceived) Apply Strategic response

Response 1: How can NIT and institutional logics contribute to the study of PR’s professional project? (Theoretical question)

NIT: Development and key concepts ü Rationalized myths, decoupling (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) ü Institutional Isomorphism (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983) ü Institutional entrepreneurship (Dimaggio, 1988) ü Strategic responses (Oliver, 1991; Powell, 1991) ü Institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)

Brief History of NIT Subject of academic research over 30 years within the sociology of organizations (US and Scandinavia) Emphasis on: Interrelations between societal actors, organizations and environment ü Passive response to external pressures ü Drive for social support i. e. legitimacy Classic works: Meyer & Rowan (1977), Zucker (1977), Dimaggio & Powell (1983) Institutions as “comprising regulative, normative, and cultural cognitive elements that together with associated activities and resources provide stability and meaning to social life” (Scott, 2008) -

Institutional logics ü Broader perspective that brings society back into institutional and organizational theory discussions, describes society as an interinstitutional system (Friedland & Alford , 1991) ü Defined as “socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space and provide meaning to their reality” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804) ü Emphasis on interrelationships between institutions, individuals and organizations within social systems

Contribution of NIT to this study Enriches understanding of the: ü roles of professions as reflexive institutional agents/entrepreneurs ü influence of surrounding institutions on transformations to PR’s professional project ü factors mediating the (re)configuration of PR’s jurisdiction ü strategies, processes, and practices deployed by professions for obtaining legitimacy

Contribution of institutional logics to study ü Explains how social meanings, historical practices and beliefs that are external to organizations influence approach(es) for PR professional project t lla n io of l i og cs te ü Identifies co-existing logics and their constellation ü Establishes a basis for examining the institutional complexities confronting PR’s professional project and responding accordingly s on C Institutional context

Response 2: How broad and how deep does the collected empirical data for this study develop the understanding of the public relation’s profession in Nigeria? (Empirical question)

Data Collection Toward understanding the key actors perspectives on PR, historical practices, socially constructed beliefs, perceived appropriate behaviour and expectations for legitimacy 8 interviews 3 interviews NIPR membership requirements NIPR Decree 16. 1990 10 interviews NIPR Code of Professional Conduct 30 years of Public Relations, Anniversary publication NIPR professional standards Guide

Key findings in collected data 1 Non PR Educated-No Experience Fragmented Top managements 3 categories of top managements CL 1 NPNE - Fragmented corporate logics CL 2 NPEE - varied expectations based on critical resources needs, PR knowledge and/or experience CL 3 PREE Corporate logics (CL) Non PR Educated. Experienced

Key findings in collected data 2 CL 1 Top management vs. NIPR Top management and Government as evaluators of NIPR’s objects in the workplace and determiners of legitimacy Contradictions between Top managements’ expectations and NIPR’s practices varied perception of requirements for legitimacy NPNE CL 2 CL 3 NPEE PREE Corporate logics (CL) NIPR Professions logics (PL)

Contradictions vs. Top managements PR as more attuned to Politics PR generalists and/or specialists Sales management + Traditional PR tasks Academic background in journalism and/or primary business area and NIPR certification Technician / managerial role/Consultant Controlled/uncontrolled autonomy Publicized punishment Professional Association PR for all organizations PR generalists Traditional PR tasks PR and/or any degree + NIPR Certification Managerial role Uncontrolled autonomy Discrete punishment

Key findings from collected data 3 CL 1 Dominant logics Existence of competing constellation of logics, dominant logics and institutional complexities within Nigeria’s PR institutional context NPNE CL 2 CL 3 NPEE PREE Corporate logics (CL) NIPR Extent to which top management may influence and reconfigure NIPR’s professional project VS Professions logics (PL) Nigeria’s PR institutional context

Key findings from collected data 4 Insufficiency of the traditional approach for legitimacy How and why the traits and power approaches haven’t solidified PR’s legitimacy in the workplace Macro level effects: inability to uphold evaluator’s expectations lack of consensus about PR’s professional legitimacy

Limitations of collected data Data collection 1) Comments from committee 2) Quantity of respondents and quality of collected data 3) Researcher bias’s influence on data interpretation 4) Societal arena perception of legitimacy

Response 3: How will this study change and improve the way public relations researchers conduct national studies of the public relations profession? (Contribution question)

Core issues with traditional approaches ü Over reliance on the self-interested and inside-out direct approaches Inside-Out professionalization project view Traits ü Ineffective indirect/subtle approaches ü Newness of institutional approach and unclear implementation process ü Less emphasis on critical organizational resources cultivation for legitimacy Profession (core competences) Context

Improvement through the Fusion of Horizons ü Beyond the traits (pre-understanding) ü Emphasis on critical resource needs Institutional context Pre-understanding Traditional approaches ü Legitimacy as perception: evaluationobject and not self evaluation ü Extension of the institutional approach with an applicable process model CL PL

Outside-in Approach Outside-in view Traits Developing awareness and reflecting on evolving to meet external demands for legitimacy Profession Specialist knowledge Industry knowledge Journalism background Publicized punishment Context (core needs)

An Institutional Approach to legitimacy process model

Clarifying the Institutional Approach to legitimacy process model Identify Institutional logics Examine Constellation of logics Understand Institutional complexities Meet expectations for Legitimacy (as perceived) Apply Strategic response

Examining institutional complexities Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses (Greenwood et al, 2011)

Examining institutional complexities Strict and/or discretionary compliance to institutional pressures Institutional pluralism Degree of incompatibility of goals-means-specificity strict compliance vs. discretion Field structure Mature vs. emerging: fragmentation – formal structuring centralization) Organizational attributes Field position- Structure-Ownership-Identity

Future Research Critical evaluation of the Institutional Approach to legitimacy process model ü Longitudinal study that explores the before and after effects of implementing the process model on its capacity to propel PR’s professional project to attain legitimacy in the workplace arena ü Across countries with varied institutional complexities

The end

Food for thought

Food for thought