MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACULTY MEMBERS

AND KENT STATE UNIVERSITY FROM A PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE

A thesis submitted to Kent State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

by

Foluke Balogun

August, 2009
 Thesis written by

Foluke Balogun

BSc., Ahmadu Bello University, 2001

M.A., Kent State University, 2009

Approved by

________________________________, Advisor
Jeanette Drake, PhD

________________________________, Director, School of Journalism & Mass Communication

Jeff Fruit, M.A.

________________________________, Dean, College of Communication and Information

Stan Wearden, PhD
BALOGUN, FOLUKE, M.A., AUGUST, 2009 JOURNALISM AND MASS COMMUNICATION

MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACULTY MEMBERS

AND KENT STATE UNIVERSITY FROM A PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE (86 PP.)

Director of Thesis: Jeanette Drake

The role of public relations is to build and maintain cordial relationships between an

organization and its relevant publics. Faculty members represent a university’s important public

because they are critical to the success or failure of its overall goals.

This study measured faculty members’ perceptions of their relationship with Kent State

University based on six relationship indicators—trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, commitment,

and communal and exchange relationships. The study was grounded in organization-public

relationship scholarship.

An online survey was administered to Kent State University faculty members over a 10-day

period. Respondents indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with statements describing

their relationship with the university.

The study found that faculty members believed they have minimal control in the relationship.

Faculty members also believed the university engages in exchange relationships more than it does

communal. Other findings revealed feelings of neglect among part-time and non-tenure track faculty

members.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………..iii

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………….v

LIST OF CHARTS ……………………………………………………………………...vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………………viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Research .................................................................................................. 3
Background on Kent State University ............................................................................ 5
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................... 8
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 10

Employees as Key Publics ............................................................................................ 10
Motivation-Hygiene Theory ......................................................................................... 13
The Excellence Theory ................................................................................................. 14
Relationships as a Concept of Public Relations............................................................ 18
Maintaining Relationships ............................................................................................ 21
Measuring Public Relationships ................................................................................... 22
Internal Corporate Relations ......................................................................................... 25
Internal Relations in Higher Education Institutions...................................................... 27
Research Question ........................................................................................................ 31
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 32

The Research Instrument .............................................................................................. 32
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 33
Population/Sample Size ................................................................................................ 34
Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................. 35
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 36
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 36

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS................................................................................................ 37

Response Rate ............................................................................................................... 37
Demographics ............................................................................................................... 37
Responses to Individual Statements.............................................................................. 39
Trust .......................................................................................................................... 40
Control Mutuality...................................................................................................... 42
Commitment .............................................................................................................. 45
Satisfaction................................................................................................................ 47
Communal Relationship ............................................................................................ 50
Exchange Relationship.............................................................................................. 52

iii
 Relationship Indicators ................................................................................................. 54
Other Findings .............................................................................................................. 57
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 59

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... 61

State of the Relationship ............................................................................................... 61
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 65
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 69
Future Research ............................................................................................................ 70
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 72

APPENDIXES .................................................................................................................. 73
Appendix A (Relationship Measurement Survey) ........................................................ 74
Appendix B (Approval to Use Human Research Participants) ..................................... 76

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 77

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Turnover Rate of Full-time Faculty at Kent State University (2000 – 2008).................... 6
Table 2: Gender ............................................................................................................................. 38
Table 3: Age and No. of Years Employed .................................................................................... 38
Table 4: Rank at Kent State University ......................................................................................... 38
Table 5: Status ............................................................................................................................... 39
Table 6: Campus Affiliation .......................................................................................................... 39
Table 7: Kent State University treats faculty members like me fairly and justly .......................... 40
Table 8: Whenever the university makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about
faculty members like me ............................................................................................................... 41
Table 9: Kent State University can be relied on to keep its promises ........................................... 41
Table 10: I believe that this university takes the opinions of faculty members like me into account
when making decisions ................................................................................................................. 41
Table 11: I feel very confident about this university's skills ......................................................... 42
Table 12: This university has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do ............................. 42
Table 13: This university and faculty members like me are attentive to what each other say ...... 43
Table 14: This university believes the opinions of faculty members like me are legitimate ........ 43
Table 15: This university really listens to what faculty members like me have to say ................. 44
Table 16: The management of this university gives faculty members like me enough say in the
decision-making process ............................................................................................................... 44
Table 17: I believe faculty members like me have influence on the decision-makers of this
university ....................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 18: I feel that this university is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to faculty
members like me ........................................................................................................................... 45
Table 19: I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship with faculty members like
me .................................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 20: There is a long-lasting bond between this university and faculty members like me ..... 46
Table 21: Compared to other universities, I value my relationship with this university more...... 46
Table 22: I would rather work together with this university than not ........................................... 46
Table 23: I feel a sense of loyalty to this university ...................................................................... 47
Table 24: I am happy with Kent State University ......................................................................... 47
Table 25: Both the university and faculty members like me benefit from the relationship .......... 48
Table 26: Most faculty members like me are happy in their interactions with this university...... 48

v
Table 27: Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this university has established
with faculty members like me ....................................................................................................... 49
Table 28: Most people enjoy dealing with this university............................................................. 49
Table 29: The university fails to satisfy the needs of faculty members like me............................ 49
Table 30: I feel faculty members like me are important to this university .................................... 50
Table 31: : This university does not especially enjoy giving others aid........................................ 50
Table 32: This university is concerned about the welfare of faculty members like me ................ 51
Table 33: I feel that this university takes advantage of people who are vulnerable ...................... 51
Table 34: I think that this university succeeds by stepping on other people ................................. 51
Table 35: This university helps faculty members without expecting anything in return .............. 52
Table 36: I don't consider the university to be a particularly helpful organization ....................... 52
Table 37: Whenever Kent State University gives or offers something to faculty members like me,
it generally expects something in return ........................................................................................ 53
Table 38: Even though faculty members have had a relationship with this university for a long
time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us a favor ......................................... 53
Table 39: This university will compromise with faculty members like me when it knows that it
will gain something ....................................................................................................................... 54

vi
 LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1: Mean of Relationship Indicators ......................................................................... 55

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to God for seeing me through the ups and downs of obtaining a

master’s degree.

I want to thank my dear husband—Haliru Ogbeide, my sweet mum and dad—

Profs. Femi and Bose Balogun, and my wonderful siblings—Layo, Lola, Akin and Bola;

for their support and encouragement. I love you all!

I appreciate members of my thesis committee—Dr. Jeanette Drake, my adviser

and co-chair; Dr. Max Grubb, co-chair; and Prof. Michele Ewing, committee member—

for their support in the course of this study. I am truly grateful for your guidance and

feedback.

I say a big thank you to the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at

Kent State University for granting me assistantship to complete this program.

I am also grateful to all Kent State faculty members who willingly participated in

the survey. Your participation was important in completing this study. Thank you!

viii
 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The public relations practice, like many other professions, has evolved through

the years. From its early beginnings as a publicity function engaging in one-way

persuasive communication to one that now incorporates feedback from audiences. It

emphasizes the role of practitioners in building and maintaining relationships. Ferguson

(1984) advocated a focus of the public relations role on relationships rather than the

organization or public. Ferguson’s view of public relations supports Cutlip, Center, and

Broom’s (2006) definition of public relations as “the management function that

establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and

the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (p. 1).

Wise (2007) stated that the explosion in relationship management research is the

most exciting development in the public relations field in recent years. According to Wise,

“Relationship management, when instituted properly, allows those in leadership positions

to handle relationships in a coordinated fashion so that organizations are more likely to

achieve their goals” (p. 152). To ensure that an organization stays on track in achieving

its goals, it must develop a relationship with its publics. Employees are key publics

because they are crucial to the success or failure of any organization. Therefore, it is

necessary that organizations strive to maintain mutually beneficial relationships with their

employees.

According to Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002), “symmetrical systems of

internal communications typically increase the likelihood that employees will be satisfied

with their individual jobs and with the organization as a whole” (p. 481). This, according
 2

to Grunig et al., increases loyalty to an organization. Symmetrical systems strive to

balance the interests of an organization with those of its publics, producing long-term

relationships (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2006).

Grunig et al. (2002) described relationships as being the value of public relations.

They found that many communicators and CEOs valued public relations because of their

understanding that it builds successful long-term relationships with stakeholders.

“Relationships save money by preventing costly issues, crises, regulation, litigation, and

bad publicity” (p. 105). Watson Wyatt (a consulting firm) surveyed more than 13,000

full-time U.S. workers in May and June 2008 and found that companies enjoy 26%

higher employee productivity and lower turnover risks when their employees are highly

engaged. The report also stated that these companies earned 13% greater total returns to

shareholders over the last five years, and are more likely to attract top talent (“Watson

Wyatt, 2009). One problem employers face is attracting good talent and retaining good

employees (Cullen, 2002). “Research shows that the key ingredient for retention lies

within the manager’s ability to understand what employees really want” (Cullen, 2002,

¶1).

Universities, like other organizations, strive to build mutually beneficial

relationships with publics on whom their success or failure depends. Such publics include

students, parents, financial donors, alumni, faculty, and staff. Tack and Patitu (1992)

argued that in higher education, where faculty members generally have more autonomy,

job dissatisfaction can lead to a decrease in quality. Dissatisfaction with salary, tenure,

rank, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, policies and

 3

administration, person-environment fit, and collective bargaining, could lead to faculty

members leaving higher education and discourage others from entering the field.

In higher education institutions, faculty members are key publics in achieving

overall goals of educating students and promoting research. Therefore, in order to

improve internal relations with faculty members in these institutions, it is important to

constantly measure the quality of the relationship between them and their universities.

Purpose of the Research

This study measured the quality of the relationship faculty members have with the

Kent State University administration. This researcher used Hon and Grunig’s (1999)

standard for measuring public relationships, adopted by the Commission on Public

Relations Measurement and Evaluation. It measured faculty members’ perceptions of

their relationship with the university using an online survey.

From a public relations standpoint, this research is necessary in order to build

strategic, beneficial relationships between an organization and its employees. Results

from this study can help public relations departments in higher education institutions

measure and develop quality relationships with faculty members, and potentially improve

the quality of education. Measuring, understanding, and improving the long-term

relationship between faculty members and the university is important in achieving

university goals as well as larger statewide objectives.

Recognizing the role of higher education institutions in achieving long-term

economic goals, in 2007, the state of Ohio adopted a new university system comprising

all Ohio public higher education institutions—14 public universities, 24 branch campuses,

23 community colleges, and more than 200 adult workforce education centers and
 4

programs. All together, these institutions cater to more than a half-million students

(“University System,” n.d.).

A 10-year strategic plan was created to restructure the higher education system in

the state with a mission to provide high-quality higher education. The goals of the new

system include graduating more students, keeping graduates in Ohio, and attracting more

talent to the state. The system will rejuvenate the economy of the state by improving the

quality and reputation of Ohio universities. The strategic plan also recognizes the role of

faculty members in raising the profile of these public universities as the quality of faculty

is an important factor in rating university programs. The plan is crucial to Ohio’s

economic future because it is one of five states projected to have the lowest job growth

by 2019 (“The way we’ll work,” 2009).

There are more than 30 private and public universities in Ohio, and many more

spread across the country, but “Ohio’s public institutions have not, on the whole,

distinguished themselves on national and international benchmarks of quality”

(“University System,” n.d., ¶ 3). Kent State University, being one of the institutions

under the new university system, therefore needs to have quality faculty who are

supportive of university goals if it is to build meaningful relationships with other publics

(students, parents, and financial donors).

Within the educational sector, there is competition for valuable human resources,

which makes faculty retention an issue. Post-secondary education was also cited as one of

10 sectors for predicted job growth in the next decade (“High Tech,” 2009). Therefore, it

is important to measure and understand faculty members’ perceptions of their

 5

relationships with their universities to potentially reduce turnover rates at individual

universities.

A lot of work has been done outside the educational sector in the area of

organization-public relationships. This study, however, measured the quality of

relationships faculty members have with a higher education institution using the

relationship measurement model proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999), which is explained

in the next chapter.

Background on Kent State University

Kent State University, the organization under study, is “ranked among the

nation’s 77 public research universities demonstrating high-research activity by the

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education” (“About Kent,” n.d.). With its

main campus located in Kent, Ohio, the university is one of the largest employers in

northeast Ohio, and also contributes to the workforce development in the region. The

City of Kent has a population of about 28,000 people and is closely located to

metropolitan cities in northeast Ohio. The region was greatly affected by the economic

downturn in 2008/2009 and is reported to have experienced unemployment indices that

are higher than national averages (“MetroMonitor,” 2009).

Kent State University operates an eight-campus system with a student enrollment

of 34, 411 recorded for fall 2008. The eight-campus system prides itself as “the largest

producer of associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees in Northeast Ohio, the

third largest university in enrollment in the University System of Ohio, and one of the

largest regional university systems in the country” (“Points of pride,” n.d.). In 2007, the

university adopted the Responsibility Center Management (RCM) system, a decentralized

 6

approach where college or campus deans have greater control over resource allocation

decisions. With less state support, this new approach was adopted by the university to

develop new funding sources. The economic recession in 2008/2009 resulted in cut backs

in university expenditure, which also affected faculty sabbaticals.

Recent figures for 2009 show the university has 2,314 faculty members. Between

the year 2000 and 2008, 573 full-time faculty members either resigned or retired from

Kent State University. The university does not track part-time faculty departures (L.

Heller, personal communication, July 9, 2009). The table below highlights the annual

turnover rates from 2000 to 2008, which fall into the “normal” range that is detailed in

the next chapter. The year 2007 recorded the highest turnover rate with approximately

8%. The turnover rate in 2008 was the lowest during the eight-year period, which might

have been as a result of the unstable economy that could have made faculty members

reconsider their decision to leave the university. In 2009, the university offered eligible

employees a separation plan to save money in light of the economic crisis. Full-time

faculty and unclassified and classified employees who had served the university for 15 or

more years were eligible to participate. About 50 faculty members participated in this

plan (McEwen, 2009).

Table 1: Turnover Rate of Full-time Faculty at Kent State University (2000 – 2008)

Tenured/Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Total Turnover

Year Retired Resigned Retired Resigned Retired/Resigned Full-time Faculty Rate (%)
2000 14 27 3 9 53 1,024 5.18
2001 22 22 0 6 50 1,082 4.62
2002 16 19 4 11 50 1,080 4.63
2003 40 18 2 9 69 1,097 6.29
2004 49 19 8 8 84 1,125 7.47
2005 10 22 2 14 48 1,155 4.16
2006 18 34 2 20 74 1,186 6.24
2007 33 41 6 20 100 1,224 8.17
2008 26 6 4 9 45 1,247 3.61
 7

The university offers more than 282 academic programs at the associate,

bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels. Its signature programs include but are not

limited to the liquid crystal technology program, which has earned national recognition;

the fashion program—one of the largest undergraduate programs on the campus; the

business school—named by The Princeton Review’s 2009 edition of the best 296

business schools; and the journalism and mass communication program—housed in a

state-of the-art facility. The graduation rate for full-time students who entered the

university in 2001 is 48.9% (“RPIE,” n.d.). For the Kent Campus, the first-year retention

rate of full-time freshmen for the 2007 fall semester was 72.5%, down from 73.6% in

2006.

The university, which marks its centennial in 2010, was impacted by the events of

May 4, 1970, in which four students were killed and nine others injured during an anti-

war demonstration. After almost 40 years, Kent State University is still plagued by the

May 4 incident as the school’s name continues to be associated with the tragic event

(Tuchman, 2000).

Kent State participated in the Chronicle of Higher Education Great Colleges to

Work For survey in 2008. Participating institutions were required to submit a randomly

selected list of employees across three categories (administration, faculty, and

professional support staff) to participate in the survey. Forty-four administrative staff, 78

faculty members, and 29 professional support staff participated. While 65.5% of

professional staff and 70.4% of administrative staff agreed that all things considered,

Kent State is a great place to work, only 49.4% of faculty members agreed
 8

(“ModernThink,” 2008), underscoring the need to better understand these relationship

dynamics.

Theoretical Framework

This study measured faculty members’ perceptions of their relationship with Kent

State University using the organization-public relationship theoretical framework. Many

public relations scholars have adopted the view that public relations should focus

primarily on managing relationships between an organization and its key publics

(Bruning & Ledingham, 2000) because effectively managing such relationships provides

mutual benefits (Bruning & Ledingham, 1998). Wise (2007) said the idea of relationship

management is central to the concept of mutual benefit; when managed properly, both an

organization and its publics benefit from the relationship.

Ferguson (1984) argued in support of a public relations theory that has

relationship as the unit of analysis. “By putting the research focus on the relationship

rather than on the organization or on the public, we can come to better understandings of

what it is that is important about these relationships, both to the public and to the

organization” (p. 19). According to Grunig, Grunig, and Ehling (1992), building

relationships is the substance of public relations, and good relationships increase

organizational effectiveness.

Ledingham and Bruning (1998) define organization-public relationships as “the

state which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of

either entity impact the economic, social, political, and/or cultural well-being of the other

entity” (p. 62). The relationship management paradigm views relationships as the primary

focus of public relations. According to Ledingham and Bruning (1998), public relations
 9

practitioners should be concerned about the dimensions upon which relationships are

built and measure the impact of organization-public relationships on the parties involved.

Summary

This chapter focused on the importance of measuring organization-public

relationships from a public relations perspective, in order to build stronger relationships.

It discussed the need for organizations to pay closer attention to their employees, and

particularly, for higher education institutions to establish, maintain, and measure

relationships with faculty members in order to promote quality education, and increase

job retention, and growth. It also discussed the theoretical framework used for this study,

and the purpose of the research, which measured the quality of the relationship faculty

members have with Kent State University. The next chapter explains the theoretical

underpinnings for this study.

 10

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study measured faculty members’ perceptions of their relationship with Kent

State University (administration) using six relationship dimensions – trust, control

mutuality, satisfaction, commitment, and exchange and communal relationships. This

chapter explores previous studies on organization-public relationships, job satisfaction,

and public relations theories. It also looks at relationships as a public relations concept,

literature on maintaining and measuring relationships, and internal relations in higher

education institutions.

Employees as Key Publics

According to Cutlip, Center, and Broom (2006), an organization’s most important

relationships are those with its employees because they represent an organization’s

greatest resource. Failure to place priority on this public through effective two-way

communication often leads to an organization missing out on valuable human resource

potential, which is key to its success (Cutlip et al., 2006). The first six months of

employment for new employees is important because that is the period when they form

impressions about their employers (Morel, 2007). Dolphin (2005) stated that successful

communication with employees increases motivation and pride in the organization they

work for, which also affects the reputation of the organization. “Once a company has lost

the faith and goodwill of its employees, it faces an uphill battle trying to correct its errors

and rebuild credibility” (Dolphin, 2005, p. 174).

Previous research has shown what managers think employees want differs from

what employees really want. For example, in its Emerging Workforce® study,
 11

Spherion® (a recruiting and staffing agency) found that many organizations differ from

their employees on factors that lead to retention. Eighty-six percent of employees

surveyed ranked time and flexibility, and work-life balance very high as important

retention factors. However, most employers surveyed considered time and flexibility as

the least important retention factor. Only 38% of employers surveyed said it was an

important factor (“Emerging Workforce®”, 2005). These findings support the

coorientation model of organization-public relations. The coorientation model holds that

an organization’s perception of a public’s view of an issue differs from the public’s actual

view (Cutlip et al., 2006). Both hold different perceptions on an issue. The model also

stipulates that “members of a public [can] have inaccurate perceptions of an

organization’s position on an issue of mutual concern” (Cutlip et al., 2006, p. 215). This

situation can lead an organization to make wrongful decisions affecting employees based

on its perception of what they (employees) want, and employees in turn misinterpreting

management’s intentions. Cutlip et al. (2006) call for communication that creates shared

definition on issues of mutual concern in order to foster the relationship between an

organization and its public.

Research has also shown that money is a necessary but insufficient factor for

employee retention. The Families and Work Institute found that earnings and benefits

have only a 2% impact on job satisfaction. Workplace support and job quality ranked

highest with 37% and 32% respectively (“National Study,” 1997). According to the

institute, “improving job quality and work environments is generally much more

challenging than providing more pay or offering new benefits, because it requires

organizational change” (“National Study,” 2007, p. 13). Research conducted by TNS (a

 12

UK-based research company) showed that while higher salaries would attract employees

to another employer, most of them (43%) say enjoying the work is the factor that will

make them stay with their current employer. Job security ranked second with 34%; salary

was fifth on the list with 25% (“What Employees,” 2006). Studies such as these show

that there may be a disconnect between employers and employees, a situation that hurts

any meaningful relationship. At the time this research was conducted, however, the

unemployment rate was close to 10% due to the recessionary times of 2008/2009 (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, 2009); therefore, the statistics might differ in light of the economic

downturn.

Organizations need to consider how to create meaningful experiences for

employees, especially for purposes of employee retention and motivation (Scroggins,

2008) because an organization incurs costs when a valued employee leaves for a

competitor. These costs include productivity losses as a result of the vacant position and

reduced productivity from such an employee who would most likely have been distracted

during his or her job search. Organizations also incur costs when they have to fill vacant

positions. The financial impact is greater when a large number of employees leave an

organization within a short period (Ware & Fern, 1997).

In the 2006 job retention poll, the Society for Human Resource Management

found that more than 75% of employees were looking for new jobs. As mentioned earlier,

the figures might differ in light of the high unemployment rate during the 2008/2009

economic recession. Those surveyed included 462 employees and 367 human resource

professionals. The polls showed that better compensation, career opportunities, and

dissatisfaction with potential career development opportunities were among top reasons
 13

why employees choose to leave their jobs. The survey also showed that the most

commonly reported benefits offered by employers to prevent employees from leaving

their jobs were competitive salaries (55%), bonuses (52%), career development

opportunities (45%), and promotion of qualified employees (43%) (“U.S. Job,” 2006). A

conducive workplace tailored to meet the expectations and desires of employees can

improve employee retention and build morale.

Melcrum Publishing’s 2006 Pulse Report, based on an online survey of 1,149

communication professionals, found that while 76% considered themselves effective in

planning internal communication, only 28% said they were competent in measuring the

effectiveness of internal communication. In retaining a contented workforce, however,

organizations need to reflect more on how they communicate to employees, which

involves building relationships more than disseminating information (Dolphin, 2005).

Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) developed the Motivation-Hygiene

theory after conducting research on job motivation and people’s attitudes toward their

jobs. Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) argued factors that increase an

individual’s job satisfaction may not necessarily lead to job dissatisfaction if absent. In

the same vein, absence of dissatisfiers may not lead to job satisfaction. In other words,

factors leading to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are independent of each other.

Herzberg et al. found that feelings of unhappiness among respondents were not related to

the job itself but to conditions surrounding doing the job.

Herzberg et al. described two types of factors, hygiene and motivation, which

affect job dissatisfaction and satisfaction respectively. Absence of satisfaction in the

 14

hygiene factors—supervision, interpersonal relations, physical work conditions, salary,

company policies, and job security—lead to poor job attitudes. On the other hand,

motivation factors such as recognition, achievement, work itself, responsibility, and

personal growth increase job satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Herzberg et al. argued

that by modifying jobs so that employees can experience more of the motivator factors,

employees would be more interested in their jobs, and will produce higher quality output

(Sachau, 2007).

Critics of the Motivation-Hygiene theory argue that job satisfaction does not

necessarily translate to high levels of motivation or productivity (“Herzberg’s,” n.d.).

Others criticized the Herzberg model for relying heavily “on a single and biased

methodology to support his theory” (Sachau, 2007, p. 378). Motivation-Hygiene theory is

based in the management literature and is relevant because job attitudes, satisfaction, and

workplace motivation contribute to organization-employee public relationships. However,

this particular study extends the literature by measuring employees’ perceptions of the

relationship with their employer from a public relations perspective. Therefore, the

discussion that follows is related, but grounded in public relations research.

The Excellence Theory

The Excellence study, carried out by Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier, showed that

“public relations is a unique management function that helps an organization interact with

the social and political components of its environment” (Grunig et al., 2006, p. 55). This

environment includes publics that affect an organization’s ability to accomplish its goals

and vice versa.

 15

At the center of the Excellence theory is the two-way symmetrical model of

communication. According to Stacks and Watson (2007), “a symmetrical model

represents a balanced flow of communication whereby all parties are communicating

with each other as equals, seeking to maintain a relationship based on mutual

understanding and needs” (p. 67). The symmetrical model of communication, which is

characteristic of excellence in public relations, views understanding as the main objective

of public relations rather than persuasion. This model does not attempt to change the

public, but rather adjusts the relationship between the organization and the public (Grunig

& Grunig, 1992). Critics, however, argued that achieving a level of symmetry in

communication between an organization and its public is impossible because public

relations practitioners are allegiant to the organization (Huang, 2007). More than this,

critics argued that power imbalances between organizations and their publics make it

impossible to achieve symmetry. Organizations typically have the resource advantage

over their publics, making it easier for them to control the flow and tools of

communication to their advantage (Pfau & Wan, 2006). Broom, Casey, and Ritchey

(1997), however, stated that building and maintaining relationships involve a process of

mutual adaptation of parties involved.

The Excellence theory includes five theoretical propositions. These propositions

state that organizations with excellent public relations will have:

- Participative rather than authoritarian organizational cultures;

- A symmetrical system of internal communication;

- Organic rather than mechanical structures;

- Programs to equalize opportunities for women, men, and minorities;

 16

- High job satisfaction among employees (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2006).

Organizations with the above conditions provide a favorable context in which

employees work more effectively, are more satisfied with the organization, and are more

likely to support the goals of the organization. Employees who are empowered to

participate in decision-making and engage in symmetrical internal communication are

likely to engage in effective symmetrical communication with external publics (Grunig et

al., 2006). “Good use of human resources in organizations contributes indirectly to

excellent public relations by fostering the kind of organization in which excellent public

relations can function” (Grunig,1992, p. 225).

