an exploration of contingency theory of accommodation

101 Pages·2016·0.6 MB·English

by  Sarah Strasburg

AN EXPLORATION OF CONTINGENCY THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION:
COMMUNICATING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES IN
NORWAY

__________________________________

A Thesis

presented to

the Faculty of the Graduate School

at the University of Missouri

________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

__________________________________

by

SARAH A. STRASBURG

Dr. Fritz Cropp, Thesis Supervisor

JULY 2016
The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the
thesis entitled
AN EXPLORATION OF CONTINGENCY THEORY OF
ACCOMMODATION: COMMUNICATING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
MEASURES IN NORWAY
presented by Sarah A. Strasburg,
a candidate for the degree of master of arts,
and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.
Professor Fritz Cropp
Professor Glenn Cameron
Professor Amanda Hinnant
Professor Antonie Stam
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost, I’d like to acknowledge the people I interviewed for this research who
gave me insight into their professional lives, and to those who touched my life with
positivity throughout my travels in Norway.
Deep thanks to each member of my committee for being a part of my “team” and
offering guidance at different stages of this research.
I also wish to acknowledge Dorothy Carner, head librarian at the Donald W.
Reynolds Journalism Library and Martha Pickens, graduate advisor at the Missouri
School of Journalism.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................. vi

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................4
2.1 Contingency Theory of Accommodation’s in Public Relations ........................4
2.2 Contingency Theory’s Central Concepts ...........................................................5
2.3 Contingency Theory in Action ...........................................................................8
2.4 Leadership & Culture .......................................................................................11
2.5 The Norwegian Landscape: Corporate Social and Environmental
Responsibility ........................................................................................................14

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................18
3.1 Participants .......................................................................................................19
3.2 Sampling ..........................................................................................................22
3.3 Semi-structured Interviewing ...........................................................................23
3.4 Minimizing Cultural Differences, Maximizing Theory Building ....................25

4. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................29
4.1 Category-by-Category Factor Manifestations ..................................................30
4.1.1 External Variables: Threats ...............................................................30
4.1.2 External Variables: Industry Environment .......................................33
4.1.3 External Variables: General Political/Social Environment/External
Culture ........................................................................................................35
4.1.4. External Variables: The External Public ..........................................35
4.1.5 External Variables: Issue under Question .........................................37
4.1.6 Internal Variables: Organization’s Characteristics ...........................37
4.1.7 Internal Variables: Public Relations Department Characteristics .....39
4.1.8 Internal Variables: Characteristics of Dominant Coalition (Top
Management) .............................................................................................41
4.1.9 Internal Variables: Internal Threats ..................................................42
4.1.10 Internal Variables: Individual Characteristics (Public Relations
Practitioner, Dominant Coalition and Line Managers) ..............................42
4.1.11 Internal Variables: Relationship Characteristics .............................45
4.2 Best Practices Arising from Interviews ...........................................................46
4.2.1 Publish a Sustainability Report .........................................................46
4.2.2 Integrate Sustainability into Daily Thinking of People across the
Organization ...............................................................................................47
iii
4.2.3 Release Research Reports to the Press ..............................................48
4.2.4 Sponsor a Music Festival ..................................................................49
4.2.5 Silence ...............................................................................................49
4.2.6 Be an Immediate Part of the Conversation .......................................50
4.2.7 Garner Employee Support through a Bike Program .........................50
4.2.8 Hold a Seminar or Participate in a Conference .................................51
4.2.9 Leverage Established Communication Channels Outside the
Organization ...............................................................................................54
4.2.10 Be Transparent ................................................................................54
4.2.11 Get and Maintain the “Social License to Operate” .........................55
4.2.12 Tie Company Practices to Science/Technology/Innovation ...........55
4.2.13 Tie Company Practices to Norwegian/International Standards ......56

5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................57
5.1 Influences of Political-Social Support .............................................................57
5.2 Fact-Based Orientation ....................................................................................60
5.3 Lack of Individualism ......................................................................................63
5.4 Best Practices along the Continuum ................................................................64
5.4.1 Publish a Sustainability Report .........................................................68
5.4.2 Integrate Sustainability into Daily Thinking of People across the
Organization ...............................................................................................69
5.4.3 Release Research Reports to the Press ..............................................70
5.4.4 Sponsor a Music Festival ..................................................................70
5.4.5 Silence ...............................................................................................71
5.4.6 Be an Immediate Part of the Conversation .......................................71
5.4.7 Garner Employee Support through a Bike Program .........................71
5.4.8 Hold a Seminar or Participate in a Conference .................................71
5.4.9 Leverage Established Communication Channels Outside the
Organization ...............................................................................................72
5.4.10 Be Transparent ................................................................................72
5.4.11 Get and Maintain the “Social License to Operate” .........................73
5.4.12 Tie Company Practices to Science/Technology/Innovation ...........73
5.4.13 Tie Company Practices to Norwegian/International Standards ......74
5.5 Strengths and Limitations ................................................................................74

6. IMPLICATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH .........................................................77
6.1 Structural Stability of Contingency Theory across Cultural Contexts .............78
6.2 Contingency Decision Matrix: A Quantitative Tool ........................................79

7. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................82

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................84

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................88
Appendix A: Preliminary Interview Instrument ....................................................88
Appendix B: Revised Interview Instrument ..........................................................89
iv
Appendix C: Contingency Theory Factors ............................................................91
v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page
1. The advocacy-accommodation continuum .................................................................6
2. Jin, Pang and Cameron’s (2006) Strategies for building an analytic framework for
crisis communication ...........................................................................................65
3. Best practices along the continuum ..........................................................................67

vi
ABSTRACT

Public relations literature suggests that there is a gap between existing public
relations theory in a global context and what’s needed, and this research aims to help fill
that gap by testing existing manifestations of the Contingency Theory of Accommodation
in Europe for the first time, specifically in Norway. The research is similar in nature to
contingency theory tests in China (Li, Cropp, & Jin, 2010; Zhang, Qui & Cameron,
2004), South Korea (Bae and Park, 2011; Choi & Cameron, 2005; Shin, Heath, & Lee,
2011) and Singapore (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2006). The study finds that factors in all 11
categories of contingency theory manifest, suggesting that the principles of contingency
theory are relevant to the practice of conflict management for communication
practitioners in Norway. While no entirely new factors manifest, a clear fact-based
orientation emerges for the existing factor “how individuals receive, process and use
information and influence” emerges. Additionally, this analysis suggests that internal
variables related to characteristics of individual people not be as relevant to the practice
of conflict management in Norway on the issue of corporate environmental responsibility
concerns.
vii
Introduction

The purpose of this study is to test and extend existing applications of the
Contingency Theory of Accommodation. Contingency theory emerged nearly two
decades ago in the United States as an elaboration and revision of excellence theory,
the most commonly cited public relations theory of the time (Cameron, Cropp, &
Reber, 2000, p. 242-243). Since then its principles have been tested and further
developed in limited international settings such as China (Li, Cropp, & Jin, 2010;
Zhang, Qui & Cameron, 2004), South Korea (Bae and Park, 2011; Choi & Cameron,
2005; Shin, Heath, & Lee, 2011) and Singapore (Jin, Pang, & Cameron, 2006). This
study proposes to test it for the first time in Europe, specifically Norway.
The issue under examination is a particularly global issue: climate change.
Every country and indeed many companies must choose not whether they engage in
issue of environmental sustainability, but with whom, to what extent and how.
Within and across national borders, governments, people, activist organizations and
companies all put pressure on one another in what is a greater social dialogue on
the issue. To complicate matters, many entities with high environmental impact are
the same entities that provide many people with necessities such as heat and food.
The global population today is 7 billion and counting. To pull the plug on any and all
activities potentially damaging to the environment is hardly an option. This means
government, companies and people must grapple with the issue, and Norway, given
its relatively stable education, welfare and social systems has been a global leader in
1
this area. In March 2015, Norway became the 3rd nation to submit 2030 climate
change goals to the United Nations. In March 2015 the Norwegian Parliament also
decided to move forward with creating a climate change law with legally binding
benchmarks (Lonstreth, 2015; “Norwegian parliament votes”, 2015; Solholm, 2015).
Public relations scholars should find this research of interest because it has
the potential to add robustness to a major theory in the field. As our social worlds
and the business world become increasingly globalized, research on how publics
relate to one another must also grow and account for the changing nature of
communication.
Public relations practitioners should find this research of interest because
governments, businesses and people decide how to spend their dollars, regulate
others and compete in the marketplace based on environmental concerns. As one
example, Norway’s $850 billion sovereign wealth fund, the largest in the world, is
divesting itself of coal investments, and others are expected to follow suit
(Carrington, 2015).
What follows, per University of Missouri’s thesis guidelines are in order the
research questions guiding this proposed inquiry, the theoretical framework,
literature review, methods discussion, analysis including reflection on strengths and
limitations, and concluding remarks and areas for further study.
Research questions

RQ1: What factors from the contingency theory of accommodation manifest
when Norwegian communications managers discuss how they deal with key
publics on corporate environmental responsibility concerns?

2