What is culture? What role does culture play in international PR?

This week is all about culture. The textbook chapter and five articles assigned to this topic discuss the concept of culture and how it relates to the practice of international PR. The texts define international public relations and provide guidelines for what is considered global and domestic practice. Let’s begin:

Teaching Culture

In the first article, “Teaching Culture: The Challenges and Opportunities of International Public Relations” George discusses how crucial it is for businesses to create procedures that govern how they conduct international public relations practices in other countries. 

For these procedures to be effective, it requires the practitioner to have an understanding of the culture in that country and of the media it utilizes. George states, “intercultural communication practitioners and scholars should recognize the need for a clear understanding of their publics, the appropriate channels of communication, and strategies for using various media most effectively” I believe that when public relations is conducted globally, the strategies that an entity has in place for their own country must be adapted to the country that is receiving the communication. George supports this by saying, “In addition to the message’s content, the intent of the message must be understood”

 

The article then defines what international PR is. George provides two definitions of international public relations, but I preferred the definition by Banks (1995), “the management of formal communication between organizations and their relevant publics to create and maintain communities of interest and action that favor the organization, taking full account of the normal human variation in the systems of meaning by which groups understand and enact their every day lives” (pg.21). This definition provides a clear understanding of what PR is and how it has to be adapted for the public you are serving. 

George corroborates with the theory that international public relations are also intercultural public relations. He states, “International public relations cannot be separated from intercultural or multicultural public relations because as long as the target public or client is from another country, public relations practice is both international and intercultural” Banks (1995) further supports the theory, “there are two senses in which public relations is cultural—

first, that it communicates across cultural borders and, second, that it is a cultural practice itself”. I agree with the theory in the sense that most clients come from various ethnicities and have different backgrounds. I don’t feel that all businesses have an international scope but I can understand how the Internet has changed the way that businesses and customers interact with each other which affects how PR is conducted.

George also includes various definitions of culture in the article. I agreed most with the definition proposed by Hoebel and Frost (1976), an “integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not the result of biological inheritance” Understanding the culture of a country allows a PR practitioner to develop and deliver a message that is accepted by the local people within that culture.

Cultural Setting and IPR

In the second article, “Cultural and global perspectives to relationship management in international public relations: The Sino-Chilean case study” Labarca and Ruiz discuss the global debate on culture in international PR. They do so by examining a case study between Chile and China with a focus on relationship management. 

 

The article analyzes IPR culturally through the idea of shanzhai which is the “tradition of Chinese counterfeits, that highlights the importance and legitimacy of the situational adaptability for personal profit and creativity through hybridization” (Han, 2017). Labarca and Ruiz believe that relationships are co-constructed and negotiated. 

 

Asian countries prioritize personal influence, a concept referred to as guanxi, which is based on interpersonal relationships. 

 

According to Gold et al. and Yum, “Chinese guanxi is a social and cultural mechanism that places relationships at the basis of society” (1988) Guanxi grants a person access to resources, information, and personal favors (Gold et al., 2002; Liu, 2000; Pye, 1992; Su et al., 2007; Wang, 2000; Yang, 1994; Yeung, 1997). Guanxi is the way that Chinese cultures go about building relationships. In the text, guanxi is considered from two different perspectives:

 

“Guanxi as a network of stakeholders hierarchically entangled that needs to be addressed by foreign firms whether they want to enhance business performance” (Su et al., 2007).

 

“The second frames guanxi within a cultural perspective that understands PR as placing personal relationships at the centre of the practice, as in the eastern model of PR” (Grunig et al., 1995).

 

This case study resulted in Chilean companies utilizing the concept of guanxi which benefits their relations with China. However, their global approach to communication suggests a lack of knowledge about the Chinese publics.

Ethnocentrism

In the third article, “Overcoming Ethnocentrism: The Role of Identity in Contingent Practice of International Public Relations” Choi and Cameron explore how multinational corporations (MNCs) are conducting PR in Korea. A major concept discussed in this text is globalization and its effect on how businesses interact with international publics. 

 

It is stated in the text that the best way to measure the effectiveness and excellence of public relations efforts is by the way organizations resolve and manage conflicts in international settings (Vercic , L. A. Grunig, & J. E. Grunig, 1996). 

 

The article warns companies from using an ethnocentric approach to international relations. Taylor (2000), states “an organization’s lack of competence in understanding the cultural norms of host nations will damage the relationship between an organization and its publics”. It is advised to refrain from taking a “one size fits all” approach to resolving conflict. 

 

Choi and Cameron state that “culture plays a binding force for establishing national identity in conflict situations”. It is overstated in these articles the importance of understanding culture when managing conflict and tailoring communication internationally. 

 

Choi and Cameron also employ the contingency theory and the psychocultural conflict theory. The contingency theory states that there is no one best way of managing organizations and practicing public relations that is optimal for all situations. This theory is categorized into two types: social structural conflict theory and psychocultural conflict theory. Social structural conflict theory focuses its attention on the concrete causes (i.e., interests) of conflict in the social, economic, and political organization of society. Psychocultural conflict theory emphasizes cultural interpretations that reveal “deeper, less conscious, more ambiguous dispositions and motives of which parties often are only dimly aware, as people impose the structure of their inner worlds on external events (Ross 1993b). Psychocultural conflict theory essentially provides a framework to depict and predict others’ actions. 