Organizations can develop more effective relationships with their publics when

they engage in symmetrical communication with them. Symmetrical communication

within an organization helps build a culture of participation, which leads to employee

satisfaction (Grunig et al., 2006). A symmetrical system of internal communication is

characteristic of excellent organizations and increases the level of job satisfaction,

allowing such organizations to build long-term relationships based on trust and credibility

with strategic employee publics (Grunig, 1992).

Internal communication is an important factor in organizational effectiveness

because it helps organizations define their goals appropriately. In communicating with

employees, less excellent organizations adopt two-way asymmetrical communication and

rely on press agentry or public information with no strategic purpose in mind (Grunig,

1992). Asymmetrical communication typically employs persuasive methods with publics.

Grunig (1992) proposed six principles of an integrated theory of internal

communication:
 17

- Excellent systems of internal communication reflect the principles of

symmetrical communication;

- Symmetrical systems of communication make organizations more effective by

building open, trusting, and credible relationships with strategic employee

constituencies;

- Good relationships with employee constituencies are indicated by high levels of

job satisfaction, especially organizational job satisfaction;

- Organizations with organic structures have symmetrical communication systems,

and organizations with mechanical structures have asymmetrical communication

systems;

- Job satisfaction, especially organizational job satisfaction, is higher in

organizations with organic structures than in organizations with mechanical

structures;

- Symmetrical communication can help to create organic structures in

organizations (pp. 559 & 563).

Grunig (1992) described mechanical organizations as those that are “centralized,

formalized, stratified, less complex and do not allow most employees to participate in

decision making” (p. 562). Organic organizations, on the other hand, are less formalized,

more complex, and allow participation in decision making.

In a study of two public U.S. universities, Luo (2005) found that one-way

asymmetrical communication dominated public relations efforts with various publics.

Both institutions relied profoundly on media relations in building positive images, and

engaged in little pre-program research and informal evaluation of programs. Failure to

 18

engage in formal program research leads to reliance on market research, which does not

take into account information needs and relational concerns (Luo, 2005). However, both

universities engaged in two-way symmetrical communication with students, alumni, and

donors. The next section discusses the significance of the relationship concept to public

relations practice.

Relationships as a Concept of Public Relations

Findings from the Excellence study showed public relations departments that

measured results of their short-term communication programs experience successful

long-term relationships with their publics. Hon and Grunig (1999) attributed this to the

fact that “organizations that communicate effectively with publics develop better

relationships because management and publics understand one another and because both

are less likely to behave in ways that have negative consequences on the interests of the

other” (p. 10).

The relationship concept is central to many fields (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey,

1997). According to Hon and Grunig (1999), relationships form because the action of one

party affects another. “The formation of relationships occurs when parties have

perceptions and expectations of each other, when one or both parties need resources from

the other, when one or both parties perceive mutual threats from an uncertain

environment, or when there is either a legal or voluntary necessity to associate” (Broom,

Casey, & Ritchey, 1997, p. 13).

The relationship management perspective, which is in agreement with both the

two-way symmetrical model and systems theory, “holds that public relations balances the
 19

interests of organizations and publics through the management of organization-public

relationships” (Ledingham, 2003, p. 181).

Ledingham (2003) stated that effective management of organization-public

relationships around shared interests, over time, yields mutual benefits for the parties

involved in the relationship. According to Ferguson (1984), “a relationship-centric model

has the assumption that the relationship is the prime issue of concern, not the parties” (p.

19).

The relationship management concept represents a shift from the traditional

method of measuring the impact of public relations, based on the number of media

messages, to the measurement of the quality of relationships between organizations and

their publics (Ledingham, 2006). The focus of relationship management theory is on

relationships rather than on communication. Internal relations is much more than

communication with constituents. It centers on building and maintaining relationships

with strategic publics. Communication is a strategic tool in building and maintaining

organization-public relationships but management of relationships also involves

behavioral initiatives (Ledingham, 2003). According to Ledingham (2006),

“organization-public relationship dimensions define the state, or quality, of an

organization-public relationship, which, in turn, acts as a predictor of public behavior” (p.

475). Effective relationships can be built and maintained more easily if they are

symmetrical, than if they benefit the organization alone (Grunig & Huang, 2000). In

symmetrical relationships, public relations practitioners balance the interests of both the

organization and public while still advocating the interests of their employer (Grunig,

Grunig & Dozier, 2002).

 20

Ferguson (1984) identified attributes that measure the quality of relationships

between an organization and its publics based on the degree to which the relationship is

dynamic or static, open or closed, the degree to which the organization and public are

satisfied with the relationship, distribution of power in the relationship, and how much

control both parties believe they have in the relationship. Grunig et al., (1992) added two

concepts to this list of attributes: trust and credibility. Based on these attributes, Ferguson

identified four states of organization-public relationships: both organization and public

satisfied; organization satisfied, public unsatisfied; organization unsatisfied, public

satisfied; and both organization and public unsatisfied. Ferguson argued that behaviors of

the organization and public are defined by their degree of satisfaction with the

relationship.

Ledingham (2001) stated that “when public relations is viewed as the

management of OPR [organization-public relationships], the effectiveness of that

management can be measured in terms of relationship building, and that further ratings of

those relationships can act as a predictor of public behavior” (p. 286). “The contribution

of public relations is captured as the value of relationship quality between organizations

and their publics and the supportive behaviors from stakeholders that are more likely to

result when organizations and publics have a positive relationship” (Jo, Hon, & Brunner,

2004, p. 14).

Very few studies have actually measured relationships from a public relations

perspective (Jo, Hon, & Brunner, 2004). Although measuring the outcome of public

relations programs is important, organizations need to measure the value of long-term

relationships with their publics (Hon & Grunig, 1999). One such relationship is that
 21

involving employees. According to Hon & Grunig (1999), employees are most

productive when they trust the organization they work for. “Good relationships with

employees also increase the likelihood that they will be satisfied with the organization

and their jobs, which makes them more likely to support and less likely to interfere with

the mission of the organization” (p. 14). Symmetrical relationships benefit both parties in

the relationship (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Asymmetrical relationships in organizations, on

the other hand, control employees’ behaviors to the satisfaction of management (Kim,

2007).

Maintaining Relationships

According to Ki and Hon (2009), organizations that desire long-term, stable and

satisfying relationships with their key publics need to cultivate and sustain organization-

public relationships. An organization’s efforts in nurturing and sustaining positive

relationships with its publics, determines the relationship.

Hon and Grunig (1999) identified six concepts that maintain symmetrical public

relationships. These concepts derive from research on interpersonal relationships:

- Access—public relations representatives are granted access by members of

publics and opinion leaders. Similarly, representatives of publics are granted

access to organizational decision-making processes.

- Positivity—both the organization and the public make the relationship more

enjoyable in the things they do.

- Openness—both parties are open to each other in their thoughts and feelings.

- Assurances—commitment to maintaining the relationship by parties involved

and that each party’s concerns are legitimate.

 22

- Networking—organizations build networks with similar groups as their publics.

- Sharing of tasks—organizations and publics join hands to solve joint or separate

problems.

Relationship maintenance also involves a process of measurement to

determine areas in the relationship needing improvement. The next section

outlines the relationship measurement index developed by Hon and Grunig (1999).

Measuring Public Relationships

Ferguson (1984) noted that the study of public relationships should focus on

studying the relationship between organizations and publics.

Control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, and commitment have been found to be

good indicators of successful interpersonal communication, which can also be applied to

organization-public relationships as well. In addition to these indicators, public relations

programs also strive to achieve successful relationships with exchange versus communal

relationship indicators (Hon & Grunig, 1999).

In an exchange relationship, one party gives benefits to the other only

because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in

the future…In a communal relationship, both parties provide benefits to the

other because they are concerned for the welfare of the other—even when

they get nothing in return (pp. 20-21).

According to Grunig (2002), “Public relations professionals add value to an

organization when they develop communal relationships with all publics affected by

organizational behaviors—not just those who give the organization something in return”

(p. 2). Organizations should build communal relationships with employees because they
 23

can potentially generate support and successful long-term relationships (Hon & Grunig,

1999). The degree to which a public believes it has communal relationship with an

organization can be considered the best indicator of successful public relations (Grunig,

2002). Clark and Mills (1993) stated that “in communal relationships, the receipt of a

benefit does not change the recipient’s obligation to respond to the other’s needs. It [the

benefit] does not create a specific debt or obligation to return a comparable benefit, as it

does in exchange relationship” (p. 684).

According to Hon and Grunig (1999), the ability to build and maintain communal

relationships distinguishes public relations practice from other fields such as marketing.

“Employees want a communal relationship with their employers; they want to go beyond

the exchange of work for pay” (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p. 24).

Hon and Grunig (1999) arrived at indicators that evaluate the quality of long-term

relationships between an organization and its publics. These indicators derive from

research in interpersonal communication and relationships and, according to Hon and

Grunig, are applicable to organization-public relationships:

- Control Mutuality: The degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power

to influence one another. Although some imbalance is natural, stable relationships

require that organizations and publics each have some control over the other.

- Trust: The level of confidence that both parties have in each other and their

willingness to open themselves to the other party.

- Commitment: The extent to which both parties believe and feel that the relationship

is worth spending energy on to maintain and promote.

 24

- Satisfaction: The extent to which both parties feel favorably about each other

because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced. A satisfying

relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs.

- Exchange Relationship: In an exchange relationship, one party gives benefits to the

other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so

in the future.

- Communal Relationship: In a communal relationship, both parties provide benefits

to the other because they are concerned for the welfare of the other -- even when they

get nothing in return.

Hon and Grunig’s scales prove to be good measures of public perceptions of

relationships, “strong enough to be used in evaluating relationships” (Hon & Grunig,

1999, p. 28).

Jo, Hon, and Brunner (2004) tested Hon and Grunig’s six-dimension scale in a higher

education setting by measuring the relationship between students and a university. The

researchers tested the instrument on two student groups using “slightly different

operationalized items” (p. 24). The results of both groups showed that the instrument was

valid and reliable in measuring their relationship with the university. Scott (2007) stated

that Hon and Grunig’s relationship index enables public relations practitioners to decide

which relationships are healthy, needing only ongoing maintenance; which are vulnerable

and need increased engagement; and which are weak, requiring new efforts at

relationship building.

Without an established and functional system of internal relations, measuring and

maintaining relationships within an organization will be nearly impossible.

 25

Internal Corporate Relations

Scarlett (2006) stated that managers need to build good, strong, constructive

working relationships with employees. The first step in doing this, according to Scarlett,

is for managers to recognize the need for improved work relationships. “Good managers

recognize that the relationship with their teams needs to be mutually supportive: both

sides must feel they are benefiting, so that this is a win-win situation” (Scarlett, 2006, pp.

217 & 218). Building strong, win-win relationships with publics involves listening to

concerns, eliciting support, and incorporating opinions in the decision-making process

(Hung, 2007).

According to O’Neil (2008), one main purpose of employee communication is

“motivating employees to action in support of organizational objectives” (p. 1). Internal

communication tools, such as newsletters, are traditionally controlled by management,

pushing information to employees, while neglecting feedback, and measurement

strategies (Spurlock & O’Neil, 2009; O’Neil, 2008). Research has shown the Intranet and

face-to-face communication are important in increasing understanding of organizational

strategy among employees, which in turn increases engagement (O’Neil, 2008). In a

study conducted at a hospital in a suburb of Dallas-Fort Worth, Spurlock and O’Neil

(2009) found employees were more satisfied in their communication with management

when the new Intranet provided avenues for feedback. Before the new Intranet site was

created, a survey determined employees were dissatisfied with the amount of voice they

had in the decisions that affected their work.

Many times, organizations use surveys to enhance organizational communication,

but very often, no action is taken on areas of concern identified in the survey, creating
 26

feelings of frustration among employees. According to Sanchez (2007), 76% of

employees reported that their organizations communicated the results of surveys to them,

but only 44% said action is taken based on survey results. This indicates the need for

organizations to not only measure communication effects and garner and respond to

feedback but to also implement changes where necessary; a line of action that builds trust.

Welch and Jackson (2007) defined internal communication as “the strategic

management of interactions and relationships between stakeholders at all levels within

organizations” (p. 183). The goals of internal corporate communication, according to

Welch and Jackson (2007), include:

- contributing to internal relationships characterized by employee commitment;

- promoting a positive sense of belonging in employees;

- developing their awareness of environmental change; and

- developing their understanding of the need for the organization to evolve its

aims in response to, or in anticipation of, environmental change. (p. 188).

Holtz (2004) argued that companies that communicate well with their employees

do much better in terms of profitability, reputation, customer acquisition, and retention.

Harshman and Harshman (1999) stated that communication that builds trust and

credibility is symmetrical, relevant to employees’ needs, believable, understandable,

useful, timely, and mature (i.e. respectful). In order to earn employees’ commitment,

organizations need to establish trust, get employees involved, and provide resources

required to do the job (Holtz, 2004). Trust is a key ingredient of organizational

transparency, and together with reliable information, is the foundation of sound

relationships (Dolphin, 2005). Rawlins (2008) defined trust as “one party’s willingness to
 27

be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is competent

and dependable, has integrity, and acts with goodwill” (p. 5).

