Advertisement

Commandment 9

Solid: Strong, Sensitive and Savvy
  • Ralph Tench
  • Dejan Verčič
  • Ansgar Zerfass
  • Ángeles Moreno
  • Piet Verhoeven
Chapter

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.

References

  1. Aldoory, L. (2005). A (re)conceived feminist paradigm for public relations: A case for substantial improvement. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 668–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avenarius, H., & Bentele, G. (Eds.) (2009). Selbstkontrolle im Berufsfeld Public Relations. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Brown, R. E. (2012). Epistemological modesty: Critical reflections on public relations thought. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1), 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burley-Allen, M. (1995). Listening. The Forgotten Skill. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. CIPR Chartered Institute of Public Relations (2015). State of the Nation, 2015. London: CIPR.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drollinger, T., Comer, L., & Warrington, P. (2006). Development and validation of the active empathic listener scale. Psychology and Marketing, 23(2), 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eichenbaum, L., & Orbach, S. (1999). What do Women Want? Exploding the Myth of Dependency. New York: Berkley Books.Google Scholar
  18. Fawkes, J. (2012). Saints and sinners: Competing identities in public relations ethics. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 865–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitch, K., & Third, A. (2010). Working girls: Revisiting the gendering of public relations. Prism, 7(4), 1–13.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (2nd edition).Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Holmström, S. (1997). The inter-subjective and the social systemic public relations paradigms. Journal of Communication Management, 2(1), 24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holmström, S. (2005). Reframing public relations. The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organizational legitimation. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnston, J. (2010). Girls on screen: How film and television depict women in public relations. Prism, 7(4), 1–16.Google Scholar
  31. Kim, H. (2005). Universalism versus relativism in public relations. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20(4), 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational Listening: The Missing Essential in Public Communication. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCloskey, D. N. (2006). The Bourgeois Virtues. Ethics for an Age of Commerce. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Siere, R. (2014). Ongehoord. Waarom luisteren uw organisatie beter maakt. Amsterdam: Adfo Groep.Google Scholar
  42. Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Ruler, B., & Elving, W. (2007). Carrière in Communicatie. Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Van Zoonen, L. (2004). Entertaining the Citizen: When Politics and Popular Culture Converge. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wyatt, R. (2013). The PR Census 2013. PR Week (UK online edition). Retrieved from: http://www.prweek.com/article/1225129/pr-census-2013.
  50. Yeomans, L. (2010). Soft sell? Gendered experience of emotional labour in UK public relations firms. Prism, 7(4), 1–14.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph Tench
    • 1
  • Dejan Verčič
    • 2
  • Ansgar Zerfass
    • 3
  • Ángeles Moreno
    • 4
  • Piet Verhoeven
    • 5
  1. 1.Leeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.University of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.University of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Universidad Rey Juan CarlosMadridSpain
  5. 5.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations