Measuring the Quality of Relationships: Beyond Outputs and Outcomes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Measuring the Quality of Relationships: Beyond Outputs and Outcomes

Bottom Line Overview  PHI LOSOPHY  Use our heads to work smart  Trust our hearts to know what’s right  Do quality work as it reflects who we are  Have fun to recharge our hearts and souls

Bottom Line Expertise  Healthcare  Financial Services  Senior Living  Professional Services Firms  Education

Measuring the Quality of Relationships Beyond Outputs and Outcomes

Learning Objectives  Understand  Differences between output and outcome metrics  Distinctions between shared and exchange relationships  Dimensions of quality relationships and factors that influence quality  Process to conduct/analyze research

Pop Quiz # 1  Who is Michael Porter?  What is the Theory of Competitive Advantage?  Where was the sixth game of the World Series played in 1967?

Porter’s Theory of Competitive Advantage “ Standards for product performance, safety and environmental impact contribute to creating and upgrading competitive advantage. They pressure firms to improve quality, upgrade technology and provide features in areas of important customer (and social) concern.”

Porter’s Theory in Short  Firms gain economic benefits:  From social pressures  By collaborating with stakeholders

Pop Quiz # 2  What is the fundamental goal of PR?  How do you measure your progress toward that goal?  Who in senior leadership believes this is important?

Fundamental Goal of PR  Build and enhance on-going, long- term, high quality, working relationships with strategic stakeholders:  Customers  Employees  Investors  Industry analysts  Regulators

Most Measure  Outputs  Immediate results  Numbers of things  Amount of exposure  Outcomes  Opinions influenced  Attitudes changed  Behaviors affected

Guidelines for Measuring Quality of Relationships  The Institute for Public Relations Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation  Dr. Walter K. Lindenmann, Chairman  Dr. James E. Grunig, University of Maryland  Dr. Linda Childers Hon, University of Florida  IABC Excellence Study

Research Summary  Two basic types of relationships  Four key attributes  Based in social science and psychological research  Bey eyond do o you ou t r t rus ust , t , t o t o w hy y yo you t r t rus ust ? t ?

Types and Nature  Exchange Relationship  Give expecting return now or later  Shared Relationship  Give out of concern for welfare of other and the relationship – not expecting a return now or later

Four Key Attributes  Control  Trust  Integrity – fair and just  Dependability – do what you say  Competence – ability to deliver  Satisfaction  Commitment  Continuance commitment  Affective commitment

Survey Tool  Series of agree/disagree statements  9-point scale  Cronbach’s Alpha, reliability measure  Alpha < .60 not very reliable  Alpha approaching .90 is excellent  All above .80 and most near .90

Survey Questions/Exchange  This organization:  Will compromise with people like me when it knows that it will gain something  Takes care of people who are likely to reward the organization  Generally expects something in return whenever it gives or offers something to people like me  Even though people like me have had a relationship with this organization for a long time, it still expects something in return whenever it offers us a favor

Survey Questions/Shared  This organization:  Is very concerned about the welfare of people like me  Does not especially enjoy giving others aid  Tries to get the upper hand  Helps people like me without expecting anything in return  Takes advantage of people who are vulnerable

Survey Questions/Control  This organization:  And people like me are attentive to what each other say  Believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate  Really listens to what people like me have to say (reverse)  Gives people like me enough say in decisions  Tends to throw its weight around when dealing with people like me  When I have an opportunity to interact with this organization, I feel I have some sense of control over the situation  I believe people like me have an influence on the decision-makers of this organization

Survey Questions/Trust  This organization:  Treats people like me fairly and justly (integrity)  Can be relied upon to keep promises (dependability)  Has the capability to accomplish what it says it will do (competence)  Sound principles seem to guide this organization (integrity)  I am very willing to let this organization make decisions for people like me (dependability)  This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do (competence)

Survey Questions/Satisfaction  Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship  Most people like me are happy with their interactions with this organization  I feel people like me are important to this organization  This organization fails to satisfy the needs of people like me

Survey Questions/Commitment  This organization is trying to maintain a long- term commitment to people like me  I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me  There is a long-lasting bond between this organizational and people like me  I would rather work together with this organization than not  I feel a sense of loyalty to this organization  I could care less about this organization

Survey Methods  Online and “snail” mail  Focus groups  Intercepts  One-on-one interviews with probes  Tell me more  What makes you  Why do you think that way

First Pilot Survey  General Electric (GE)  Social Security Administration (SSA)  Microsoft (MS)  National Rifle Association (NRA)  American Red Cross (ARC)

Trust The Institute for Public Relations Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation

Control The Institute for Public Relations Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation

Commitment The Institute for Public Relations Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation

Satisfaction The Institute for Public Relations Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation

Shared Indicators The Institute for Public Relations Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation

Exchange Indicators The Institute for Public Relations Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation

What Does It Mean?  Strongest shared relationships with ARC  Weakest shared relationships with NRA  Exchange relationships just opposite  Exchange relationships stronger than shared for two corporations (MS/GE)  Other 4 indicators suggest NRA had poorest and ARC best relationships  Patterns were stronger for respondents who were more familiar with organization

Measurement & Evaluation  Define the strategic stakeholders  Set specific, measureable objectives  Establish what you want to compare results to over time  Select measurement instrument/tool  Analyze, recommend, act, and measure again

What’s next?  Adapt questions to determine management perceptions  Measure gaps in ways management and publics view the relationship  Assess and set course of action to close gaps

Edelman Trust Pyramid

Thank You! Jeffrey Remsik jremsik@blmpr.com www.blmpr.com