Harshman and Harshman (1999) discussed attitudes management in bureaucratic

organizations develop when communicating with employees. Such organizations believe:

- Subordinates should only be told what they need to know in order to get their

jobs done.

- Employees are uninterested in details or explanations.

- Employees can’t handle the truth or bad news.

- Employees will abuse important information

This type of approach does not encourage employees to trust the organizations

they work for. Ineffective communication patterns, such as these, lead to a loss of loyalty

and commitment on the part of employees. Progressive organizations, however, build

relationships with employees and communicate with them based on respect, dignity, trust,

and shared authority (Harshman & Harshman, 1999). The next section discusses internal

relations in higher education institutions.

Internal Relations in Higher Education Institutions

The higher education sector is one of a few growth areas in the next decade

(“High Tech,” 2009). Tack and Patitu (1992), however, predicted a severe shortage of

“qualified faculty in nearly all disciplines” (p. 1), which calls for improved working

conditions. As faculty members report high rates of mobility (Hagedorn, 2000), internal

relations personnel must work to improve the quality of relationship and job satisfaction

to, perhaps, keep them longer.

 28

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) suggests that

associate professors, most of whom are tenured, present a better picture of turnover rates

among faculty because they are the ones more likely to voluntarily leave an institution to

seek better opportunities. According to the AAUP, assistant professors have the tendency

to leave involuntarily when denied tenure and full professors depart due to retirement,

death, or disability (Ehrenberg, 2003). Based on the assumption that a hypothetical

university hired and retained all faculty members until retirement (30 years of service) or

if a university employed and denied tenure to all faculty members at the end of six years,

Scroggins (2005) stated that the “normal” turnover rate would fall between 3.3% and

16.7% per year.

In their study of the role of employee communication in achieving commitment

and quality in higher education, Thornhill, Lewis, and Saunders (1996) found “a

significant relationship between the way in which employees feel an organization

communicates with and treats its staff and their attitudes and commitment towards that

organization” (p. 17). In other words, effective employee communication systems have

the tendency to affect employee commitment levels. Taking this a step further, Allen and

Judd (2007) stated that participatory decision-making is an important factor in achieving

job satisfaction among higher education employees.

Castillo and Cano (2004) studied job satisfaction among faculty at The Ohio State

University by assessing dimensions of Herzberg’s model. They discovered the factor

“work itself” was the most motivating while “working conditions” was least motivating.

“The findings imply that faculty were most satisfied with the content of their job and

least satisfied with the context in which their job was performed” (p. 72). Similarly,
 29

Truell, Price, and Joyner (1998) examined job satisfaction of full-time and part-time

community college faculty using the Motivation-Hygiene theory. They found both part-

time and full-time faculty members were generally satisfied with their jobs. Faculty

members, however, reported lower levels of satisfaction with growth opportunities and

salary.

Employees experiencing high levels of job satisfaction are more likely to

appreciate their positions and be proud of their organizations, which in turn leads to

higher incidence of productivity (Hagedorn, 2000). A sense of satisfaction among faculty

is important in higher education because it tells on the quality of work as well as on the

development of future faculty (Tack & Patitu, 1992).

Higher education institutions need to develop cohesion among their internal

publics so that each public works towards the same goal. This internal cohesion must be

achieved before embarking on successful communication with external publics (DeSanto

& Garner, 2001). But, job satisfaction among faculty is easily superseded by other

concerns such as student academic achievement and financial efficiency (Hagedorn,

2000). Hagedorn stated that studying job satisfaction among faculty, who typically work

in high-pressured environments, is important in order to produce positive outcomes for

students and other stakeholders. Truell et al. (1998) stated that job satisfaction among

faculty members has positive consequences because it creates an environment that is

conducive to both faculty involvement and student learning. Through commitment and

satisfaction with their jobs, faculty members lend stability to their institutions.

Hagedorn proposed a model of faculty job satisfaction, identifying mediators and

triggers as constructs that affect job satisfaction. Mediators (motivators and hygienes,
 30

demographics, and environmental conditions) are variables or situations that influence

relationships between other variables. Triggers represent significant life events that may

or may not be related to the job. This model contains six triggers—change in life stage,

family-related or personal circumstances, or rank or tenure, transfer to a new institution,

change in perceived justice, and change in mood or emotional state (Hagedorn, 2000).

The motivation-hygiene mediator is based on Herzberg’s (1959) model of job

satisfaction. Hagedorn argued that triggers and motivators affect a faculty member’s

satisfaction level, determining whether she or he will be disengaged, tolerant of, or

appreciate the job.

While Hagedorn provided a model to measure faculty job satisfaction, this

researcher examined satisfaction as just one of six dimensions of a successful relationship

between faculty and a university. Relationships are key indicators of successful public

relations because organizations and publics that have good relationships with one another

are both more likely to choose appropriate goals and achieve them. (Grunig & Huang,

2000).

Scott (2007) stated that the “application of the Relationship Index [Hon and

Grunig’s scale] in the real world of PR has validated its enormous value as an instrument

that elevates the status of the practice of communications…and contributes significantly

to the general reserve of knowledge about how to facilitate healthy relationships between

corporations and stakeholders” (p. 273).

 31

Research Question

The following research question was addressed in this study:

How do faculty members perceive their relationship with the university on the six

relationship dimensions—trust, control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and

communal and exchange relationships?

Summary

This chapter discussed literature on organization-public relationships and its

relevance to the practice of public relations. It highlighted scholarship that supports the

need for relationship measurement between higher education institutions and faculty

members. The next chapter discusses the research method used to measure the quality of

the relationship Kent State faculty members have with their university. It also details the

population and sample size of the study.

 32

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The previous chapter established the importance of measuring relationships from

a public relations perspective. It also established the need to build strong relationships

between higher education institutions and faculty members to enhance the quality of

education. This study measured the quality of the relationship faculty members have with

Kent State University using six relationship indicators adopted by the Commission on

Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation. It measured faculty members’ perceptions

of their relationship with the university using an online survey.

This chapter outlines the research instrument and procedure employed for this

study.

The Research Instrument

For this study, this researcher used Hon and Grunig’s (1999) relationship

measurement survey instrument (Appendix A). Hon and Grunig suggested administering

a questionnaire to determine the extent to which respondents agree or disagree with

statements describing their relationship with the other party. Each statement tests the

indicators of quality relationships. These statements were slightly adjusted to suit the

respondents in this study. This study made use of the shortened scale to increase the rate

of completion as proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999).

Reagan (2006) described a survey as “a comprehensive examination of a

population using a random sample, assessing variables for the purposes of describing or

finding relations in that population” (p. 92). Surveys are used as research tools in order to

get information about certain groups of people who are representative of a larger group
 33

(Berger, 2000). Surveys are appropriate in describing the characteristics of a large

population (Babbie, 2004). A cross-sectional survey is a one-time research tool and it is

useful in gathering large amounts of data within a short time and at a relatively low cost

(Reagan, 2006).

An online survey has the advantage of reaching a large number of people at low

costs to the researcher. Advantages of the survey method are that it is inexpensive and

can be used to obtain a great deal of current information at one time (Berger, 2000).

Procedure

The survey was administered to respondents using the survey software Survey

Monkey. An online survey was an effective instrument in reaching a large sample of

faculty members within a short period. Respondents were able to take the survey at their

convenience and remain anonymous. The first part of the survey covered demographic

information. Other sections tested six indicators of quality relationships. The online

survey consisted of both open- and closed-ended questions. Open-ended questions allow

respondents to give unstructured and free responses, allowing them to clarify and give

details about their responses. Closed-ended questions are easier and faster for respondents

to answer and allow for easy comparison of various responses (Neuman, 2006).

The response categories were in the form of a Likert-type scale with five response

categories ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Respondents were also given

a neutral option. With the neutral option, they were not forced to make a choice that did

not accurately reflect their opinion. According to Austin and Pinkleton (2006),

researchers need to be prepared to handle respondents’ lack of opinion on survey items

by including a neutral or “don’t know” option. In an odd-numbered scale, respondents are

 34

offered a mid-point; while for an even-numbered scale, respondents are forced to choose

one side on the scale. Russ-Eft and Preskil (2001) stated that an even-numbered scale

might be appropriate if the researcher believes respondents have an opinion.

A pilot test was conducted on a convenience sample of 15 faculty members at

Kent State University. Nine completed the survey. Pre-testing the survey ensures that

there are no ambiguities or other errors in the questionnaire construction (Babbie, 2004).

Based on the outcome of the pilot-test, the survey was tweaked to more adequately reflect

the positions of faculty members.

The survey was distributed on April 19, 2009. Two follow-up e-mails, containing

a link to the survey, were sent to the sample within a 10-day period following the initial

e-mail, to increase the response rate. The researcher did not offer any incentives; however,

respondents had the option to request the results of the study via e-mail. Faculty members

were told that by taking this survey they would be contributing to the body of knowledge

on organization-public relationships.

Population/Sample Size

This study used a systematic random sampling of faculty members at Kent State

University. Systematic random sampling is a probability sampling method. With

probability sampling, every element has an equal chance of being selected, and this

makes the sample highly representative of the population (Dooley, 2001; Austin &

Pinkleton, 2006).

Kent State University has 1,207 full-time and 1,107 part-time faculty members,

adding up to a total of 2,314. For this study, Kent State’s Division of Human Resources

released the lists of full-time and part-time faculty members. Beginning from a random
 35

number on each list, to ensure the elimination of bias, respondents were selected using a

sampling interval of two.

For a 95% confidence level with ±5 % margin of error, a population of 2,500

requires a sample size of 333 elements (Austin & Pinkleton, 2006). Researchers need to

generate a larger sample size than is actually needed for the study (Austin & Pinkelton,

2006) because it rarely happens that all members of an initial sample complete a survey

(Babbie, 2004). Therefore, this researcher over-sampled by sending the survey to 50%

(1,157) of the population in order to get the desired 333 completed surveys.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability is the degree to which a technique yields the same result when applied

repeatedly. Validity refers to the effectiveness of measurements to actually measure what

they are supposed to. Survey research is strong on reliability and generally weak on

validity (Babbie, 2004).

For this study, the researcher relied primarily on face validity, which qualifies an

indicator as being a reasonable measure of a variable. Face validity means that questions

or response categories appear to measure what they are supposed to measure on face

value (Reagan, 2006). According to Gliner and Morgan (2000), “typically, if one does

not create the instrument, but uses an instrument already published, then reliability

indices should have been established” (p. 319). Using SPSS, reliability tests were

conducted on the survey items, and the results are reported in the next chapter. SPSS

(Cronbach’s alpha) calculates reliability by testing a set of items (in the survey) to

determine if they are good and consistent measures of a variable. Cronbach’s alpha for all
 36

relationship indicators showed an acceptable level of reliability. An alpha of 0.70 and

above is generally considered to be acceptable (Jo, Hon, & Brunner, 2004).

The survey instrument used in this research has also been tested previously as a

valid and reliable measure of relationships. Previous studies (Jo, Hun, & Brunner, 2004;

Ki & Hon, 2007) have used the instrument and recorded high reliability indices.

Data Analysis

Data collected via the online survey was interpreted using descriptive analysis.

This analysis described faculty members’ perceptions of their relationship with Kent

State University as an employer. This relationship was analyzed based on the six

dimensions proposed by Hon and Grunig (1999) – trust, satisfaction, control mutuality,

commitment, and exchange and communal relationships.

Summary

This chapter outlined the methodology used for this study. It discussed the

population and sample size, pilot-test, and the process of selecting participants. It also

discussed reliability and validity of the research instrument, and the data analysis method.

The next chapter outlines the results of this study.

 37

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The following is a discussion of the results of this study that measured faculty

members’ perceptions of their relationship with Kent State University. The study is

founded on the organization-public relationship theoretical framework, which views

relationships as the essence of public relations. This chapter outlines the response rate,

respondents’ demographics, responses to individual statements, reliability indices, and a

discussion of the composite variables.

Response Rate

A survey was administered over a 10-day period to 1,157 part-time and full-time

faculty members selected through systematic random sampling. Eleven messages were

undelivered. Two hundred and thirty-five respondents attempted the survey but only 210

completed it, delivering a response rate of approximately 20%.

Demographics

Ninety-two males (43.8%) and 118 females (56.2%) participated in the survey, as

shown in Table 2. Demographic information for fall 2008 showed there were more

female faculty members than their male counterparts. The age distribution and length of

time employed by Kent State University is shown in Table 3. The mean age was 49.3; the

median and mode were 50. Respondents were also asked how long they had been

employed by Kent State University. The mean was 11 years; median was eight years; and

the mode was three years.

 38

Table 2: Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 92 43.8 43.8 43.8
Female 118 56.2 56.2 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 3: Age and No. of Years Employed

Age Number of Years
Employed at KSU
N Valid 209 209
Missing 1 1
Mean 49.3780 11.1290
Median 50.0000 8.0000
Mode 50.00 3.00

Assistant professors accounted for 27.6% of respondents; Associate professors,

21%; Adjunct professors, 18.6%; Instructors, 18.1%; Full professors, 10%; Lecturers,

2.4%; Non-Tenure Track, 0.5%; and Others, 1.9% (Table 4). Full-time faculty members

made up 67.1% of respondents, while part-time faculty members made up 32.9%, as

shown in Table 5.

Table 4: Rank at Kent State University

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Full Professor 21 10.0 10.0 10.0
Associate Professor 44 21.0 21.0 31.0
Assistant Professor 58 27.6 27.6 58.6
Adjunct Professor 39 18.6 18.6 77.1
Instructor 38 18.1 18.1 95.2
Lecturer 5 2.4 2.4 97.6
NTT 1 .5 .5 98.1
Other 4 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
 39

Table 5: Status
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Full-time 141 67.1 67.1 67.1
Part-time 69 32.9 32.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 6 shows a breakdown of respondents according to the various Kent State

University campuses. The Kent State main campus reported the highest number of

respondents (63.3%). Some respondents work at two or more campuses, therefore they

were grouped under multiple campuses during data analysis.

Table 6: Campus Affiliation

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Kent 133 63.3 63.3 63.3
East Liverpool 7 3.3 3.3 66.7
Stark 15 7.1 7.1 73.8
Tuscarawas 7 3.3 3.3 77.1
Salem 10 4.8 4.8 81.9
Ashtabula 5 2.4 2.4 84.3
Geauga 8 3.8 3.8 88.1
Trumbull 13 6.2 6.2 94.3
Columbiana 1 .5 .5 94.8
Columbus 1 .5 .5 95.2
Multiple Campuses 9 4.3 4.3 99.5
Anonymous 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Responses to Individual Statements

Insights can be gained about faculty members’ perceptions of their relationship

with the university by analyzing their responses to each individual statement in the

survey. Therefore, besides computing the mean of statements for each relationship

indicator, this chapter also outlines a summary of responses for each statement in the

survey. The results are listed below for each indicator. In the discussion section, this
 40

researcher combined the values for strongly agree and agree; and strongly disagree and

disagree. The tables, however, show the five response categories—strongly disagree,

disagree, neither agree/disagree, agree, and strongly agree—as was categorized in the

survey.

Trust

Six statements determined the level of trust faculty members have in the

university. Cronbach’s alpha for 6-item trust was 0.88. Tables 6 - 11 below, show the

degree to which faculty members agreed or disagreed with each statement defining the

trust dimension.

Approximately 50 percent (104) of respondents agree that the university treats

them fairly and justly; 31.4% (66) disagreed. Nineteen percent (40) neither agreed nor

disagreed with the statement (Table 7).

Table 7: Kent State University treats faculty members like me fairly and justly
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 16 7.6 7.6 7.6
Disagree 50 23.8 23.8 31.4
Neither Agree/Disagree 40 19.0 19.0 50.5
Agree 90 42.9 42.9 93.3
Strongly Agree 14 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Faculty members disagreed that whenever the university makes an important

decision it will be concerned about them. Twenty percent (42) agreed that the university

will be concerned about them when it takes an important decision; 47.1% disagreed; and

32.9% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement (Table 8).
 41

Table 8: Whenever the university makes an important decision, I know it will

be concerned about faculty members like me
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 25 11.9 11.9 11.9
Disagree 74 35.2 35.2 47.1
Neither Agree/Disagree 69 32.9 32.9 80.0
Agree 35 16.7 16.7 96.7
Strongly Agree 7 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

When asked if Kent State University can be relied on to keep its promises, 34.8%

(73) of respondents agreed; an equal number (34.8%) neither agreed nor disagreed; while

30.5% (64) felt the university cannot be relied on to keep its promises (Table 9).

Table 9: Kent State University can be relied on to keep its promises

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 20 9.5 9.5 9.5
Disagree 44 21.0 21.0 30.5
Neither Agree/Disagree 73 34.8 34.8 65.2
Agree 63 30.0 30.0 95.2
Strongly Agree 10 4.8 4.8 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Approximately 51% of respondents disagreed that the university takes the

opinions of faculty members into account when making decisions. About 26% agreed

that the university takes their opinions into account when making decisions (Table 10).

Table 10: I believe that this university takes the opinions of faculty members like me into
account when making decisions
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 34 16.2 16.2 16.2
Disagree 72 34.3 34.3 50.5
Neither Agree/Disagree 50 23.8 23.8 74.3
Agree 48 22.9 22.9 97.1
Strongly Agree 6 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
 42

Approximately 44.3% (93) of respondents are very confident in the university’s

skills while 27.2% are not (Table 11). Twenty-eight percent had no opinion.

Table 11: I feel very confident about this university's skills

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 13 6.2 6.2 6.2
Disagree 44 21.0 21.0 27.1
Neither Agree/Disagree 60 28.6 28.6 55.7
Agree 70 33.3 33.3 89.0
Strongly Agree 23 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

A majority of respondents (51.9%) believe the university has the ability to

accomplish what it says it will do; 17.6% disagreed and 30.5% neither agreed nor

disagreed (Table 12).

Table 12: This university has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 5 2.4 2.4 2.4
Disagree 32 15.2 15.2 17.6
Neither Agree/Disagree 64 30.5 30.5 48.1
Agree 84 40.0 40.0 88.1
Strongly Agree 25 11.9 11.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Control Mutuality

Five statements measured control mutuality—the degree of influence both

parties have on the relationship—as an indicator of a successful relationship. Cronbach’s

alpha for 5-item control mutuality was 0.90. The tables below show the degree to which

faculty members agreed or disagreed with each statement defining control mutuality as a

relationship dimension.
 43

On whether both parties in the relationship are attentive to what each other say,

38.1% (80) respondents agreed; 28.1% (59) disagreed; and 33.8% neither agreed nor

disagreed (Table 13).

Table 13: This university and faculty members like me are attentive to what each other say
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 9 4.3 4.3 4.3
Disagree 50 23.8 23.8 28.1
Neither Agree/Disagree 71 33.8 33.8 61.9
Agree 73 34.8 34.8 96.7
Strongly Agree 7 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Approximately 37% (78) of respondents disagreed with the statement “the

university believes the opinions of faculty members are legitimate.” Approximately 34%

agreed with the statement, and 29% neither agreed nor disagreed as shown in Table 14.

Table 15 shows that majority (53.3%) of respondents feel the university does not really

listen to them.

Table 14: This university believes the opinions of faculty members like me are legitimate
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 23 11.0 11.0 11.0
Disagree 55 26.2 26.2 37.1
Neither Agree/Disagree 61 29.0 29.0 66.2
Agree 64 30.5 30.5 96.7
Strongly Agree 7 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
 44

Table 15: This university really listens to what faculty members like me have to say
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 38 18.1 18.1 18.1
Disagree 74 35.2 35.2 53.3
Neither Agree/Disagree 53 25.2 25.2 78.6
Agree 39 18.6 18.6 97.1
Strongly Agree 6 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Approximately 51% (108) of respondents feel the university management does

not give them enough say in the decision-making process. Table 16 also shows that 21%

(44) believe they have enough input in decision-making. One hundred and thirteen

(53.8%) disagree that they have influence on the university’s decision-makers, as shown

in Table 17.

Table 16: The management of this university gives faculty members like me enough say in
the decision-making process
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 42 20.0 20.0 20.0
Disagree 66 31.4 31.4 51.4
Neither Agree/Disagree 58 27.6 27.6 79.0
Agree 39 18.6 18.6 97.6
Strongly Agree 5 2.4 2.4 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 17: I believe faculty members like me have influence on the decision-makers of
this university
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 46 21.9 21.9 21.9
Disagree 67 31.9 31.9 53.8
Neither Agree/Disagree 51 24.3 24.3 78.1
Agree 38 18.1 18.1 96.2
Strongly Agree 8 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
 45

Commitment
Six statements determined commitment as a relationship indicator. The statements

analyze the degree to which faculty members feel the relationship is worth spending

energy to maintain or promote. Cronbach’s alpha for 6-item commitment was 0.84.

Forty-four percent (91) of faculty members do not believe the university is trying

to maintain a long-term commitment to them, as shown in Table 18. In Table 19,

approximately 33% (69) believe the university wants to maintain a relationship with

faculty members, while 38.5% (81) disagreed.

Table 18: I feel that this university is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to faculty
members like me
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 36 17.1 17.1 17.1
Disagree 57 27.1 27.1 44.3
Neither Agree/Disagree 49 23.3 23.3 67.6
Agree 56 26.7 26.7 94.3
Strongly Agree 12 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 19: I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship with faculty
members like me
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 28 13.3 13.3 13.3
Disagree 53 25.2 25.2 38.6
Neither Agree/Disagree 60 28.6 28.6 67.1
Agree 57 27.1 27.1 94.3
Strongly Agree 12 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Seventy-one respondents (33.8%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement

that there is a long-lasting bond between the university and faculty members. Forty

percent disagreed that there is a long-lasting bond between both parties, while 26.2%

agreed (Table 20).

 46

Table 20: There is a long-lasting bond between this university and faculty members like me
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 31 14.8 14.8 14.8
Disagree 53 25.2 25.2 40.0
Neither Agree/Disagree 71 33.8 33.8 73.8
Agree 47 22.4 22.4 96.2
Strongly Agree 8 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 21 shows faculty members (44.8%) value their relationship with Kent State

University. Eighteen percent (38) disagreed, while 37% (78) neither agreed nor disagreed

with the statement. In Table 22, 86.7% (187) of faculty members agreed that they would

rather work with the university than not; 3.8 % (8) disagree, and 9.5% (20) neither agreed

nor disagreed.

Table 21: Compared to other universities, I value my relationship with this university more

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 10 4.8 4.8 4.8
Disagree 28 13.3 13.3 18.1
Neither Agree/Disagree 78 37.1 37.1 55.2
Agree 71 33.8 33.8 89.0
Strongly Agree 23 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 22: I would rather work together with this university than not
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 1 .5 .5 .5
Disagree 7 3.3 3.3 3.8
Neither Agree/Disagree 20 9.5 9.5 13.3
Agree 115 54.8 54.8 68.1
Strongly Agree 67 31.9 31.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Approximately 72% (151) of respondents feel a sense of loyalty to the university.

Only 9% (19) say they do not feel a sense of loyalty to the university. Nineteen percent
 47

(40) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement on loyalty to the university (Table

23).

Table 23: I feel a sense of loyalty to this university

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 4 1.9 1.9 1.9
Disagree 15 7.1 7.1 9.0
Neither Agree/Disagree 40 19.0 19.0 28.1
Agree 90 42.9 42.9 71.0
Strongly Agree 61 29.0 29.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Satisfaction

Seven statements measured satisfaction—the degree to which faculty members

feel favorably toward the university—as a relationship dimension. Cronbach’s alpha for

7-item satisfaction was 0.86.

Table 24 shows a slight majority of faculty members are generally happy with

Kent State University. Fifty-four percent (116) agreed that they are happy with the

university; 18.6% (39) disagreed that they are happy with the university; while 26.2% (55)

neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

Table 24: I am happy with Kent State University

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 8 3.8 3.8 3.8
Disagree 31 14.8 14.8 18.6
Neither Agree/Disagree 55 26.2 26.2 44.8
Agree 86 41.0 41.0 85.7
Strongly Agree 30 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Respondents believe both the university and faculty members benefit from the

relationship. Table 25 shows 61.9% (130) of respondents agreed that the relationship is
 48

beneficial to both parties; 12.4% (26) disagreed; and 25.7% (54) neither agreed nor

disagreed. However, 40.5% (85) of respondents are not happy in their interactions with

the university; 25.2% are happy; and 34.3% (72) neither agreed nor disagreed with the

statement, as shown in Table 26.

Table 25: Both the university and faculty members like me benefit from the relationship
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 9 4.3 4.3 4.3
Disagree 17 8.1 8.1 12.4
Neither Agree/Disagree 54 25.7 25.7 38.1
Agree 103 49.0 49.0 87.1
Strongly Agree 27 12.9 12.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 26: Most faculty members like me are happy in their interactions with this university
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 18 8.6 8.6 8.6
Disagree 67 31.9 31.9 40.5
Neither Agree/Disagree 72 34.3 34.3 74.8
Agree 41 19.5 19.5 94.3
Strongly Agree 12 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

In Table 27, 43.8% (92) of respondents stated that they are not pleased with the

relationship the university has established with faculty members; while 34.3% (72) are

pleased with the relationship.

 49

Table 27: Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this university has
established with faculty members like me
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 28 13.3 13.3 13.3
Disagree 64 30.5 30.5 43.8
Neither Agree/Disagree 46 21.9 21.9 65.7
Agree 58 27.6 27.6 93.3
Strongly Agree 14 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Approximately 47% (98) of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the

statement “most people enjoy dealing with this university.” Twenty-seven percent (58)

agreed; and 25% (54) disagreed that most people enjoy dealing with the university.

Table 28: Most people enjoy dealing with this university

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 7 3.3 3.3 3.3
Disagree 47 22.4 22.4 25.7
Neither Agree/Disagree 98 46.7 46.7 72.4
Agree 46 21.9 21.9 94.3
Strongly Agree 12 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Approximately 41% (85) of respondents believe the university satisfies the needs

of faculty members; 34.7% (73) disagreed; and 24.8% neither agreed nor disagreed

(Table 29).

Table 29: The university fails to satisfy the needs of faculty members like me
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 19 9.0 9.0 9.0
Agree 54 25.7 25.7 34.8
Neither Agree/Disagree 52 24.8 24.8 59.5
Disagree 63 30.0 30.0 89.5
Strongly Disagree 22 10.5 10.5 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
 50

In Table 30, 78.6% (165) of respondents believe faculty members are important to

the university; 11.4% (24) disagreed; while 10% (21) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Table 30: I feel faculty members like me are important to this university
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 7 3.3 3.3 3.3
Disagree 17 8.1 8.1 11.4
Neither Agree/Disagree 21 10.0 10.0 21.4
Agree 81 38.6 38.6 60.0
Strongly Agree 84 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Communal Relationship

Six statements determined the extent to which the university engages in

communal relationships—the degree to which the university provides benefits to faculty

members because it is concerned for their welfare, even when it gets nothing in return.

Cronbach’s alpha for 6-item communal relationship was 0.87.

Table 31 shows 48.6% (102) of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that the

university does not enjoys giving others aid; 37.1% (78) agreed with the statement; while

14.3% (30) disagreed. When asked if the university is concerned about the welfare of

faculty members, 42.4% (89) of respondents disagreed; 23.4% (49) agreed, while 34.3%

neither agreed nor disagreed (Table 32).

Table 31: This university does not especially enjoy giving others aid
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 15 7.1 7.1 7.1
Agree 63 30.0 30.0 37.1
Neither Agree/Disagree 102 48.6 48.6 85.7
Disagree 24 11.4 11.4 97.1
Strongly Disagree 6 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0
 51

Table 32: This university is concerned about the welfare of faculty members like me
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 24 11.4 11.4 11.4
Disagree 65 31.0 31.0 42.4
Neither Agree/Disagree 72 34.3 34.3 76.7
Agree 43 20.5 20.5 97.1
Strongly Agree 6 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Approximately 43% (90) of faculty members believe the university takes

advantage of people who are vulnerable; 29% (61) disagreed; and 28.1% (59) neither

agreed nor disagreed (Table 33). Similarly, 49% (103) agreed that the university succeeds

by stepping on other people; 17.7% (37) disagreed; while 33.3% (70) neither agreed nor

disagreed (Table 34).

Table 33: I feel that this university takes advantage of people who are vulnerable
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 29 13.8 13.8 13.8
Agree 61 29.0 29.0 42.9
Neither Agree/Disagree 59 28.1 28.1 71.0
Disagree 49 23.3 23.3 94.3
Strongly Disagree 12 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 34: I think that this university succeeds by stepping on other people
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 41 19.5 19.5 19.5
Agree 62 29.5 29.5 49.0
Neither Agree/Disagree 70 33.3 33.3 82.4
Disagree 31 14.8 14.8 97.1
Strongly Disagree 6 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Approximately 53% (112) disagreed that the university helps faculty members

without expecting anything in return; 8.6% agreed that the university does help faculty
 52

members without expecting in return; while 38.1% (80) neither agreed nor disagreed

(Table 35). Similarly, 43.3% don’t consider the university to be a particularly helpful

organization; 25.7% (54) believe disagreed; and 31% (65) neither agreed nor disagreed

(Table 36).

Table 35: This university helps faculty members without expecting anything in return
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 36 17.1 17.1 17.1
Disagree 76 36.2 36.2 53.3
Neither Agree/Disagree 80 38.1 38.1 91.4
Agree 14 6.7 6.7 98.1
Strongly Agree 4 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 36: I don't consider the university to be a particularly helpful organization

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 32 15.2 15.2 15.2
Agree 59 28.1 28.1 43.3
Neither Agree/Disagree 65 31.0 31.0 74.3
Disagree 47 22.4 22.4 96.7
Strongly Disagree 7 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Exchange Relationship

Three statements determined the extent to which the university engages in

exchange relationships—the degree to which the university gives benefits to faculty

members only because they have provided benefits in the past or are expected to do so in

the future. Cronbach’s alpha for 3-item exchange relationship was 0.77.

Approximately 49% (102) of respondents agreed that whenever the university

gives or offers something to faculty members, it expects something in return; 17% (35) of

respondents disagreed; while 34.8% (73) neither agreed nor disagreed (Table 37).
 53

Similarly, approximately 45% agreed that the university expects something in return

whenever it offers faculty members a favor, even though they have had a relationship

with it for a long time. Eighteen percent (38) disagreed with the statement; while 37.1%

(78) neither agreed nor disagreed (Table 38).

Table 37: Whenever Kent State University gives or offers something to faculty members
like me, it generally expects something in return
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 2 1.0 1.0 1.0
Disagree 33 15.7 15.7 16.7
Neither Agree/Disagree 73 34.8 34.8 51.4
Agree 88 41.9 41.9 93.3
Strongly Agree 14 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

Table 38: Even though faculty members have had a relationship with this university for a
long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us a favor
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 5 2.4 2.4 2.4
Disagree 33 15.7 15.7 18.1
Neither Agree/Disagree 78 37.1 37.1 55.2
Agree 83 39.5 39.5 94.8
Strongly Agree 11 5.2 5.2 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

In Table 39, 41.4% (87) of respondents agreed that the university will

compromise with faculty members when it knows that it will gain something; 18.6% (39)

disagreed; while 40% (84) neither agreed nor disagreed.

 54

Table 39: This university will compromise with faculty members like me when it knows
that it will gain something
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 8 3.8 3.8 3.8
Disagree 31 14.8 14.8 18.6
Neither Agree/Disagree 84 40.0 40.0 58.6
Agree 74 35.2 35.2 93.8
Strongly Agree 13 6.2 6.2 100.0
Total 210 100.0 100.0

The next section outlines the outcome of collapsing the individual statements into

six composite variables—trust, control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and

communal and exchange relationships. These composite variables describe the quality of

the relationship faculty members have with the university.

Relationship Indicators

The study determined how faculty members perceive their relationship with the

university on six relationship dimensions—trust, control mutuality, commitment,

satisfaction, and communal and exchange relationships— based on organization-public

relationship theory. Composite variables were created by combining statements in the

survey; therefore, the mean of responses to the statements measuring each relationship

indicator was computed and the results are discussed here.

The bar chart below gives a graphic representation of the mean for each

relationship indicator (or composite variable) on a five-point scale. The mid-point

indicates a non-committal relationship. The values range from strong negative

relationship to strong positive relationship. All values, except that for control mutuality,

were slightly above the non-committal relationship point, demonstrating a weak

relationship.
 55

Exchange relationship was strongest; commitment was next; satisfaction ranked

third; communal relationship, fourth; trust came in fifth; and control mutuality ranked

sixth.

The results indicate that faculty members believe they have minimal control in the

relationship. Control mutuality was the weakest relationship indicator with a mean value

of 2.71 on a five-point scale, falling below the mid-point on the chart and indicating a

negative relationship.

With a value of 3.07, few decimals above the non-committal relationship value,

communal relationship did not reflect a positive relationship between faculty members

and the university. Although faculty members indicated that the university engages in

some form of communal relationship practices—showing concern for faculty members

even when it gets nothing in return, the results show exchange relationships—providing

benefits in expectation of something in return—was stronger with a mean of

 56

approximately 3.31. In the case of exchange relationships, however, a high value is not

necessarily an indicator of a strong positive relationship. In other words, it is not a bad

thing to precipitate a strong negative exchange relationship because that means the

organization does not thrive by offering benefits in expectation of something in return.

Besides exchange relationships, commitment with a mean of approximately 3.3

reported the strongest relationship indicator, a sign that faculty members feel the

relationship is worth spending energy on to maintain and promote. The value for

commitment was higher than the neutral point but was still too low to be classified as a

strong positive relationship. In fact, the value fell below the mid-point between the “no

relationship” and “somewhat positive relationship.”

The results show faculty members are more satisfied with the relationship than

they have trust in the university. Satisfaction recorded a mean of 3.25, ranking third

among the six indicators. A value of 3.25, though higher than the mid-point or neutral

relationship value, cannot be considered a strong positive relationship.

Trust—the degree to which faculty members have confidence in the university—

ranked fifth among the six indicators. With a value of 3.01, trust falls closest on the five-

point scale to a neutral/non-committal relationship (the mid-point), suggesting that

majority of faculty members had no opinion about this indicator. It also indicates a weak

relationship exists between faculty members and the university.

The survey also recorded other findings describing faculty members’ perceptions

of their relationship with the university. The next section provides an overview of

responses gathered from respondents when prompted to enter comments about their

relationship with the university.

 57

Other Findings

In the survey, respondents had the opportunity to share comments on their

relationship with the university. Eighty-seven respondents made comments, representing

approximately 41% of respondents. Fear of being identified could have prevented more

faculty members from making statements about their relationship with the university

because the researcher was a graduate student who they might not have trusted with their

responses. The responses might provide perspective on some of the issues that affect the

quality of the relationship between the university and faculty members. The most

recurring theme was the feeling of neglect among non-tenure track faculty and part-time

faculty members. Below are sample responses that indicate this:

“In my department there is significant class differences (sic) between TT [tenure

track] and NTT [non-tenure track] faculty causing much ill feelings…”

“There is definitely a difference between the way tenure track and NTT are

treated…”

“The university administration has been shown to be insensitive to the role of

Non-tenure track faculty.”

“As non-tenure track faculty, I feel the relationship between the University and

faculty like me is weak.”

“As a part-time instructor, I’m not given much guidance, I still don't know all the

rules after 8 years, and I’m rarely asked my opinion on anything.”

“Part time faculty is treated terribly. No resources, no money. I am making the

same amount per class as I was 10 years ago.”

 58

“Adjunct faculty are not on KSU's radar, even though we do the majority of the

work.”

“In twenty four years as a part-timed faculty member teaching almost every

semester, I have never been asked my opinion by the university.”

“The university openly and continually disdains its part-time faculty.”

The implication of these statements on the relationship between non-tenure track

and part-time faculty members, and the university is discussed in the final chapter.

Faculty members appeared to be more satisfied in the relationship with their

immediate supervisors, departments, colleges, or campuses, but expressed dissatisfaction

in the relationship with the university administration at the top. The following statements

capture this sentiment:

“Although many of my comments in this survey were not positive, I do not feel

the same way about my immediate superior. I feel that he would help me in any

way possible and that he considers and respects my opinions; however, I don’t

feel the same about the administration outside my small department.”

“My comments were targeted towards "KSU" as a whole, and not specifically my

Regional Campus (Ashtabula). I am far more happy with the relationship I have

with my local campus.”

“I am very attached to my dept. and trust the admin. in my dept. I do not feel very

positive about the current univ. [university] admin. and if we did not have such a

strong faculty union I do think the univ.[university] admin would treat us worse.”
 59

Another sentiment captured in the survey was the feeling that faculty members at

the Kent campus are treated better than their colleagues at the regional campuses,

reflected in the following statements:

“For all the talk about being a single university inspite [sic] of having regional

campuses, I think faculty at the regional campuses are very rarely [given] an

opportunity to be included in the university/departmental decisions. Kent campus

faculty try to undermine regionals and try to gain an upper hand at all levels.”

“I am very loyal to KSU but I worry about their long term commitment to

Regional Campuses and the mission of RCs [regional campuses].”

“There is a highly significant difference between the faculty/university

relationship at regional campus (extraordinarily positive) and the

faculty/university relationship at Kent campus above the college level.”

“It is about time that the administration realize [sic] that they are marginalizing the

vast majority of their profit centers (the Regional Campuses) at the expense of the

Portage faculty who feel that they are superior academicians and entitled to do

less with more and reap the benefits.”

The implications of these statements on the relationship between the university

and faculty members are discussed in the final chapter.

Summary

This chapter presented survey results measuring faculty members’ perception of

their relationship with Kent State University. The survey tested six indicators—trust,

control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and communal and exchange

relationships—of a successful relationship. Two-hundred and ten faculty members

 60

completed an online survey over a 10-day period, producing a response rate of

approximately 20%. Cronbach’s alpha for all relationship indicators showed an

acceptable level of reliability.

The results show faculty members believe they have minimal control in the

relationship, indicating weak control mutuality. Faculty members also indicated that the

university engages in exchange relationships more than it does communal. Although on

average, faculty members are committed to the relationship, they reported a lower level

of trust. Trust ranked fifth on the relationship scale, with faculty members indicating that

they are more satisfied with the relationship than they actually trust the university.

Satisfaction ranked third on the relationship scale.

The final chapter discusses the results, implications on the relationship between

faculty members and the university, study limitations, and opportunities for future

research.
 61

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The following discussion is guided by the research question for this study, which

was to determine how faculty members perceive their relationship with the university on

six relationship dimensions—trust, control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, and

communal and exchange relationships. The study is grounded in organization-public

relationship theory, which examines relationships as units of analysis.

