This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 DONOR EMPOWERMENT : ENHANC ING NONPROFIT DONOR RELATIONSHIP S AND SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR By MOONHEE CHO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Moonhee Cho
3 To my beloved family
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been so fortunate by having many great people who have always encouraged and supported me in the completion of my academic goals. First, I would like to thank my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Kathleen S. Kelly. With her expertise, intelligence, professionalism, and pas sion for public relations and fundraising, Dr. Kelly has always inspired me to be a promising scholar in the field of public relations and nonprofit management. As an academic advisor for both my master s and doctoral programs, s he has been with me through every moment She was sincerely pleased with my achievements and comforted me when I was frustrated. Without her trust and genuine car e I could not have complete d this long journey. It was a great honor for me to work with her for the past five years. I would also like to thank Dr. Linda C. Hon for providing her sincere advice and shaping my research i nterests H er encouragement and feedback were crucial for enhancing the quality of the dissertation I owe special appreciation to Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson w ho always enlightened me with critical insights. Research experience with her helped me pursue theoretical development and envision where to go. I am also grateful to have Dr. Elizabeth Bolton as my outside committee member. She guided me in expand ing the knowledge of nonprofit management and supported me in recruit ing nonprofit organizations for my dissertation. I would also like to thank Dr. Spiro Kiousis, the department chair of Public Relations, who provided me with many teaching and research opportunit ies. I would like to show my gratitude to Dr. Sylvia Chan Olmsted who always encouraged me to be a productive scholar and offered me wonderful opportunities to learn and conduct research Special thanks are given to Dr. Debbie Treise for her support during my time at UF I also want to express my special and
5 sincere gratitude to Jody Hedge, Kimberly Holloway, Sarah G. Lee and Karen Hart for their support and kindness. My deepest gratitude also goes to wonderful friends in Korea and the Unit ed States. I would especially like to thank great Korean Communigators : Jinsook Lee, Sangwon Lee, Soojin Kim, Jooyun Hwang, Jiyoung Cha, Sooyeon Kim, Bumsub Gabriel Jin, Hyejoon Rim, Jaejin Lee Jungmin Park Sun Young Park Ji Y o ung Kim Hyunji Lim and J ihye Kim I am also grateful for my dearest friends with whom I have shared great memories in Gainesville: Giselle A. Auger, Maria de Moya, Vanessa Bravo, Rajul Jain, and Joy Rodgers. I cannot forget the days and nights we shared both the joys and the agon y of research and teaching I would also like to thank members of the Korean Baptist Church in Gainesville. In particular, I am very indebted to the group members of Grace ful Eden who always prayed for me a nd helped my spiritual growth. My heartfelt thanks go to my beloved family in Korea and Hawaii for endless support This long journey through the doctoral program truly taught me what my family means to me in my life. My parents in Korea and parents in law in Hawaii are the greatest supporters who a lways encourage me in my choice of academic career. Their love and trust in me were the core motive s for me to accomplish what I dreamed I am also thankful for my brother, sister, and brother in law, and two precious nieces. Most of all, I would like to e xpress my special appreciations to Jinkyu Kim, my husband and soul mate. Without his everlasting love, patience, and dedication, I could not even dream about my academic journey and complet ing this journey. Thank you for standing by me always.
6 I also grea tly appreciate five nonprofit organizations and their individual donors who participated in my dissertation research. Lastly, but not least, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the Association for Academic Women for their financial and emotional support of my dissertation.
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 16 Need for a New Approach in Relationship Management Theory ............................ 19 Importance of Empowerment in the Relations hip Context ................................ ...... 20 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 21 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 The Nonprofit Sector ................................ ................................ ............................... 25 Brief Introduction to the Sector ................................ ................................ ......... 25 The Need for Effective Relationship Management in the Nonprofit Sector ....... 28 Donor Publics: a Major Stakeholder of Nonprofit Organizations ....................... 30 Public Relations as Re lationship Management ................................ ....................... 34 Defining Public Relations ................................ ................................ .................. 34 Defining Organization Public Relationships ................................ ...................... 36 Relationship Management Theory: Two Main Streams of Research ................ 38 Understanding Relationship Building Theory from a Tw o Way Symmetrical Communication Perspective ................................ ................................ .......... 44 Missing Elements in Relationship Management Theory ................................ ... 47 Understanding the Concept of Empowerment ................................ ........................ 51 Definition of Power ................................ ................................ ........................... 51 The Concept of Empowerment ................................ ................................ ......... 52 Psychological Empowerment and its Constructs ................................ .............. 56 Meaning ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 57 Competence ................................ ................................ ............................... 58 I mpact ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 58 Autonomy ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 59 The Values of Empowerment ................................ ................................ ........... 60 Power and Empowerment in Public Relations ................................ .................. 61 Understanding Empowerment in the Relationship Management Context ............... 65 Conceptual Definitions of Relationship Management Strategies ...................... 67 Openness ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 69
8 Positivity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 70 Assurances ................................ ................................ ................................ 72 Sharing of tasks ................................ ................................ ......................... 73 Networking ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 Access ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 75 Participation as a strategy for managing relationships ............................... 77 Stewardship ................................ ................................ ............................... 79 Conceptual Definitions of Relationship Quality Outcomes ............................... 85 Control mutuality ................................ ................................ ........................ 86 Satisfaction ................................ ................................ ................................ 87 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 88 Commitment ................................ ................................ ............................... 89 Linkages among Pub and Relationship Quality Outcomes ................................ ................................ .... 91 Relationship Management Strategies as Antecedents of Public Empowerment ................................ ................................ ............................... 91 Relationship Quality Outcomes as the Consequences of Public Empowerment ................................ ................................ ............................... 94 Relationships and Behavioral Intention ................................ ................................ ... 96 Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ..... 99 3 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 107 Populations and Sample Selection ................................ ................................ ....... 107 Online Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 111 Survey Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ 112 Relationship Management Strategies ................................ ............................. 113 ................................ ............................ 115 Relationship Quality Outcomes ................................ ................................ ...... 115 ................................ ................................ .. 116 Demographic and Other Information ................................ .............................. 116 Pretest ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 116 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 117 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 125 Description of Survey Participants ................................ ................................ ........ 125 Response Rates ................................ ................................ ............................. 125 Demographic Profile ................................ ................................ ....................... 127 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ............................. 129 Relationship Management Strategies ................................ ............................. 129 ................................ ............................ 130 Relationship Quality Outcomes ................................ ................................ ...... 130 Behavioral Intention ................................ ................................ ........................ 131 Reliability ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 131 Measurement Validity ................................ ................................ ........................... 132 Evidence for Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................ .............. 136
9 Psychological Empowerment ................................ ................................ ...... 136 Research quest ion 1 ................................ ................................ ................ 136 Research question 2 ................................ ................................ ................ 137 Hypothesis 1 ................................ ................................ ............................ 137 Research quest ion 3 ................................ ................................ ................ 139 Quality Outcomes ................................ ................................ ........................ 140 Hypothesis 2 ................................ ................................ ............................ 140 Research question 4 ................................ ................................ ................ 141 Mediatin between Relationship Management Strategies and Relationship Quality Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 143 Hypothesis 3 ................................ ................................ ............................ 144 Hypothesis 4 ................................ ................................ ............................ 144 Hypothesis 5 ................................ ................................ ............................ 145 Hypothesis 6 ................................ ................................ ............................ 145 Hypothesis 7 ................................ ................................ ............................ 146 Hypothesis 8 ................................ ................................ ............................ 146 Hypothesis 9 ................................ ................................ ............................ 147 Research quest ion 5 ................................ ................................ ................ 148 Research question 6 ................................ ................................ ................ 149 Post hoc testing ................................ ................................ .............................. 149 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 179 ................................ ................................ .. 179 elationship Management Strategies ............................ 182 Empowerment ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 184 Factors that Influence Relationship Quality Outcomes ................................ ......... 189 Mediating Ro Management Strategies and Relationship Quality Outcomes ............................ 191 Relationship Q uality Outcomes, Empowerment, and Behavioral Intention ........... 194 Implications for Public Relations Theory ................................ ............................... 196 Implications for the Practice ................................ ................................ .................. 201 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research ............................ 204 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 208 APPENDIX A RESEARCH INVITATION LETTER TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ............ 210 B SURVEY INVITATION LETTER ................................ ................................ ........... 211 C COVER LETTER ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 212
10 D REMINDER ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 213 E UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 214 F APPROVAL ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 214 G SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................ 216 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 222 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 247
11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Measures of relationship management strategies ................................ ............ 120 3 2 Me asures of psychological empowerment ................................ ........................ 122 3 3 Measures of relationship quality outcomes ................................ ....................... 123 3 4 Measures of b ehavioral i ntention ................................ ................................ ...... 124 4 1 Response rates ................................ ................................ ................................ 152 4 2 Composition ratio for the final sample from each organization ......................... 152 4 3 Sample d emographic d escription ................................ ................................ ..... 153 4 4 Means and standard deviations of relationship management strategies .......... 155 4 5 Means and standard deviations of donor empowerment ......... 157 4 6 Means and standard deviations of relationship quality outcomes ..................... 158 4 7 Means and standard deviations of behavioral intention ................................ .... 159 4 8 Reliability of all measurement scales ................................ ................................ 159 4 9 c orrelation of relationship management strategies and r elationship q uality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ........... 160 4 10 Summary of Model Fit ................................ ................................ ...................... 161 4 11 c orrelation of mpowerment and r elationship m anagement s trategies ................................ ................................ 161 4 12 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with d onors' p sychological e mpowerment ................................ ................................ ............ 161 4 13 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with m eaning ........ 162 4 14 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with c ompetenc e .. 162 4 15 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with a utonomy ...... 163 4 16 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with i mpact ........... 163 4 17 c orrelation of mpowerment and r elationship q uality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ........... 164
12 4 18 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with c ontrol m utuality ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 165 4 19 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with s atisfaction .... 165 4 20 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with t rust ............... 166 4 21 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with c ommitment .. 166 4 22 Mediating effect test: Openness Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 167 4 23 Mediating effect test: Positivity Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 168 4 24 Mediating effect test: Assurance s Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 169 4 25 Mediating effect test: Sharing of Tasks Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ............................... 170 4 26 Mediating effect test: Access Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 171 4 27 Mediating effect test: Reciprocity Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 172 4 28 Mediating effect test: Participation Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 173 4 29 Multiple r egression of r elationship q uality o utcomes with b ehavioral i ntention 174 4 30 174 4 31 ..................... 175 4 32 Mul tiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with d onors' p sychological e mpowerment for both annual giving and major gift donors ....... 175
13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Proposed model ................................ ................................ ............................... 106 4 1 Summary of the effects of seven relationship management strategies and ................................ 176 4 2 Summary of the effects of seven relationship management strategies and four dimensions of relationship quality outcomes ................................ ............. 177 4 3 Standardized parameter estimates for second order factors of structural model. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 178
14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DONOR EMPOWERMENT : ENHANC ING NONPROFIT DONOR RELATIONSHIPS AND SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR By Moonhee Cho August 2012 Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly Major: Mass Communication By introducing the concept of psychological empowerment to public relations scholarship t he main purpose of this study was to advance relationship m anagement theory, a main research stream in the field of public relations. More specifically, the study explored the dynamic linkages among relationship management strategies psychological empower ment, relationship quality outcomes, and behavioral intention. An online survey with individual donors from five nonprofit organizations that have various missions was employed to test the proposed model. Three hundred fifty seven responses were used for d ata analysis. This study found a new role of relationship management strategies as an antecedent of donors psychological empowerment. Of seven relationship management strategies, openness, positivity, assurances, sharing of tasks, access and reciprocity are significantly related to donors psychological empowerment, as well as each empowerment element, such as meaning, competenc e autonomy, and impact. However, the study did not find an effect of participation strategy on donors psychological empowerment while it was considered as a key factor in enhanc ing publics empowermen t. In addition, th is study found that there was a significant effect of
15 donors psychological empowerment on four relationship quality outcomes of control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Revealing that relationship management strategies are both directly and indirectly related to relationship quality outcomes, the study also found the partial mediating role of do nors psychological empowerment in the association between relationship management strategies and quality outcomes. Finally, the study showed that both donors psychological empowerment and the overall relationship quality outcomes have significant effects on behavioral intention.
16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In this chapter, relationship management as a major public relations research stream and the need for effective relationship management in the nonprofit sector are presented as the background of the study. Then, the chapter introduces a new empowerment. Finally, the purpose of the study and its potential contribution to public relations and nonprof it management are discussed. Background Many organizational scholars have highlighted the interdependent nature of organization s with their surroundings, and the value of relationships these organization s ha ve with various publics ( Freeman, 1984; Frooman, 1999; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Pfeffer, 1972 ) Putting the value of public relations in to an organization public r elationship management function public relations scholars have sought effective relationship management over several decade s Indeed, relationship management has been considered a main stream of inquiry of the field (Botan & Taylor, 2004 ). The r elationship focused approach in public relations created a paradigm shift in the field from the traditional function of public relations, such as information dissemination and publicity, to meaningful relationship building and management with key publics (Ehling, 1992) The importance of relationship management is well illustrated in one of the most prevalent definitions of the fi eld : maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on 2009 p. 7).
17 M any scholars have proposed and empirically tested the effec t of organization public relationship s in terms of the effective management of organization s (Dozier, L. A. Grunig, & J. E. Grunig, 1995; L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002), enhancement of organizational reputation ( Hutton, Goodman, Alexander, & G enest, 2001; Yang, 2007; Yang & J. E. Grunig, 2005 ), and Bruning, 2002; Jin, 2009; Ki & Hon, 2007; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) Relationship management theory has been developed by two major research streams One stream addresses the multi dimensions of public relationships and the association between organization public relationship s Castel, & Schrepfer, 2004; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; 1999 ) whereas the other stream focuses on relationship antecedents, strategies, and outcomes (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). In an extension of the work of the second research camp, recent relationship studies ha ve focused on organizati onal efforts and strategies to cultivate and manage desired outcomes of relationship s (Bortree, 2010; Ki & Hon, 200 9 ; Waters, 2011). The s ignificant importance of public relationship s for organizational success and survival applies to not only for profit but also nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit organizations, in general, provide public goods or services not commonly provided by the other two economic sectors, businesses and government agencies (Breckenridge, 1999; Herman, 2005; Salamon, 2003) T he nonprofit sector continues to grow in terms of size and impact. For example, there were more than 1.6 million nonprofit organizations in 2010 (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2010). Serving diverse
18 social interests, such as healthcare, religi on, and education nonprofit organizations are Tightly woven with other social entities (Czerwinski, 2007), the interdependent nature of nonprofit organizations has been un derlined in various literature (Dee & Henkin, 2006; Herman, 2005; Herman & Renz, 1997; Saidel, 1989; 1991) To accomplish their missions to provide beneficiaries with aid and services, nonprofit organizations rely heavily on government and private support. Herman (2005) argued that resource dependence on government and donor groups is a distinct characteristic of nonprofit organizations in comparison to for profit organizations. H igh interdependence and resource dependence within the nonprofit sector has become more pronounced as the sector has been faced with various environmental changes including a critical decline of government aid to the sector in the Reagan era (Levy, 1999) and a significant increase in the number of nonprofit organizations sinc e the 1990s (Salamon, 2002) Moreover, various scandals involving nonprofit organizations have present ed a threat to public trust, so nonprofit organizations are struggling with meeting public expectations and gaining legitimacy in the eyes of various stak relationship s with its key publics has drawn the attention of the nonprofit sector (Bryce, 2007; Saidel, 1991; Van Til, 2005; Wright & Bocarnea, 2007). Among the various publics with whom nonprofit organizations have relationships, donors are considered one of the most important as they may actually determine the survival of nonprofit organizations. As a result, m any nonprofit expert s advocate that nonprofit organizations should be equipped with effective donor relationship
19 management strategies ( 2 007; 2008; Rosso, 1991; Worth, 2002). In this sense the value of public relations practice and effective communication management has been underlined in the s ector. In particular finding similarities between fundraising and public relations, Kelly (1991; 1998) asserted that fundraising is a specialization of public relations. Further proposing t he ROPES process the acronym o f research, objectives, programming, evaluation and stewardship as applicable for both public relations and fundraising practice, Kelly (2001) emphasize d the importance of relationship management. While some public relations scholars concentrate on the nonprofit donor relationship (Cho, 2008; Waters, 20 11 ), there is still little research to provide guideline s for effective ly managing nonprofit donor relationships. Need for a New Approach in Relationship Management Theory While current relationship manage ment theory has emphasized the value of public relations as a management function responsible for organization public relationships, the existing relationship management studies have ignore d an important element in explanation of dynamic relationships between an organization and its publics: the publics psychological state in relationship s with organization s In other words, the public relations literature has neglected the fundamental premi ses that organization public relationship s involve such factors as the relationship, power or impact on the other party, and motivation to develop or maintain relationship s with the party. In fact, successful relationship s are based on both autonomy and accountability of each party in the relationship ( L. A. Grunig J. E. Grunig, & Ehling 1992; Kelly, 1998). However, existing relationship management studies overestimate organizations ability to easily persuade their publics toward favorable attitudes and
20 toward the organization. relationship s with organization s and en act desirable behavior is pivota l to build ing and maintain ing quality relationship s between organizations and their publics. Filling this gap, the present study introduces the psychological empowerment sense of substantial autonomy, competenc e, impact, and meaning. As to engage in quality relationship s with organization s the concept of psychological empowerment is vital to better understand ing of organization public relationships. Importance of Empowerment in the Relationship Context Empowerment is a concept actively adopted in numerous disciplines, and, in general, has become a buzzword in social science ( Knight, 2011; Page & Czuba, 1999). Espe cially with the introduction of new technology and digital media that allow publics to easily access organizational information or participate in the organizational decision making process, public empowerment has drawn a great deal of attention from both the academy and practice (Chang, 2005; Mehra, Merketl, & Bishop, 2004; Pires, Stanton, & Rita, 2006; Psoinos, Kern, & Smithson, 200 0 ). E mpowerment has been researched in various settings, such as community development (Craig & Mayo, 1995; Papineau & Kiely, 1996) social movement s ( Dufour & Giraud 2007; Hoodfar 2007; Mwaura Muiru, 2010) healthcare ( R. M. Anderson & Funnel, 2005; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Ouschan et al. 2006) education (Cho & Auger, 2011; Duhon Haynes, 1996; McQuillan, 2005) marketing ( Fuchs, Prandelli, & Schreier, 2010 ; Wright et al. 2006), and organiz ational management (Kanter, 1993 Spreitzer, 1995; 1 99 6; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990 ) E
21 (Page & Czuba, 1999, para. 12) ne important implication of this definition of empowerment is that the individual and community are fundamentally connected (para. 12). Yet there is a lack of scholarly research to incorporate the concept of empowerment in to th e public relations management literature. While numerous approaches in defini ng empowerment exist due to the active adoption in various fields, the present study focuses on psychological empowerment which highlights ion to engage with quality relationship s with organization s and en act desirable behavior. Mainly conceptualized in the organizational management literature, sense of competence, autonomy, meaning, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). The effects of publics psychological empowerment on both the publics themselves and organizations have been well reported. Empowered publics have lower feeling s o f isolation and a higher sense of community than disempowered publics ( Lord & Hutchison, 1993; Zimmerman, 1990 ). Empowerment also leads to effective organizational management, including enhancement of public satisfaction, trust, loyalty, and innovative b ehaviors (Amabile, 1988; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2001 b ; Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993; Spreitzer, 1995 ; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000 ). In sum, given the logical role that public empowerment plays in relationship management it is necessary to inves tigate how public relations practices can enhance public relationships and publics behavior. Purpose of the S tudy The main purpose of the study is to expand relationship management theory by introducing the new concept of psychological empowerment, which accounts for
22 perceptions of power and autonomy in organization public relationships and the intrinsic motivati on of publics to further engage with an organization and to en act desired behavior More specifically, to reflect the present study suggests that organizations should implement relationship strategies that e which, in turn, influences relationship quality outcomes and inspire s publics to enact desired behavior To this end, the study will revisit relationship management studies First suggested in the late 1990s, publ relationship management strategies in relationship management research and develop appropriate measurement have been observed more frequently within the past 5 years. For example, based on Hon and J. E. Hon (20 09 ) developed relationship management strategies and tested the linkages between the strategies and relationship outcomes. Based on the distinctive nature of the public she studied, youth volunteers, B ortree (2007; 2010) introduced guidance (2006) strategies Waters (2007; 2011) adopted (1998) stewardship concept and tested 10 different relationship management strategies 6 (1999) study and 4 from stew ardship in nonprofit donor relationships. While each study has made unique significant contribution s to relationship management theory, some strategies conceptually overlap with other strategies. Therefore, by explicating each relationship management strat empowerment literature, the present study will refine relationship management
23 Also, by exploring the existing literature of empowerment in many disciplines and relevant relationship outcome studies, th is study will further investigate the effects of psychological empowerment on relationship quality outcomes and donor intended behavior, such as repeat giving Significance of the Study As widely adopted in social science studies, p ublic empowerment is a crucial concept in maintaining meaningful relationships among social entities. Even though, along with interdependence, the importance of public empowerment in two way symmetrical publi c relations practice and effective organizational management has been underlined by many public relations scholars, there is no research that actually incorporates the concept and empirically tests it in organization public relationships. By introducing th internal state that involves autonomy, power or impact, and motivation in the relationship context the present study will advance relationship management theory and enrich the bod ies of knowledge of public relations nonprofit management, and fundraising Incorporating psychological empowerment in relationship management theory, the study will explore the dynamic linkages among relationship management strategies, relationsh behavioral intention. Moreover, after revisiting the relevant literature, the study will propose a new role of relationship management strategies in not only influenc ing organization public relationsh ip q uality outcomes but also improv ing empowerment. In doing so, the study will provide both academic and practical guidelines to manage high quality relationship s between an organization and its publics, sense of empowerment, and to lead to desired behavior s of publics
24 The proposed model in the study will be tested in the nonprofit donor relationship setting. Given that nonprofit organizations have experienced substantial changes in their surroundings including high competition within the sector and with the business and government nonprofit scholars and practitioners have sought to determine the most effective strategies for enhancing engage in quality relationships with organiz ation s and to continue their donation behavior. By f ocusing on nonprofit donor relationships, the present study will advance nonprofit high quality relationship s with donor p ublics and thereby increas ed revenues for nonprofits
25 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, the central concepts of psychological empowerment and relationship management are discussed. The chapter begins with an overview of the nonprofit sector and the need for effective relationship management in the sector, followed by an overv iew of relationship management theory. Then, the concept of psychological empowerment is introduced to the context of relationship management. Finally, the linkages among relationship management strategies, psychological empowerment, relationship outcomes, and behavioral intentions are examined and hypotheses and research questions are proposed The Nonprofit Sector Brief Introduction to the Sector The nonprofit sector is a collective term that describes and explains institutions and organizations that do not fall into the first two social sectors of government and business and the fourth sector of family (Kelly, 1998). T here is no single definition of the sector despite the numerous term s assigned to it such as nonprofit independent and voluntary an d it is difficult to generalize about the sector due to its wide scope and scale (Hall, 200 5 ; Salamon & Anheier, 1992). However, nonprofit organizations are founded to fulfill public demands that government or the private sectors (business & family) are unable or reluctant to provide (Breckenridge, 1999; Herman, 2005; Salamon, 2003). As Herman (2005) pointed out nonprofits Moreover, the nonprofit sector contributes to pluralism and prosperity of civil society. Eikenberry and Kluver (2004) asserted the role of nonprofit organizations in
26 building social capital, which Putnam (1993) organization, such as trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating co argued that even though all sectors can build social capital and community capacity, n government or market organizations of generating social norms of trust, cooperation, and mutual support due to their and Benson (2005) also found a positive correlation between the growth of nonprofit organizations and social capital in community. In short nonprofit organizations provide individuals with goods and services that lead to community development and make the world a better place. Salamon and Anheier (1992) i dentified five characteristics of the sector: formal, private, non profit distributing, self governing, and voluntary. More specifically, the sector is institutionalized with formal organizational systems and is separate from government. The goal of the no nprofit sector is not to generate earnings for owners of the organizations but to provide benefits to society. Indeed, in the United States, it is illegal for nonprofits to distribute their profits to individuals who control the organizations, which is cal led the nondistribution constraint (Kelly, 1998). In addition, nonprofit organizations are equipped with their own internal governance or control procedures, and involve a certain degree of voluntary participation. The nonprofit sector has rapidly grown i n size and importance, serving a variety of social needs and providing common goods as opposed to public goods from government and private goods from business (Kelly, 1998) In fact, more than 1.6 million
27 U.S. nonprofit organizations are currently register ed with the International Revenue Service (IRS) (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2010). Czerwinski (2007) identified the main reasons for the exponent growth of the sector in the United States : a shift in recent decades away from government pro viding most services directly; the expansion of service related industries in the U.S., of which many nonprofits are a part; deinstitutionalization during the 1960s and 1970s that eliminated large, public care facilities in favor of smaller, community base d organizations, often operated by nonprofit entities; and the trend in devolution in certain policy areas such as welfare, which contributed to a lessening role of the federal government and more localized control in the hands of state, local, and nonpro fit organizations. (p. 5) In addition to having grown in size, the nonprofit sector has also grown in importance. Focusing on the United States, n onprofit organizations create employment opportunities for 9.6 million workers accounting for approximate 10 percent of the total workforce (Czerwinski, 2007). Nonprofit organizations enjoy tax exempt status, which differentiates them from business es (Czerwinski, 2007; Kelly, 1998). According to the Internal Revenue code, the sector is further divided into more than 30 types of nonprofit organizations (Wing, Roeger, & Pollak, 2010). The majority of the sector consists of charitable organizations that have a philanthropic nature to promote human progress (Kelly, 2008) In 2008, about 950,000 nonprofits were designated charitable organizations, making up 63% of the sector. Unlike other types of nonprofits, charitable organizations, or 501(c)(3) under the Internal Revenue Code offer a tax deduction benefit to donors for their gifts. Public char ities h olding 501(c)(3) status include eight sub categories: arts, culture, and humanities ; education ; environment and animals ; health ; human services ; international and foreign affairs ; public and societal benefit ; and religion (Wing, et al., 2010).
28 In s hort, nonprofit organizations and the sector as a whole fulfill diverse public demands and are in society. Czerwinski (2007) highlighted the sector deep intertwine ment with all societal entities : Virtually every American interacts with the nonprofit sect or in his or her daily life through a broad range of concerns and activities such as health care, education, human services, job training, religion, and cultural pursuits. In addition, federal, state, and local governments rely on nonprofit organizations a s key partners in implementing programs and providing services to the public. (p. 13) The Need for Effective Relationship Management in the Nonprofit Sector Nonprofit organizations have been faced with various environmental changes over the past several d ecades (Helmig, Jegers, & Lapsley, 2004; Ryan, 1999; Salamon, 1996; 2005; Van Til & Ross, 2001). Salamon (2005) explained the social and demographic shifts that led to public demands for social service, introduction of a new form of philanthropy (i.e., venture philanthropy), resumption of government social welfare spending, and increased visibility based on the opportunities for the nonprofit sector to further flourish. Likewise, nonprofit organizations face many challenges that threaten the ir existence, including declining government support ; competition with other nonprofits and for profit organizations working in the social welfare field; difficulties in demonstrating and measuring performance, which may lead to public distrust; and the challenge of ke eping up with technology in order to meet external demands. Broom ( 2009 ) also identified a climate of change with which nonprofit organizations deal: 1. Shifting responsibility for public service and assistance from government programs to voluntary organiz ations 2. Increasing competition among charitable groups for financial, in kind (goods and services), and volunteer support 3. Growing public concern about the credibility and accountability of tax exempt organizations 4. Increasing cost and difficulty in raising funds
29 5. Lessening of community ties on the part of corporate leaders and professional staff, who tend to move frequently for career advancement 6. Growth of cause marketing in the corporate sector. (p. 522) T hese dynamic changes in their environme nts have led many nonprofit organizations to realize the interdependen t nature of the sector as well as the need for quality relationships with various publics who support or hinder advancement of the organizations l M any scholars have stressed the fundamental nature of interdependen ce in the nonprofit sector (Dee & Henkin, 2006; Gordon, Strode, & Brady, 1993; Herman, 2005; Kelly, 1998; Saidel, 1991). That is, nonprofit organizations are a part of society, existi ng along with other social entities that influence success or survival. In comparison to other sectors, Herman (2005) explained that resource dependency and interdependence are innate characteristics of nonprofit organizations, stating: Nonprof it organizations, like businesses, rely on voluntary exchanges to obtain revenues and other resources. In business, customers supply the resources for the service they receive. Unlike business, nonprofit organizations (especially publicly supported chariti es, the sort of nonprofit organization on which this volume focuses) typically depend, at least to some extent, on one group, donors or government, for the resources necessary to provide a different group, the clients or beneficiaries, with services. (p. x v xvi) This interdependence can be explained by systems theory, espoused by Katz and Kahn (1978), who argued that an organization operating as an open system exchanges inputs and outputs with other systems and has a better chance to survive than an organization operating as a closed system. They emphasized that organizations need to respect their interdependence with other groups and cope with their surroundings in order to survive In fact, there are numerous organizations, both corporate and non profit, that struggle with public distrust as a result of indifference to
30 internal and external publics. (1978) argument shed light on the significance of relationship management and inspired many organizational management scholars as wel l as public relations researchers. Several scholars have underlined the importance of stakeholder management as a crucial strategy to achieve nonprofit organizational effectiveness and secure accountability (Balser & McClusky, 2005; Herman & Renz, 1997; Os pina, Diaz, For example, in response to the increase in government outsourcing of social service s and the participation of savvy businesses in the competition market, Ryan (1999) argued that nonprofit organizations should cope better w ith the circumstance s and recognize for profits as both competitors and collaborators. Viewing nonprofit organizations as social institutions, Van Til (2005) emphasized the need for effective public relationship management, stating: If nonprofit administra tions are truly to be effective, they need to recognize that their organization is linked in myriad ways to the world outside it. Theirs, like any other organization, exists in a complex net of relations with other organizations and institutions, each of w hich affects each other in some way. (p. 40) Similarly, connecting systems theory with public relations models, Kelly (1998) argued that press agentry and public information practice based on one way communication represent a closed system, whereas two way asymmetrical and symmetrical models reflect an open system. She asserted that nonprofit organizations should build quality relationships with various publics based on two way communi cations. In conclusion, for surviving dynamic changes, nonprofit organizations should develop and implement effective stakeholder management. Donor Publics: A Major Stakeholder of Nonprofit Organizations There are numerous publics with whom nonprofit organizations have
31 relationships. Van Til (2005) identified givers, intermediaries (i.e., consultants, trainers, counselors, and program officers), regulators who monitor the sector, other nonprofit s beneficiaries, and clients as the major play ers in the nonprofit arena Among the diverse agencies board s and employees, the nonprofit donor relationship has been highlighted because donors actually determine succe ss and survival for many nonprofits Donor publics who contribute to nonprofit organizations are usually categorized into three groups: individuals, foundations, and corporations. Despite the recent economic downturn, contributions from the three groups accounted for $290.89 billion in 2010 (Giving USA, 2011). The largest portion of dollars given comes from individual donors, followed by foundations, and corporations. The amount of gifts by individuals including bequests, was $ 2 34 6 0 billion in 2010, or approximate 8 1 % of the total amount given While each group has distinctive characteristics (Kelly, 1998), donor publics as a whole are one of the most vital publics of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit scholars and practitioners have asserted that nonprofit organizations should dedicate their time to developing and maintaining relationships with donors for organizational endurance (Ahern & Joyaux, 2008; Burlingname & Hulse, 1991; Dee & Henkin, 1997; & Associates 1991; Worth, 2002). Dee and Henkin (1997) emphasized the need for social skills to facilitate effective communication in donor relations, listing several critical reasons, such as the following : helping d onors understand the organizational mission and organizations understand ing restriction of public budget s ; securing major gift donors; satisfying an increasingly
32 diverse g roup of donors; adapting to environmental changes, and demonstrating professionalism to recruit future donors. Emphasizing the value of nonprofit donor relationship, Nudd (1991) asserted that nonprofit organizations should conduct research on donors to cul tivate quality relationships with donor publics. Ahern and Joyaux (2008) claimed that nonprofit organizations should be donor centric to build donor trust in organizational effectiveness. Donor centric organizations treat donors as a central part of the o rganization, are accountable to donors, and appreciate the donors and their gifts. In other words, donor centered organizations mission would not go forward and & Joyaux, 2008, p. 213). Donor centric of fundraising, which underscores the importance of donor relations. Kelly described s between a charitable organization and Understanding donor motives is essential to cultivating and maintaining quality relationship s with donors. A prominent approach to studying donor motivation is the mixed motive model for g iving behavior which results from the combination of two opposite viewpoints: self interest and altruism (Kelly, 1998). Rather than being either interests, which are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the notion of this mixed motive Van Til (1990) was the first nonprofit scholar to adopt the mixed motive model to
33 understand giving behavior. Viewing philanthropic behavior as a social exchange, he does involve a complex exchange of money, power, values, and expectations between the donor means that dynamic interactions between donors and nonprofit organizations may trigger or even enhance donors giving behavior. Furthermore, from the intrinsic motivational approach, several psychologists or volunteering. For example, adopting self determination theory, Gagn (2003) argued regulated or autonomous has a positive r elationship with prosocial behavior. In other words, the more individuals feel they have autonomy, the more likely they are to donate or to volunteer In addition, Gagn asserted that an or nonprofit organizations) can enhance socially desirable behavior. Similarly, a qualitative study with volunteer groups found t hat volunteers who feel a sense of personal empowerment within the relationship with nonprofit organizations increase their voluntary behavior on behalf of the organization (Hibbert, Piacentini, & Dajani, 2003). In short, relationship management is highly valued in the nonprofit sector, especially in uncertain circumstances. N onprofit d ono r relationships are crucial for organizational success and survival, because donors directly provide nonprofit organizations with financial resources to carry out the org Considering that quality giving behavior, building and managing desired nonprofit donor relationships are
34 essential for nonprofit organizations. In this thread, public relations is vital to provide guidance of public relationship management. Therefore, the present study explores a sub function, or specialization, of public relations and adopts a public relationship perspective to better understand how to develop and manage nonpro fit donor relationships. Public Relations as Relationship Management Defining Public Relations (Vasquez & Taylor, 2000, p. 319), public relations has been one of the most pr osperous growing popularity, numerous attempts to define public relations have been made since the early 20 th century (Broom, 2009 ; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Harlow, 1976; Kruckeberg & Starck, 1988). While the definitions have been changed over time and have reflected a wide variety of aspects (Harlow, 1976), the most common premise among the definitions of public relations is the emphasis of a man agement function. J. E. highlighted two major management aspects of public relations both communication an d relationship s view is further expanded by Broom ( 2009 management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships
35 P ublic relations role in managing relationship s between an organization and its publics is highlighted by many public relations scholars. Ferguson (1984) called for research on organization public relationships as a central unit of study among public relations scholars. The emphasis on relationship management was also embedded in the Excellence s tudy that sought determinants of effective organization management and the value of public relations within an effective organization (e.g., L. A., Grunig et al., 2002) Advocating systems theory that stresses the importance of interdependency with public s and adopting open systems for greater success the Excellence t heory scholars explained that the unique contribution of public relations to an organization is managing the relationship s with various publics. They stated: Building relationships managing interdependence is the substance of public relations. Good relationships, in turn, make organizations more effective because they allow organizations more freedom more autonomy to achieve their missions than they would with bad relationships. By giving up autonomy by building relationships, ironically, organizations maximize that autonomy. (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Ehling, 1992, p. 69) The scholars defended the financial contribution of relationship management to an organization, noting that public rel ations advances organizational effectiveness constituencies. This contribution has monetary value to the organization. Public relations contributes to effectiveness by building quality, long term relationships with The definition of public relations undergirding the management function widens the scope of public relations practice within an organization, from a mere publicity function or media relations to collaborative efforts for mutual benefits. Coombs (2007) furt
36 concept just discussed the present study defines public relations as a management function that leads to building and managing high quality relationships to advance mutual benefits between an organization and its publics. Defining Organization Public Relationship s R elationship management is now one of the major research paradigms in the field (Botan & Taylor, 2004; Ehling, 1992). Although it took several years for public relations scholars to concentrate on relationship management, assertion yielded a paradigm shift from a functional to a co creational perspective (Botan & Taylor, 200 4). Ehling (1992) viewed the paradigm shift from the manipulation few scholars have actually explicat ed the definition of the relationship between an organization and its publics or how to measure it (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; 2000) even though many scholars have research ed relationships in various settings (Botan & Taylor, 2004; Ki & Shin, 2006). I n a review of research on organization public relationships over two decades, Ki & Shin also found little consensus in the definition and measurement of organization public relationship research. However, responding to the need for a useful definition of organization public relationship, definitions of the concept ha ve evolved. Broom et al. (1997) argued for the necessity of a well explicated definition of organization public relations hips to develop valid measurements of the concept and to advance theory building. They extensively reviewed literature from various disciplines, such as interpersonal relations,
37 psychotherapy, inter organizational relations, and systems theory Later, taking the exchange perspecti ve, Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (2000) defined or ganization public relationship s as follows : Organization public relationships are represented by the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage between an organization and its publics. These relationships have properties that are distinct from the identities, attributes, and perceptions of the individuals and social collectivities in the relationships. Though dynamic in nature, organization public relationships can be described at a single point in time and tracked over time. (p. 18) Takin g a different viewpoint, Ledingham and Bruning (1998) embraced the new direction of public relations, focusing on theory building in organization public relationship s They define d the organization exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well 62). The definition underlines the dynamic influences of both parties on a relationship. Ledin gham and Bruning further argue d that an ideal organization public relationship exists only when both parties provide economic, social, political and/or cultural benefits to the other and they perceive the relationship as mutually positive. Based on existin g literature on organization public relationship s Ledingham (2003) proposed consideration of relationship management as a general theory of public relations and E ffectively managing organization public relationships around common interests and shared goals, over time, results in mutual understanding and benefit for interacting organizations and publics" (p. 190). Reflecting systems theory and interdependence from an interpersonal communication perspective, Hung (2005) contend ed that organization public arise when organizations and their strategic publics are interdependent,
38 and this interdependence results in consequences to each other that organizations e interdependent nature public relationship s Thomlison (200 0 E. Grunig (2005) underlined both the processes and outcomes of relationship s stating public relationships have commonly been defined by focusing on either the processes of relationship formation or the outc omes of a relationship While the different definitions of organization public relationship s illustrate diverse aspects of relationship s the concept involves interdependence, interaction, and inf luence among the parties involved in the relationship. Thus, the present study defines organization public relationship s as the state in which both an organization and its publics are interdependent and can influence or be influenced by each other through dynamic interactions. Relationship Management Theory: Two Main Streams of Research Theory on organization public relationships has been developed in two primary streams of research. The first branch has been conducted by scholars at Capitol University in Columbus, Ohio, and the second one has been led by scholars at the University of Florida and the University of Maryland. The first research team was initiated by Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, and Lesko (1997), who identified 17 different relationship di mensions through extensive reviews of literature from various academic disciplines. These 17 dimensions of
39 relationship were: investment, commitment, trust, comfort with relational dialectics, cooperation, mutual goals, interdependence/power imbalance, per formance satisfaction, shared technology, summate constructs, structural bonds, and social bonds, intimacy, and passion. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) later operationalized the five major dimensions in an organization public relationship: trust, openness, i nvolvement, investment, and commitment. Testing these five dimensions to a telephone company customer relationship, Ledingham and Bruning found that these five relationship competitive environment Three different groups of customers 1) those who would stay with the current telephone company, 2) those who planned to leave the company, and 3) those who were unsure about staying or leaving the company ha d different degrees of t he five dimensions. Testing the influence of the five relationship dimensions on organization organization has been extended to different relationship contexts, such as employee communi ty relationship (Wilson, 2000), and business to business relationship (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000). In addition, Bruning and Ledingham (1999) developed the organization public relationship scales and suggested the multi dimensional characteristics of relationship s Finding three different types of organization public relationship expectations from publics professional, personal, and community they argued that public relations practices should be employed to advance the professional, personal, and comm unity relationships between an organization and its publics. Studies exploring the three types
40 of relationship s have been conducted in government citizen relationships (Ledingham, 2001) and university student relationships (Bruning, 2002). Bruning and Gal loway (2003) later added two different commitment aspects personal commitment and structural commitment to the original dimensions Bruning and Ledingham (1999) found. Personal commitment occurs when relational partners want to keep a relationship because they have positive feelings toward the partner or earn benefits from the relationship, whereas structural commitment occurs when one party remains in the relationship because he or she does not find an alternative partner who can fulfill the needs as effec tively as the current relational partner does. In doing so, Bruning and Galloway (2003) not only refined the original relationship dimensions of professional, personal, and community relationship s but also highlighted that personal commitment and compariso n of alternatives enrich the multidimensionality of relationship s In their early work Ledingham and Bruning (1998) emphasize d the importance of effective communication within the relationship management process, viewing it as a strategic tool for accom plishing organizational goals. Later, a longitudinal approach of communication intervention in relationship building confirmed the role of strategic communication implementation in achieving relationship goals by enhancing the levels of the five relationsh ip dimensions (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). Whereas the first organization public relationship team has dealt largely with the multidimensionality of relationship s linkages between the relationship dimensions and and the importance of communication to enhance the relationship, the second stream of relationship research has focused on antecedents or
41 determinants of organization public relationship s as well as outcomes of the relationship. Like the first relationship stud y stream, the second research team also found the value of public relations in organization public relationships. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) considered that organization public relationships are formed when one party has potential or actual consequences o n another party. Relationships, they explained, are characterized as 1) two or more parties involved, 2) situational, and 3) behavioral. Reflecting on the characteristics of organization public relationships, J. E. Grunig and Y. H. Huang (2000) proposed a three stage model of relationship development: antecedents, maintenance strategies, and outcomes, which was initially developed by Broom et al. (1997). Recognizing a lack of reliable and valid measurement of relationships that could be used to demonstrate the contribution of public relations to organizations, Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) proposed six relationship variables obtained from the interpersonal communication and psychology literature. They divided the variables into two groups: relationship outcomes and relationship types. The relationship outcomes or qualities based on successful relationship management strategies are trust, satisfaction, control interpersonal rel organization and its publics are exchange and communal relationships. Whereas exchange relationships are similar to the notion of quid pro quo, in which one party provides benefits to the other expecting returned benefits, communal relationships are those in which both parties offer benefits to the other, not because they expect to get
42 something in return but because they care about relationships inv control mutuality, and commitment than exchange relationships. Thus, Hon and J. E. Grunig asserted that public relations practice should be able to nurture communal relationship between an organization and its publics, rather than to cultivate exchange relationships. In furthering the relationship measurement scales, Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) also tested them in relation to five distinct organizations that have distinct nature s, ranging from profit to nonprofit, and good or bad reputations, and showed that the scales are reliable and somewhat valid measures of organization public relationship s In addition to the relationship antecedents and outcomes, the scholars in this sec ond stream of relationship scholarship suggested key relationship ma nagement strategies drawn from the research on interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution strategies (J. E., Grunig & Y. H. Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E., Grunig, 1999 ; Ki & Hon, 2009 ) These relationship management scholars used different terminologies to refer to an organization s efforts to build and maintain relationship s with publics. Some scholars (e.g., J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2000; Ki & Hon, 2007) used the term maintenance which considers relationships as remaining steady. On the other hand, Hung (2005) observed the dynamic nature of organization public relationship which involves not only maintain a positive relationship but also rest ore a damaged relationship. She asserted that going
43 Aligning with Hung s asser tion, Waters (2007) endorsed the term cultivation than maintenance. Despite the inconsistency in terminology, the scholars highlighted the role of public relations as a management function in building and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships. Gi ven that management is a broader term that includes development, cultivation, and maintenance, the study utilizes the term management to refer to an organization s efforts in advancing quality organization public relationship. These relationship manage ment strategies were developed in response to Hon (1999) emphasis on the need for strategic public relations practices that involve effective communication management that can lead to fostering desirable relationship outcomes. However, t hey also admitted that relations strategies, techniques, and programs are equally likely to produce relationship eaks to the need for measuring the effectiveness of the ad o pted behavioral efforts that attempt to establish, cultivate, and sustain relationships with Ki and Hon (2009) described relationship management strategies as process indicators that yield positive relationship quality outcomes. Drawing from interpersonal relationships, Y. H. Huang (1997) introduced conflict management strategies (i.e., integrative, distributive, and avoidance/non confrontationa l strategy) to public relations as means for fostering productive relationship s between an organization and its publics. Embracing both interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution strategie s, Hon and J.E. Grunig (1999) proposed nine relationship
44 management strategies. Among the relationship ma nagement strategies proposed, the strategies derived from interpersonal relationships are considered symmetrical public relationship management practic es, through which both parties can benefit from the relationship, whereas the conflict resolution strategies involve both symmetrical and asymmetrical approaches. how organizati ons utilize relationship ma nagement strategies in online contexts (Hong, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2006). Later, Ki and Hon (2009) developed measures of relationship management strategies access, assurance s openness, sharing of tasks, positivity, and networking and tested them with a nonprofit association s relationships with its members Each relationship management strategy will be further discussed later in this section. Summarizing the current relationship management studies, although the two research streams have somewhat different dimensions to explain organization public relationship, both streams have advanced relationship management theory and emphasized the contribution of effective public relations practice in organization public relationship management Understanding Relationship Building Th eory from a Two Way Symmetrical Communication Perspective Describing the history of public relations practices, J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) identified four different public relations models: press agentry, public in formation, two way asymmetrical and two way symmetrical. The first two models, press agentry and public information, are described as one way communication models by which public relations is restricted to only sending messages to publics, whereas the lat ter two
45 models, two way asymmetrical and two way symmetrical, are described as sophisticated practices of communication. In contrast to one way models, which do not have any feedback from publics, two way models involve scientific research on understanding publics to help dominant coalitions make better decisions and close the commu nication loop by providing publics with channel s for feedback (Dozier et al. 1995). motives approach, Dozier et al. (1995) elaborated understanding of two way communication models in public relations. Pub lic relations practices within the win win zone where both an organization and its publics benefit from each other are called the mixed motive model or two way model In the win win zone, public relations practitioners negotiate with both publics and dom inant coalition s to help both parties benefit from the relationship. On the other hand, public relations practices outside the win win zone in which one party tries to persuade, convince, and manipulate the other party for its own goals are labeled pure as ymmetrical Even though the two way model involves both asymmetrical and symmetrical public relations practices, Dozier and his colleagues viewed the two way symmetrical worldview th at respects the integrity of long Adoptin g the two way model, Kelly (2003 ) explained the continuum of fundraising. She described the win win zone as where interests of both organization and donors exist but are well balanced, t hus bring ing mutual benefits. The virtue of the two way symmetrical model is to provide negotiation or a conflict resolution process to lead to mutual benefits for both parties, which is the notion
46 of relationship management (Ledingham, 2003). Ledingham ar occurs when organization public relations are effectively managed, and describes how a symmetrical relationship emerges (by management focused, over time, on common runig (1999) characterized that the most successful relationships can be nurtured by two way communications. They added that relationships are most productive in the long run if they benefit both parties, rather than only the organization. The importance of two way symmetrical public relations practices for fostering a quality relationship between an organization and its publics has been emphasized by cultivation strate gies is the heir to the models of public relations and the two way utilize the t wo way symmetrical approach, constructed around the organization public relations, may gain a competitive advantage that can serve as an additional In short, a two way symmetrical approach to identifying and providing mutual benefits within the win win zone has been valued through extensive public relations literature as crucial to manag ing effective organization public relationships. This approach requires strategic research that seeks to unde rstand motivations, and behaviors that influence the relationship with an organization as well as effective communication to figure out common ground (Dozier, et al., 1995).
47 Missing Elements in Relationship Management Theory Yet, w hile both research streams have contributed to building relationship management theory by developing multiple measures of organization public relationships and replicating research with various relationship settings, the existing studies have ignored some significant premises in relationship building. First existing studies have neglected to explain the dynamic power relations between the parties involved in the relationship s even though power is an inherent characteristic of relationship (Dahl, 1957; Fou cault, 1995). Through interactions between an organization and its publics, both parties exert power over the other in order to achieve their own goals. Interpersonal communication scholars argue that the power ratio between the two players demonstrates th e level of interdependence (Millar & Rogers, 1987). Similarly, in defining the concept of relationship, Broom et al. (1997) also viewed a relationship as involv ing influences, such as information and energy. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) also assumed that power is embedded in organization public relationship s asserting that one party has an impact on the success of the other party Looking at power from the perspective of empowerment, the Excellence study emph asize d the expansion of organizational power to its external publics. The study demonstrate d organization that were included in the dominant coalition, the more likely it was that the head of public relations an Grunig, 2006, p. 165). However, current public relations studies have fail ed to
48 incorporate the concept of empowerment in relationship management and seldom address when and how publics are empower ed within the organization public context. Secondly most relationship management studies have relied heavily on the assumption that organizations can persuade their publics to believe and act in the ways in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward the organization. Even though successful relationship s require both accountability and autonomy of each player in the relationship (L. A. Grunig et al 1992), there is a lack of discussion regarding how or autonomy in relationships. From the symmetrical perspective, J. E. Grunig (1989) behavior. H e argued : P eople are more innovative, c onstructive, and self fulfilled when they have the autonomy to influence their own behavior, rather than having it controlled by others. Autonomy maximizes employee satisfaction inside the organization and E. Grunig ( 1984) argued that players in the win win zone have both autonomy from and accountability to the other players. Applying the notion of autonomy to relationship management, positive organization public relationships are achieved when both partie s somewhat exercise their autonomy while remaining interdependent with each other. Similarly, based on the norm of reciprocity, when one party in a relationship gives up a certain degree of its own autonomy t o foster may feel more responsible or accountable, pay back in their own autonomy to the other party, and become more devoted to the relationship. To date, f autonomy in the relationships. Along those same lines, little has been done to address
49 how publics respond to an to foster publics autonomy in interdependent relationships. Furthermore, existing relationship management studies have neglected the cognitive and behavioral reactions of publics in a relationship with an organization. are not only the antecedents of relationship formation, but also the sources to cause change s in relationships. In addition, they contend ed R elationship formation and 95). In other words, they argue d that one party in a relationship has cognitive and/or Put another way, rather than automatically holding positive attitude s toward organizations or enacting desired behaviors as organizations wish, publ ics, having their own perspectives, perceive, evaluate, and behave independently in relationships with organizations. Thus, it is imperative to understand public s the relationship context, on which current scholars for e go resea rch. Lastly, while some public relations scholars have sought the association between relationship and public s behavior (Ki & Hon, 2007; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, Waters, 2007), they have ignored which are likely to lead or not to lead to a certain behavior. Even though Ki and Hon ( 2 007) behavior based on a hierarchy of effect that describes the links among relationship perceptions, attitudes toward the organization, and behavioral intention, the y failed to account for motivational aspects. C onsidering that relationship itself, is a contextual factor and may facilitate or inhibit publi c s gauge
50 how relationship s between an organization and its publics can i nfluence motivation to perform a desired behavior. In sum, the existing literature has neglected the fundamental premises that organization public relationships involve such factors as power or impact on the other relationships with the party. To address these gap s there is a need for research that tate, which ultimately influences the qualit y of a relationship with an organization and publics behavior al intention. current study introduces public empowerment to relation ship management theory. For the purpose of this study, psychological empowerment is u nderstood as publics motivation that involves autonomy and self efficacy to influence the relationship and their own behavior (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) P ublic psychological empowerment can be cultivated and maintained by two way symmetrical relationships that permit a certain degree of public s empowerment state not only influences their relationships with organi zations but also as well as their behaviors. Therefore, exploration of public empowerment is pivotal to develop ing relationship management theory. In the following section, the concept of empowerment and definition of psychological empowerment will be discussed. Given that empowerment inherently stems from the concept of power, the definition of power will be presented prior to discussing empowerment.
51 Understanding the Concept of Empowerment Definition of Power As an integral part of any relationship power is embedded in individuals daily li ves (Dahl, 1957; Oksiutycz, 2006 ). W hile the concept of power has drawn a lot of attention from scholars from different academic settings over time, there is no formal definition of power that is applicable to all different contexts and that provides a solid measurement tool for the concept. In general, power can be understood as an perspective, Dahl (1957) viewed power as a relation among individuals. He defined havior to the point the other would do something they would not otherwise do. In other words, Dahl argue d that power is the degree to which a person possesses the ability to control another. I t is important to note however, that, rather than static or unc hanging, power has dynamic, multidimensional features and can be understood differently depending on context or circumstance (Veneklasen, 2002). Huczynski and Buchanan (2001) explained power as an abstract concept within three different contexts: personal structural, and relational characteristics. They explained that whereas power as a personal attribute refers to the energy or stamina that an individual possesses, structural power stems from a formal position and authority of an individual within an org anizational structure and relational power is considered a social power that account s for the relationships between the power holder and others. Similarly, Oksiutycz (2006) explained that power as an individual attribute, as well as power embedded in rela tionship contexts can be used occasionally to lead to
52 behavioral changes in others S tructural power rooted in daily life of an organization is pervasive and omnipresent as well as hard to observe. From the organizational communication perspective, Oksi utycz (2006) emphasized the importance of power in explain ing organizational relationships. He asserted that not only the organization but also lower level employees have substantial power. Each party in organization public relations hips influences the amount or the way the other party exercises its power. For example, Pheby (2004) argued that organizational power is more influential if it is legitimized by its publics. In sum, power is one of the essential concepts that explain human beh avior and dynamic relationships with other social entities. The Concept of Empowerment Closely related to power, the term empowerment has been adopted in various disciplines, from community development to psychology, healthcare, organizational management, and marketing. As a result, the definitions of empowerment are abundant but there is little consensus regarding a definition of empowerment. Moreover, understanding the term is limited to a theoretical construct rather than practical use (Salzer, 1997). This is based on the fact that the concept of empowerment as population specific is heavily influenced by contexts (Zimmerman, 2000). Kuokkanen and Leino Kilpi (2000) argued that empowerment studies fall into three different theoretical roots: critical so cial theory, organizational theory, and social psychology. Whereas empowerment in critical social theory focuses on the ies women, and patients), empowerment rooted in organizational theory is highly related to leadership
53 action. Empowerment in the context of social psychology theory emphasizes individual development in response to the environment surroundi ng him / her Kuokkanen and Leino Kilpi further argued that empowerment based on both organizational and social psychology theories share commonalities and are heavily adopted in business or management studies, whereas empowerment in critical social theory e xists as independent category. in the local community, involving mutual respect, critical reflection, caring, and group participation, through which people lacking an equal sha re of valued resources gain 1989 p. 2 ). In simpler terms, some scholars view empowerment as a process of transferring power to subordinates (Greasley et al., 2005; The World B ank Group, 1999; Vogt, 1997), or the redistribution of power from those who possess it to the powerless in the organization (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990). The definitions above emphasize the aspect of empowerment as a process or act that arises in dynamic cir cumstances. This approach is actively adopted by scholars from different disciplines (e.g. Cornwall & Perlman, 1990; Geroy, Wright, & Anderson, 1998; Salzer, 1997; Vogt, 1997). For example, i n employee management research, Geroy et al. (1998) emphasized th the process of providing employees with the necessary guidance and skills, to enable autonomous decision making (including accountability and the responsibility) for making these decisions within acceptable parameters, that are part of an organizational culture
54 (p. 57). Salzer (1997) also argued that customer empowerment in mental health organizations occurs in the process of change, and that it is a continuous process which requires more than one single ev ent. However, several empowerment scholars have asserted that empowerment should be considered as both process and outcome (e.g. Alsop & Heinshon, 2005; Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995; Swift & Levin, 1987). Alsop and Heinsohn (2005) explained that empowerment 5). Rather than relying heavily on either processes or outcomes, it is recommended to understand the concept of empowerment from the holistic approach. Put another way, empowerment study needs to account for not only structures, activities, and interventions that lead to empower ment but also for the level of being empowered as the outcomes result ing in the process. T here are two diffe rent points of view in defining the concept of empowerment, either as structural or psychological empowerment. Based on the assumption that people respond rationally to a situation surrounding them, structural empowerment refers to a situation that inspire s people to feel empowered (Kanter, 1977; 1993). Kanter work structures such as access to organizational information and resources, as well as opportunities to grow withi n the organization. On the other hand, psychological enhance their feeling of empowerment (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; 1996; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
55 To conce ptualize psychological empowerment, Conger and Kanungo (1988) classified the concept of power in to two categories: the acquisition or possession of empowerment from formal author ity deri ves from delegat ing power to the powerless or authoriz ing a group to do something, empowerment based on the ability to perform a behavior der ives from enhanc ing Conger and Kanungo argued that psychological empower ment can be understood as motivation to enact certain behavior, rather than an possession of authority. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) fur assertion. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) understood the concept of psychological z ilos, and Nason (1997) viewed psychological empow psychological empowerment is an outcome of structural empowerment as well as a trigger to lead to a desired behavior. Several studies in nursing also confirmed the influence of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment, as well as the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the relationship between structural empowerment and desired behaviors (e.g. Laschinger et al., 2001 b ; Knol & van Linge, 2009). While both approaches are actively adopted in empowerment research, outcomes of structural empowerment do not guarantee that publics actually feel
56 empowered within the relationship they have with an organization and the empowering contexts that an organization offers. Bowen and Lawler (1992) argued that contingent upon various organizational circumstances, such as corporate business str ategies, relationship s with consumers, and technology. Moreover, structural relationship contexts, nor their motivation to enhance both the relationship and the desired behavio r. Likewise, Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick Hall, and Jennings (1988) found that there are different forms of participation in the decision making itself empowerment. The refore, in this study, empowerment will be explored as a psychological state of an individual in a relationship with an organization, defining it as donors intrinsic motivation not only to devote themselves to relationship s with nonprofit organization s bu t also to enact giving behavior. Psychological Empowerment and i ts Constructs Rooted in management and psychology literature, Conger and Kanungo (1988) emphasized the psychological aspect of empowerment. Influenced by the concept of self efficacy (Bandura 1977; 1986) and effort performance expectancy of individuals (Lawler, 1973), Conger and Kanungo (1988) highlighted a motivational trait in the feeling of empowerment to conduct a task, rather than the degree of formal authority or control over an organiz ation. They defined empowerment as feelings of self efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal
57 organizational practice and inform Conger definition allows scholars to explore the initiation and persistence of an Thomas and Velthouse (1990) expanded (1988) concept of psychological empowerment, viewing it as intrinsic task motivation. interpretation of reality or a situation. In other words, empowerment is more subjective than object ive, and the level of empowerment within the same circumstance may differ by individuals. Spreitzer (1995) further asserted three important characteristics of psychological empowerment. First, empowerment is a set of cognitions reflecting a situation or en vironment. Second, empowerment is a continuous variable, rather than a dichotomy of either empowered or not empowered. Third, empowerment is situational specific, not a global reaction to various environments. Similarly, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued for the multifaceted features of psychological empowerment, identifying these features: competence, self determination, meaning, and impact. Later, Spreitzer (1995) developed measurements for the four constructs and tested the validity of the constructs. Meaning Meaning refers to the evaluation of the value of the task role from the standards Velthouse, 1990). In other words, it denotes the degree of congruence between the value o behaviors. It is also a matter of caring for a task, since individuals invest their intrinsic energy to the task if the task values fit well with their own (Thomas & Velthouse, 199 0).
58 Whereas a low degree of meaning causes apathy, detachment, and indifference to a task (May, 1969) a high level of meaning leads to commitment and involvement (Sjoberg, Olsson, & Salay, 1983). In the consumer empowerment context, Han (2006) defined mea or ganizations mission s Competence Closely related to self efficacy or personal mastery as defined by Bandura to accomplish a task skillfully (Gist, 1987; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This concept is called potency in team empowerment (Kirkman & Rozen, 1999). High self efficacy leads people to initiate behaviors and overcome an obstacle to accomplish a task, whereas low self efficacy prevents a person from confronting fears or situations that require certain relevant skills (Bandura, 1986). Han (2006) renamed competence in consumers as ability, defining it as a 48). Applying this concept to donor empowerment, competence is defined as donors perceived capacity to manage quality relationship s with nonprofit organization s and contribute to the causes that the nonprofit organization s support. I mpact In management literature, impact is the degree to which indivi dual s believe they can have influence on their task environment, as well as on task outcomes (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). As a concept closely related to the locus of control (Bandura, 1977), impact is highly influenced by external work settings (Spreitzer, 1995). The feeling of
59 impact is perceived control over the environment, which can be fostered by a history of work experience or work contexts. In consumer empowerment, impact refers to the degree to which customers can influence the service process and o utcomes. The current study defines impact as the degree to which donors perceive that they can influence their relationship s with nonprofit organizations. Autonomy autonomy refers to a perceived choice in initiating or managing a task (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). Autonomy involves an determination in performing a task. Th e term is also known by other names. For example, Spreitzer (1995) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990) equated autonomy with self determination, and deCharms (1968) called it the locus of causality. Labeling it Han (2006) argued that autonomy d that 48). Many scholars argue that autonomy is a vital factor in determin ing intri nsic motivation to take an action (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci et al., 1989; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Thus, th is study defines autonomy as the level of donors perceived choice or freedom in managing their relationship s with nonprofit organizations and their g iving behavior. Explanation of these four elements of psychological empowerment allows scholars to better understand the concept (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Together, the four dimensions provide a com prehensive empo werment (Spreitzer, 1995). An individual is more empowered when all fo u r dimensions are present at high levels. In fact, Spreitzer argued that the lack of any
60 single one of these dimensions in the individual reduces the individual s overall level of empowe rment, even though it does not eliminate it completely. Additionally, some studies have found that the four dimensions of empowerment respond differently to the same contextual conditions (Siegall & Gardner, 2000; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). By conducting a survey among employees, Siegall and Gardner (2000) found that, even though the patterns are somewhat varied by the type of their supervisor and their general relationship with the company are highly correlated to meaning, autonomy, and impact; teamwork is positively related to meaning and impact; and Zimmerman (1995) further argued that psychological empowerment can be applied in different populations and settings. Given that these constructs of psychological empowerment, individually or together, have been measured in various types of publics such as employees, consumers, a nd members of voluntary or ganizations (Gomez & Rosen, 2001 ; Han, 2006; Spreitzer, 1995; 1996; Zimmerman, 1995), the current study adopts the four dimensions of psychological empowerment for further exploration The Values of Empowerment The effect of emp owerment on individuals has been well documented. At a personal level, empowerment leads to a reduced feeling of isolation and increase s a sense of community (Lord & Hutchison, 1993). Also, people who feel empowered show more innovative behaviors (Amabile, 1988; Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993; Spreitzer, 1995), higher job satisfaction and less job strain (Laschinger et al., 2001 b )
61 empowerment can enhance their loyalty to the co mpany for which th ey work ; their ability to care for others, including customers ; and their job satisfaction (Ugboro & Obeng, 2000). By adopting the empowerment concept to the marketing field, a recent study found that consumers who are empowered by partic ipating in a new product development process have a sense of ownership which may increase the perceived value of the product (Fuchs et al. 2010). At an organizational level, viewing patients as a customer group Ouschan et al. (2006) address ed how pati physician relationship. The study found that patients have a tendency to trust and commit more to the physicians who employ empowering communication styles, such as patient control, patient participat ion, and physician support. Similarly, providing an environment that empowers employees at work is also highly associated with for which they work (Laschinger & Finegan, 2005). Also, emphasizing the value of empowerment, scholars in marketing have discussed how a sense of empowerment can enhance relationships with customers (Wright, Newman, & Dennis, 2006). Power and Empowerment in Public Relations Even though public relations practitioners contribut e to an organization by managing relationships with key publics and power is inherent in any relationship, there is a lack of discussion about the concept of power in public relations literature. Most public relations discussions on power are led by Excell ence t heory scholars, who explain the concept of power in regard to effective management of an organization (Dozier et al. 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992).
62 Viewing power as a resource or capacity to exercise influence, the Excellence study scholars claim that public relations department and communication managers should possess power within an organization. Describing the dominant coalitions as a 15), Dozier et al. (199 5) affirmed that public relations managers serve as members of dominant coalitions in effective organizations. In addition, J. E. Grunig (2006) argued that dominant coalitions, as an informal alliance, are composed of both internal and external members of organizations and include internal members having a variety of hierarchy. Similarly, L. A. Grunig (1992) claimed that for effective organizational management, dominant coalitions should view public relations as a managerial function rather than a technica l function and that public relations managers should be involved in making process. Also, applying the concept of power to gender, Hon, L. A. Grunig, and Dozier (1992) argued that female public relations practitioners experience discrimination and are deprived of the opportunity to serve in a manager role. From a critical theory perspective, Berger (2005) explicated power in dominant coalitions and public relations practitioners. Based on review on relevant literature and interv iews with public relations executives, he discussed three different aspects of power in relations. The first, power over relations is dominant when dominant coalitions pursue organizational self interest values and confine approaches or plans from differen willingness or ability for self reflection and inclusion of different perspectives as well
63 shared power that value s interaction, dialogue, collaboration, cooperation, and relat ionship building. Third and last, power to relations refers to public relations As detailed above the power with relations aspect can be understood to include an empowerment model that involves public voice in the decision m aking process. This strategy, according to Berger (2005), is an opportunity for public relations practitioners and scholars to exert power with relations and power to relations to make society better. Expanding the discussion of power to relationships wit h external publics, Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) viewed control mutuality as an important aspect of relationship J. E. Grunig asserted that both organizations and publics have a certain degree of control or power to exert influence on the other in positive relationships. Additionally, the concept of power is entrenched in the development of the four public relations models suggested by J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984): the press agentry/publicity model, the public information model, the two way asymmetrical model, and the two way symmetrical model. These scholars argued that two major criteria are reflected in the four d istinctive public relations models: direction (one way or two way) and balance (symmetrical or asymmetrical). The first model, press agentry/publicity, is characterized with one way and asymmetrical features. This model uses persuasion and manipulation to obtain desirable behaviors from publics. Similarly, the two way asymmetrical model uses persuasion to obtain desired organizational outcomes, but does so while engaging in two way communication with key publics. Rather than
64 manipulating publics, this model involves scientific research to better shape messages that they will accept The public information model focuses on the distribution of factual organizational information. Lastly, the two way symmetrical model engages publics in a dialogue designed to negotiate, resolve conflict, and reach mutual understanding, which is believed to lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. In sum, the two way symmetrical model highlights the roles of public relations in achieving mu tual benefits and understanding between an organization and its publics. Here the organization and the publics are assumed to have equal power. In contrast, the other three public relations models assume unequal power distributions and view public relation s as a tool to To a lesser degree Excellence study scholars have addressed the question of empowerment. Analyzing power in the context of empowerment, Excellence study scholars define emp external stakeholders (J. E. Grunig, 2006). J. E. Grunig suggested that an organization making process for effective orga nization management. He added that by promoting a sense of empowerment in its internal and external stakeholders, an organization can scan the environment better, hear what its publics want, and make appropriate decisions for organizational survival. The concepts of power and empowerment are also salient in the relationship management strategies defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999). These strategies include: opening organizations decision making process es to public s, being willing to engage publics in o pen discussion assuring the other party that the organization
65 considers their concerns legitimate and values the relationship with them and sharing tasks with publics in the joint solution of problems. Despite the aforementioned research that explicitly addressed power and empowerment in organization public relationships, existing literature lacks discussion sense of empowerment through relationship management. Given that empowerment, as a social process mainly occurs in relations to others (Page & Czuba, 1999) and empowerment benefits not only empowered publics but also organizations that enhance public s empower ment it is necessary for public relations scholars to address which public relationship st rategies scholars highlight the value of relationships with donor groups who determine nonprofits success, they have Therefore, in the following section, the study explores relationship management positive relationship quality outcomes. Understanding Empowerment in the Relationship Management Context Acknowledging the value of empowerment, many scholars and practitioners perception of empowerment can be influenced by numerous internal (e. g. individu empowerment orientation, gender, and age) and external factors ( e. g ., circumstances surrounding individuals), and the majority of empowerment studies in the management arena have focused on external factors.
66 Individual factors that can affect a education, gender, and age (Spreitzer et al. 1997). Research has shown that women may feel less empowered in organizations, because they are considered a minority in the workplace (Kanter, 1977); individuals who have a higher level of education tend to feel more empowered than those that do not (Spreitzer et al. 1997); and older managers can feel less empowered because they can be seen as being somewhat stagnant in the organization (Ettington, 1992). Based on self det ermination theory, Gagn (2003) also argued that the toward being autonomously self regulated. Managerial theorists account for various factors that enhance or depreciate public empowerment. Simply p (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p. 474). Formal organizational practices refer to organizational structures (e. g. jo b designs in employee empowerment), whereas informal techniques involve numerous contextual factors, such as social interactions and relationship s between an organization and its publics. In fact, several studies report that the influence of relationship s or support from an sense of empowerment which, in turn, improves his/her level of satisfaction or positive behaviors (e. g. volunteer ing academic performance, and school adjustment), and prevents negative outco mes (e. g. volunteer turnover) (Deci et al., 1989; Deci, Eghari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Frone, 2000; Gagn, 2003; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Rhoades, Eisengberger, & Armeli, 2001; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). Gagn found that autonomy supportive context s ( e. g. parent support or work
67 support) predict individuals prosocial behavior. H ghlighting the role of public relations in effective communication with internal and external publics, Oksiutycz (2006) sustained that communication is a useful tool to provide appropriate responses to various social systems. He argued: Effective communication systems in an organization allow the organization to cope with variety, though not through tighter controls. On the other hand, they do allow the system to achie ve greater autonomy so that it can be more effective at absorbing variety. (p.36) Yet, despite its significant influence, research on the critical contextual factors that facilitate a sense of empowerment, especially through relationships, has been overloo can be enhanced by organizations relationship management strategies and influence quality relationships with organizations the current study examines the concepts of relationship management strategies and outcomes, and explores dynamic associations among relationship management strategies, relationship quality outcomes, and donor role in relationship ma nagement, linking between relationship management strategies and relationship outcomes. Thus, in the following section, conceptual definitions and constructs of both relationship management strategies and relationship quality outcomes are reviewed, follo strategies and relationship quality outcomes. Conceptual Definitions of Relationship Management Strategies As briefly mentioned above, a group of relationship management scholars have explored how public relations practices enhance organization public relationships.
68 Relationship management strategies have been studied by the second research group described earlier. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) emphasized the needs of relati onship ma nagement strategies that involve effective communication management to produce ations strategies, techniques, and programs are equally likely to produce relationship relationship management and their effects on the relationship quality outcomes. Amo ng various strategies that help organizations cultivate relationships with their publics, strategies adopted from interpersonal communication and conflict management are actively adopted in organization public relationships (J. E., Grunig & Y. H. Huang, 20 00; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2009). Whereas conflict management strategies involve both symmetrical and asymmetrical approaches, interpersonal relationship management strategies re present the symmetrical approach (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). Refl ecting the basic assumption that public empowerment can be achieved in symmetrical relationships and that relationship strategies are more often used in equitable relationships (Canary & Stafford, 1992), Hon and J. E. Grunig ( 1999 ) focused heavily on the s ix two way symmetrical relationship management strategies. Also, Kelly (1998) proposed the stewardship strategy that builds two way symmetrical relationships. Assuming that high quality relationships are based on a two way symmetrical approach the present
69 proposes another relationship management strategy, participation, to enhance both public empowerment and relationship outcomes. Ope nness Openness, also called disclosure, involves active and honest information sharing with the other party in a relationship (Hon & J. E. Grunig ; Ki, 2006). Canary and d (p. 243). Along those same lines, Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) asserted the importance of revealing both thoughts and feelings for effective organization public rela tionship management. Bok (1989) explained openness as a tool to equally distribute power in a an act of power. Linked to the virtue of symmetry, openness has bee n extensively emphasized in relationship management research. In the early stages of the research paradigm, L.A. Grunig et al. (1992) contended that openness is one of the most important variables for assessing strategic organization public relationships. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) also pointed to openness as one of the most important relationship dimensions along with trust, commitment, involvement, and investment and satisfaction. J. E. Grunig and Y. H. Huang (2000) su ggested that public relations managers can gauge openness by evaluating suggestions, complaints, inquiries, or comments from various stakeholders, such as members of publics, the media, government, and activist groups. Closely related to ethics, Bivens (1 987) argued that organizations that do not fully inform all motives behind message s s In a similar thread,
70 openness is an indispensable practice for transparent communication (Rawlins, 2009). f organizations due to various corporate scandals such as Enron and Worldcom, Rawlins emphasized the value of transparent communication in public relations practice and argued that openness is one of the crucial transparency traits. Rawlins further argued that just giving information or disclosure to public s does not fulfill transparency, but rather that substantial completeness of information that includes all information that publics seek for. Positivity Positivity includes the actions by either part y of a relationship to make the other one enjoy the relationship. Interpersonal communication scholars define positivity as example, positivity involves acting nice and cheerfu l, showing prosocial behaviors, demonstrating affection, being polite in conversation, providing favors, and treating partners in uncritical manners (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993). From an organization public relationship perspective, positivity refers to focusing on organizational attempts to build relationship with publics, defined positivity Y. H. Huang (2000) found a similarity between positivity and the unconditionally constructive principle for conflict resolution (Fisher & Brown, 1988). Similarly, proposing the concept
71 fo being, and emotional intelligence is crucial for effective organization employee relationships. An empirical study adopting the concept shows the direct and indirect effects of pos itive organizational behavior on reducing undesired employee behavior, such as quitting a job or cynicism (Avery, Hughes, Norman, & Luthans, 2008). The value of positivity in the nonprofit sector is also well documented. Facing the explosive growth in th e size of the sector, volunteer management literature experience for volunteers a Hobson, and Evans, 1996, p. 29). The concept highlights that volunteers who experience positive interactions with nonprofit organizations have positive and favorable perceptions of, and attitudes towards the organizations. Moreover, volunteer friendliness benefits nonprofit organizations in terms of recruiting prospective volunteers, retaining current volunteers, enhancing volunteer productivity, and increasing the tributions (Hobson et al., 1996). Along those same lines and given that successful relationship is characterized with intimacy and autonomy (Altman, Vinsel, &Brown, 1981), Dee and Henkin (2006) advocate that nonprofit organizations should be equipped wit h social skills for effective communication and positive relationships with donors. In fact, an empirical study with donors in the United Kingdom demonstrated the effect of positive interactions with nonprofit organizations on donor behavior (Sergeant & Le e, 2004).
72 Assurances involve all efforts to continue the relationship by demonstrating love commitment and faithfulness (Stafford & Canary, 1991). In other words, assurances show the partner that the relationship has a future (Canary, Stafford, & Semic, 2002). the rel (p. 15). In the organization public relationship literature, this concept is extended from assurance s of relationship to assurance s of legitimacy in the relationships (J. E. Grunig & Y. H. Huang, 2000). For example, in dealing with activist groups, acquiring assurances of legitimacy from publics requires to first offer assurances to the publics (L.A. Grunig, 1992). L. A. Grunig et al. (2002) also asserted that assurances in or ganization assure the other that it and its concerns are legitimate and to demonstrate that it is Nonprofit organization manageme nt scholars have sought various ways that nonprofit organizations demonstrate assurances of legitimacy to their key stakeholders (e.g. Barman, 2002; Bracht, Finnegan, Jr., Rissel, Weisbrod, Gleason, Corbett, & Veblen Mortenson, 1994; Drucker, 2006; Ospina, For instance, Barman (2002) explored the differentiation strategy that a local United Way implemented to earn legitimacy of the organization within dynamic changes in the sector. Drucker (2006) argued that providing assurances to stakeholders allows nonprofit organizations to have competitive advantages. Similarly, Sargeant (2001) found that a
73 failure to assure the need for support or organizational missions causes lapsed supports or discontinuance of donation. Sargeant further they give ongoing and specific feedback to donors as to how their funds have been put to use, in particular the benefit that has Sharing of tasks From the interpersonal relationship literature, sharing of tasks implies equally taking responsibility on the tasks in a relationship. More specifically, sharing of tasks in family or couple r elationships means equal contribution to household duties or chores as a crucia l strategy to make the partner satisfied with the relationship. In public relations literature, sharing of tasks is portrayed by jointly addressing a task or responsibility that an organization and its publics share. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) defined sh resolving pollution, creating employment opportunities for community members, and staying in b usiness (J. E. Grunig & Y. H. Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). interests and concerns is one of ways engage in sharing of tasks. Ki and Hon (2009) explained that 8).
74 Witnessing the significant growth of partnerships of the nongovernmental organiza tions with various sectors, Fowler (1998) identified shared responsibility among partners as one of the authentic partnership features along with commitment to long term interaction, reciprocal obligation, equality, and balance of power. From corporate phi lanthropy perspective, Porter and Kramer (2002) espoused the concept of a convergence of interests of both corporate and community partners. According to them, corporations can enhance their reputations by providing community members with solutions to conc erns that influence both entities. McCort (1994) also insisted that nonprofit organizations can enhance the ir relationship s with donors by finding a way to help donors develop within the scope of the organization s missions. Networking The use of social networks is also an important strategy to manage relationships. interaction with, and reliance on, mutual friends, family, and colleagues to get support and make the relationship enjoya ble (Canary & Safford, 1992; 1994). Any social actors, such as individuals, organizations, industries, or nations can utilize social networking achieved through various ways of conversation, friendship, authority, economic or information sharing (Nohria & Eccles, 1992). Applying the concept to organization public relationship research, Hon and J. E. with the same groups that their publics do, such as environmentalists, unions, or strategies is to contact activist groups who also engage with organizational publics (J. E. Grunig & Y. H. Huang, 2000). Previously referred to as an organizational
75 formal and informal connectedness (Jin, 2009), organizational networks are also considered as one of indicators of organizational social capital suggested by Putnam (2000). Adopting the social capital theory to organization community relationships Jin (2009) revealed that the indicators of social capital networks, trust, communication, and inclusion are highly related to communal relations and engender collaborative values. sized nonprofit organization, or government. Networking, collaboration, or partnerships within the sector or with other sectors are commonly seen. For example, a recent survey showed that over 60% of respondent nonprofit organizations claimed to have made collaborative efforts with other organizations to cope with the economic downturn and to successfully pitch to donors (Gose, 2011). In addition, some scholars emphasize d the financial benefits that can be obtained through using networks and collaborating with other organizations (Abzug & Webb, 1999; Austin, 2000). Access In contrast to other relationship management strategies, access is not found in the interpersonal re lationship management strategies, but originally suggested in the organization public relationship literature. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) proposed access as one of relationship management strategies, noting that: Members of publics or opinion leaders pro vide access to public relations people. Public relations representatives or senior managers provide representatives of publics similar access to organizational decision making processes. Either party will answer telephone calls or read letters or e mail me ssages from the other. Either party is willing to go to the other when they have complaints or queries, rather than taking negative reactions to third parties. (p.14)
76 Access allows both an organization and publics to be available to the other side of the (1999) notion of access to quality relationships with publics, Ki and providing communication channels or media outlets that assist its strategic publics in 999) delimited the significance of access to opinion leaders relevant to the stakeholders, access to organizations can be extended to individuals of stakeholder groups, especially in the digital media era. Recognizing that the Internet has become indispens everyday life, and that organizational websites have become an important tool to build relationships with publics, Ki and Hon (2006) contended that anyone with Internet ion making processes, especially as it can facilitate reaching senior managers in organizations when the contact information is available online. This strategy has been actively adopted and valued by the nonprofit sector for efforts to build positive rel ationship with donors. For example, the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (2010) provided nonprofit board members, managers and staff with a guideline of principles and practices for nonprofit excellence The guideline emphasized the value of access, which is highly related to transparency, and accountability of nonprofits. The Council noted: Board s of directors should provide information to the public that describes their decisions and decision making processes. They should make meeting agendas and descriptions of significant decisions available to those who request them. A nonprofit should provide its constituents with ongoing opportunities to interact with the board and management regarding its activities. (p. 10)
77 D also has been documented. A recent survey of donors ages 20 to 40, called Mill ennial donors, shows that these donors want to not only provide financial support to nonprofits, but also to have access to the board leadership of these nonprofit organizations (Johnson Grossnickle & Associates, 2010). Even though Hon and J. E. (1999) access strategy suggested an organization s efforts to provide access to both organization resources and organizational decision making processed, promoting a participatory communication culture has been less salient in existing relationship managem ent literature. O rganizations participatory communication invites publics to the organizations decision making processes and fundamentally leads to two way symmetric al relationships ; therefore, the current study introduces participatory communication as an additional relationship management strategy for quality organization public relationships. Participation as a s trategy for m anaging r elationships Participation is a key element of transparency and involves both feedback and interaction with stakeholders. Considering that providing publics with substantial information is satisfied only when organizations identify what the publics want to hear or know, Rawlins (2009) viewed participation of stakeholders as a n important part of transparency. Pa and consequences in a model of relationship s Johnston (2010) specified different levels of community engagement: participation, consultation, information, and pseudo engagement. O ut of these four levels, Johnston argued that participation is the highest level of community engagement.
78 The value of participation for building two way symmetrical relationships is well recognized. Conceptualizing the notion of transparency, Cotterrell (1999) underlined participatory practice over sharing mere information. He explained that transparency as ans that organizational transparency is accomplished by a participatory culture that invites publics to speak up and reflect their opinions rather than simply providing a channel for them to access. Participation is highly related to symmetrical relations hips between organizations component of a symmetrical world view. Focusing on employee relations, one of the most crucial stakeholders groups for any organization, Bowen (2004) c onsidered that employee participation leads organizations to be ethical, based on the assumption that and also in enabling the issues management function to have in put into decision making 314). Similarly, in a comparison with bureaucracy that is described as secrecy and red tape, Dagron (2009) characterized a haring knowledge and power from participation which encompasses two way communication. Janse and Konijnendijk (2007) also asserted that truly successful participation is only found in a two way symmetrical communication process based on mutual understanding and long term relationships between organizations and publics.
79 Stewardship concept also reflects symmetrical relationships between organizations and publics. Stewardship was originally conceptualized in the fundraising arena but can be easily applied to various organizational settings, such as for profit, nonprofit, and government, for managing effective organization public relationships. Kelly (1998) asserted Stewardship is necessary for all relationship management (p 433). Adding the stewardship step to the ROPE model of the public relations process, Kelly (2001) proposed the ROPES model. Stewardship, as the fifth step of the public relations process makes the ial Kelly (2001) asserted that stewardship is the second most crucial step in the public relations process, little research has been dedicated to testing stewardship in organization public relationship management (Waters, 2007). Stewardship is composed of four elements: reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, and relationship nurturing. Reciprocity. An o rganization s efforts to demonstrate gratitude toward supportive stakeholders are called reciprocity. As a fundamental virtue of all moral codes (Gouldner, 1960), the concept of reciprocity has been actively adopted in human relation settings (Bagozzi, 1995; Neufeld & Harrison, 1995; Van Horn, Schaufeli, & Taris, 2001; Wentowski, 1981; Xiang & Wang, 2008). In relationship marketing, customers who perceive a its relationship with them have a tendency to reciproc ate and have higher loyalty toward the company than those who do not (De Wulf, Odek erken Schroder, & Iacobucci, 2001).
80 obligation to pay back to those who offer benefits to them. Kelly (2001) asserted that repaying obligations helps the entities in relationships to acquire balance and a characteristic of symmetrical public Reciprocity can be manifested by showing appreciation and recognition (Kelly, 1998; 2001). The most common way of showing appreciation is to s organizations do not often thank their donors (Fredricks, 2001). One of the simple and effective ways of recognition is to personalize recognition efforts to reflect donors preference s Even though it seems like common sense, many nonprofit organizations avior (Bartlett & DeStreno, 2006). Reporting. To develop and manage quality relationships with publics, organizations should keep publics informed about progress on issues for which support was sought (Kelly, 1998; 2001). Closely related to accountability and social responsibility, all types of organizations for profit, nonprofit, and government are required to provide publics with appropriate and substantial information. Keeping public s and behaviors, and increases the likelihood that the public will support them in similar situations (Kelly, 2001). Especially after various financial scandals in the nonprofit sector, nonprofit organizations are required to demonstrate their social acco untability by filling 990 IRS
81 Forms, providing audited financial documents, and updating current and potential programs and services through on and off line communication tactics (Waters, 2007). rs, and holding telephone conversations or fact to face meetings are examples of common communication tactics for reporting. Presently, thanks to new technology and digital media, many organizations keep public s updated with organizational news in cost eff icient ways. For example, nonprofit organizations heavily utilize social media for information dissemination and disclosure of information (Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009). Dove, Martin, Wilson, Bonk, and Beggs (2002) argued that organizations can enhance fundraising environments by keeping donors updated. Reporting is very similar to substantial information sharing in transparen t communication (Rawlins, 2009) and openness, the relationship management strategy suggested by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999 ). Responsibility. by systems theory, which emphasiz es that an organization, as a part of a larger society, does not exist by itself but is interdependent with other organizations a nd publics. Thus, organizations acting in a socially responsible manner is a necessity for interdependence. F ailure to fulfill its responsibility is considered as betrayal of publics, which is costly. Fulfilling the management strategy, called keeping promises.
82 Applying the no tion of responsibility to the nonprofit sector, organizations and fundraisers have responsibilities for ethical behavior and carry out their duties to use the gifts for the purpose for which the donations were given or designated. Describing the current no nprofit sector as standing at crossroads having various challenges due to government budget cuts and the exponential growth of the number of nonprofit organizations, Salamon (1999) asserted that nonprofit organizations should fulfill responsibility to man age organizations effectively and acquire legitimacy. Grace (1997) also highlighted that nonprofit organizations have an obligation to use gifts wisely and to show accountability to publics. Understanding responsibility as accountability, Jeavons (200 5 ) co ntended: All nonprofit organizations have an ethical responsibility to be accountable to their supporters, their members, and their donors; most of all, the public benefit organizations have a larger responsibility to be accountable to the broader public for the wa ys in which they undertake to fulfill their philanthropic purposes. (p. 219) element of stewardship shares common ground management strategie s in terms of acquiring organizational and relationship legitimacy. Relationship nurturing. The last element of stewardship is nurturing success and survival. Emphasizing the value of qua lity relationships between organizations and publics, Kelly 286). In other wor ds, organizations should recognize the value of supportive publics and make an effort to e nrich the relationship qualit y
83 Examples of relationship nurturing are sharing copies of the publications (e. g. annual reports and newsletters), invi ting publics to special events, and sending handwritten cards to publics for special occasions (Kelly, 1998). More recently, Waters (2011) claimed that organizational efforts to cultivate relationships with publics will benefit organizations in terms of pu the organizations against the impact of potential crises. In the fundraising context, Kelly (2002) argued that relationship nurturing is vital because the cost of soliciting a donation from a previous donor is substant ially less than the cost of requesting a donation from a new donor and that previous donors are more likely to donate to the organization than non donors. In light of relationship fundraising, Burnett (200 2 ) also emphasized the value of relationship nurtur ing. Using the analogy of friendship, Burnett highlighted the mutual benefits from the long term relationships with donors: good news and bad, keeping in touch and developing a long t erm relationship that brings benefits to both sides. Your donors benefit from their role in the work you do, from sharing in your success and achievements and from the satisfaction of knowing their contribution has been effective. You benefit, of course, f rom the level and frequency of their donations, but also because they will often be the most enthusiastic their largest contribution to your cause by leaving you a bequest in their wil l. (p. 4) Similarly, providing fundraisers with a Sargeant and Jay (2004) emphasized the financial rewards of long term interaction with donor publics. Relationship nurturing is a broad concept that is inclusive in relationship management strategies.
84 Thus far in the literature review of relationship management strategies, various psychological empowerment to relationship strategies. M ore specifically, Hon and J. E. openness, positivity, assurances, sharing of tasks, networking, and access (1998; 2001) stewardship with four constructs reciprocity, reporting, responsibili ty, and relationship nurturing were reviewed. Also, a new relationship strategy of participation was introduced. However, adhering to the principle of parsimony, the present study will exclude the networking strategy and three of the four elements of ste wardship reporting, responsibility, and relationship nurturing for the following reasons First, networking empowerment, and the influences of networking on relationship outcomes are not universally supported across studies dealing with relatio nship strateg ies (Ki, 2006; Waters, 2011). Second even though each element of stewardship makes a unique contribution to cultivating and managing quality relationships with publics all but reciprocity (1999) relationship management strategies Furthermore, the measurement of stewardship has been less adopted and tested strategies On the other hand, many scholars have reported sense of empowerment. Therefore, for the purpose of modeling empowerment and relationship management, this study focuses on seven strategies of relationship management: H o n
85 and J. E. Grunig s (1999) openness, positivity, assurances, sharing of tasks, and access ; Kelly s (1998; 2001) reciprocity ; and original to this study, participation, Conceptual Definitions of Relationship Quality Outcomes As the result of implementing relation ship management strategies, organizations can expect desired relationships with publics. Broom et al. (1997) used the term consequences of relationships Relationship scholars have extensively explored the dimensions of relationships (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1 999; Ki, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007, Waters, 2007; 2011). Through an exhaustive review of interpersonal communication literature, Ferguson (1984) suggested several attributes of relationships: 1) dynamic versus static, 2) open versus closed, 3) the degree to whi ch both organizations and publics are satisfied with the relationship, 4) the degree of power distribution in the relationship, 5) the degree of mutual understanding and consensus, and 6) the degree of formalization of the relationship. Later, Ledingham an d Bruning (1998) identified five relationship dimensions openness, trust, commitment, involvement, and investment s with organizations, such as staying, leaving, or unsure. Drawing from interpersonal comm unication and psychology literature, Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) proposed four indicators of successful relationships developed through relationship management strategies: control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Given that the four relation ship outcomes have been widely tested in various settings, ranging from for profit to nonprofit and from Western to Eastern cultures (Bortree, 2010; Y. H. Huang, 2001; Ki & Hon, 2007; Jo, 2006; Waters, 2011), the current study will adopt the four indicator s as relationship quality outcomes. Each of these indicators is detailed below.
86 Control mutuality which partners agree about which of them should decide relational goals and b ehavioral agreement on influence in relationships (Morton, Alexander, & Altman, 1976; Canary & Stafford, 1992). Distinguished from one sided attempts to control the partner bilateral or mutual control is a matter of whether each party in a relationship may rightfully have an impact on the other (Kelley, 1979). Stafford and Canary (1992) further argued that control mutuality reflects interdependence and stability of relation ships. Drawing from interpersonal communication, control mutuality in organization rightful power to influence on e an J. E. Grunig, 1999, p. 19). However, Hon and J. E. Grunig warned that control mutuality does not mean the equal distribution of power in relationships, but the acknowledgement that there is some degree of unbalanced power held by the entities. Even though equality of power is desired, the norm of reciprocity may create positive relationship outcomes when power is unequally distributed (L. A. Grunig et al., 1992). Stafford and Canary (1992) claimed that the sense of control mutuality is essential for interd ependence and stability of relationship regardless the power balance. J. E. Grunig and Y. H. Huang (2000) viewed control mutuality as a similar relationship, Millar a a resolution, focuses heavily on supporting the weaker party in negotiation, to influence
87 the behavior of the stronger. In other words, this concept of empowerment is highly motivation for a behavior. In simpler terms, desired relationships can be obtained when both nonprofit organizations and do Satisfaction As one of the indicators of successful interpersonal relationships (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Stafford & Canary, 1991), satisfaction of the parties involved in a relationship has been commo nly studied by relationship scholars (Lewis & Spanier, 1979). Adapted to various academic disciplines, such as marketing, psychology, and relationship satisfaction. In the extent to which one party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations Based on social exchange theory, (Stafford & Canary, 1991, p. 225). In other words, individuals are satisfied when they receive more benefits than they expect or when the benefits exceed the costs (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Jo, Hon, & Brunner, 2004). Compared to trust or control mutuality, satisfaction reflects emotion and affection (J. E. Gunig & Y. H. Huang, 2000). Ki and ion and control mutuality are the best Emphasizing the value of donor satisfaction in the nonprofit sector, several scholars have explored the factors that lead donor satisfaction and outcomes of donor satisfaction on nonprofit management (Arnett, German, & Hunt, 2003; Sargeant, 2001;
88 Shabbir, Palihawadana, & Thwaites, 2007; Waters, 2011). For example, Sargeant (2001) nonprofit organizations and increase donation amounts. Additionally, Shabbir et al. (2007) revealed that satisfaction offers donors a sense of positive affective reinforcement that yields emotional commitment as well as enhances fundra ising efforts. Trust The concept of trust has drawn a lot of attention from scholars whose research focuses on civic engagement and collaboration with various social entities (Burke, 1999; Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 1995; Putnam, 2000). It serves as a key source of social they all c onsist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of actors whether personal or corporate actors S98). Put another way, trust, along with the networks and norms of reciprocity, facili ties Trust has been considered an important construct to assess successful relationships in various fields of social science, such as relationship marketing (Casalo, Flavian, & Guinal iu, 2010; Doney & Cannon, 1997; Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, & Vitale, 2000; Moorman, Deshpand, & Zaltman, 1993; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), interpersonal communication (Burgoon & Hale, 1984; Rotter, 1967), organizational communication (Ellis & Shockley Zalabak, 2001 ; Wells, 2001), community development (Marquart Pyatt, & Petrzelka, 2008; Soska, 2011), and political communication ( M. R. Anderson, 2010).
89 by an individual or a group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of of any social group depen In the organization public relationship, Ledingham and Bruning (1998) defined also explained that dependabili ty, forthrightness and trustworthiness are key A complicated concept, trust is composed of three dimensions: integrity, dependability, and competence (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, dependability denotes the b elief that an organization keeps its promises, and competence is related to the belief that an organization is able to accomplish what it says it will do (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). In public relations literature, trust of various types of publics, such a s consumers, community members, employees, government, and investors, is considered a crucial factor in determin ing J. E. Grunig, 1995). 5 ) insisted that nonprofit organizations are not able to function effectively without public trust. Commitment The last dimension of relationship quality is commitment. Like trust, commitment has been a focal construct to explore relationships in various areas. A traditional
90 (Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpand, 1992, p. 316). In the interpersonal relationship (1982 ) underst ood commitment as a motivational process to better understand work behavior. party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain a nd relationship (Rusbult, 1987), commitment involves two underlying aspects: affect and continuance (J. E. Grunig & Y. H. Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Meyer & Allen re sponsible aspect to relationship management, Ledingham and Bruning (1998) also emphasized commitment as one of relationship dimensions. Unlike the three relationship outcomes stated above control mutuality, satisfaction, and trust commitment is the prima ry indicator of relational behaviors (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). Commitment also contains a certain degree of self sacrifice (Gabarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Some scholars have explored the concept of donor commitment in the nonprofit se 2004; Sargeant, Ford, & West, 200 5a ; Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2005 b
91 argued that donor commitment can be developed by implementing effective communication strategies organizations in terms of increasing financial support, lowering attrition rates, requiring fewer communication efforts, and increasing a lifetime value (Sargeant & McKenzie, 1998). Sargeant and Woodliffe (2005 b ) further categorized commitment into two types depending on the engagement levels: active and passive commitment. Whereas passive commitment is characterized with inactive support only based on charity solicitations active commitment is d for or genuine belief in the cause. Also, Sargeant and Lee (2004) proposed a sequential linkage among trust, donor commitment, which, in turn, Linkages among Relationship Management Strategies, and Relationship Quality Outcomes Relationship Management Strategies as Antecedents of Public Empowerment Management theorists have addressed how organizations can enhance psychological empowerment of key stakeholders, such as employees, consumers, and community members ( Fller et al., 2009; Kanter, 1977; 1993; Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990 ). Even though schola rs propose the common aspects of the variables highlight the virtue of two way symmetrical relationships, which relationship management strategies pursue. For example, a study which included both an extensive literature review and focus groups found that, to maximize the benefits of empowerment, organizations should implement two way
92 communication focusing on sharing expectations, roles, responsibilities as well as capabi lities (Klagge, 1998). There are numerous studies that test the effects of the relationship management In particular ent constructs, situational attributes that generate related to relationship management strategies. Kanter ( 1977; 1993 ) propose d that publics empowerment can be enhanced by organizations efforts, such as acc ess to organizational information and resources, support, opportunities to learn and grow formal power from job position, and informal power from various organizational relationships More specifically, Kanter (1986) assert ed the importance of providing a ccess to information for empowerment, stating O rganizations must make more She also argue d that organization s should make not only information but also various resourc es available to publics. Funds, materials, space, and time are examples of resources. The effects of access to information and resources empowerment have been well documented (Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Laschinger et al. 2001 a ; Laschinger et al., 2001 b ; Spreitzer, 1996; Stewart, McNulty, Griffin, & Fitzpatric, 2010; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000). and informal power from relationships with relationship management strategies. legitimacy granted by organizational constituencies
93 sociopolitical support or organizational assurances play an important role in enhancing et al., 2001 a; Laschinger et al., 2001b ; Spreitzer, 1996; Stewart et al., 2010). 1993) structural empowerment, many scholars consider participation in an empowerment. As a practice of two way symmetrical communication, inviting publics to the organizational decision mak ing process is widely considered as an antecedent of empower ing important publics, such as employees ( X. Huang, Iun, Liu, & Gong, 2010; Spreitzer, 1996; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000) customers (Fuchs et al. 2010; Fller et al. 2009; Ouschan et al. 2 006; Salzer, 1997), patients ( R. M. Anderson & Funnel, 2005) and community members (Papineau & Kiely, 1996) In particular Fller et al. (2009) emphasized that consumers perceive empowerment by participating in new product development projects through the Internet. been observed. For example, Sparrowe (1994) argued that compared to bureaucratic culture, constructive organizational culture, which is oriented toward appreciation, support, openness and warmth, fosters stakeholder empowerment. Randolph (1995) viewed sharing information with publics as the first critical step to lead public empowerment. Similarly, Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) identified openness and teamwork as crucial characteristics of organizations whose employees feel empowered. Closely related to reciprocity, providing rewards or showing appreciation is also considered as a factor in improv ing publics empowerment. Traditionally in employee relations, management theorists have argued that appropriate rewards system s
94 enhance employee empowerment ( R. E Anderson & W. Huang, 2005; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; Siegall & Gardner, 2000). I n seeking contextual factors that lead psychological empowerment, Siegall and Gardner (2000) found that organizations appreciating their employees help the employees experience a sense of meaning about the ir work and self determination or autonomy, which a re sense of empowerment is reinforced by a reward system in their propos ed circle of empowerment. Lastly, some empowerment literature implies the value of positivity and sharing of tasks in fostering public empowerment. For example, adopting the concept of positive organizational behavior suggested by Luthans (2002), Avey, Hughes, Norman, and Luthans (2007) argued that positivity and transformational leadership can enhance empower intention to quit). Altman et al. (1981) also considered intimacy and autonomy as indicators of successful relationship s While the existing empowerment literature has not e xplicitly tested the effect of empowerment. For example, as empowerment in the community health development ork together to 1 ), organizations and community members work together to make the community better. Relationship Quality Outcomes as the Consequences of Public Empowerment As stated earlier, public empowerment leads to positive benefits for both publics themselves and organizations. Relationship quality outcomes that public
95 relations practitioners anticipate for effective relationship management strategies are also influen empowerment and organizational trust has been highlighted in numerous empowerment studies (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Ergeneli, Ari, & Metin, 2006; Fller et al., 2009; Gmez & Rosen 2001; L aschinger & Finegan, 2005; Laschinger et al. 2001a). Most studies sought the causality between empowerment and trust, viewing trust as the outcome of empowerment (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Deci & Ryan, 2002; Fller et al., 2009; Lasching er & Finegan, 2005; Laschinger et al. 2001 a ). Few studies assert trust as the antecedent of empowerment (Ergneli et al., 2006), show associations between trust and empowerment (Gmez & Rosen, 2001), or view both variables as outcomes of organizational management styles ( X. H uang, 2010; Roth, 1994). The effect of public empowerment on organizational commitment also has been well documented. For example, an empirical study show ed the strong correlation between the four constructs of psychological empowerment and organizational commitment (Borghei, Jandaghi, Martin, & Dastani, 2010). More specifically, impact has the highest correlation coefficient with organizational commitment, followed by meaningfulness, autonomy, and competence. Laschinger et al. (2001a) also showed dynamic relationships between empowerment and organizational commitment. Furthermore, specifying organizational commitment into two categories of affective and continuance commitment, the scholars workplace influenced affe ctive commitment both directly and indirectly through trust, but empowerment d id not predict continuance commitment.
96 In addition, many scholars have shown the effect of public empowerment on satisfaction. Appl ied to customer relations, Han (2006) showed t he indirect effect of consumer empowerment on consumer service quality and customer satisfaction. In employee relationships, all constructs of employee empowerment meaning, impact, competence, and autonomy are positively related to work satisfaction (Liden et al., employees job satisfaction as well as customer satisfaction in the organization. embedded in the literature. Han (2006) defined empower ed customers as those who have confidence in the ir ability to consume, perceive autonomy to control their own consumption, and feel that they have empowerment enhances their perceived control over the service process and outcome which, in turn, influences service quality and customer satisfaction. Even though the scholar did not explicate perceived contro l as control mutuality, empowered customers perceive that they can control a controls it Also, in employee organization relationship s (EOR), Ni (2007) asserted that connectedness, and empowerment is a crucial factor in building the desired relationship, satisfying control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Relationships and Behavioral Intention Considered as one of the most important variables to predi ct the likelihood of behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), behavioral intention has drawn many social science
97 perform some behavior'' (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 288) More specifically, Warshaw and Davis (1985) explained behavior al 214). Ajzen and Fishbein (1975) viewed behavioral int ention as the most accurate predictor of actual behavior if it is estimated with an appropriate measurement. Ledingham (2001) considered the linkage of organization public relationships to public attitudes, perception, and behavior as one of the emerging frameworks in organization public relationship research. In fact, many public relations scholars have devoted themselves to investigating not only the factors to enhance quality relationships with publics but also the effects of the quality relationship s o intention (Bortree, 2010; Ki & Hon, 2007; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). As stated earlier, Ledingham and Bruning found that relationship dimensions such as trust, openness, involvement, investment, and commitment are important predictor s to determine hierarchy of effects model, Ki and Hon (2007) explained the sequential linkages among relationship perceptions, attitude toward the organization, and behavioral intentions, and social capital theory and treating communal relationship as a cognitive indicator, Jin (2009) found a significant effect of communal relationship s on pu organizations and their future behavior. In studying the association between relationship quality outcomes and behavioral intention, some scholars have taken different approaches than the hierarchy of effects model. Given that Ki a
98 quality outcomes, Bortree (2010) tested direct influence of relationship quality outcomes on intended behavior. B y studying teen volunteers, she found that relationship quality ed trust, a relationship quality outcome, as a perception, Auger (2011) con curred with Jones (1996) and Jonker and Treur (1999) who consider ed trust as an attitude. By testing the effects of transparent communication on both trust and behavioral intentions of publics, she found that organizations implementing transparent communication have a higher level of public trust in the organization and e njoy positive behavioral intentions of publics (e. g. intention to support the organization by purchasing a product or service and positive word of mouth) than organizations without transparent communication practices. In the nonprofit literature, scholar between relationship quality outcomes and giving behavior are also well documented. Sargeant and Lee (2004) found that commitment plays a mediating role in the relationship between trust and giving behavior. Sargean t et al. (200 5a ) found that trust is correlated with organizational performance and communication, whereas commitment is associated with emotional and familial utility (i.e., affinity with friends or loved one). They further found that trust directly influ ences commitment and indirectly makes an impact on donation. Exploring factors in determin ing giving intentions in an academic institution al outcomes with their university and students of their university
99 determined their supportive behavioral intentions, such as donating to the university as alumni, continuing education at the university, and providing referrals to the university. In sum, the empirical studies ju st reviewed highlight the value of public relations that holds responsibility for managing quality relationships with publics, which, in turn, lead to desired behavior s of publics. Research Questions and Hypotheses This study aims to expand relationship m anagement theory by introducing the management studies have focused on the direct linkages between organizational efforts to manage relationships with publics and the relationship outcomes, the present study proposes another construct to better understand the sequences of relationship management strategies and outco mes. Psychological empowerment is composed of four dimensions: meaning, competence, autonomy, and impact. Given that these dimensions help to explain a sense of psychological empowerment, the following research question is addressed: RQ1: With regard to do nors psychological empowerment, which dimension is perceived as the most important? Also, based on the review of relationship management literature, the current study proposes a new set of relationship management strategies. The study adopts five relatio nship strategies suggested by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) openness, positivity, assurances, sharing of tasks, and access as well as stewardship dimensions. Also, the study introduces a new relationship strategy of participat
100 quality outcomes. Applying these relationship management strategies to nonprofit donor relationships, the present study addresses the following research question: RQ2: To what ex tent do donors perceive that nonprofit organizations are employing the seven relationship management strategies? Turning to linkages among the proposed variables, the present study suggests erment influenced by organization s relationship quality outcomes. A mediator is understood in a causal sequence between two variables, compared to a moderator (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007). Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006) define d specifically, mediation effect is defined as Y relation, whereby X causes the mediator, M, and M causes Y, so X M ( MacKinnon et al., 2007, p. 595). Baron and Kenny (1986) explain ed that mediation effects can be shown by testing three relationship equ ations: 1) the independent variable has a direct effect on the mediator variable, 2) the mediator variable has a direct effect on the dependent variable, and 3) the independent variable has no direct effect on the dependent variable (perfect mediation) or less direct effect on the dependent variable (partial mediation). th is study attempts to explore 1) the the relationship between pub 3) the relationship between relationship management strategies and relationship quality outcomes. In other words, the study explore s two direct effects 1) relationship
101 between relationship management strategies outcomes and an indirect effect of relationship management strategies on relationship outcomes through First of all, the study explores the linkages between relationship management Hon and J. E. of openness, positivity, assurances, sharing of tasks, and access ; reciprocity, one of the dimensions 19 9 8 ) stewardship ; and a newly introduced strategy, participation ; are the independent var dimensions of psychological empowerment: meaning, competence, autonomy, and impact. The reviewed literature s uggest s relationship management strategies highly influence donor empowerment in general and e ach dimension of donor empowerment. Thus, the following hypothes is is presented: H1: Nonprofit organization s relationship management strategies will be positively associated with empowerment. Furthermore, considering that donors psychological empowerment consists of four distinctive constructs, the study will explore the dynamic associations between the seven relationship management strategies and the four dimensions of donors psychological empowerment, a sking the following research question: RQ3: Which of the seven relationship management strategies are most strongly associated with the four dimensions of psychological empowerment?
102 The second direct effect focuses on t he association between empowerment and relationship quality outcomes. In other words, the study examines ir relationship with the nonprofit organization as measured by the outcomes of control mu tuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Based on the literature support ing the following hypothes i s is proposed: itively related to the four quality outcomes of their relationship s with nonprofit organization s Relationship management scholars have shown the positive effects of relationship management strategies openness, positivity, assurances, sharing of tasks, ac cess, and reciprocity on relationship quality outcomes, such as control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment (Bortree, 2010; Ki, 2006; Waters, 2011). In her dissertation, Ki (2006) found significant effects of access, positivity, sharing of tasks and assurances on the four different relationship quality outcomes. Appl ied to the nonprofit sector, Waters (2011) further expanded the relationship management strategies incorporating variables suggested by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) and ) stewardship. Dividing donors into two groups based on the level of donation, major gift donors who donate $10,000 or more and annual giving donors who donate less than $10,000, he found different effects of relationship strategies on relationship quality outcomes between the two groups. More specifically, six of Hon and (1999) relationship strategies and four (199 8 ) stewardship influence on relationship quality outcomes in nonprofits relationship s with annual giving donors whereas 6 of the 10 strategies access, sharing of tasks,
103 reciprocity, reporting, responsibility, and relationship nurturing make significant impacts on the relationship quality outcomes in relationship s with major gift donors. F urthermore, adding another relationship strategy, guidance, in relationship s with adolescent volunteers, Bortree (2010) found that positivity, sharing of tasks, networking, assurances, and guidance have effects on relationship outcomes. In spite of the si gnificant effects of relationship strategies on relationship outcomes, the findings from existing studies lack consensus. The only common finding among the three major studies that explored the linkages between relationship management strategies and relati onship quality outcomes (i.e., Bortree, 2007; Ki, 2006; Waters, 2007) is that the assurance s strategy is highly correlated with trust and control mutuality. Moreover, testing the effect of the newly proposed relationship strategy, participation, on relationship quality outcomes is essential for the present study. Therefore, it is necessary to test the associations between relationship strategies and quality ou tcomes, and the following research question is posed : RQ 4 : W hich of the seven relationship management strategies are most strongly associated with the four relationship quality outcomes? he relationship between relationship management strategies and relationship quality outcomes. The mediating role denotes the intervention of a third variable in the relationship between two constructs. That is, relationship management strategies have indir Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: H3 a the four re lationship quality outcomes.
104 H 4 a the four relationship quality outcomes H 5 a no the four relationship quality outcomes H 6 a the four relationship quality outcomes H 7 a the four relationship quality outcomes H8 a strategy and the four relationship quality outcomes H 9 a the four relationship quality outcomes In addition the present study aims to test the linkages between relationship shows direct and indirect effect s of relationship s (i.e., relationship quality outcomes) on sequential linkages between relationship quality outcomes and the organization and their behavioral intention. Bortree (2010) revealed a direct influence of relationship outcomes on future volunteer behavior. Sargeant and Lee (200 4) and Sargeant et al. (200 5a ) found correlation between relationship dimensions which differ from those used in public relations studies, and actual giving behavior. Howev e r except for Sargeant and his associate s ies (2004; 2005 a ; 200 5b ), scholars have not explore d the individual influences of each relationship quality outcome on behavioral intention. Therefore, the following research question is posed
105 RQ 5 : To what extent are the four relationship quality outcomes positively associated with donors intended future behavior? factor many empowerment scholars have sought the effect of empowerment on behavior. For example, Amabile (1988) found that employee empowerment results in creative and innovative behavior. Even though the positive effect s of public empowerment on both publics themselves and organizations have been addressed by many scholars, the effect of empowerment on behavior has not been tested in the nonprofit setting. Therefore, the following research question is proposed: RQ6 : intended future behavior? Figure 2 1 presents the proposed model to be tested in this study.
106 Figure 2 1. Proposed model D irect relationship I n direct relationship (Mediation effect of empowerment)
107 CHAPTER 3 METHOD The purpose of the study is to examine the linkages among relationship behavioral intention. To address research questions and test hypotheses proposed i n the previous chapter, this chapter describes the method employed in this study. More specifically, descriptions of the population and sample of the study, online survey procedures, measurement of the concepts, and data analysis are discussed. Population s and Sample Selection The population of interest in this study is all individual donors who contribute to nonprofit charitable organizations in the United States. As stated earlier, there are over 950,000 charitable nonprofit organizations registered wit h the IRS (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2010). However, the complexity of the sector and the IRS reporting law s inhibit the identification of a comprehensive list of charitable organizations and individual donors. Moreover, access to donors of specific organizations is impossible without the its understanding of the value of research. Therefore, it was important to select charitable organizations that appreciate the value of research and consider the collaborati on as an opportunity to improve donor relationships. Also, to ensure cross validation of the model proposed, the study aimed to recruit participants from donors of various nonprofit organizations rather than focus on donors of a single nonprofit organizat ion. To recruit the charitable organizations to participate in the study, the researcher contacted more than 100 nonprofit charitable organizations located in Gainesville,
108 Florida, seeking their collaboration via sending a research invitation letter (Appendix A). The letter include d a brief description of the purpose of the study and the research procedure Also, the researcher highlighted the potential benefits of participation explaining that b y participating i n the research, organizations would receive a custom report that organization and their f uture giving behavior. To avoid potential invasion of donor privacy the researcher specified that the charitable organizations would administer the invitations to their donors themselves and their contact information therefore would not need to provid e t he researcher with a list of donors. After numerous follow up calls and several meetings with nonprofit organizations that showed initial interests, five nonprofit charitable organizations with various missions agreed to participate in the study. To ensur e the confidentiality of these organizations the names and detailed information of all participating organizations are not revealed intentionally in this study Instead, the researcher assigned each organization a designated code (organization A through E ) and classified them by their field of work. Using this code, the organizations participating in this study are: an arts/ cultural or ganization (organization A), a human services organization supporting the needs of girls (organization B), an e nvironment al /animal rights organization (organization C), a c ommunity service organization (organization D) and an i mmigrant support organization (organization E) Organization A is a university affiliated art museum whose mission is to promote the arts and culture. Organization B is a human services organization that has
109 supported girls in the local community for over 25 years. Organization C is dedicated to reducing the cat popu lation in the local community by providing free spay/neuter services. As a local chapter of a national charitable organization, o rganization D support s various issues in the local community such as education, financial stability and independence, and heal th. Lastly, o rganization E is established to assist migrant farm workers and their families in the United States. In terms of sample size, some scholars recommend that 150 responses are a minimum number for structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis in t he communication field (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Holbert & Stephenson, 2002) whereas Hoyle and Kenny (1999) suggest 200 responses as a fair guideline. Additionally, Hair et al. (2006) argued that at least 5 observations per measurement item are required for SEM. The study has a total of 70 items to measure the key variables (relationship management strategies donors empowerment, relationship quality outcomes, and behavioral intention). Reflecting guideline s the minimum sample size for thi s study would be 350 valid recommendations for sample size in studies employing SEM Thus, the study aimed to collect at least 350 valid responses from the sample To determine the sampling frame fro m the five organizations participating in the study the researcher considered donors who ha d made a donation to the organization within five fiscal years as possible participants Using this criterion, and e xcluding those donors who do not desire to receive any contact or whose email addresses were no longer valid, the organizations participating in the study compiled an available donor list.
110 T he donors were split into two groups based on the size of their donation s : major gift donors and annual givi ng donors Major gift donors are those who contribute larger gifts to the organization than annual giving donors do. While there w ere differen t criteri a to distinguish these strata organization s A, B, C, and D included both annual giving donors and major gift donors in their sampling. Organization E had only had major gift donors because the majority of donors of the c ommunity service organization (organization D) are employees of various supporting companies and donate through a workplace campaign th is o rganization does not have direct contact with these donors Considering th is unique situation, only major gift donors with wh om organization D does have direct contact were considered for sampling. Following the sampling procedure at the organization level, a total of 2,592 donors from the five nonprofit organizations were pulled as the sample. More specifically, the sample consisted of 575 donors from organization A, 262 donors from organization B, 682 donors from organization C, 1,000 donors from organization D, and 73 donors from organization E All five nonprofit organizations preferred an online survey to further protect donor s privacy. In addition the organizations reported that their most f requently used channel for communicating with donors was email. T he researcher provided each nonprofit organization with tailored survey links, which included the organization s logos and the name. Except for organization D the researcher provided two ide ntical survey links to track responses from donor type s : one for annual giving donors and another for major gift donors
111 While the researcher, on behalf of the organization, distributed the survey link to the donors of organization B the other four nonprofit organizations sent the survey links to their donors themselves To encourage donors to participate in the survey, organizations A through D agreed to send out a survey invitation before sending the links to the survey, and to send two reminders after sending the survey links. D ue to a l ack of manpower, organization E sent only the invitation letter including survey link. After the researcher provided the participating organizations with draft letters of invitation, draft letter s with l ink s and reminder email templates the organizations made any necessary revisions. The letters emphasized the value of the study, and ensured the donors about the anonymity of their participation. Samples of the invitation, cover letter s with links and r eminder messages are placed in Appendix B, C, and D, respectively Online Survey To address the research questions and hypotheses proposed, a survey research method was employed. As the most widely adopted method in the social sciences, a survey method is appropriate for social scientists who seek to collect data describing a situation or phenomenon (Babbie, 2010). M o reover, survey is considered the best method to collect data from a population which is too large to directly observe (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). Wimmer and Dominick (2006) argued that there are two different types of survey method s: descriptive and analytical. Whereas a descriptive survey is used to depict a situation in the moment, an analytical survey is used to explain why situations exist (p. 179 emphasis in the original ). An analytical survey offers researchers the opportunity to
112 understand interrelationships among the variables in which the researchers are interested. Th erefore, this study employed an analytical survey to expl ore the dynamic linkages among relationship management strategies, donors psychological empowerment, relationship quality outcomes and behavioral intention An online survey was conducted to address the research questions and hypotheses proposed An online survey in general, has the advantages of convenience and efficiency in data collection in spite of the lack of control over the data gathering procedure (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). In addition, online survey s eliminate interviewer error and bi as while ensuring anonymity in responses (Sheehan & H oy, 1999). The current study employed an online survey for two main reasons. First, a web based survey is an effective method to collect data in the context of the fast growth and use of online communic ation. Adopting Internet technology has become common, and 80 percent of the American population use the Internet (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2006). Moreover, early in the 21 st Century, about 40 million full time workers in the nation had Internet access in their work environment, and two thirds of them accessed the Internet at least once per day (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2000). The second reason for using a web ba sed survey was because it was the preferred method of the participating nonprofit organizations, who did not want to reveal their donors names or mailing addresses. Survey Instrument The survey questionnaire for this study is composed of five measurement sets: 1) intended future behavior, and 5) demographic
113 and donation history. The scales are revised to reflect nonprofit donor relationsh ips. Detailed explanations of each measurement scale are presented in the following sections A 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 equals Strongly Disagree to 7 equals Strongly Agree w as used for all measures except for the demographic variables. The University of Florida Institutional Review Board I nformed C onsent F orm and the final survey questionnaire are placed in Appendix E and F respectively. Relationship Management Strategies After a review of relevant literature, the present study proposes a new set of relationship management strategies that may influence set of seven relationship management strategies are as follows: 1) five of Hon and J. E. (1999) relationship management strategies, 2 stewardship concept and 3) participation from transparent communication suggested by Rawlins (2009) First, to measure the five symmetrical relatio nship management strategies of openness, positivity, assurance s sharing of tasks, and access, the present study adopt ed the scales that Waters (2007) modified from In her dissertation, Ki originally developed relationship m anagement strategies that had been proposed by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999), by adapting interpersonal relationship indicators of Stafford and Canary (1991). Waters (2007; 2011) later revised the measurement scales to test nonprofit donor relationship s T he second part of relationship management strategies is reciprocity, one management strategies failed to incorporate additional symmetrical strategies
114 suggested by Hung (2002) a nd Kelly (1998; 2001), Waters (2007) proposed s w ere tested among healthcare nonprofit organizations, Dell (2009) later adopted and revised them ip practice Of the four elements of stewardship, reciprocity, reporting, responsibility, and relationship nurturing, the present study adopts only reciprocity which has a unique contribution to relationship management strategies. In addition, the prese nt study introduces participation as another important relationship management strategy psychological empowerment. As a key component of transparent communication, participation leads to two way symmetric al rel sense of participatory communication in conceptualization, the scholars failed to highlight its value in effective public relationship management. Th is study e mploys measurement scales of participation, an element of transparent communication, suggested by Rawlins (2009). In sum, measurement scales for relationship management strategies were composed of four items for each symmetrical relationship management strateg y (i.e., openness, positivity, assurance s sharing of tasks, and access ), four items for reciprocity, and six items for participation. A total of 30 items were randomly ordered in the survey questionnaire. Table 3 1 presents the relationship managem ent strategies to be tested in this study.
115 mpowerment The study adopt ed empowerment. Spreitzer developed measurement scales of four components of psychological empowerment, which w (1990): meaning, competence, autonomy, and impact. Each component has three measurement items ; thus, a total of 12 items of psychological empowerment scales were adopted in this study. While the original scales were developed to measure employee s were modified to reflect a donor public. The items were randomly ordered in the survey questionnaire. Table 3 2 R elationship Quality Outcomes The study measures the 4 dimensions of relationship quality outcomes control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment originally suggested by Y. H. Huang on and J. E. Grunig proposed two sets of relationship quality outcomes measurements: the full set includes 35 items (8 for control mutuality, 8 for satisfaction, 11 for trust, and 8 for commitment) whereas a shorter version set contains 21 items (5 for co ntrol mutuality, 6 for satisfaction, 5 for trust, and 5 for commitment). The purpose of having two sets of measurement scales wa s to anticipate wide adoption of scales, reflecting the diversity of organization public relationships. Hon and J. E. Grunig sug choose the number of items that best fit the ir suggestion Waters (2007) adopted the shortened scales of the four constructs and one additional item from the full scales for both control mutu ality and satisfaction. The present study employ ed the same items that Waters adopted. Consistent with other
1 16 measurement scales, a total of 23 relationship quality outcomes measures were randomly ordered in the survey form. Table 3 3 presents the relations hip quality outcomes measurement scales to be tested in this study. Future Behavior including g iving intention s As the most reliable predictor of actual behavior, behavior al intention falls under the conative construct category with behavior and action (Ray, 1973). To ed by Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996), which have been employed in other public relations research, including Ki (2006) and Bortree (2007; 2010). Reflecting nonprofit donor relationships, five items are used to measure behavior al intention with th ree items related to donors future giving behavior and two items related to donors word of mouth (WOM) behavior. Table 3 4 presents the measurement items of the behavioral intention of donors. Demographic and Other Information At the end of questionnaire, several demographic items were asked, including history and related information, such as donation amount and years of contribution to that char itable organization or to other organizations, were addressed. Pretest Prior to the actual survey, a pretest was conducted to detect any possible issues related to design, layout, and wording of the questionnaire as well as the procedure of the survey. According to Wimmer and Dominick (2007), pretest s are considered the
117 Visser, Krosnick, and Lavrakas (2000) also emphasized the value of a pretest, by st ating that retesting is especially important when data are to be collected via self administered questionnaires, because interviewers will not be available to clarify question meaning or probe incomplete answers (p. 243). For this study, two steps of p retest were conducted. First, several fundraisers and donor relationship managers in participating organizations reviewed the survey questionnaires. Once the survey questionnaires were reviewed and somewhat revised by suggestions from the nonprofit manager s, the survey was tested among a general sample of people who have contributed to a nonprofit charitable organization. For the pretest, an online survey link was disseminated to acquaintances of the researcher and 100 donors of one of the participating nonprofit organizations. A total of 34 responses were collected for the pretest. Based on the result s the survey questionnaire w as further revised to better reflect nonprofit donor relationships and demographic information For example two items of recip rocity which were originally stated in the first person were slightly modified and re written to third person to be consistent with other relationship management strategy items. Also, a self employed option was added to the employment status question. Data Analysis To check the overall measurement validity and to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses p rop osed several statistical analyses were used: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modeling (SEM), Pearson s r cor relation, simple linear regression, multiple linear regression mediation analysis with regression and the Sobel test Also, basic descriptive statistics, such as means and standard
118 psychological empowerment, relationship quality outcomes, and future behavioral intention were employed. CFA w as used to estimate a measurement model that explain s the structure among observed and latent variables. After the measurement model was identified, SEM was us ed to check the overall fits of paths in the proposed model. SEM is also called path model. The AMOS 18.0 with maximum likelihood (ML) method was used to test both CFA and SEM. To evaluate the model fit s for CFA and SEM, multiple goodness of fit indices we re used. While the goodness of fit statistic was evaluated, this test is considered a very rigorous criterion because it tests whether the model fits the data perfectly rather than whether the model fits the data well. Also, is highly sensitive to sa mple size (Kline, 2005). Thus, several additional goodness of fit indices were used to assess the model fit, such as /df (the ratio of to the degree of freedom), Bentler s Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and Root mean Square Er ror of Approximation (RMSEA). Dividing by the degree s of freedom ( /df) is used to compensate the sensitivity of to sample size (Kline, 2005), and the general benchmark for /df ratio is 3.0 or less (Bollen, 1989). Comparative Fit Index (CFI) mea sures the relative improvement of the researcher s model fit in comparison to a null or baseline model (Kline, 2005). Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) is known as the Non Normed Fit index (NNFI). Similar to CFI, TLI compares a theoretical measurement model to a baseline model. Both CFI and TLI values greater than .90 have been historically considered as good fit of the researcher s model (Bentler, 1992; Kelloway, 1998).
119 Whereas CFI and TLI are goodness of fit indices, Root mean Square Error of Approximation ( RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) are badness of fit indices. Byrne (2010) and Kline (2005) consider RMSEA values less than or equal to .08 as the critical cut point. Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested SRMR vales less than .08 may be co nsidered as a good fit. Th us, th e study adopted the following criteria for a model fit: > .90 TLI > .9 0 RMSEA < .0 8, and SRMR < .08. The study also conducted a series of Pearson s r correlation simple regression, and multiple regressi on analyses to answer research questions and test hypotheses A lso, a mediation analysis test using regression and a Sobel test were conducted to test the indirect effects of relationship management strategies on relationship quality outcomes through donors psychological empowerment. W h ereas a mediation analysis test using regression shows whether the mediating effect exists or not, a Sobel test confirms whether the indirect effect is statistically significant
120 Table 3 1. Measures of relationship management strategies Variable Item Openness OPN1 information for donors. OPN2 The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what it does with donations. (Reverse) OPN3 The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. OPN4 The organization shares enough information with donors Positivity POS1 Re ceiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to donors. POS2 courteous. POS3 The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enjoyable. POS4 The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them. (Reverse) Assurances ASS1 The organization makes a genuine effort to provide ASS2 The organization communicates the importance of its donors. ASS3 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes these concerns seriously. ASS4 Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their concerns. (Reverse) Sharing of tasks STK1 The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. (Reverse) STK2 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about. STK3 The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. STK4 The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns. Access ACC1 The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. (Reverse) ACC2 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff. ACC3 When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. ACC4 The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for specific staff on specific issues.
121 Table 3 1. Continued. Variable Item Reciprocity RCP1 The organization acknowledges donations in a timely manner. RCP2 The organization always sends donors a thank you letter for their donations. RCP3 The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their contributions. (Reverse) RCP4 Because of their previous donations, the organization recognizes donors as friend s Participation PAR1 The organization asks for feedback from donors about the quality of its information. PAR2 The organization involves donors to help identify the information they need. PAR3 The organization provides detailed information to donors. PAR4 The organization makes it easy to find the information donors need. PAR5 The organization asks the opinions of donors before making decisions. PAR6 The organization takes the time with donors to understand who they are and what they need.
122 Table 3 2. Measures of psychological empowerment Variable Item Meaning MEA1 My giving to the organization is very important to me. MEA2 My philanthropic activities with the organization are personally meaningful to me. MEA3 My giving to the organization is meaningful to me. Competenc e CPT1 I am confident about my ability to meet my and the organization s best interests CPT2 I am self assured about my capabilities to perform my philanthropic activities CPT3 I have learned the skills necessary for giving effectively. Autonomy AUT1 I have significant autonomy in determining how I give to the organization. AUT2 I can decide on my own how to go about making my gifts AUT3 I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I give to the organization. Impact IMP1 My impact on what happens in the organization is large IMP2 I have a great deal of control over what happens in the organization. IMP3 I have significant influence over what happens in the organization.
123 Table 3 3. Measures of relationship quality outcomes Variable Item Control mutuality CMT1 The organization and donors are needs. CMT2 The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are important. (Reverse) CMT3 I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. CMT4 The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. CMT5 When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control over the situation. CMT6 The organization gives donors enough say in the decision making process. Satisfaction SAT1 Donors are happy with the organization. SAT2 Both the organization and its donors benefit from their relationship. SAT3 Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization. SAT4 Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has established with me. SAT5 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse) SAT6 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. Trust TRU1 The organization respects its donors. TRU2 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors. TRU3 When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. TRU4 I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. TRU5 I feel very accomplish its mission. TRU6 The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and objectives. (Reverse) Commitment CMM1 I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long term commitment w ith donors. CMM2 I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. (Reverse) CMM3 There is a long lasting bond between the organization and its donors. CMM4 Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. CMM5 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not.
124 Table 3 4. Measures of b ehavioral i ntention Behavioral intention INT1 I will continue donating to the organization in the near future. INT2 INT3 I will increase the amount of my gifts to the organization. I will recommend to my friends and relatives t hat they donate to the organization. INT 4 I will say positive things about the organization to my friends and relatives INT 5 I f I am ever in the position of making a very large gift, I will ta lk to this organization first
125 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter details the study s results. It includes a brief description of samples such as response rate and demographic information. Also, the chapter presents descriptive statistics of measurement items. Finally, research questions are answered and hypotheses are test ed. Description of Survey Participants As stated in the previous chapter, the sample frame for the study was the donors of five nonprofit organizations. The participating organizations have various missions: an arts and cultural o rganization (organization A), a human services organization supporting the needs of girls (organization B), an e nvironment al /animal rights organization (organizati on C), a c ommunity service organization (organization D) and an i mmigrant support organization (organization E) The survey instruments were distributed from February 28 to March 23, 2012. The following section discusses response rates of the donor partic ipants at each organization and the demographic s of the respondents. R e sponse Rates A total of 2,592 donors across the five nonprofit organizations were invited to participate in the survey, and a total of 455 responses were collected. Some respondents d ropped out of the survey or failed to answer the questions related to the proposed model Due to the advanced statistical analysis used in this study (i.e., structural equation modeling ) a strict criterion on complete data was upheld Therefore, a survey was considered complete when the participant answer ed the se ctions that are essential to test the proposed model ( i.e. sections related to the relationship strategies
126 and outcomes, psychological empowerment, and future behavioral intention ) O nly complete surveys were used for the data analysis. Among the 455 questionnaires submitted a total of 370 were complete. The response rate for all submitted questionnaires was 17.55%, and the response rate for complete questionnaires was 14.27%. Table 4 1 summarizes the response rates for all five organization s Looking at the response rate for each organization, 575 donors of organization A were invited to participate in the survey. Following the invitation email, an email letter with the survey link and two remin der s 162 donors initiated fill ing out the questionnaires but only 121 respondents complete d it Thus, the response rate of all submitted questionnaires was 28.17% whereas the response rate for complete responses was 21.04%. A total of 262 donors of the organizations supporting girls (organization B) were contacted for this study. Just like the previous organization, they received an invitation email, a message with the survey link, and two reminder emails. From these messages 67 questionnaires were collected and the response rate was 25.57% Among these 67 questionnaires the complete questionnaires were 55, yielding a response rate of 20.99%. A total of 682 donors of for the e nvironment al /animal rights organization (organization C) received the su rvey link. With the four instances of communication to encourage their participation same as those for the organizations listed above a total 97 questionnaires ( 14.22% response rate) were collected including 17 incomplete questionnaires T he response ra te for 80 complete questionnaires was 11.73%
127 The participation of donors of the c ommunity service organization (organization D) was quite low compared to other organizations. While 1,000 donors were contacted with four waves of emails, only 80 donors in itiated the survey ( 8.0 % response rate), and only 67 complete d the questionnaires yielding a 6.7% response rate. On the other hand, even though the sample size of the i mmigrant support organization (organization E) was small, more than 60% of donors who received the survey link participated in the survey with only a one time contact. Of the 73 donors invited to participate 49 questionnaires (67.12% response rate) were collected and 47 of them were complete. Therefore, the response rat e for complete questionnaires was 64.38%. The samples from the five organizations were integrated for this study. Of 370 donors, 121 (32.70%) were from o rganization A 55 (14 86%) from o rganization B 80 (21.62%) from organization C, 67 (18.11%) from orga nization D and 47 (12.70%) from organization E (Table 4 2). The responses were further examined to detect outliers or invalid items Whereas outliers were defined as responses whose standardize d scores exceed 4 (Hair et al., 2006), invalid items were case s in which respondents answered the entire questions with the neu t ral point of 4 After excluding 13 questionnaires that were considered as either outliers or invalid, a total of 357 cases were used for data analysis. Demographic P rofile As shown in Table 4 3, of the 357 donors, 352 respondents provided their gender information The majority of the sample were female ( N = 256 or 71.7%) whereas 96 (27.3%) were male. In terms of the highest level of education, 11 (3.1%) were high school graduates, 53 (14.8%) had some college degree 95 (26.6%)
128 completed a four year college degree education. The majority ( N = 199 or 55.7%) held a graduate degree, including an MA or Ph.D. Regarding the ethnicity of the respondents the majority of the sample were Caucasian ( N = 324 or 91.5%), followed by Hispanic/Latino (3.7%), African American/Black ( N = 8 or 2.3%), and Asian ( N = 3 or .8%). Six of the respondents (1.7%) identifi ed their ethnicity as other and 3 did not answer this question Among the 331 respondents who provided their household income information for last year 62 (18.7%) earned less than $50,000, 127 (38.4%) earned between $50,001 and $100,000, 63 (19.0%) earn ed between $100,001 and $150,000, 38 (11.5%) had income of between $150,001 and $200,000, 15 (4.5%) earned between $200,001 and $250,000. There were 26 respondents (7.9%) whose house hold income last year was more than $250,000. The majority were employed f ull time ( N = 203 or 57.5%), followed by those who were retired ( N = 80 or 22.7%). Another 26 (7.4%) were self employed while 25 (7.1%) were employed part time. Four (1.1%) unemployed people 4 (1.1%) homemakers, and 3 ( 0 .8%) students also participated in the study. The average age was 57.21 ( SD = 12.21). The majority ( N = 193 or 54.4%) had lived in their current community for over 20 years. Seventy nine (22.3%) had lived in their community for 10 to 20 years and 72 (20.3%) had lived in their community for 2 to 10 years. O n ly 11 (3.1%) were newcomers, who had lived in their community less than 2 years. The s urvey also asked some questions about donors charitable giving behavior. The average years of donation to the organization was 9.41 ( SD = 8.22), rang ing from less than one year to 41 years. The mean of total donation amount during the last three years was $1 821.66 ( SD = $ 4 634.25). Including the organization through which they
129 were contacted the survey respondents donated to an average of 8.79 nonpro fit organizations ( SD = 13.52) each year The majority of sample were annual giving donors ( N = 268 or 72.43%). Descriptive Statistics Prior to answering the research questions and testing hypotheses, descriptive statistic al analyses were conducted. Means and standardized deviations of measurements of all items and constructs relationship management strategies, psychological empowerment, relationship quality outcomes, and future behavioral intention were calculated The means and stan dard deviations for relationship management strategies and donors psychological empowerment appear in Table 4 4 and Table 4 5, respectively. Table 4 6 shows the means and standard deviations for relationship quality outcomes, and Table 4 7 reports the des criptive statistics for donors future behavioral intention. Relationship M anagement S trategies As Table 4 4 shows, donors in this study rated positively the seven relationship management strategies, with the mean score for the total relationship managem ent strategies of 5.58 ( SD = .90). Of these seven relationship management strategies, reciprocity ( M = 6.12, SD = .88) was perceived by donors as the most used strategy followed by positivity ( M = 5.97, SD = .78), access ( M = 5.71, SD = 1.05), assurance s ( M = 5.63, SD = 1.06), sharing of tasks ( M = 5.35, SD = 1.06), and openness ( M = 5.19, SD = 1.14). While participation ( M = 5.07, SD = 1.14) was perceived as the least used strategy it was still above the neutral point of 4.0 meaning that the study find nonprofits do employ participation as a relationship management strategy
130 Of the 30 measurement items of relationship management strategies, donors perceived the following item as the most common indicator : s communication with donors is courteous ( M = 6.34, SD = .95). On the other hand, respondents agreed the least with the following item: T he organization asks the opinions of donors before making decisions ( M = 4.39, SD = 1.36). Donors P sychological E mpowerment As stated in the previous chapter, donors psychological empowerment consists of four constructs : meaning, competenc e autonomy, and impact. The overall mean of empowerment was 5.23 ( SD = .84). Of the four construct s donors reported feelings of meaning most strongly ( M = 6.00, SD = .99) whereas they disagreed that they felt they had impact ( M = 3.51, SD = 1.45) The average scores of competenc e and autonomy were 5.47 ( SD = 1.36) and 5.93 ( SD = .93 ), respectively. Among the 12 empowerment measure ment items, donors agreed with the following item regarding meaning : My giving to the organization is meaningful to me. ( M = 6.12, SD = 1.06) and most disagreed with the item measuring impact: I have a great deal of control over what happens in the organization received the lowest score ( M = 3.06, SD = 1.54). Table 4 5 shows more detailed information about means and standard deviations of empowerment measurement items. Relationship Q uality O utcomes Table 4 6 shows means and standard deviations of measurement of the four relationship quality outcomes. The overall mean for the relationship quality outcome items was 5.49 ( SD = 0 .84), showing that donors, in general, ha ve a positive perception of the ir relationship with the nonprofit organization to w hich they contributed. Of the four constructs measured trust was the outcome most strongly reported by donors ( M =
131 5.70, SD = .95), followed by commitment ( M = 5.63, SD = .97), and satisfaction ( M = 5.58, SD = .98). Although control mutuality ( M = 5.06, SD = 1.02) was the least reported outcome, it was still above the neutral point of 4. Among the 23 items that measure d relationship quality outcomes, the following trust indicator was the highest rated: The organization does not have the ability to meet i ts goals and objectives [ Reverse ] ( M = 6.08, SD = 1.10) The lowest rated outcome item was the control mutuality indicator: When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control over the situation was the least positively perceived ( M = 4.69, SD = 1.22). Behavioral Intention Five items were used to measure donors behavior al intentions The overall mean for behavioral intention was 5.42 ( SD = 1.00). Of the five items, donors most strongly agreed with the item stating I will say positive things about the organization to my friends and relatives ( M = 6.27, SD = .97) whereas they least agreed with the item, I will increase the amount of my gifts to the organization ( M = 4.48, SD = 1.37). Good ne ws for the five nonprofits participating in the study was that donors strongly indicated that they would continue donating to their related organization in the near future ( M = 6.20, SD = .93). Reliability To assess reliability, Cronbach s alpha test was conducted. Adopting a guidance suggested by Langdridge (2004) and Hair et al. (2006), the study considered a Cronbach s alpha score of .70 as an expected alpha to demonstrate good internal consistency of measurement As Table 4 8 displays, Cronbach s alphas for all constructs tested varied and rang ed from .69 to .90. In particular, Cronbach s alphas for control mutuality (.90), satisfaction (.90), and trust (.90) were excellent. While
132 Cronbach s alpha for positivity was the lowest (.69) it was acceptable Thus, the Cronbach s alpha test demonstrated internal consistency in the constructs measured in this study. Measurement Validity Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 18.0 was conducted to assess the validity of measurement used in this study. W hereas exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used to identify new factors among indicators, CFA is an appropriate method to explore the extent to which observed variables explain a latent variable (Kline, 2005) In other words, CFA is calle d a measurement model because it evaluates how well scale items fit with the constructs based on the theoretical evidence. A series of confirmatory factor analysis was run for relationship management strategies, relationship quality outcomes, donors psyc hological empowerment and donors behavior al intention s More specifically, two sets of first order CFA analysis were conducted to explore 1) how well 30 measured items of relationship management strategies explain the seven relationship management strategies and 2) how well 23 measurement items of relationship quality outcomes describe the four dimensions of relationship quality outcomes. A f ter modifying the relationship between items and latent variables based on the first two sets of C FA, another CFA analysis was conducted to assess the overall measurement model fit, including all items measured in this study. As stated in chapter 3, five criteria for a good model fit were adopted to assess the measurement properties: 1) a ratio of Ch i square to degree s of freedom ( 3.00), 2) the comparative fit analysis (CFI) ( .90), 3) Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ( .90), 4) the
133 standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ( .08) and 5) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ( .08). The first CFA was conducted to assess the model fit of seven relationship management strategies. The initial CFA result indicated that the model fit did not m e et criteria for a good model fit ( /df = 4.63 ; CFI= 83 ; TLI = 80 ; SRMR = .064; RMSEA= 0 1 01). To improve the model fit, the factor loading scores of items on each relationship strategy variable were examined. Positivity 1 ( = .41) was deleted due to its undesirable factor loading which scored less than .50, the critical value for measuring conve rgent validity (Hair et al., 2006 ). To keep parsimony of items the items having the low est factor loadings of each variable were dropped. Therefore, openness 1 ( = .51), access 2 ( = .65), reciprocity 1 ( = .65), sharing of tasks 2 ( = .72), participation 3 ( = .67), and participation 5 ( = .72) also were dropped. An i nspection of and modification indices (MI) scores was conducted to further improve the fit of the model. Defined as the amount the overall model X 2 value would be reduced by freeing any singly particular path that is not currently estimated (Hair et al., 2006, p. 772), MI scores offer a possible way for improv ing model fit. There were several large MI scores found. MI between sharing of tasks 1 1 and assurance s 4 2 w as 62.98; MI between participation 2 3 and sharing of task s 3 4 was 87.44; MI between assurance s 4 5 and access 1 6 was 41.24; and MI between reciprocity 2 7 and positivity 1 The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. 2 Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their concerns. 3 The organization involves donors to help identify the information they need. 4 The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. 5 Donors do not believe that the organization real ly cares about their concerns.
134 2 8 was 7.46. By introducing covariance between these problematic items, the final model fit was significantly improved ( /df = 3.89 ; CFI= 9 2 ; TLI = 9 0 ; SRMR = .064; RMSEA= .08). While the ratio of Chi square to degree of freedom did not me e t the critical point, the model did me e t other criteria. Thus, the model fit was considered to be acceptable. Turning to relationship quality outcomes, except SRMR, the CFA test failed to achieve the desired criteria for a good model fit ( /df = 7.14 ; CFI= 81 ; TLI = 78 ; SRMR = .065; RMSEA= .13). The same techniques to improve a model fit were condu cted. After detecting the factor loadings of items on latent variables, all factor loadings ranged from .60 to .86 well above .50, the critical point suggested by Hair et al. (2006) Despite the high factor loading s high MI scores were observed. The larg est MI score was found between control mutuality 2 9 and commitment 2 10 (188.08), followed by satisfaction 5 11 and commitment 2 (137.53), satisfaction 3 12 and satisfaction 6 13 (81.84), trust 5 14 and trust 6 15 (37.172), trust 4 16 and control mutuality 3 17 (31.64), commitment 5 18 and 6 The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. 7 The organization always sends donors a thank you letter for their donations. 8 9 The o rganization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are important. 10 I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. 11 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. 12 Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization. 13 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. 14 15 The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and objectiv es. 16 I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions.
135 commitment 4 19 (26.62). To achieve parsimony of items, control mutuality 2, satisfaction 5, commitment 2, trust 6, trust 4, and commitment 5 were deleted. Also, satisfaction 3 and satisfaction 6 were covariated. After dropping hi ghly correlated items, the CFA result improved meeting all desired criteria for a good model fit ( /df = 2.25 ; CFI= 9 5 ; TLI = 9 4 ; SRMR = .037; RMSEA= .08). While the model fits for two sets of measurement relationship management strategies and relationship quality outcomes were met, high correlation among the factors was detected. As Table 4 9 shows, the seven relationship management strategies are highly correlated with each other. Also, the four relationship quality outcomes ar e highly associ ated with each other and with the relationship management strategies Given the high correlations, the second order factorial structure approach ( a second order CFA) for both relationship management strategies and relationship quality outcomes was adopted when testing the overall measurement fit. The initial CFA model fit results needed to be improved ( /df = 2.52 ; CFI= 86 ; TLI = 85 ; SRMR = .068; RMSEA= .065). MI scores recommended covariat ing competenc e with autonomy (M I = 64.47) and drop ping behavioral intentio n 5 which w as highly correlated wit h other items. After adjusting the MI scores, the CFA was re tested. The final CFA test for all measurement s in the model was as follows: /df = 2.41 ; CFI= 8 7 ; TLI = 86 ; SRMR = .065; RMSEA= .063. W hile the CFI and TLI values indicators of the goodness of fit di d not meet the criteria, SRMR and RMSEA values 17 I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. 18 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. 19 Com pared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more.
136 indicators of the badness of fit met the criteria. Because this model employed a second order CFA whose goodness of fit is always lower than goodness of fit of the first order CFA ( Doll, Xia & Torkzadeh 1994) and meeting the badness of fit criteria is more appropriate than meeting the goodness of fit criteria in this study it was considered as the final model fit Based on this measurement model, path analysis was conducted to test the linkages among relationship management strategies donors psychological empowerment, relationship quality outcomes, and behavioral intentions. Even though path analysis b ased on second order CFA explains how the overall relationship management strategy as a uni dimension is linked to donors psychological empowerment and the overall relationship quality outcome it does not evaluate how each relationship management strategy uniquely explains the variance of the dependent variables (i.e., donors psychological empowerment and the four dimensions of relationship quality outcomes) Thus, multiple regression, correlation, and med iating test with regression were mainly used to test the hypotheses and answer research questions whereas path analysis was used to explain the overall linkages among the variables. Table 4 10 shows the summary of model fit indices for CFA mod els. Evidence for Research Questions and Hypotheses Linkages between R elationship M anagement S trategies and D onors Psychological E mpowerment Research q uestion 1 RQ1: With regard to donors psychological empowerment, which dimension is perceived as the most important?
137 The first research question examined the four constructs of donors psychological empowerment. As shown in Table 4 5, the data show that, of the four constructs meaning was the one that was evaluated most strongly by the donors ( M = 6.00, SD = .99). Donors also agreed that they have high autonomy ( M = 5.93 SD = .93 ) and competenc e ( M = 5.47 SD = 1. 01 ). However, donors reporte d that they do not feel they have impact on the nonprofit organizations to which they donate ( M = 3.51, SD = 1.45). Research q uestion 2 RQ2: To what extent do donors perceive that nonprofit organizations are employing the seven relationship management strategies? The study proposed seven relationship management strategies that may enhance both donors psychological empowerment and relationship quality outcomes. The seven relationship management strategies are openness, positivity, assurance s access, reciprocity, and participation. The second research question asked which of the relationship management strategies nonprofit organizations most used a s perceived by donors. As shown in Table 4 4, reciprocity ( M = 6.12, SD = .88) is the most used relationship management strategy perceived by donors followed by positivity ( M = 5.97, SD = .78), access ( M = 5.71, SD = 1.05), assurance s ( M = 5.63, SD = 1.06), sharing of tasks ( M = 5.35, SD = 1.06), openness ( M = 5.19, SD = 1.14), and participation ( M = 5.07, SD = 1.14). Hypothesis 1 seven relationship management empowerment.
138 The first hypothesis predicted a positive correlation between relationship management strategies and donors psychological empowerment. To test hypothesis 1, several statistical analyses such as Pearson s r correlation and multiple regression were employed. Pearson s r correlations demonstrate the degree of a linear relationship between two variables. As shown i n Tab l e 4 11 donors psychological empowerment is positively and statistically significantly correlated with all seven relationship management strategies at the p = .00 level: openness ( r = .55), positivity ( r = .50), assurance s ( r = .56), sharing of task s ( r = .57), access ( r = .47), reciprocity ( r = .47), and participation ( r = .54). While Pearson s correlations of access and reciprocity with donors psychological empowerment are not as strong as the correlations for the other 5 strategies, they are stil l moderately strong and statistically significant To test hypothesis 1 with a more sophisticated analysis, multiple regression was employed. Even though none of the variance inflating factors (VIF) for any of the independent variables was over 10, the wi dely accepted cutoff point for tolerance (Hair et al., 2006), the high correlation among the independent variables was considered. With this in mind it was necessary to check the relative effect of each independent variable. Multiple regression analysis a llows a researcher to explain the effect of an explanatory variable while controlling other independent variables in the model (Agresti & Finaly, 2009). For the regression analysis, the seven relationship management strategies were considered independent v ariables and donors psychological empowerment was the dependent variable. As shown in Table 4 12 the multiple regression analysis of donors psychological empowerment as a dependent variable was significant [F(7, 349) = 29.34,
139 p = .00], accounting for 37% of the variance. Of the seven relationship management strategies, only two have significant effects on donors psychological empowerment: openness ( = .19, t = 2.25, p < .05) and sharing of tasks ( = .23, t = 2.29, p < .05). Thu s, based on the two levels of analys i s H1 was partially supported. Research q uestion 3 RQ3: Which of the seven relationship management strategies are psychological empowerment? Research question 3 further explored the relationships between relationship management strategies and the four dimensions of donors psychological empowerment meaning, competenc e autonomy, and impact. To address the research question, a series of multiple regression analys e s was conducted. The first multiple regression was conducted with the seven relationship management strategies as independent variables and meaning as the dependent variable. As stated earlier meaning was the dimension of psychological empowerment that donors perceived most strongly. The regression analysis result was significant [F(7, 349) = 20.05, p < .00 1 ] and R 2 was .29. As Table 4 13 shows, of the seven relationship management strategies, the effects of positivity ( = .21, t = 2. 43, p < .05), sharing of tasks ( = .22, t = 2.06, p < .05), and reciprocity ( = .15, t = 2. 01 p < .05) on meaning were statistically significant at p = .05. While the result also showed that there was a significant effect of access on meaning ( = .22, t = 2.45, p < .05), the direction of effect was negative. The second multiple regression analysis was employed with competenc e as the dependent variable, addressing which relationship management strategies were highly associated with donors competenc e The overall multiple regression was statistically
140 significant [F(7, 349) = 13.79 p < .00 1 ], explaining 22% of the vari ance. Similar ly to the result for meaning, significantly positive effects of sharing of tasks ( = .31, t = 2.78, p < .0 1 ) and reciprocity ( = .17, t = 2.19, p < .05) on competenc e were found. Table 4 14 displays the results of the analysis. Table 4 15 shows the result of multiple regression analysis that tested the effects of the seven relationship management strategies on dono rs autonomy. The regression analysis result showed that openness ( = .27, t = 2.74, p < .0 1 ) and positivity ( = .21, t = 2.30, p < .05) had effects on donors autonomy. The regression model explained 19% of the variance [F(7, 349) = 12.02, p < .00 1 ]. Lastly, the multiple regression of the seven relationship management strategies with impact was significant [F(7, 349) = 18.90, p < .00 1 ], accounting for 28% of the variance. As shown in Table 4 16 there were the significant effects of assurance s ( = .25 t = 2.34, p < .0 1 ) and positivity ( = .24, t = 2.85, p < .05) on impact. While a nonprofit organization s assurance s strategy was positively related to impact, its positivity strategy was negatively linked with donors impact. Also, there was a positi ve effect of participation strategy ( = .20, t = 1.92, p = .0 6 ) on impact at the p = .10 level. A summary of the effects of seven relationship management strategies on the four dimensions of donors psychological empowerment is shown in Figure 4 1. Linkages between D onors P sychological E mpowerment and R elationship Q uality O utcomes Hypothesis 2 the four quality outcomes of their relationship s with nonprofit organizations.
141 The second hypothesis explored the positive linkages between donors psychological empowerment and the relationship quality outcomes of control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Pearson s r correlation analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis. As shown in Table 4 17 the correlations between donors psychological empowerment and the four relationship quality outcomes were positive and statistically significant at the p = .00 1 level, with coefficients ranging from .63 to .65. The refore, hypothesis 2 was supported. Research q u estion 4 RQ4: Which of the seven relationship management strategies are most strongly associated with the four relationship quality outcomes? As an extension of previous relationship management theory studies (e. g. Bortree, 2010; Ki & H o n, 2007; Waters, 2011), the fourth research question addressed how the extent to which relationship management strategies are linked with relationship quality outcomes. Pearson s r correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted. As Table 4 9 shows the seven relationship management strategies were statistically significantly correlated with four relationship quality outcomes at the p = .00 1 level. In particular, the highest correlation was found in the relationship between assurance s and trust ( r = .82), whereas the lowest correlation which still was relatively strong, existed between reciprocity and control mutuality ( r = .65). A series of multiple regression analyses of the relationship management strategies with the four relationship quality outcomes were conducted. The first multiple regression analysis was to test the effects of the seven relationship management strategies on control mutuality. The regression was significant [F(7, 349) = 136.16, p < .00 1 ], with explanation of 73% of total variance in control mutuality. As shown in Table
142 4 18 assurance s ( = .26, t = 3.97, p < .00 1 ) and sharing of tasks ( = .25, t = 3.88, p < .00 1 ) had strong effects on control mutuality at the p = .00 1 level whereas openness ( = .13, t = 2.24, p < .05) had a moderate effect on control mutuality. The second multiple regression analysis was run to test the relationships between the relationship m anagement strategies and satisfaction. As shown in Table 4 19, t he regression model significantly affected satisfaction [F(7, 349) = 119.72, p < .00 1 ], accounting for 71% of the total variance. Of the seven relationship management strategies, positivity ( = .19, t = 3.50, p < .00 1 ), assurance s ( = .21, t = 2.99, p < .00 1 ), and sharing of tasks ( = .35, t = 5.15, p < .00 1 ) had significant correlations with satisfaction In terms of testing the effects of the relationship management strategies on trust, multiple regression analysis was significant [ F(7, 349) = 148.44, p < .00 1 ] and explain ed 75% of the variance in trust. Positivity ( = .20, t = 3.95, p < .00 1 ), assurance s ( = .28, t = 4.45, p < .00 1 ), sharing of tasks ( = .26, t = 4.03, p < .00 1 ), and reciprocity ( = .17, t = 3.72, p < .00 1) positively influenced the level of trust that donors perceived ( Table 4 20 ). The last multiple regression analysis examined the effects of the seven relationship management strategies on donors commitmen t Results were significant [ F(7 349) = 77.75 p < .00 1 ] and explain ed 61 % of the total variance. As Table 4 21 shows, assurances ( = .25, t = 3.16, p < .0 0 1) was the strongest explanatory variable, followed by reciprocity ( = .18, t = 3.30, p < .0 0 1), sharing of tasks ( = .22, t = 2.81, p < .0 5 ), and positivity ( = .13, t = 2.03, p < .05)
143 A summary of the effects of the seven relationship management strategies on the four relationship quality outcomes is shown in Figure 4 2. Mediating R ole of D onors P sychological E mpowerment in the A ssociation between R elationship M anagement S trategies and R elationship Q uality O utcomes H ypothes e s 3 to 9 addressed the mediating effect of donors psychological empowerment in the association between relationship m anagement strategies and relationship quality outcomes. To test the mediati ng effect, four steps of regression analysis suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) were employed. The four steps of regression equations are as follows: Step 1: simple regression analysis that test the effect of an independent variable on a mediating variable M = 1 1 X Step 2 : simple regression analysis that test the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable Y = 1 1 X Step 3: simple regression analysis that test the effect of a mediating variable on a dependent variable Y = 1 1 M Step 4: multiple regression analysis that test the effects of both an independent variable and a mediating variable on a dependent variable Y = 1 1 X + 2 M W here X = independent variable, M = mediating variable, Y = dependent variable, s = standardized regression coefficients, = error term To test the mediatin g effect, significance on simple regression analyses from 1 to 3 is a prerequisite. M ediat i ng effect exists if the effect of a mediating variable on a dependent variable remains significant while controlling for the effect of an independent variable. Mediating effect can be observed by comparing standardized s of X in step 2 and step 4 When t he standardized of X in step 4 is smaller than the standardized of
144 X in step 2, it can be concluded that M has a mediatin g effect in the relationship between X and Y. In other words, it is considered an indirect effect, which explains the effect of X o n Y through M. Also, as a post hoc test to examine whether or not the indirect effect is statistically significant, Sobel test statistics were examined. Sobel product of coefficients can be calculated by multiplying 1 and 2 in step 4. Hypothesis 3 H3: quality outcomes. To test hypothesis 3 that predicted indirect effects in the relationship between a trategy on the four relationship quality outcomes mediated by step regression analyses were conducted. Also, Sobel test statistics were calculated to check whether the indirect effect is statistically significant. As T able 4 22 shows, the standardized s of openness in step 4 w ere smaller than the standardized s of openness in step 2. Also, the Sobel test statistics that explained the indirect effects of openness to relationship quality outcomes through donors empower ment were statistically significant at the p = .00 1 level across all four relationship quality outcomes: control mutuality (Sobel s test = 9.83, p < .00 1 ), satisfaction (Sobel s test = 9.77, p < .00 1 ), trust (Sobel s test = 9.70, p < .00 1 ), and commitment (Sobel s test = 9.72, p < .00 1 ). Thus, hypothesis 3 w as supported. Hypothesis 4 quality outcomes.
145 H ypothesis 4 predi cted indirect effect s of a positivity strategy on the four relationship quality outcomes through donors psychological empowerment. As shown in Table 4 23 the effect of positivity on the four relationship quality outcomes decreased when controlling for donors empowerment. Also, the Sobel test results showed that positivity has statistically significant indirect effects on control mutuality (Sobel s test = 9.00, p < .00 1 ), satisfaction (S obel s test = 8.95, p < .00 1 ), trust (Sobel s test = 8.90, p < .00 1 ), and commitment (Sobel s test = 8.92, p < .00 1 ). Thus, hypothesis 4 w as supported. Hypothesis 5 a nonprofit relationship quality outcomes. H ypothesis 5 predicted indirect effect s of assurance s on the four relationship quality outcomes that donors perceived in the ir relationship s with nonprofit organizations. Results of the f ou r steps of regression analysis showed that there w ere decreased standardized s of assurance s by introducing donors psychological empowerment ( Table 4 24 ). Sobel test results also confirmed the indirect effect of assurance s on the four relationship quality outcomes: control mutuality (Sobel s test = 9.93, p < .00 1 ), satisfaction (Sobel s test = 9.97, p < .00 1 ), trust (Sobel s test = 9.80, p < .00 1 ), and commitment (Sobel s test = 9.82, p < .00 1 ). As a result, hypothesis 5 w a s supported. Hypothesis 6 relationship quality outcomes.
146 The sixth hypothesis addressed the mediating effect of donors psychological empowerment in the association between the sharing of tasks strategy and the four relationship quality outcomes. As shown in Table 4 25 standardized s of sharing of tasks in step 2 were bigger than those in step 4. Furthermore, Sobel test results were also significant at the p = .00 1 level. The indirect effects of sharing of tasks were as follows: control mutuality (Sobel s test = 10.04, p < .00 1 ), satisfaction (Sobel s test = 8.41, p < .00 1 ), trust (Sobel s test = 9.90 p < .00 1 ), and commitment (Sobel s test = 9.92, p < .00 1 ). Thus, hypothesis 6 w as supported. Hypothesis 7 quality outcomes. To test hyp othesis 7 that predicted the indirect effects in the relationship access strategy on the four relationship quality outcomes standardized s of access in both step 4 and 2 were compared. The standardize d s of access when controlling for donors psychological empowerment w ere smaller than the standardized s of access in simple regression model (Table 4 26 ). Sobel test statistics were also significant for all relationship quality outcome s : control mutuality (Sobel s test = 8.45, p < .00 1 ), satisfaction (Sobel s test = 8.41, p < .00 1 ), trust (Sobel s test = 8.37, p < .00 1 ), and commitment (Sobel s test = 8.38, p < .00 1 ). As a result, hypothesis 7 was supported. Hypothesis 8 ediates the positive association between relationship quality outcomes.
147 H ypothesis 8 predicted the indirect effect of reciprocity, an element of stewardship, on the four relationship quality outcomes. Based on the comparisons of the standardized s of reciprocity in step 2 to those in step 4, the indirect effect s of reciprocity on the four relationship quality outcomes were observed ( Table 4 27 ). Also, Sobel test resu lts also confirmed the indirect effect of reciprocity on the four relationship quality outcomes: control mutuality (Sobel s test = 8.56, p < .00 1 ), satisfaction (Sobel s test = 8.52, p < .00 1 ), trust (Sobel s test = 8.48, p < .00 1 ), and commitment (Sobel s test = 8.49, p < .00 1 ). Thus hypothesis 8 w as supported. Hypothesis 9 relationship quality outcomes. H ypothesis 9 addressed the mediating effect of donors psychological empowerment in the association between participation and the four relationship quality outcomes. As Table 4 28 shows, standardized s of participation in step 2 were larger than those in step 4. In other words, by introducing the mediating variable (i.e., donors psychological empowerment ), the single effects of participation on the four relationship quality outcomes were reduced. Furthermore, Sobel test results were significant at the p = .00 1 level. The indire ct effects of participation were as follows: control mutuality (Sobel s test = 11.23 p < .00 1 ), satisfaction (Sobel s test = 9.51 p < .00 1 ), trust (Sobel s test = 9.45 p < .00 1 ), and commitment (Sobel s test = 9.47 p < .00 1 ). Thus, hypothesis 9 w as supported. To assess the linkages among the overall relationship strateg y donors psychological empowerment, the overall relationship quality outcome and behavioral
148 intention, path analysis was conducted. The SEM model fit was as follows: (X2/df = 2.41; CFI= .87; TLI = .86; SRMR = .065; RMSEA= .063). As shown in Figure 4 3 direct effects of the overall relationship strategy on donors psychological empowerment ( = .66, p < .00 1 ) and the overall relationship quality outcome ( = .70, p < .00 1 ) were significant at the p = .00 level. Significant direct effects of donors psychological empowerment on the overall relationship quality outcome ( = .32, p < .00 1 ) and their behavioral intention ( = .67, p < .00 1 ) were found. The direct effect of the overall relationship quality outcome on donors intended future behavior ( = .28, p < .00 1 ) was also statistically significant. A Sobel test was conducted to test mediation effects of donors psychological empowerment in the association between the ov erall r elationship management strateg y and the overall relationship quality outcome. The Sobel test ( Sobel s test = 4.62, p < .00 1 ) was significant, indicating that donors psychological empowerment mediates the effect of the overall relationship managemen t strateg y on the overall relationship quality outcome Research q uestion 5 RQ5: To what extent are the four relationship quality outcomes intended future giving behavior? R esearch question 5 addressed the relationship between relationship quality outcomes that donors perceive and their future behavioral intention. To answer the research question, a multiple regression of relationship quality outcomes with behavioral intentio n was conducted. As Table 4 29 shows, of the four relationship quality outcomes, only commitment was an explanatory variable predict ing donors future behavior ( = .80, t = 11.16, p < .00 1 )
149 Research q uestion 6 intended future behavior? The last research question examined the direct relationship between donors psychological empowerment and their future behavioral intention. As Tabl e 4 30 shows results of a simple regression analysis showed that donors psychological empowerment has direct impact on donors future behavior ( = .58, t = 13.37, p < .00 1 ) Similarly, path analysis result s also confirmed the significant effect of donors psychological empowerment intended future behavior which includes future giving As Figure 4 3 shows, the effect of donors psychological empowerment on future behavior ( = .67) was mor e than twice as large as the effect of the overall relationship quality outcomes on donors future behavior ( = .28) Post hoc t esting To further explore the factors that may influence donors psychological empowerment, a hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was conducted. For this analysis demographic information such as education, income, and donor types were entered to block 1 whereas the seven relationship management strategies were entered to block 2. All three dem ographic information variables were treated as dummy variables in the regression test E ducation was coded 0 ( from high school graduate to a four year college degree) or 1 (graduate degree) ; income was coded as 0 (up to $100,000) or 1 (more than $100,000) ; and donor types were coded as 0 ( annual giving donors) or 1 (major gift donors). Prior to running the analysis, t hree major assumptions for multiple regression normality multicollinearity, and linearity were checked. In terms of the normality check,
150 skewedness and kurtosis scores were examined. T he scores of skewedness and kurtosis for the independent variables were within the range from 1.96 to + 1.96, which are considered the critical values for normality (Hair et al., 2006). Thus, the normality ass umption was verified. To check multicollinearity, variance inflation factors (VIF) scores were examined. All the scores of VIF for independent variables did not exceed 10, the critical value for multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2006). Finally, linearity bet ween the independent variables and the dependent variable was verified by examining the partial regression plots that represent the relationships between a single in dependent variable and the dependent variable. Therefore, all of these assumptions were met As presented in Table 4 31 the regression model explained 40.5% of the total variance in donors psychological empowerment, indicated by the total R 2 More specifically, the first block regression model with three demographic variables accounted for 8 .5% of total variance in donors psychological empowerment [F(3, 317) = 9.77, p < .00 1 ]. Among the three demographic variables, only donor type had a significant effect on donor psychological empowerment ( = .28, t = 5.12, p < .00 1 ) This means that major gift donors feel stronger psychological empowerment than annual giving donors do. Also, the second block regression model significantly contributed the explanatory power by R 2 change of 32.1% [F(10, 310) = 21.1 4 p < .00 1 ]. R 2 chang e explains that the added independent variables are significant in predicting donors psychological empowerment after controlling the existing independent variables. Among the seven relationship management strategies, only the sharing of tasks strategy had a significant effect on donors psychological empowerment ( = .25, t =
151 2.42, p < .05). This means that, when controlling demographic information, the sharing of tasks strategy had a positive association with donors psychological empowerment. Reflecting the finding that donor type had a significant effect on donors psychological empowerment, the study further explored which relationship management strategies were linked to donors psychological empowerm ent for both annual giving donors and major gift donors To address this question, multiple regression analys es of seven relationship management strategies with donors psychological empowerment w ere conducted. As shown in Table 4 32 the multiple regression analysis for annual giving donors was significant [F(7, 253) = 18.86, p < .00 1 ], explaining 34% of the variance in psychological empowerment. Among the seven relationship management strategies, the openness ( = .26, t = 2.58, p < .00 1 ) and reciprocity ( = .17, t = 1.98, p < .05) strategies had significant effects on annual giving donors psychological empowerment Turning to major gift donors, the multiple regression model was also significant [F(7, 88) = 15.01, p < .00 1 ], accounting f or 54% of the variance in psychological empowerment. Positivity ( = .35, t = 2.50, p < .05), sharing of tasks ( = .79, t = 4.02, p < .00 1 ), and access ( = .30, t = 2.14, p < .05) had significant effects on major gift donors psychological empowerment.
152 Table 4 1. Response r ates Name of organization Formula Application Result Organization A Complete/Total 121/575 21.04% (Complete + Incomplete)/Total 162/575 28.17% Organization B Complete/Total 55/262 20.99% (Complete + Incomplete)/Total 67/262 25.57% O rganization C Complete/Total 80/682 11.73% (Complete + Incomplete)/Total 97/682 14.22% Organization D Complete/Total 67/1,000 6.7% (Complete + Incomplete)/Total 80/1,000 8.0% Organization E Complete/Total 47/73 64.38% (Complete + Incomplete)/Total 49/73 67.12% Total response rate Complete/Total 370/2,592 14.27% (Complete + Incomplete)/Total 455/2,592 17.55% Table 4 2. Composition ratio for the final sample from each organization Name of organization Frequency Percentage Organization A 121 32.70% Organization B 55 14.86% O rganization C 80 21.62% O rganization D 67 18.11% O rganization E 47 12.70% Total 370 100%
153 Table 4 3. Sample d emographic d escription Variables Category Frequency Percentage Gender Male 96 27.3% Female 256 71.7% Total 352 100.0% Education High school 11 3.1% Some college degree 53 14.8% Four year college degree 95 26.6% Graduate degree (e.g., MA, Ph.D.) 199 55.7% Total 357 100% Ethnicity African American/Black 8 2.3% Asian 3 0.8% Caucasian 324 91.5% Hispanic/ Latino 13 3.7% Middle Eastern 0 0% Native American 0 0% Other 6 1.7% Total 354 100.0% Income Less than $50,000 62 18.7% $50,001 $100,000 127 38.4% $100,001 $ 150,000 63 19.0% $150,001 $ 200,000 38 11.5% $200,001 $250,000 15 4.5% More than $250,000 26 7.9% Total 331 100.0% Employment Employed full time 203 57.5% Employed part time 25 7.1% Self employed 26 7.4% Unemployed 4 1.1% Retired 80 22.7% Student 3 0.8% Homemaker 4 1.1% Total 353 100.0% Number of Years in Community Less than 2 years 11 3.1% 2 to 10 years 72 20.3% 10 to 20 years 79 22.3% 20 years or longer Total 193 355 54.4% 100.0% Donor Type Annual giving donors 268 72.43% Major gift donors 102 27.57% Total 370 100.00%
154 Table 4 3 Continued. N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Age 335 21 86 57.21 12.21 Years Donated 342 0 41 9.41 8.22 Amount Donated 3 Years 319 0 $35,000 $1821.66 $4634.25 Number of NPOs Supported 342 0 200 8.79 13.52
155 Table 4 4 Means and standard deviations of relationship management strategies Variable M SD Overall r elationship m anagement s trategies 5.58 .90 Openness Overall 5.19 1.14 OPN1 report is a valuable source of information for donors. 4.99 1.42 OPN2 The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what it does with donations. (Reverse) 5.13 1.57 OPN3 The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. 5.55 1.30 OPN4 The organization shares enough information with donors about 5.09 1.47 Positivity Overall 5.97 .78 POS1 Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to donors. 5.95 1.01 POS2 6.34 .95 POS3 The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enjoyable. 6.14 1.06 POS4 The information the organization provides donors with is of little use to them. (Reverse) 5.43 1.31 Assurance s Overall 5.63 1.06 ASS1 The organization makes a genuine effort to provide personal 5.54 1.32 ASS2 The organization communicates the importance of its donors. 6.08 1.15 ASS3 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes these concerns seriously. 5.18 1.34 ASS4 Donors do not believe that the organization really cares about their concerns. (Reverse) 5.72 1.41 Sharing of Tasks Overall 5.35 1.06 STK1 The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. (Reverse) 5.64 1.31 STK2 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about. 5.69 1.26 STK3 The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit do nors. 4.90 1.27 STK4 The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns. 5.18 1.30
156 Table 4 4. Continued. Variables M SD Access Overall 5.71 1.05 ACC1 The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. 5.80 1.27 ACC2 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff. 5.65 1.28 ACC3 When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. 5.80 1.26 ACC4 The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for specific staff on specific issues. 5.59 1.32 Reciprocity Overall 6.12 .88 RCP1 The organization acknowledges donations in a timely manner. 6.14 1.01 RCP2 The organization always sends donors a thank you letter for their donations. 6.27 1.08 RCP3 The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their contributions. (Reverse) 6.25 1.10 RCP4 Because of their previous donations, the organization recognizes donors as friend s 5.83 1.25 Participation Overall 5.07 1.14 PAR1 The organization asks for feedback from donors about the quality of its information. 5.13 1.48 PAR2 The organization involves donors to help identify the information they need. 4.98 1.31 PAR3 The organization provides detailed information to donors. 5.13 1.43 PAR4 The organization makes it easy to find the information donors need. 5.48 1.32 PAR5 Th e organization asks the opinions of donors before making decisions. 4.39 1.36 PAR6 The organization takes the time with donors to understand who we are and what we need. 5.31 1.38
157 Table 4 5 Means and standard deviations of donor s psychological empowerment Variable M SD Overall e mpowerment 5.23 .84 Meaning Overall 6.00 .99 MEA1 My giving to the organization is very important to me. 5.95 1.06 MEA2 My philanthropic activities with the organization are personally meaningful to me. 5.92 1.15 MEA3 My giving to the organization is meaningful to me. 6.12 1.06 Competence 5.47 1.01 CPT1 I am confident about my ability to meet my and the organization s best interests 5.44 1.28 CPT2 I am self assured about my capabilities to perform my philanthropic activities 5.97 1.11 CPT3 I have learned the skills necessary for giving effectively. 5.00 1.40 Autonomy Overall 5.93 .93 AUT1 I have significant autonomy in determining how I give to the organization. 6.06 1.06 AUT2 I can decide on my own how to go about making my gifts 5.98 1.11 AUT3 I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I give to the organization. 5.74 1.30 Impact Overall 3.51 1.45 IMP1 My impact on what happens in the organization is large 4.03 1.75 IMP2 I have a great deal of control over what happens in the organization. 3.06 1.54 IMP3 I have significant influence over what happens in the organization. 3.45 1.58
158 Table 4 6 Means and standard deviations of relationship quality outcomes Variables M SD Overall relationship quality outcomes 5.49 .84 Control Mutuality Overall 5.06 1.02 CMT1 5.05 1.22 CMT2 The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are important. (Reverse) 5.96 1.18 CMT3 I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. 4.82 1.37 CMT4 The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. 5.07 1.30 CMT5 When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control over the situation. 4.69 1.22 CMT6 The organization gives donors enough say in the decision making process. 4.78 1.28 Satisfaction Overall 5.58 .98 SAT1 Donors are happy with the organization. 5.27 1.21 SAT2 Both the organization and its donors benefit from their relationship. 5.83 1.10 SAT3 Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization. 5.44 1.20 SAT4 Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has established with me. 5.72 1.30 SAT5 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. (Reverse) 5.75 1.23 SAT6 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. 5.44 1.20 Trust Overall 5.70 .95 TRU1 The organization respects its donors. 5.97 1.14 TRU2 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors. 5.67 1.18 TRU3 When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. 5.32 1.27 TRU4 I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. 5.15 1.27 TRU5 its mission. 5.99 1.11 TRU6 The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and objectives. (Reverse) 6.08 1.10 Commitment Overall 5.63 .97 CMM1 I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long term commitment with donors. 5.91 1.12 CMM2 I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. (Reverse) 5.96 1.18 CMM3 There is a long lasting bond between the organization and its donors. 5.42 1.25 CMM4 Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. 4.82 1.56 CMM5 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. 6.03 1.07
159 Table 4 7 Means and standard deviations of behavior al intention Variables M SD Overall b ehavioral intention 5.42 1.00 INT1 I will continue donating to the organization in the near future. 6.20 .93 INT2 INT3 I will increase the amount of my gifts to the organization. 4.48 1.37 I will recommend to my friends and relatives t hat they donate to the organization. 5.46 1.33 INT 4 I will say positive things about the organization to my friends and relatives 6.27 .97 INT 5 I f I am ever in the position of making a very large gift, I will ta lk to this organization first 4.70 1.74 Table 4 8. Reliability of all measurement scales Variables Number of Items Openness 4 .80 Positivity 4 .69 Assurance s 4 .83 Sharing Tasks 4 .85 Access 4 .83 Reciprocity 4 .79 Participation 6 .89 Empowerment (Overall) 12 .87 Meaning 3 .89 Competenc e 3 .72 Autonomy 3 .73 Impact 3 .87 Control Mutuality 6 .90 Satisfaction 6 .90 Trust 6 .90 Commitment 5 .84 Behavioral Intention 5 .82
160 Table 4 9 c orrelation of r elationship m anagement s trategies and r elationship q uality o utcomes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Openness 2. Positivity .73 *** 3. Assurance s .77 *** .79 *** 4. Sharing of Tasks .81 *** .72 *** .85 *** 5. Access .71 *** .76 *** .82 *** .78 6. Reciprocity .60 *** .73 *** .74 *** .63 *** .72 *** 7. Participation .83 *** .71 *** .79 *** .85 *** .76 *** .64 *** 8. Control Mutuality .75 *** .72 *** .81 *** .81 *** .75 *** .65 *** .77 *** 9. Satisfaction .72 *** .74 *** .79 *** .79 *** .72 *** .66 *** .73 *** .86 *** 10. Trust .74 *** .77 *** .82 *** .79 *** .73 *** .71 *** .74 *** .87 *** .90 *** 11. Commitment .67 *** .68 *** .74 *** .71 *** .67 *** .66 *** .66 *** .80 *** .86 *** .85 *** p *** < .00 1
161 Table 4 10 Summary of M o del Fit / df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA 3.00 .90 .90 .08 .08 CFA for relationship management strategies Initial 4.63 83 .80 .064 .101 Final 3.89 .9 2 .9 0 .064 .08 CFA for relationship quality outcomes Initial 7.14 .81 .78 .065 .13 Final 2.25 .9 5 .9 4 .037 .08 CFA for second order model fit Initial 2.52 .86 .85 .068 .065 Final 2.41 .87 .86 .065 .063 Table 4 11 c orrelation of donors psychological e mpowerment and r elationship m anagement s trategies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Empowerment 2. Openness 0.55 *** 3. Positivity 0.50 *** 0.73 *** 4. Assurance s 0.56 *** 0.77 *** 0.79 *** 5. Sharing of Tasks 0.57 *** 0.81 *** 0.73 *** 0.85 *** 6. Access 0.47 *** 0.71 *** 0.76 *** 0.82 *** 0.78 *** 7. Reciprocity 0.47 *** 0.61 *** 0.73 *** 0.74 *** 0.64 *** 0.72 *** 8. Participation 0.54 *** 0.83 *** 0.71 *** 0.79 *** 0.85 *** 0.77 *** 0.64 *** p *** < .00 1 Table 4 12 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with d onors' p sychological e mpowerment Unstandardized Coefficient ( SE) Standardized t value p value Constant 2.17 (.30) 7.24 ** .00 Openness .14 (.06) .19 2.25 .0 3 Positivity .06 (.09) .06 .69 .49 Assurance s .13 (.08) .16 1.63 .11 Sharing of Tasks .18 (.08) .23 2.29 .02 Access .11 (.07) .1 4 1.68 .09 Reciprocity .12 (.07) .13 1.81 .07 Participation .03 (.07) .0 4 .41 .68 Note: R = .61, R 2 = .37, F (7, 349) = 29.34, p ** < .0 0 1 p < .05, n= 357
162 Table 4 13 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with m eaning Unstandardized Coefficient ( SE ) Standardized t value p value Constant 2.40 (.37) 6.42 ** .00 Openness .02 (.08) .02 0.25 .81 Positivity .26 (.11) .21 2.43 .02 Assurance s .17 (.10) .18 1.72 .09 Sharing of Tasks .20 (.10) .22 2.06 .04 Access .21 (.08) .22 2.45 .02 Reciprocity .17 (.08) .15 2.01 .0 45 Participation .01 (.09) .01 .12 .90 R = .54, R 2 = .29, F (7, 349) = 20.05, p ** < .00 1 p < .05, n= 357 Table 4 14 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with c ompetenc e Unstandardized Coefficient ( SE ) Standardized t value p value Constant 2.37 (.40) 5.90 ** .00 Openness .13 (.09) .15 1.53 .13 Positivity .18 (.11) .14 1.58 .11 Assuranc es .10 (.11) .11 .94 .35 Sharing of Tasks .30 (.11) .31 2.78 .01 Access .16 (.09) .16 1.73 .09 Reciprocity .20 (.09) .17 2.19 .03 Participation .00 (.10) .00 .01 .99 R = .47, R 2 = .22, F (7, 349) = 13.79, p ** < .0 0 1 p ** < .0 1, p < 05 n= 357
163 Table 4 15 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with a utonomy Unstandardized Coefficient ( SE ) Standardized t value p value Constant 3.19 (.38) 8.47 ** .00 Openness .22 (.08) .27 2.74 .01 Positivity .25 (.11) .21 2.30 .02 Assurance s .11 (.10) .12 1.05 .29 Sharing of Tasks .09 (.10) .10 .89 .37 Access .15 (.09) .17 1.75 .08 Reciprocity .11 (.09) .10 1.29 .20 Participation .15 (.09) .18 1.63 .10 R = .44, R 2 = .19, F (7, 349) = 12.02, p ** < .0 0 1 p ** < .0 1 p < 05 n= 357 Table 4 16 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with i mpact Unstandardized Coefficient ( SE ) Standardized t value p value Constant .74 (.55) 1.34 .18 Openness .21 (.12) .16 1.74 .08 Positivity .45 (.16) .24 2.85 ** .01 Assurance s .34 (.15) .25 2.34 .02 Sharing of Tasks .14 (.15) .10 .97 .34 Access .06 (.12) .04 .44 .66 Reciprocity .01 (.12) .01 .11 .91 Participation .26 (. 13 ) .20 1.92 .06 R = .52 R 2 = .28, F (7, 349) = 18.90, p ** < .0 1 p < 05 n= 357
164 Table 4 17 c orrelation of donors psychological e mpowerment and r elationship q uality o utcomes Empowerment Control Mutuality Satisfaction Trust Commitment Empowerment Control Mutuality .65 *** Satisfaction .64 *** .86 *** Trust .63 *** .87 *** .90 *** Commitment .63 *** .80 *** .86 *** .85 *** p *** < .00 1
165 Table 4 18 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with c ontrol m utuality Unstandardized Coefficient ( SE ) Standardized t value p value Constant .047 (.24) .20 .84 Openness .11 (.05) .13 2.24 .03 Positivity .1 (.07) .08 1.48 .14 Assurance s .25 (.06) .26 3.97 ** .00 Sharing of Tasks .24 (.06) .25 3.88 ** .00 Access .10 (.05) .10 1.89 .06 Reciprocity .03 (.05) .03 .58 .56 Participation .09 (.06) .10 1.52 .13 R = .86, R 2 = .73, F (7, 349) = 136.16, p ** < .00 1 p < .05, n= 357 Table 4 19 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with s atisfaction Unstandardized Coefficient ( SE ) Standardized t value p value Constant .33 (.24) 1.38 .17 Openness 05 (.05) 06 1.08 28 Positivity 24 (.07) 19 3.50 00 Assurance s 19 (.06) .21 2.99 .00 Sharing of Tasks 33 (.06) 35 5.15 .00 Access 03 (.05) 03 .57 57 Reciprocity 09 (.05) 08 1.69 09 Participation 00 (.06) 00 .04 97 R = .8 4 R 2 = .7 1 F (7, 349) = 119.72 p < .00 1 n= 357
166 Table 4 20 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with t rust Unstandardized Coefficient (B) Standardized t value p value Constant .29 (.21) 1.36 .18 Openness .09 (.05) .10 1.89 .06 Positivity .24 (.06) .20 3.95 .00 Assurance s .25 (.06) .28 4.45 .00 Sharing of Tasks .23 (.06) .26 4.03 .00 Access .04 (.05) .04 .72 .47 Reciprocity .18 (.05) .17 3.72 .00 Participation .002 (.05) .003 .044 .97 R = 87 R 2 = 75 F (7, 349) = 148.44 p < .00 1 n= 357 Table 4 21 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with c ommitment Unstandardized Coefficient (B) Standardized t value p value Constant .66 (.27) 2.40 .02 Openness .10 (.06) .12 1.73 .09 Positivity .16 (.08) .13 2.03 .04 Assurance s .23 (.07) .25 3.16 ** .00 Sharing of Tasks .20 (.07) .22 2.81 .0 1 Access .02 (.06) .02 .27 .79 Reciprocity .20 (.06) .18 3.30 ** .00 Participation .04 (.07) .04 .59 .56 R = .78, R 2 = .61, F (7, 349) = 77.75, p ** < .0 1 p < .05, n= 357
167 Table 4 22. Mediating effect test: Openness Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes IV (X) MV (M) DV (Y) Step Standardized t value p value R 2 Sobel test Openness Empowerment Control Mutuality Step 1: X M .53 12.51 .00 .31 9.83 ** Step 2: X Y .75 21.58 .00 .75 Step 3: M Y .65 15.95 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .57 14.97 .00 .64 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .33 8.67 .00 Openness Empowerment Satisfaction Step 1: X M .53 12.51 .00 .31 9.77 ** Step 2: X Y .72 19.46 .00 .75 Step 3: M Y .64 15.58 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .53 13.05 .00 .64 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .35 8.55 .00 Openness Empowerment Trust Step 1: X M .53 12.51 .00 .31 9.70 ** Step 2: X Y .74 20.69 .00 .75 Step 3: M Y .63 15.37 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .56 14.24 .00 .64 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .32 8.16 .00 Openness Empowerment Commitment Step 1: X M .53 12.51 .00 .31 9.72 ** Step 2: X Y .67 16.79 .00 .75 Step 3: M Y .63 15.43 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .45 10.53 .00 .64 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .38 8.88 .00 p ** < .01
168 Table 4 23. Mediating effect test: Positivity Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes IV (X) MV (M) DV (Y) Step Standardized t value p value R 2 Sobel test Positivity Empowerment Control Mutuality Step 1: X M .50 10.98 .00 .25 9.00 ** Step 2: X Y .72 19.55 .00 .52 Step 3: M Y .65 15.95 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .53 14.06 .00 .63 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .38 10.10 .00 Positivity Empowerment Satisfaction Step 1: X M .50 10.98 .00 .25 8.95 ** Step 2: X Y .74 20.58 .00 .54 Step 3: M Y .64 15.58 .00 .41 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .56 15.10 .00 .64 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .36 9.63 .00 Positivity Empowerment Trust Step 1: X M .50 10.98 .00 .25 8.90 ** Step 2: X Y .77 22.60 .00 .59 Step 3: M Y .63 15.37 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .60 17.07 .00 .67 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .33 9.32 .00 Positivity Empowerment Commitment Step 1: X M .50 10.98 .00 .25 8.92 ** Step 2: X Y .68 17.66 .00 .47 Step 3: M Y .63 15.43 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .49 12.26 .00 .58 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .39 9.72 .00 p ** < .01
169 Table 4 24. Mediating effect test: Assurance s Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes IV (X) MV (M) DV (Y) Step Standardized t value p value R 2 Sobel test Assurance s Empowerment Control Mutuality Step 1: X M .56 12.65 .00 .31 9.93 ** Step 2: X Y .81 25.91 .00 .65 Step 3: M Y .65 15.95 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .65 18.86 .00 .71 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .28 8.21 .00 Assurance s Empowerment Satisfaction Step 1: X M .56 12.65 .00 .31 9.97 ** Step 2: X Y .79 24.26 .00 .63 Step 3: M Y .64 15.58 .00 .41 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .63 17.41 .00 .68 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .29 7.89 .00 Assurance s Empowerment Trust Step 1: X M .56 12.65 .00 .31 9.80 ** Step 2: X Y .82 27.04 .00 .67 Step 3: M Y .63 15.37 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .68 7.45 .00 .72 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .25 19.96 .00 Assurance s Empowerment Commitment Step 1: X M .56 12.65 .00 .31 9.82 ** Step 2: X Y .74 20.81 .00 .55 Step 3: M Y .63 15.43 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .56 14.27 .00 .62 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .32 8.10 .00 p ** < .01
170 Table 4 25. Mediating effect test: Sharing of Tasks Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes IV (X) MV (M) DV (Y) Step Standardized t value p value R 2 Sobel test Sharing of Tasks Empowerment Control Mutuality Step 1: X M .57 13.00 .00 .32 10.04 ** Step 2: X Y .81 25.81 .00 .65 Step 3: M Y .65 15.95 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .65 18.52 .00 .70 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .28 7.87 .00 Sharing of Tasks Empowerment Satisfaction Step 1: X M .57 13.00 .00 .32 8.41 ** Step 2: X Y .79 24.54 .00 .63 Step 3: M Y .64 15.58 .00 .41 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .64 17.45 .00 .68 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .28 7.55 .00 Sharing of Tasks Empowerment Trust Step 1: X M .57 13.00 .00 .32 9.90 ** Step 2: X Y .79 24.23 .00 .63 Step 3: M Y .63 15.37 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .64 17.39 .00 .68 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .27 7.33 .00 Sharing of Tasks Empowerment Commitment Step 1: X M .57 13.00 .00 .32 9.92 ** Step 2: X Y .71 19.03 .00 .51 Step 3: M Y .63 15.43 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .48 12.26 .00 .58 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .41 10.47 .00 p ** < .01
171 Table 4 26. Mediating effect test: Access Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes IV (X) MV (M) DV (Y) Step Standardized t value p value R 2 Sobel test Access Empowerment Control Mutuality Step 1: X M .47 10.03 .00 .22 8.45 ** Step 2: X Y .75 21.41 .00 .56 Step 3: M Y .65 19.95 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .57 16.69 .00 .67 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .38 10.95 .00 Access Empowerment Satisfaction Step 1: X M .47 10.03 .00 .22 8.41 ** Step 2: X Y .72 19.72 .00 .52 Step 3: M Y .64 15.58 .00 .41 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .54 14.97 .00 .64 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .38 10.51 .00 Access Empowerment Trust Step 1: X M .47 10.03 .00 .22 8.37 ** Step 2: X Y .73 20.11 .00 .53 Step 3: M Y .63 15.37 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .56 15.37 .00 .64 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .37 10.27 .00 Access Empowerment Commitment Step 1: X M .47 10.03 .00 .22 8.38 ** Step 2: X Y .67 17.03 .00 .45 Step 3: M Y .63 15.43 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .48 12.26 .00 .58 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .41 10.47 .00 p ** < .01
172 Table 4 27. Mediating effect test: Reciprocity Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes IV (X) MV (M) DV (Y) Step Standardized t value p value R 2 Sobel test Reciprocity Empowerment Control Mutuality Step 1: X M .47 10.11 .00 .22 8.56 ** Step 2: X Y .65 15.97 .00 .42 Step 3: M Y .65 15.95 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .44 11.07 .00 .57 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .44 11.05 .00 Reciprocity Empowerment Satisfaction Step 1: X M .47 10.11 .00 .22 8.52 ** Step 2: X Y .66 16.50 .00 .43 Step 3: M Y .64 15.58 .00 .41 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .46 11.66 .00 .57 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .42 10.62 .00 Reciprocity Empowerment Trust Step 1: X M .47 10.11 .00 .22 8.48 ** Step 2: X Y .71 19.15 .00 .51 Step 3: M Y .63 15.37 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .53 14.34 .00 .62 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .38 14.34 .00 Reciprocity Empowerment Commitment Step 1: X M .47 10.11 .00 .22 8.49 ** Step 2: X Y .66 16.36 .00 .43 Step 3: M Y .63 15.43 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .46 11.53 .00 .57 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .42 10.47 .00 p ** < .01
173 Table 4 28. Mediating effect test: Participation Empowerment Relationship quality o utcomes IV (X) MV (M) DV (Y) Step Standardized t value p value R 2 Sobel test Participation Empowerment Control Mutuality Step 1: X M .54 11.97 .00 .29 11.23 ** Step 2: X Y .77 22.72 .00 .59 Step 3: M Y .65 15.95 .00 .42 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .59 16.40 .00 .67 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .33 9.04 .00 Participation Empowerment Satisfaction Step 1: X M .54 11.97 .00 .29 9.51 ** Step 2: X Y .73 10.02 .00 .53 Step 3: M Y .64 15.58 .00 .41 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .54 13.90 .00 .62 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .35 8.87 .00 Participation Empowerment Trust Step 1: X M .54 11.97 .00 .29 9.45 ** Step 2: X Y .74 20.58 .00 .54 Step 3: M Y .63 15.37 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .56 14.47 .00 .62 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .33 8.59 .00 Participation Empowerment Commitment Step 1: X M .54 11.97 .00 .29 9.47 ** Step 2: X Y .66 16.46 .00 .43 Step 3: M Y .63 15.43 .00 .40 Step 4: X + M Y (IV) .45 10.50 .00 .54 Step 4: X + M Y (MV) .39 9.26 .00 p ** < .01
174 Table 4 29 Multiple r egression of r elationship q uality o utcomes with b ehavioral i ntention Unstandardized Coefficient ( SE ) Standardized t value p value Constant 1.02 (.27) 4.77 .00 Control Mutuality .02 (.07) .02 .27 .79 Satisfaction .02 (.09) .02 .18 .85 Trust .03 (.09) .03 .3 3 .75 Commitment 81 (.07) .80 11.16 .00 R = 77 R 2 = 59 F (7, 349) = 127.24 p < .00 1 n= 357 Table 4 30 Regression of donors psychological e mpowerment with b ehavioral i ntention R = 58 R2 = .34 F (7, 349) = 178.12 p < .00 1 n= 357 Unstandardized Coefficient (B) Standardized t value p value Constant 1.85 6.85 .00 Empower .68 .58 13.37 .00
175 Table 4 31. Hierarchical regression on donors psychological empowerment Predictors Block 1 Education .11 Income .06 Donor Type .28 ** R 2 .085 Block 2 Openness .15 (.06) Positivity .03 (.09) Assurance s .16 (.08) Sharing of Tasks .25 (08) Access .11 (.07) Reciprocity .10 (.07) Participation .05 (.07) R 2 change .321 R 2 .405 p ** < .00 1 p < .05 Table 4 32 Multiple r egression of r elationship m anagement s trategies with d onors' p sychological e mpowerment for both annual giving and major gift donors Annual giving donors SE) Major gift donors (SE ) Constant 2. 39 (.3 5 ) *** 1.69 (.60) ** Openness 26 (.0 7 ) ** 20 (.12) Positivity .03 (. 10 ) 35 (.16) Assurance s 20 (.0 9 ) .04 (.14) Sharing of Tasks 05 (.0 9 ) 79 (.15) *** Access 07 (.0 8 ) 30 (.13) Reciprocity .1 7 (.0 8 ) 04 (.12) Participation .0 7 (.0 8 ) 02 (.13) p ** < .0 0 1 p ** < .0 1, p < .05
176 p ** < .001, p ** < .0 1, p < .05 Figure 4 1 Summary of the effects of seven relationship management strategies and four dimensions of donors psychological empowerment Meaning Competenc e Autonomy Positivity Assurances Access Reciprocity Participation Sharing of Tasks Impact Donors Psychological Empowerme n t Openness 17 15 22 ** 31 ** 22 25 24 ** 21 21 27 **
177 p ** < .001, p ** < .0 1, p < .05 Figure 4 2 Summary of the effects of seven relationship management strategies and four dimensions of relationship quality outcomes Control Mutuality Satisfaction Trust Commitment Openness Positivity Assurances Access Reciprocity Participation Sharing of Tasks Relationship Quality Outcomes .13 .26 *** .25 .19 *** .35 *** .20 *** .2 1 *** .26 *** .17 *** .13 .2 8 *** 22 ** 18 ** .25
178 p *** < .00 1 Figure 4 3. Standardized parameter estimates for second order factors of structural model 28 (.0 7 ) *** 67 (. 11 ) *** 7 0 (. 05 ) *** .6 6 (.06) *** 32 (.06) *** Overall Relationship Strateg y Donor Psychological Empowerment Overall Relationship Quality Outcomes Behavioral Intention
179 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION scholarship and proposing the role of relationship management strategies in foster ing empowerment, this study sought to advance relationship management theory and inform public relations practice in nonprofit charitable organizations. Employing survey method to gain insight from the donors of five nonprofit organizations, this study explor ed the dynamic linkages among intentions. This chapter is composed of three parts: A disc ussion of the key findings, the theoretic al and practical implications of the study, and a discussion of the limitation s of the study and suggestion s for future research. Donors P sychological E mpowerment The present study introduced the concept of donors psychological empowerment to enhance c urrent relationship management theory. As stated in chapter 2, previous studies based on relationship management theory failed to address major premises in building and maintaining positive relationship s with public s. First, there is a lack of research add ressing the dynamic of power relations between an organization and its publics despite the fact that power is inherently embedded in any relationship (Dahl, 1957; Foucault, 1995). Second, previous relationship management studies have ignored the notion of publics autonomy in their relationships with an organization. While L.A. Grunig et al. (1992) and J. E. Grunig (1984) a rgued that successful relationships are characterized by each player s having accountability and autonomy in the
180 relationship most pub lic relationship scholars rarely pay attention to public autonomy or how this affects their belief s attitude s and behavior. M o reover, previous relationship management studies have addressed neither the publics cognitive responses to an organization s efforts to manage quality relationship with them nor the internal state or motivation that leads to a certain behavior by public s (e. g. action to build a relationship with an organization). To fill these research gaps, the present study examined the infl uence of psychological empowerment in the organization public relationship Publics psychological empowerment is composed of the four dimensions of meaning, competenc e autonomy, and impact, as suggested by Spreitzer (1995). Meaning refers to the degree of congruency between publics personal values /beliefs and the organization s mission. Competenc e denotes public s perceived capacity to manage relationships with organizations and to enact a certain behavior Whereas impact is defined as the degree to whi ch publics perceive that they influence an organization with which they have relationship autonomy refers to publics perceived freedom in that relationship While these four dimensions are to combine additively to create an overall construct of psychological (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1444), the concept of empowerment is new to the field of public relations and especially to the nonprofit donor relationship setting. T h us, it is import ant to address which dimension donor publics believe is the strongest they hold T he first research question addressed which dimension of psychological empowerment was perceived as the most important by donors As reported in chapter 4, of the four dimens ions of psychological empowerment, donors perceived meaning as
181 the most important followed by autonomy, and competenc e However, donors did not perceive that they have much impact on the organizations. The mean score of impact was below the neutral point of agreement denoting that donors disagree that they have impact on the organizations to which they contribute The study also found that a large portion of donors psychological empowerment as an aggregated concept is explained by meaning. This means th at the more donors perceive congruency between their personal beliefs and the organization s mission, the more they feel empowered in the relationship with nonprofit organizations Understanding publics psychological empowerment as an intrinsic motivation to enact a certain behavior, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that publics will devote their intrinsic energy if they perceive congruency between their own belief and the organization s mission. This argument corresponds with Kelly s (1998) assertion that a match of donor interest as organizational mission is the leading factor in recruiting donors. A possible explanation of the reason that donors do not believe they make an impact on nonprofit organizations may be rooted in t he fact that donors as an external public are operating outside of the organization, regardless of the quality of the relationship they have with the organization Even though donors, by contributing to the causes and missions that nonprofit organiz ation s pursue, are considered enabler publics who influence nonprofit organizations survival or failure, they may perceive that there is little room for them to influence nonprofit organizations unless they can get deeply involve d in the organizations operati on (e.g., as a member of the trustees ). Despite the ir gifts donors may perceive their limits to make an impact on the
182 organizations and the limited impact they have on the organizations may not be a key feature of their psychological empowerment. Rather, as long as they perceive high levels of meaning, autonomy, and competenc e these constructs compensate for the deflated impact and determine the levels of empowerment as Spreitzer (1995) asserted. Another inte rpretation is that charitable nonprofits should consider action to help donors gain strong feelings of impact. For example, they could do more research with donors on s etting organization al priorities or offer more program specific choices for donors to de signate their gifts. Nonprofit O rganizations R elationship M anagement S trategies Emphasizing the importance of donors psychological empowerment, the study proposed a new role of relationship management strategies that may enhance both donors psychologi cal empowerment and quality relationship s with donors. Five relationship management strategies suggested by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) (i.e., openness, positivity, assurance s sharing of tasks, and access) ; reciprocity from Kelly s (1998) stewardship concept ; and participation, an aspect of transparen t communication (Rawlins, 2008) were proposed as the antecedents of donors psychological empowerment and their perceptions on relationship quality outcomes. In exploring the extent to which donors percei ved that nonprofit organization s practice these relationship manag ement strategies in their treatment of donors t he study found that the majority of donors strongly agreed that nonprofit organizations practice all seven strategies. In particular, among t hese seven relationship management strategies, donors perceived that reciprocity is the most highly practiced strategy by the nonprofit organization to which they contribute. This result lines up with previous findings in his study of the re lationships between healthcare nonprofit organizations and
183 their donors. Testing six relationship management strategies suggested by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) and four stewardship strategies he found that the four stewardship strategies were most practi ced, as perceived by donors. Among the four stewardship strategies, he also found that the reciprocity strategy was most used Reflecting on these findings, the present study confirmed that one of the main strategies nonprofit organizations implement to ma nage relationships with donors is expressing gratitude to donors through sets of appreciation and recognition. T he present study also revealed that the participation strategy is less employed by nonprofit organizations than the other six strategies but it is used to some extent (i.e., its mean wa s above the neutral point ) Highly intertwined with transparent communication, the participation strategy includes active interaction between an organization and its publics. This strategy goes beyond merely sharing information with publics or allowing publics to access to organization al information (Cotterrell, 1999; Dagron, 2009). Johnston (2010) argue d that p articipation i s the most advanced practice for community engagement. While many schol ars (e.g., J. E. Grunig & White, 1992; Ja nse & Konijnendijk, 2007) view participation as a key strategy of two way symmetrical communication, th is study found that donors of nonprofit organizations perceived that nonprofit organizations implement the parti cipation strategy (e.g., inviting donors to its decision making process and incorporat ing donors voice s in the organization) the least, compared to other relationship management strategies.
184 Relationship M anagement S trategies as A ntecedent s of D onors P sy chological E mpowerment Linking relationship management strategies to donors psychological empowerment this research predicted the effects of the seven relationship management strategies on donors psychological empowerment. As reported in chapter 4, each relationship management strategy was highly correlated with donor psychological empowerment. Given the high correlations between the constructs, the study further explored the relative effect of relationship management strategies on empowerment. Of the seven strategies that nonprofit organizations implement to manage relationship s with donors, openness and sharing of tasks had statistically significant effect s on overall psychological empowerment. I n other words, donors feel more empowered when charitable organizations are willing to share organizational resources or information with pub lics or to take responsibility for their publics concerns. T he study further explored how the seven relationship management strategies are linked with the four dimensions of empowerment. A series of multiple regression tests showed that all relationship management strategies, except participation, had direct effects on the four dimensions of donors empowerment. E xam ining each dimension positivity, sharing of tasks, and reciprocity strategies had positive effects on meaning while access had a negative effect on donors feeling of meaning. In terms of the antecedents of competenc e related to donors self efficacy and confidence i n the ir ability to manage quality relationship and donate to the organization, the effects of sharing of tasks and reciprocity strategies were significant. The study also found that n o nprofit organization s openness and positivity strategies were positively associated with donors perceived autonomy in their relationship with the organization. L astly, the
185 results showed that positivity and assurance s could influence donors perceived feeling s about their ability to influence the organization Put another way, the study found that the openness strategy is highly associated with donors perceived autonomy and overall donors psychological empowerment The positivity strategy is positively associated with meaning and autonomy, but negatively corr elated with impact T he a ssurance s strategy is linked with donors perceived impact, and sharing of tasks explains overall donors psychological empowerment meaning competenc e A ccess had a strong effect on meaning, but it is negatively related. L a stly, the reciprocity strategy influences donors meaning and competenc e These findings correspond with existing studies that explored the antecedents of publics psychological empowerment. For example, in a study on the hospitality industry Sparrowe (1994) asserted that an organization al culture that promotes support, openness, and warmth can foster employees psychological empowerment. Also Randolph (1995) and Quinn and Spreitzer (1997) emphasized openness and sharing information with public s as key factor s in enhanc ing publics psychological empowerment. Closely related to the informal power and sociological support suggested by Kanter (1986), assurance s refers to attempts by parties in the relationship to assure the other parties that the y and their concerns are legitimate (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999, p. 15). The present study result s showed that Hon and J. E. Grunig s assurance s strategy that guarantees legitimacy in relationship s also ha s a significant effect on donors psychological empowerment, more specifically donors perceived impact. This
186 finding support s existing studies that tested the relationship between assurance s and empowerment (e.g., Laschinger et al., 2001b; Stewart et al., 2010). The current study also f ound significant effects of the reciprocity strategy on the meaning and competenc e dimensions of donors psychological empowerment. This means that n o nprofit organizations effort s to show gratitude to their donors can increase perceived meaning, or the le vel of congruency between the donor publics personal belief in supporting the organization and the organization s mission. Also, the reciprocity strategy enhances donors perceived competenc e in their giving behavior and in maintaining the ir relationship with nonprofit organizations. This finding expand s the findings of previous studies that revealed the value of reward system s to boost ing employee s psychological empower ment. T he current study also found significant effects of positivity and sharing of tasks strategies on psychological empowerment, providing insights into the relationship between these strategies and empowerment a previously unexplored area. More specifically, study result s showed that positivity is positively related to dono rs perceived meaning and autonomy but negatively related to impact This means that an organization s effort to make relationships with its publics enjoyable may help donors feel more congruency between their personal beliefs and the organization s missio n and have autonomy in their behavior. However, this strategy may discourage public s feel ing that they can make an impact on the organization. This means that donors may not perceive control over the nonprofit organization to the extent to which they cont ribute if they perceive that the organization tries to make relationships and interactions with them pleasant. Also, the study found that the sharing of tasks strategy is li nked with
187 meaning and competenc e This means that an organization s action to take responsibility for its publics concerns may positively enhance publics perception about congruency between their personal beliefs and the organization s mission as well as their self esteem. Another interesting finding of the study is the effect of access on empowerment. Similar to the openness strategy, the access strategy by which organizations allow publics to have easy access to organizational resources and information has been considered a req uired organizational factor in foster ing empowerment (Kanter, 1986; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Laschinger et al., 2001a; Laschinger et al., 2001b; Spreitzer, 1996; Stewart et al., 2010, Ugboro & Obeng, 2000). However, this study obtained different results While the access strategy had a positive effect on overall empowerment, results showed that access had a negative effect on a dimension of psychological empowerment donors perceived meaning This finding could imply that the more donors have access to nonprofit organizations staff and resources, the more they vision mission programs, etc. that may not be compatible with their own beliefs. However, the present study did not specifically address the why behin d this negative effect; therefore further empirical research would be necessary to explain the finding T he current study did not find an effect of participation on donors psychological empowerment, which has been found in previous studies. M any scholar s consider the participation strategy as a major factor in enhanc ing publics empowerment in various settings, such as employees (e.g., X. Huang et al., 2010; Spreitzer, 1996), customers (Fuch et al., 2010; Ouschan et al., 2006), patients (R. M. Anderson & Funnel, 2005),
188 and community members (Papineau & Kiely, 1996). However, t h is study s result s differ. E ven though there was a moderate effect of participation strategy on donors perceived impact, it was not statistically significant ( p = .06). In the nonp rofit setting, participation in a n organization s decision making process may not enhance donors psychological empowerment. A possible explanation is that donors may feel a burden to respond on a nonprofit organization s participation strategy which hind ers donors psychological empowerment Unlike other relationship management strategies, the participation strategy requires the high level of engagement of donors in organization s activities, such as participating in an organization s decision making proc ess or providing feedback. However, other relationship management strategies do not require a certain behavior of publics. For example, the positivity strategy an organization s efforts to make relationships with its publics enjoyable, does not require pu blics efforts to make relationship with the organization enjoyable. As an external public, donors may feel a burden if they are invited to participate in a nonprofit organization s important decision making process. The burden that publics may perceive to make quality relationship may inhibit the publics intrinsic motivation or feeling of empowerment. From the hierarchical regression analysis the study also found that donor types had a significant effect on donors psychological empowerment. In other words, major gift donors had stronger level of psychological empowerment than annual giving donors did. Also, the study found that the effects of seven relationship management strategies on donors psychological empowerment differed by the types of donor. More specifically, openness and positivity strategies affected annual giving donors psychological empowerment whereas positivity, sharing of tasks, and access had significant effects on
189 major gift donors psychological empowerment. This means that nonpro fit organizations should implement different relationship management strategies to enhance donors psychological empowerment based on the type of donors. Factors that I nfluence R elationship Q uality O utcomes Th is study also sought to identify what factors influence the four different relationship quality outcomes. First, based on the literature, the study hypothesized that donors psych ological empowerment predicted the relationship quality outcomes. As report ed in chapter 4, donors psycholog ical empowerment was highly correlated with the four relationship quality outcomes. This finding supported the existing literature on the positive relationship of empowerment with control mutuality (Han, 2006; Ni, 2007), satisfaction (Han, 2006; Liden et a l., 2000; Ugboro & Obeng, 2000), trust (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Fller et al., 2009; Laschinger et al., 2001a), and commitment (Borghei et al., 2010, Laschinger et al., 2001a). The finding explain s that donors who feel empowered in the ir relationship with a nonprofit organization are more likely to perceive that they have balanced power, satisf action trust, and commitment in relations to the organization. Moreover, the study explored the linkages between seven relationship management strategies and the fo ur relationship quality outcomes. R esult s showed that the assurance s strateg y had significant effects on all four relationship quality outcomes. T h e s e finding s align with those of previous relationship management studies. For example, Ki (2006) and Waters (2007) tested the linkages between these two relationship management constructs in different settings. In both studies, the common finding is that assurance s is a significant factor that influenc es all four relationship quality outcome s. Even though Bortree (2007) did not find an effect of
190 assurance s on satisfaction and commitment, her study also highlighted the value of assurance s as an antecedent of control mutuality and trust The present study confirms that organizations should assu re the ir publics about its legitimacy and relationship with them to build and maintain quality relationships. Specific to this study the more nonprofit organizations offer assurance s to donors, the more satisfaction, control mutuality, trust, and commitme nt the donors will perceive. Unlike the studies just mentioned, the present study also found th at the sharing of task strategy is important in quality relationships. Similar to the assurance s strategy, sharing of task s had a significant effect on all four relationship quality outcomes. Ki (2006) and Bortree (2007) found only a partial effect of the sharing of tasks strategy on satisfaction and control mutuality whereas Waters (2007) showed that sharing of tasks had a positive effect only on trust. In contrast the present study found that a nonprofit organization s efforts to take responsibility for their donor publics concern increase donor perceived power balance, satisfaction toward the organization, trust in the organization, and commit ment towa rds the organization. