Globalization vs localization?

This week continues last week's discussion on culture and international PR. The textbook chapters discuss culture, crisis communication, and best practices. The five articles assigned to this topic discuss how culture affects public relations and other entities such as NGOs and MNEs. Let’s begin:

Pitch, Tweet, or Engage on the Street (Chapters 2 & 4)

This week's chapters are about both culture and global crisis communication. Chapter 2 is the same as last week's chapter on culture so I will mention anything I didn't previously state in my last blog post before moving on to chapter 4. 

I will reinforce the concept of culture and the most important concept in chapter 2. Hofstede and Minkov's 11 cultural dimensions. Culture is "a learned system of meanings that fosters a particular sense of shared identity and community among its group members” (Ting-Toomey, 2005, pp. 71–72).

Hofstede and Minkov'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

Some questions to think about prior to practicing in a new country are as follows:

• What’s taboo?
• What’s being communicated nonverbally?
• What types of emotions are expected?
• What is considered ethical and unethical in this culture?
• What meanings do particular words, numbers, colors, and other symbols convey?
• What types of exchanges will be expected by my associates?
• What business practices are prevalent in this culture?
• How do members of this culture build trust?
• How important is it to build relationships before getting down to business?
• What are the values of my stakeholders, and how should this influence how I engage them? 
• Do I need to be sensitive to the religion of my employees, business partners, and audiences and how will this impact how I frame my messages?
• To what other organizations do my stakeholders belong, and what can this tell me about their values and how my messages will be received?
• What historical background will influence how my messages are received
• Are my business partners trying to adapt their own behavior to my culture?

Chapter 4 is all about crisis communication. Crisis communication is important for businesses to have in place in case of a crisis. 

According to Lerbinger (2012) crises can include:

• Crises of the physical environment include natural crises, biological crises, and technological crises. 
• Crises of the human climate involve “individuals and groups that seek change in a target organization’s policies and actions—or, sometimes, want to harm an organization." 
• Crises of management failure include crises of mismanagement, skewed management values, deception, and management misconduct.

It is important for businesses to respond quickly to crises to ensure that they have the opportunity to frame the situation to their advantage. Organizations should tell the public the truth, and inform them of their steps to manage the crises. It is also important for people to understand that the company cares. According to Knight and Pretty, if companies respond well to a crisis, their stock prices can increase over time (1996).

Some other mistakes that organizations make include not disclosing their mistakes, not accepting responsibility for a problem, and not having plans in place to replace fired chief executives.

All of these best practices are important for developing a crisis communication plan for companies. As stated in the textbook, according to research by the global public relations firm Weber Shandwick, 63% of a company’s market value is attributable to its reputation. Crisis communication is crucial to protecting a company's reputation.

Nongovernmental IPR

In the article, “Communicating on Behalf of Global Civil Society: Management and Coordination of Public Relations in International Nongovernmental Organizations” Schwarz and Fritsch discuss the impact of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and explore how global companies develop their communications across borders.

Schwarz and Fritsch state that nongovernmental organizations create awareness of international social, political, environmental, and economic causes in a global society. Strategic communication is especially important for these entities because they have to establish and maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the media, government, and other publics while achieving their organizational goals.

INGOs are international nongovernmental organizations. INGOs have a larger imprint on global society due to their footprint and reach. These organizations have large impacts and primarily use communication to achieve their goals, and these goals are typically for the public good.

Some important conclusions regarding INGOs are:

1. They often operate in resource-scarce environments
2. PR functions are often assigned to the most senior manager (CEO or president)
3. Strategic communication might limit their ability to achieve their international communication goals
4. CEOs may lack the necessary background and time resources to set up a professional IPR program

The authors make the determination that PR programs within INGOs would benefit from alliances with MNCs or by forming networks with other civil society organizations with a PR function.

NGOs and MNEs

In the article, “MNEs and the practice of international business diplomacy” Doh, Dahan, and Casario apply practice theory to international business diplomacy and examine practices under the lens of governance levels and the degree of rule formality. 

I'm going to be quite honest when I say that this article threw me for a loop. I was quite confused by this article and didn't understand the importance of it as it relates to IPR. However, I did pull some concepts that I thought were important.

Multinational enterprises are faced with a multilayered global business environment with various stakeholders in different levels of governance (global, regional, national, and sub-national), and various degrees of rule formality. 

MNEs navigate this by implementing nonmarket strategies (NMS) to engage in IBD. They do so to:

• Reduce their global risk exposure (Riordan, 2014)

• Advance their interests with governmental and other stakeholders

• Maintain their corporate reputation, legitimacy, and social license to operate

This article reinforces the importance of two dimensions that guide IBD practices:

1. The institutional governance level
2. The degree of institutional formality

As I stated previously, I didn't quite understand this article and its context. Please feel free to conceptualize and further contribute to my understanding by commenting below.

