Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Commandment 9

Solid: Strong, Sensitive and Savvy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Communication Excellence

  • 1827 Accesses

Abstract

Personal solidity, with all its ups and downs, is one of the storylines in the famous Danish television series Borgen. The series revolves around the female Danish Prime Minister Birgitte Nyborg, her ‘spin doctor’ Kasper Juul and Katrine Fonsmark, the anchorwoman of the most important Danish news show. These three characters symbolise politics, public relations and journalism, the tension between those fields and what these interrelationships can do to people personally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the Borgen website at https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/borgen and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Borgen_episodes.

  2. 2.

    Siere (2014).

  3. 3.

    Drollinger et al. (2006).

  4. 4.

    Siere (2014).

  5. 5.

    See www.listen.org.

  6. 6.

    Burley-Allen (1995).

  7. 7.

    Macnamara (2013, 2016).

  8. 8.

    Zerfass et al. (2015), pp. 58–69.

  9. 9.

    Bowen (2010); Bentele (2015).

  10. 10.

    Zerfass et al. (2012), pp. 18–35.

  11. 11.

    Fawkes (2012).

  12. 12.

    Pearson (1989).

  13. 13.

    Brown (2012).

  14. 14.

    Kim (2005).

  15. 15.

    Pearson (1989).

  16. 16.

    Zerfass et al. (2012), pp. 18–35.

  17. 17.

    Avenarius and Bentele (2009).

  18. 18.

    Wyatt (2013); Fitch and Third (2010); Aldoory and Toth (2002).

  19. 19.

    Aldoory and Toth (2002).

  20. 20.

    Van Ruler and Elving (2007); Bentele and Junghänel (2004); Flodin (2004).

  21. 21.

    Grunig et al. (2001); Rush et al. (2004).

  22. 22.

    Merchant (2012).

  23. 23.

    Fröhlich and Peters (2007).

  24. 24.

    Ames (2010); Johnston (2010).

  25. 25.

    Yeomans (2010); Aldoory (2005).

  26. 26.

    Hochschild (1983, 2003, 2008); Yeomans (2010).

  27. 27.

    Zerfass et al. (2014), p. 130. n = 2,777 communication professionals across Europe. Q: How do you believe the following personal traits are distributed among male and female communication professionals? Scale 1–2 (men’s strength) – 3 (equal strength) – 4–5 (women’s strength).

  28. 28.

    Van Zoonen (2004); Eichenbaum and Orbach (1999); Templin (1999).

  29. 29.

    Zerfass et al. (2014), p. 120. n = 2,777 communication professionals across Europe. Q: Please state whether you agree or disagree with those statements. Scale 1 (strongly disagree) – 5 (totally agree).

  30. 30.

    Merchant (2012).

  31. 31.

    Zerfass et al. (2014), p. 40. n = 2,777 communication professionals across Europe. Q: How do you feel about your actual job situation? Scale 1 (strongly disagree) – 5 (totally agree). Percentages: Agreement based on scale points 4–5. * Significant differences (chi-square test, p ≤ 0.05). ** Highly significant differences (chi-square test, p ≤ 0.01).

  32. 32.

    CIPR (2015).

  33. 33.

    Zerfass et al. (2007); Zerfass et al. (2008); Zerfass et al. (2009); Zerfass et al. (2010); Zerfass et al. (2011); Zerfass et al. (2012); Zerfass et al. (2013); Zerfass et al. (2014); Zerfass et al. (2015); Zerfass et al. (2016).

  34. 34.

    Wrigley (2002).

  35. 35.

    Zerfass et al. (2014), p. 149.

  36. 36.

    Verhoeven and Aarts (2010).

  37. 37.

    Coates (1989); Tannen (1990); Merchant (2012); Zerfass et al. (2014).

  38. 38.

    Tannen (1990).

  39. 39.

    Tannen (1990).

  40. 40.

    Eagly and Johnson (1990); Gray (1992); Eagly (1987); Eagly and Karau (2002); Martell and DeSmet (2001).

  41. 41.