State of the Relationship

The study determined that faculty members perceived themselves as having

minimal control over their relationship with the university. Faculty members do not feel

that they are very much involved in decisions that affect them as indicated by the weak

control mutuality dimension. This was also reflected in the survey where non-tenure

tracked and part-time faculty members, stated that they are not treated as important

publics by the university administration, also indicating that they have little control in the

relationship. This signifies the need for the university to engage in better symmetrical

communication with faculty members on all levels. Symmetrical communication builds

relationships based on mutual understanding and takes the other party’s feedback/opinion

into account.

With faculty members reporting weak control mutuality, it is no surprise that trust

also reported a low index because if publics feel like they do not have much control in the

relationship, they are more likely to lose confidence in the organization and become

suspicious. Trust was not rated as high as should be for an organization striving to build a

healthy relationship with its employees, indicating a weak relationship exists between
 62

faculty members and the university. Scott (2007) argued that the establishment of a

healthy level of trust makes it easier to address and improve the other dimensions. In

other words, if faculty members had rated the university higher on trust, other indicators

would not be as great a problem to overcome. Absence of two-way symmetrical

communication increases the likelihood that faculty members would not be as trusting of

the university.

In spite of the low trust index recorded, the study found faculty members to be

somewhat committed to the relationship—recording an index slightly above the neutral

point—an indicator that they consider the relationship worth spending energy on to

maintain and promote. The value recorded for commitment could have been due to the

fact that faculty members enjoy their job duties and view the responsibility of educating

students as important, even when the conditions are not as appealing to them. Faculty

members’ commitment to the relationship might make it much easier for the university to

improve its relationship with them because it signifies that the other party is interested in

building the relationship.

One surprising finding was the satisfaction indicator with a value of 3.25, which

was higher than the level of trust. With the high unemployment rate (close to 10%) in

2009, it is possible that faculty members were content to have a job rather than be

unemployed, and this could have skewed the results to reflect a higher level of

satisfaction.

These findings support results of the study conducted by Castillo and Cano (2004)

in which faculty members were most satisfied with the content of their job and least

satisfied with the context in which their job was performed.

 63

Faculty members, however, rated the university highest on exchange relationships.

The implication is that the university needs to have a stronger communal relationship

with faculty members in order to get their support and earn their trust. Strong communal

relationship practices reflect an organization’s genuine concern for its publics, even when

it knows that it will not receive anything in return. This type of relationship encourages

faculty members to put their trust in the university and can increase support for university

goals.

Previous studies explored in the literature review section established trust as the

foundation for building quality relationships with publics, and organizations build

stronger relationships with publics when they engage in communal relationship practices.

According to Hung (2007), organizations will not unlimitedly contribute to publics

without expecting something in return, however, “exchange relationships work when

each party legitimizes the other in the relationship…when legitimacy is absent, one side

may easily exploit the other” (p. 464). Hung (2007) pointed out two strategies that for-

profit organizations can employ to benefit from exchange relationships—access to open

communication and cooperating with publics. In other words, even in an exchange

relationship, organizations can build stronger relationships by adopting the two strategies

mentioned above. On the other hand, Hung stated that sharing tasks establishes

communal relationships with publics.

The survey recorded a high percentage (often as high as 30% to 48%) of

respondents who selected the “neither agree nor disagree” or non-committal relationship

response category. This could mean several things. It could mean that respondents were

fearful of being identified by their responses; in which case, it can be inferred that non-
 64

committal responses would have leaned more toward negativity were respondents forced

to make a choice between negative and positive relationship experiences. The reason is

that respondents have no reason to fear being identified with positive responses; fear is

typically heightened with negative responses.

Another factor that could explain the high percentage of mid-point responses is

the fact that they truly might not have a relationship with the university. Some

respondents questioned the validity of the survey in measuring their relationship with the

university. This would suggest a weakness in the survey instrument and reflects what

other researchers have said about respondents’ inability to comprehend having a

“relationship” with a non-human entity. Others, having no problem with the survey

instrument, simply may feel a lack of connection with the university. Of the latter group,

respondents who are apathetic may not desire a relationship with the university. Either

way, they are more likely to select the non-committal response option.

Finally, because a university is a complex system, respondents may have been

conflicted by the survey in thinking about “the university” in different ways—

administration at the top, at the college, or school levels. A non-committal or neutral

option gives respondents an easy way out if they had reason to both “agree” or “disagree”

with the same statement, bearing in mind their experiences with the university at the

different administrative levels.

In any case, such a high neutral response rate merits further investigation into the

methodology and into the faculty–university relationships. For future research purposes,

the response categories can be even-numbered to eliminate a neutral/mid-point response

category, forcing respondents to select either side of the scale. While, this might not
 65

provide a true picture of how respondents feel about the relationship, it will reveal what

side of the scale they lean closer to.

Discussion

This study provided baseline measurements of the relationship between faculty

members and Kent State University. The goal of public relations is to build and maintain

relationships key to an organization’s success. Although, the university did not rate

poorly on the relationship indicators, it did not rate exceptionally either. Since it has been

established that faculty members are one of the university’s key publics, it is necessary to

continuously assess the state of the relationship by providing feedback mechanisms and

responding to issues raised through such channels. The university has to work towards

increasing the level of trust faculty members have in it by giving them more input in the

relationship. Involvement increases the level of employee engagement. By actively

involving faculty members in the decision-making process and increasing their level of

trust, the university will create a healthier relationship with this important public and also

increase their support for university goals.

Building quality relationships with faculty members not only has great value for

current employees, but also impacts the development of future faculty members. If the

existing culture is deficient, for example, recruitment efforts will be impacted and new

faculty members will be negatively influenced, thus defeating the purpose of the new

Ohio university system to provide high-quality higher education and attract talent to the

state. Morel (1997) stated that the first six months of employment for new employees is

important because that is the period when they form impressions about their employers;

therefore, it is important that new faculty members are inculcated into an academic
 66

community that has a culture of building and maintaining strong relationships with

faculty members.

Other findings from the survey revealed that non-tenure track and part-time

faculty members feel they are not treated as important publics to the university. Some of

the comments supporting this recurring theme were outlined in the previous chapter. Two

are restated here:

“The university administration has been shown to be insensitive to the role of

Non-tenure track faculty.”

“The university openly and continually disdains its part-time faculty.”

The comments suggest the importance of two-way communication between the

university and these groups of faculty members who are very important in achieving the

school’s goals. Many part-time faculty members are professionals who joined academia

after years of practice, making it easy for them to feel overlooked by the university,

especially if they came from organizations that operated more open systems of

communication. The university needs to identify why these faculty members have those

feelings about the relationship in order to make sure that students benefit from their

educational experiences, and create value for employers and other stakeholders. Listening

is a key element of the internal relations process.

Opening up the lines of communication, showing genuine interest in their

problems, and appreciating part-time and non-tenure track faculty members can restore

their confidence in the university. These categories of faculty members are crucial to the

university, especially with the higher education sector predicted to witness job growth in

the next decade. With limited human resources available to fill positions at universities in
 67

the future, part-time faculty members will become an even more important public. The

university needs to be more proactive in dealing with its faculty members by engaging in

strategic internal relations that incorporates their views, recognizing the need for

improved work relationships.

Other findings also revealed sentiments of disparity between faculty on the Kent

campus and those on regional campuses:

“I am very loyal to KSU but I worry about their long term commitment to

Regional Campuses and the mission of RCs [regional campuses].”

“It is about time that the administration realize that they are marginalizing the vast

majority of their profit centers (the Regional Campuses) at the expense of the

Portage faculty who feel that they are superior academicians and entitled to do

less with more and reap the benefits.”

The regional campuses are as important to the goals and successes of the

university as is the Kent campus. In communicating and building relationships with

faculty members, it is important that the internal relations department (and the university

management) recognizes that faculty members on regional campuses need to feel

involved, valued, and recognized for their contributions to the success of the university.

The regional campuses cannot be overlooked because, according to the university

Web site, they are strategically located to provide programs and services that enhance

business and employment opportunities in the region. If faculty members feel that the

regional campuses are undervalued, they lose faith in the university and are more likely

to seek employment elsewhere, and this can affect the standard of education students

receive at those campuses. Emphasis should be placed on enhancing the relationship with
 68

faculty members at regional campuses and making them know that they are as important

to the university as are faculty members on the Kent campus.

Another key finding showed faculty members were more satisfied in the

relationship they had cultivated with their immediate supervisors, departments, colleges,

or campuses, but expressed dissatisfaction in the relationship with the university

administration at the top. Some statements that indicate this are restated here:

“Although many of my comments in this survey were not positive, I do not feel

the same way about my immediate superior. I feel that he would help me in any

way possible and that he considers and respects my opinions; however, I don’t

feel the same about the administration outside my small department.”

“My comments were targeted towards "KSU" as a whole, and not specifically my

Regional Campus (Ashtabula). I am far more happy with the relationship I have

with my local campus.”

It is not surprising to see that faculty members have more confidence in their

immediate supervisors (deans, department heads, etc.) than in the broader university

administration. This probably signifies that faculty members have been able to build

stronger relationships with the people they see or hear from more often. There is probably

more face-to-face and two-way communication at the college or department level that

incorporates their feedback, making it possible for them to build more positive

relationships. The university (or internal relations unit) can take advantage of the

relationship established at the college level to build stronger relationships with faculty

members. The management at the college or department level can serve as channels for

building more positive relationships.

 69

Limitations

The use of surveys as a research instrument has its limitations. People do not

always tell the truth especially where it concerns personal issues, and obtaining

representative samples is quite difficult (Berger, 2000). It is also possible that disgruntled

people are more likely to respond to a survey or, perhaps, non-tenured faculty members

are less likely to respond to the survey for fear of being identified and possibly losing

their jobs. Despite these limitations, surveys are one of the most widely used tools for

obtaining reliable quantifiable data (Berger, 2000). Surveys with good questions increase

the validity and reliability of the study (Neuman, 2006).

Kent State University is a public university, so the results might differ if the

survey is conducted with faculty members at a private university, or one that is smaller or

bigger than Kent State.

The response rate for this study was approximately 20%, therefore, due to the low

participation rate, caution should be exercised when using the results. However, the

results might not differ much if a higher response rate was recorded.

With the economy in recession, Kent State University cut back on spending,

including cuts on faculty sabbaticals. Such actions could influence respondents’

perceptions of their relationship with the institution. Another factor that could influence

respondents is the introduction of the Responsibility Center Management (RCM) system,

a budget approach where deans and chairs bear primary responsibility and accountability

for developing and achieving the academic plans and budgets for their units. Not all

faculty members are satisfied with this new approach, and this was reflected in some

responses:
 70

“…RCM is being implemented in a chaotic and demonic fashion because it is to

be another vita [sic] item regardless of its impact of outcomes at KSU.”

“RCM is the worst move that this university has ever made.”

In addition, some respondents showed resistance to the survey. This researcher

received comments from some respondents questioning how the survey statements were

framed. This was expected because respondents are members of the academy, who are

highly educated and versed in research methods. In addition, Scott (2007) noted that the

relationship-measurement survey instrument poses a methodological challenge because

“it appears that the concept of having a “relationship” with an organization (rather than

with an individual) is not always a comfortable one for respondents to entertain” (p. 269).

Scott found that some respondents can be resistant to the instrument because they do not

think of themselves as having a personal relationship with a corporate entity. To address

this form of resistance in the future, respondents should be informed that indicators of

successful interpersonal relationships when applied to organization-public relationships

have been reported as valid and reliable indicators of successful relationships, which is

why the statements are framed the way they are. This can make them feel more

comfortable with the statements.

Future Research

This study opens up opportunities for future research. Researchers can test and

compare results of the relationship indicators for different universities. By doing this,

they can identify what relationship indicators are stronger or weaker for each university

and determine how universities are building relationships with faculty members. The

survey can be applied to private v. public universities or large v. small universities to

 71

determine if differences exist in the nature of the university. This can potentially expand

knowledge on the context for building and maintaining relationships in higher education

institutions.

Qualitative research using the relationship indicators enables researchers to probe

further into faculty members’ perception of their relationship with the university. It is

important to examine the underlying reasons why faculty members perceive their

relationship with the university in the way they do. Grunig (2002) developed a set of

qualitative questions based on the same relationship dimensions used in this study, which

makes it easier to conduct depth interviews and focus groups. However, this method is

best done with an independent researcher in order to earn participants’ trust. Engaging the

services of an independent research body will make faculty members feel more

comfortable to share their opinions in an interview or focus group setting.

Focus groups and depth interviews should be conducted specifically targeting

part-time and non-tenure track faculty members as well as faculty members on the

regional campuses. The research can also be extended to faculty members in different

colleges or concentrations, such as arts v. sciences, etc. Targeted research can reveal

more about the quality of the relationship.

Another consideration for future research is determining how the university

(management) perceives its relationship with faculty members because relationship-

building is mutual. This will give a clearer picture on the state of the relationship. It is

also pertinent to conduct a communication audit of the university’s internal

communication/relations methods to redefine what works best for relationship-building

practices and what doesn’t.

 72

Finally, this study can be repeated after improved feedback mechanisms are put in

place by the university to determine if there are changes in faculty members’ perceptions

over time.

Summary

This chapter discussed the implication of the survey results on the relationship

between faculty members and the university, and the development of future faculty

members. It discussed the need for more symmetrical communication between the

university and faculty members, as well as the need for the university to work towards

building communal relationship with faculty members and increasing their level of trust.

By engaging in symmetrical methods of communication and building communal

relationships with faculty members, the university works towards increasing other

dimensions—trust, satisfaction and commitment to the relationship.

The chapter also discussed the recurring theme of neglect among non-tenure track

and part-time faculty members reported in the survey, and the need for further

investigation to determine the reason for this sentiment. It outlined study limitations as

well as opportunities for future research.

The findings from this study provide a framework to build more rewarding

relationships between universities and faculty members, which benefits all stakeholders

in the higher education sector. The future and quality of higher education in the nation,

and more specifically in the State of Ohio, depends to a very large extent on the types of

relationships cultivated today with the custodians of higher education; those responsible

for creating knowledge and cultivating tomorrow’s world citizens.

 73

APPENDIXES
 74

APPENDIX A

Relationship Measurement Survey Instrument

Survey Questions:

Demographic Questions:

1. What is your age?

2. Sex? (Male or Female)

3. What is your rank at KSU? (Full-time Professor, Assistant Professor, Associate

Professor, Adjunct Professor, Instructor, Other).

4. What is your status? (Full-time or Part-time)

5. Which campus are you affiliated with? (e.g. Kent, Geauga, Stark, etc.)

6. How long have you been employed at Kent State?

Relationship Indicators:

(Five-Point Response Scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree/Disagree, Agree,

and Strongly Agree)

Trust
1. Kent State University treats faculty members like me fairly and justly.
2. Whenever the university makes an important decision, I know it will be
concerned about faculty members like me.
3. Kent State University can be relied on to keep its promises.
4. I believe that this university takes the opinions of faculty members like me into
account when making decisions.
5. I feel very confident about this university’s skills.
6. This university has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.

Control Mutuality
1. This university and faculty members like me are attentive to what each other say.
2. This university believes the opinions of faculty members like me are legitimate.
3. This university really listens to what faculty members like me have to say.
4. The management of this university gives faculty members like me enough say in
the decision-making process.
5. I believe faculty members like me have influence on the decision-makers of this
university.
Commitment
 75

1. I feel that this university is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to faculty

members like me.
2. I can see that this university wants to maintain a relationship with faculty
members like me.
3. There is a long-lasting bond between this university and faculty members like me.
4. Compared to other universities, I value my relationship with this university
more.
5. I would rather work together with this university than not.
6. I feel a sense of loyalty to this university.

Satisfaction
1. I am happy with Kent State University.
2. Both the university and faculty members like me benefit from the relationship.
3. Most faculty members like me are happy in their interactions with this university.
4. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this university has
established with faculty members like me.
5. Most people enjoy dealing with this university.
6. The university fails to satisfy the needs of faculty members like me. (Reversed)
7. I feel faculty members like me are important to this university.

Communal Relationships
1. This university does not especially enjoy giving others aid. (Reversed)
2. This university is very concerned about the welfare of faculty members like me.
3. I feel that this university takes advantage of people who are vulnerable.
4. I think that this university succeeds by stepping on other people. (Reversed)
5. This university helps faculty members like me without expecting anything in
return.
6. I don’t consider the university to be a particularly helpful organization.
(Reversed)

Exchange Relationships
1. Whenever Kent State University gives or offers something to faculty members
like me, it generally expects something in return.
2. Even though faculty members have had a relationship with this university for a
long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us a favor.
3. This university will compromise with faculty members like me when it knows
that it will gain something.

Is there any other thing you would like to share about your relationship with Kent State
University, in recognition that your response would be confidential?
 76

APPENDIX B

Approval to Use Human Research Participants

 77

REFERENCES

About Kent State, an Ohio University (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2009 from

http://www.kent.edu/about/

Allen, J.L. & Judd, B.B. (2007). Participation in decision-making and job satisfaction:

Ideal and reality for male and female university faculty in the United States.

Human Communication 10(3), 157-179.

Austin, E.W. & Pinkleton, B.E. (2006). Strategic public relations management: Planning

and managing effective communication programs (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson

Wadsworth.

Berger, A.A. (2000). Media and communication research methods: An introduction to

qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Broom, G.M., Casey, S. & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of

organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 9(2), 83-

98.

Bruning, S.D. & Ledingham, J.A. (1998). Ten guidelines for managing the organization-

public relationship. Business Research Yearbook, 5, 776-780.

Bruning, S.D. & Ledingham, J.A. (2000). Organization and key public relationships:

Testing the influence of the relationship dimensions in a business-to-business

context. In J.A. Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as

 78

relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of

public relations (pp. 159-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). “Employment situation summary.” Retrieved July 4,

2009 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Castillo, J.X. & Cano, J. (2004). Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty.

Journal of Agricultural Education 45(3), 65-74.

Clark, M.S. & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange

relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

19(6), 684-691.

Cullen, S. (2002). How managers can help retain their best employees.

Retrieved March 20, 2008 from

http://www.seniormag.com/marketing/employee-retainage.htm

Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H. & Broom, G.M. (2006). Effective public relations (9th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

DeSanto, B.J. & Garner, R.B. (2001). Strength in diversity: The place of public relations

in higher education institutions. In R.L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations

(pp. 543 – 550). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dolphin, R.R. (2005). Internal communications: Today’s strategic imperative. Journal of

Marketing and Communications 11(3), 171-190.

Dooley, D. (2001). Social research methods (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, Inc.

Ehrenberg, R.G. (2003). Unequal Progress. Academe 89(2), p. 22.

 79

Emerging Workforce® Study (2005). Retrieved March 20, 2009 from

http://www.spherion.com/downloads/Emerging_Workforce/ExecutiveSum-

EW.pdf

Ferguson, M.A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational

relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Public

Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass

Communication Annual Convention, August, 1984.

Gliner, J.A. & Morgan, G.A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated

approach to design and analysis. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grunig, J.E. (1992). Symmetrical systems of internal communication. In J.E. Grunig

(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication Management (pp. 531-

575). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J.E. & Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship

indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and

relationship outcomes. In J.A. Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations

as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of

public relations (pp. 23-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J.E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between

organizations and publics. Retrieved February 17, 2009

from http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/2002_AssessingRelations.pdf

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. & Ehling, W.P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In

J.E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management

(pp. 65-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

 80

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. & Dozier, D.M. (2002). Excellent public relations and

effective organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J.E., Grunig, L.A. & Dozier, D.M. (2006). The excellence theory.

In C.H. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 21-62).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hagedorn, L.S. (2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: Components, theories,

and outcomes. In L.S. Hagedorn (Ed.) What contributes to job satisfaction among

faculty and staff: New Directions for Institutional Research (pp. 5-20). CA:

Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Harshman, E.F. & Harshman, C.L. (1999). Communicating with employees: Building on

an ethical foundation. Journal of Business Ethics 19, 3-19.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B.B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.).

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory (Two Factor Theory), n.d. Retrieved May 2,

2009 from http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/herzberg/

High tech, high touch, high growth. (2009, May 25), pp. 40 – 41.

Holtz, S. (2004). Corporate conversations: A guide to crafting effective and appropriate

internal communications. New York: AMACOM.

Hon, L.C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public

relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.

Huang, Y. (2007). A revisit of symmetrical communication from an international

perspective: Status, effect, and future research directions. In E.L. Toth (Ed.), The

future of excellence in public relations and communication management:

 81

Challenges for the next generation (pp. 235-262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hung, C.F. (2007). Toward the theory of relationship management in public relations:

How to cultivate quality relationships? In E.L. Toth (Ed.), The future of

excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for

the next generation (pp. 443-476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

Jo, S., Hon, L.C. & Brunner, B.R. (2004). Organization-public relationships: Measuring

validation in a university setting. Journal of Communication Management 9(1),

14-27.

Ki, E. & Hon, L.C. (2007). Reliability and validity of organization-public relationship

measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership

organization. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 84(3), 419-438.

Ki, E. & Hon, L.C. (2009). A measure of relationship cultivation strategies. Journal of

Public Relations Research 21(1), 1-24.

Kim, H. (2007). A multilevel study of antecedents and a mediator of

employee–organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 19(2),

167-197.

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.

Ledingham, J.A. (2001). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational

theory of public relations. Public Relations Review 27, 285-295.

 82

Ledingham, J.A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of

public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 15(2), 181- 198.

Ledingham, J.A. (2006). Relationship management: A general theory of public relations.

In C.H. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 465-484).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Luo, Y. (2005). Public relations function in a higher education setting: An examination of

communication management in two eastern U.S. universities. Paper presented at

International Communication Association, 2005 Annual Meeting. New York, NY.

McEwen, C. (2009, June 10). 148 at KSU take buyout separation: Officials hoping to

save about $2 million in move. Record Courier. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from

http://www.recordpub.net/news/article/4604962

MetroMonitor: Tracking Economic Recession and Recovery in America’s 100 Largest

Metropolitan Areas (2009). Retrieved July 8, 2009 from

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/06_metro_monitor.aspx

ModernThink Higher Education Insight Survey© Kent State University Job Category

Response Distribution Report (2008). Wilmington, DE: ModernThink, LLC.

Morel, S. (2007). Onboarding Secures Talent for the Long Run. Workforce Management

86(12). Retrieved from EBSCO database on July 7, 2009.

National Study of the Changing Workforce (1997). Retrieved March 20, 2008 from

http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/summary/1997nscwsumm.pdf.

Neuman, W.L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Points of Pride: Kent State University (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2009 from
 83

http://www.kent.edu/successstories/pride/index.cfm

Professional Development and Measurement Cited Among Top Challenges in Major

New Research Study (2006). Retrieved January 25, 2009

from http://www.melcrum.com/about/press/pulse.shtml

Rawlins, B.L. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency

and employee trust. Public Relations Journal 2(2), pp. 1 – 21).

Reagan, J. (2006). Applied research methods for mass communicators. Spokane, WA:

Marquette Books.

RPIE (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2009 from

http://www.kent.edu/rpie/StudentData/GraduationStatistics.cfm

Russ-Eft, D. & Preskil, H. (2001). Evaluation in organizations: a systematic approach to

enhancing learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Pub.

Sachau, D.A. (2007). Resurrecting the Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Herzberg and the

Positive Psychology Movement. Human Resource Development Review 6(4),

377-393.

Sanchez, P.M. (2007). The employee survey: More than asking questions. Journal of

Business Strategy 28(2), pp. 48 – 56.

Scarlett, H. (2006). Manager-employee communication. In T. Gillis (Ed.), The IABC

handbook of organizational communication: A guide to internal communication,

public relations, marketing, and leadership (pp. 215-226). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey Bass.

Scott, J. (2007). Relationship measures applied to practice. In E.L. Toth (Ed.), The future
 84

of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for

the next generation (pp. 263-273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

Scroggins, D. (2005). Faculty turnover at the University of Tennessee. Retrieved July 10,

2009 from http://oira.tennessee.edu/stats/facturn/factrn04.pdf

Scroggins, W. (2008). The relationship between employee fit perceptions, job

performance, and retention: Implications of perceived fit. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal 20(1), 57-71.

Spurlock, B. & O’Neil, J. (2009). Designing an employee-centered intranet and

measuring its impact on employee voice and satisfaction. Public Relations

Journal 3(2), 1-20.

Stacks, D.W. & Watson, M.L. (2007). Two-way communication based on quantitative

research and measurement. In E.L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public

relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation

(pp. 67-83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Tack, M.W. & Patitu, C.L. (1992). Faculty job satisfaction: Women and minorities in

peril. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington D.C.: The

Goerge Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Thornhill, A., Lewis, P., Saunders, M. (1996). The role of employee communication in

achieving commitment and quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in

Education 4(1), 12-20.

The way we’ll work. (2009, May 25). Time, p. 39.

 85

Truell, A., Price Jr., W., & Joyner, R. (1998, March). Job satisfaction among community

college occupational-technical faculty. Community College Journal of Research

& Practice, 22(2), 111. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from Professional Development

Collection database.

Tuchman, G. (2000, May 4). Kent State forever linked to with Vietnam War era.

CNN.com. Retrieved July 5, 2009 from

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/views/y/2000/04/tuchman.kentstate.may4/

University System of Ohio: Structure (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2009 from

http://uso.edu/strategicplan/handbook/uso/structure.php

U.S. job retention poll findings (2006). Retrieved March 20, 2008 from

http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/surveys_published/2006%20U.S.%20Job%20R

etention%20Poll%20Findings.pdf

Ware, B.L. & Fern, B. (1997). The challenge of retaining top talent: The workforce

attrition crisis. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from http://www.itsinc.net/retention-

research.htm

Watson Wyatt's WorkUSA Survey Identifies Steps to Keep Employees Engaged,

Productive in a Downturn (2009). Retrieved July 4, 2009

from http://www.watsonwyatt.com/news/press.asp?ID=20559

Welch, M. & Jackson, P.R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder

approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12 (2), 177–198.

What employees really want (2006). Retrieved March 20, 2008 from

http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=1810#table6
 86

Wise, K. (2007). The organization and implementation of relationship management.

Health Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3/4, 151-166.