 

The article also discusses Korea’s identity through the lens of Cheong. Cheong is explained as a “sociocultural emotion that governs Korean’s psychological experiences” (Choi, 2000). Choi further defines Cheong as a “fundamental substructure of Korean’s characteristics and claimed that it is the basic psychosocial grammar of Korean people’s human relationships”. Cheong is the basis for the relational culture in Korea as individuals are seen as being part of a larger group. 

 

The concept of Cheong is explained in three different properties: 

1. Cheong is not easily generated or perished
2. The feeling of Cheong toward others cannot be objective or logical.
3. Cheong is created from considerate and sincere caring for others 

Understanding these distinct cultural differences in Korea provides MNCs with the ability to build relationships and minimize conflict with the Korean publics.

Pitch, Tweet or Engage on the Street (Chapter 2)

In chapter 2, Alamino defines culture and establishes dimensions for differentiating culture. According to Ting-Toomey, culture is “a learned system of meanings that fosters a particular sense of shared identity and community among its group members”. Hofstede et al. (2010) expand on this definition by explaining culture as “the sources of one’s mental programs lie within the social environments in which one grew up and collected one’s life experiences. The programming starts within the family; it continues within the neighborhood, at school, in youth groups, at the workplace, and in the living community” 

 

Understanding culture can be difficult for several reasons. 

•  Culture is shaped for individuals over their lifetime by the environment that they are in, their experiences and their familial values. 

•   Rapaille (2006) believes that people don’t understand the reasons behind their actions and that our actions are guided by our instincts. 

•  Culture is seen as dynamic, it is constantly changing on evolving. Cultures are not the same for everyone. Alamino states that “human beings have agency and so their behavior can never be completely predicted in advance”

• Numerous cultures can coexist within a single country 

Alamino continues by defining culture through Hofstede’s 11 key dimensions:

1. Power Distance
2. Individualism vs Collectivism
3. Masculinity vs Femininity
4. Uncertainty Avoidance
5.  Long-term Orientation
6. Indulgence vs Restraint
7. Performance Orientation
8. Humane Orientation
9. Context
10. Time
11. Value Orientations

Hofstede also distinguishes cultures through four differences: symbols, heroes, rituals, and values.

Being aware of cultural differences and adapting to them is the best way to ensure success in international public relations campaigns.

New Perspectives on International PR

In the fifth article, “New Perspectives on International Public Relations: Engaging Foreign Stakeholders” Golan asserts that the field of PR has changed over the decades due to globalization and the rise of social media. He states that companies are now required to engage in international relations as a result. Golan also stands with the theory that public relations are no longer domestic or global anymore, the lines have become blurred. He argues that because messages are transmitted through social media, communication in today’s time is international and domestic by nature.

 

The article states that NGOs, MNCs, and nations all require stakeholders to develop a vast understanding of their foreign counterparts which can include media, employees, investors and other consumers.

Real International PR

In the final article, “Theory of International Public Relations, the Internet, and Activism: A Personal Reflection” Wakefield argues against other public relations theories for a distinction between domestic and international PR. 

 

Wakefield states that the Internet has turned the world into a global society connecting individuals and corporations all over the world. He does believe that we can get to a point in the future where there is no distinction between international and domestic PR but he believes that we haven’t gotten to that point yet.

 

Wakefield argues that not all public relations activities have gone global. He states that “Practitioners who represent school districts or private schools, small to mid-size cities, hospitals and medical centers, high school or small university sports programs, local nonprofit agencies, and myriads of other organizations most likely never practice…international public relations” He continues by stating that the distinction between domestic and international is consequential and that there are big differences within both. 

 

According to Reed (1989), “International public relations means you do it somewhere else, with audiences different from you cultural, linguistically, geographically” Wakefield supports this by saying international public relations is determined by where the company is located and what publics they are building relationships with.

 

Foster (1998) states that “the international sector is the most difficult to manage. It is more complex, more unpredictable, and generates more risk than most domestic-based public relations programs” This is why it is very important to research and understand the culture before communication is transmitted globally.

References:

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rapaille, C. (2006). The culture code: An ingenious way to understand why people around the world live and buy as they do. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoebel, E. A., & Frost, E. L. (1976). Culture and social anthropology. New York: McGraw Hill. 

Banks, S. (1995). Multicultural public relations: A social interpretive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Han B-C (2017) Shanzhai: Deconstruction in Chinese. Boston: The MIT Press.

Gold T, Guthrie D and Wank D (2002) An introduction to the study of Guanxi. In: Gold T,

Guthrie D and Wank D (eds) Social Connections in China: Institutions, Culture, and the Changing Nature of Guanxi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yum J O (1988) The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs 55(4): 374–388.

Su C, Mitchell R and Sirgy J (2007) Enabling Guanxi management in China: A hierarchical stakeholder model of effective guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics 71(3): 301–319.

Grunig J, Grunig L, Sriramesh K, et al. (1995) Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of Public Relations Research 7(3): 163–186.

Vercic, D., Grunig, L.,&Grunig, J. (1996). Global and specific principles of public relations: Evidence from Slovenia. In H. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 31–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

Taylor, M. (2000). Cultural variance as a challenge to global public relations: A case study of the

Coca-Cola scare in Europe. Public Relations Review, 26, 277–293.

Ross, M. (1993b). The management of conflict: Interpretations and interests in comparative perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Choi, S. (2000). [Psychology of the Korean people]. Seoul, Korea: Chung-Ang University

Press.