Theory, Internet, and Activism

In the article, “Theory of International Public Relations, the Internet, and Activism: A Personal Reflection” Wakefield argues against public relations theorists for the distinction between domestic and IPR.

 

Wakefield states that the Internet has changed the ways that not only individuals interact with each but businesses and entities as well. The Internet has caused all people to become connected globally. He thinks that corporate public relations activity occurs internationally but does not agree with the dissertation that all public relations activity is global, or international. 

 

He believes 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 what this article later defines as international public relations” (Wakefield, 2008). He continues by explaining the differences between both: "The important elements in an international program, therefore, boil down to where the entity is located and to which publics it must build relationships."

 

An important facet of this article that bleeds into another piece from this week is the discussion of two-way symmetrical communication between entities and their publics. This concept is referred to as the generic/specific theory. 

Grunig (2006) explains that the symmetrical model suggests that companies, people, and their publics should use communication to adapt their beliefs and actions of others instead of trying to control how others think.

I noticed that this concept of symmetrical communication is repeated in the article below by Kathryn L. Norsworthy.

Border Crossings

In the article, “Mindful Activism: Embracing the Complexities of International Border Crossings” Norsworthy presents us with her testimonio of her experiences in Thailand working alongside her colleague and facilitator, Ouyporn. 

Norsworthy explains how colonization and imperialism have been repeated through time and in Western culture and that it has affected other cultures and societies. Quijano (2007), stated that "Coloniality lingers long past the exit of the colonizers as a tapestry of invisible power structures woven throughout the systems of a society or culture" It is repeated how important it is to bring a "postcolonial analysis

Norsworthy shares the experiences of local Thai women who have encountered Westerners who come to other counties and deem themselves as experts who do not listen and understand the local people to figure out what it is that they need. This concept is referred to as psychological colonization, "in which the colonizer assumes the role of the authority and the colonized are viewed as inferior and in need of “help” (Nandy, 1983). 

A critical portion of this article that I found most important in practicing international public relations would be to engage in corporate communications "from the sidelines". Allow the people local to that culture to guide your processes, but don't exclude them from decision-making. It is advised, "as outsiders to engage with local actors in reflexive processes to promote “passing the torch” (Fine, Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2000).

Comparative Analysis

In the article, “A Comparative Analysis of International Public Relations: Identification and Interpretation of Similarities and Differences Between Professionalization in Austria, Norway, and the United States” Coombs et al. examine how culture affects public relations. The study they conducted examined pr practitioners from 3 different countries, Austria, Norway, and America. These practitioners were compared by fulfillment, professional orientation, and practitioner roles.

Coombs et al. explain that it is important to consider these differences across cultures because such differences will guide an entity's IPR communication strategy.

This article discusses the debate on whether public relations can be considered a profession which is a topic we have discussed in class. Coombs et al. have concluded that the debate has now shifted to a concern with the professionalism of practitioners. Do practitioners act like professionals? This is determined using The McLeod and Hawley (1964) instrument which measures professional orientation and professional fulfillment. Professionalism is regarded as an important distinction because it shapes how people practice public relations.

• Professional orientation is the degree to which a person desires a set of professional characteristics in any job.
• Professional fulfillment is the degree to which a person believes those same professional characteristics are provided in his or her current job

The authors concluded that professionalism and practitioner roles shape behaviors. This study also states that IPR confronts the choice between globalization and localization. Coombs et al. state, "Globalization and localization should be viewed as complementary options rather than as either/or choices. When there are similarities, standardize the practice. When there are differences, customize the practice (Oviatt, 1988)"

I agree that it is best to change your practices as a company when there are differences in cultural values. It is ineffective to push your own cultural values onto another country with different cultural values.

References:

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.

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

Lerbinger, O. (2012). The crisis manager: Facing disasters, conflicts, and failures. New York, NY: Routledge.

Knight, R. F., & Pretty, D. J. (1996). The impact of catastrophes on shareholder value. Oxford: Executive Research Briefings.

Riordan, S. (2014). Business diplomacy: Shaping the firm’s geopolitical risk environment. Clingendael Policy Brief. https://www.clingendael.org/

Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public relations research, 18(2), 151-176.

Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies, 21, 168–178.

Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). For whom? Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 107–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oviatt, F., Jr. (1988). PR without boundaries: Is globalization an option? Public Relations Quarterly. 33{\), 5-9.

McLeod, J. M.. & Hawley, S. ti.. Jr. (1964). Professionalization among newsmen. Journalism Quarterly. 41, 529-538, 577.