    Zerfass et al. (2014), p. 65. n = 2,738 communication professionals across Europe. Q: Which form of professional networking do you practice most often? Pick one or state another form. In a typical week, I use most of my networking time (on the)…Highly significant differences for all items (chi-square test performed without ‘another form’, p ≤ 0.01, Cramér’s V = 0.093).

  42. 42.

    Cuadrado et al. (2015).

  43. 43.

    Zerfass et al. (2014), p. 81. nmin = 2,695 communication professionals across Europe. Q: Listed below are specific behaviours often seen as being characteristic of effective leaders. When it comes to being an effective leader, how important is it to demonstrate each of the following characteristics or behaviours? Scale 1 (not at all important) – 5 (very important). Mean values. * Significant differences (independent-samples t-test, p ≤ 0.05). ** Highly significant differences (independent-samples t-test, p ≤ 0.01).

  44. 44.

    Lipovetsky (2005); Roberts and Armitage (2006).

  45. 45.

    Holmström (1997); Van Ruler and Verčič (2005); Holmström et al. (2009).

  46. 46.

    McCloskey (2006), pp. 253–254.

  47. 47.

    Holmström (1997, 2005); Holmström et al. (2009).

References

  • Aldoory, L. (2005). A (re)conceived feminist paradigm for public relations: A case for substantial improvement. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 668–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A developing theory for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(2), 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (2010). PR goes to the movies: The image of public relations improves from 1996 to 2008. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 164–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenarius, H., & Bentele, G. (Eds.) (2009). Selbstkontrolle im Berufsfeld Public Relations. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentele, G.(2015). Responsible advocacy? Reflections on the history, system, and codes of public relations ethics, with comments on education and research. In A. Catellani, A. Zerfass, & R. Tench (Eds.), Communication Ethics in a Connected World. (pp. 19–32). Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentele, G., & Junghänel, I. (2004). Germany. In B. Van Ruler & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public Relations and Communication Management in Europe. (pp. 153–168). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, S. A. (2010). An examination of applied ethics and stakeholder management on top corporate websites. Public Relations Journal, 4(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. E. (2012). Epistemological modesty: Critical reflections on public relations thought. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1), 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burley-Allen, M. (1995). Listening. The Forgotten Skill. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIPR Chartered Institute of Public Relations (2015). State of the Nation, 2015. London: CIPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. (1989). Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In D. Cameron & J. Coates (Eds.), Women in Their Speech Communities. (pp. 94–122). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuadrado, I., Garcìa-Ael, C., & Molero, F. (2015). Gender-typing of leadership: Evaluations of real and ideal managers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 236–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drollinger, T., Comer, L., & Warrington, P. (2006). Development and validation of the active empathic listener scale. Psychology and Marketing, 23(2), 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenbaum, L., & Orbach, S. (1999). What do Women Want? Exploding the Myth of Dependency. New York: Berkley Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawkes, J. (2012). Saints and sinners: Competing identities in public relations ethics. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 865–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, K., & Third, A. (2010). Working girls: Revisiting the gendering of public relations. Prism, 7(4), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flodin, B. (2004). Sweden. In B. Van Ruler & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public Relations and Communication Management in Europe (pp. 413–424). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fröhlich, R., & Peters, S. B. (2007). PR bunnies caught in the agency ghetto? Gender stereotypes, organizational factors, and women’s careers in PR agencies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(3), 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in a Relationship. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, L. A., Toth, E. L., & Hon, L. C. (2001). Women in Public Relations: How Gender Influences Practice. New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (2nd edition).Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (2008). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. In M. Greco & P. Stenner (Eds.), Emotions: A Social Science Reader (pp. 551–575). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, S. (1997). The inter-subjective and the social systemic public relations paradigms. Journal of Communication Management, 2(1), 24–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, S. (2005). Reframing public relations. The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organizational legitimation. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 497–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, S., Falkheimer, J., & Nielsen, A. G. (2009). Legitimacy and strategic communication in globalization: The cartoon crisis and other legitimacy conflicts. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J. (2010). Girls on screen: How film and television depict women in public relations. Prism, 7(4), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. (2005). Universalism versus relativism in public relations. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20(4), 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipovetsky, G. (2005). Time against time: Or the hypermodern society. In G. Lipovetsky & S. Charles (Eds.), Hypermodern Times (pp. 29–71). Malden, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnamara, J. (2013). Beyond voice. Audience-making and the work and architecture of listening. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 27(1), 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational Listening: The Missing Essential in Public Communication. New York: Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martell, R. F., & DeSmet, A. L. (2001). Gender stereotyping in the managerial ranks: A Bayesian approach to measuring beliefs about the leadership abilities of male and female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1223–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D. N. (2006). The Bourgeois Virtues. Ethics for an Age of Commerce. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, K. (2012). How Men and Women Differ: Gender Differences in Communication Styles, Influence Tactics, and Leadership Styles (CMS Senior Theses, Paper 513). Retrieved from: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=cmc_theses.

  • Pearson, R. (1989). Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Co-orientation, rules, and the idea of communication symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research, 1(1), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., & Armitage, J. (2006). From organization to hypermodern organization: On the appearance and disappearance of Enron. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(5), 558–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rush, R. R., Oukrop, C. E., & Creedon, P. J. (Eds.) (2004). Seeking Equity for Women in Journalism and Mass Communication Education: A 30-year Update. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siere, R. (2014). Ongehoord. Waarom luisteren uw organisatie beter maakt. Amsterdam: Adfo Groep.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templin, C. (1999). Hillary Rodham Clinton as threat to gender norms: Cartoon images of the First Lady. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 23(1), 20–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ruler, B., & Elving, W. (2007). Carrière in Communicatie. Amsterdam: Boom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ruler, B., & Verčič, D. (2005). Reflective communication management: Future ways for public relations research. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 29 (pp. 239–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zoonen, L. (2004). Entertaining the Citizen: When Politics and Popular Culture Converge. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, P., & Aarts, N. (2010). How European public relations men and women perceive the impact of their professional activities. PRism, 7(4), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, B. J. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, R. (2013). The PR Census 2013. PR Week (UK online edition). Retrieved from: http://www.prweek.com/article/1225129/pr-census-2013.

  • Yeomans, L. (2010). Soft sell? Gendered experience of emotional labour in UK public relations firms. Prism, 7(4), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Van Ruler, B., Rogojinaru, A., Verčič, D., & Hamrefors, S. (2007). European Communication Monitor 2007. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results and Implications. Leipzig: University of Leipzig/EUPRERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2008). European Communication Monitor 2008. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results and Implications. Leipzig: University of Leipzig/EUPRERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2009). European Communication Monitor 2009. Trends in Communication Management and Public Relations – Results of a Survey in 34 Countries. Brussels: EUPRERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Verhoeven, P., Verčič, D., & Moreno, A. (2010). European Communication Monitor 2010. Status Quo and Challenges for Public Relations in Europe. Results of an Empirical Survey in 46 Countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Tench, R., Moreno, A., & Verčič, D. (2011). European Communication Monitor 2011. Empirical Insights into Strategic Communication in Europe. Results of an Empirical Survey in 43 Countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2012). European Communication Monitor 2012: Challenges and Competencies for Strategic Communication: Results of an Empirical Survey in 42 Countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2013). European Communication Monitor 2013. A Changing Landscape – Managing Crises, Digital Communication and CEO Positioning in Europe. Results of a Survey in 43 Countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., & Moreno, A. (2014). European Communication Monitor 2014. Excellence in Strategic Communication – Key Issues, Leadership, Gender and Mobile Media. Results of a Survey in 42 Countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2015). European Communication Monitor 2015. Creating Communication Value Through Listening, Messaging and Measurement. Results of a Survey in 41 Countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., Tench, R., & Verčič, D. (2016). European Communication Monitor 2016. Exploring Trends in Big Data, Stakeholder Engagement and Strategic Communication. Results of a Survey in 43 Countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA, Quadriga Media Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom

    Ralph Tench

  2. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Dejan Verčič

  3. University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Ansgar Zerfass

  4. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain

    Ángeles Moreno

  5. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Piet Verhoeven

Authors
  1. Ralph Tench
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dejan Verčič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ansgar Zerfass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ángeles Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Piet Verhoeven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tench, R., Verčič, D., Zerfass, A., Moreno, Á., Verhoeven, P. (2017). Commandment 9. In: Communication Excellence. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48860-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation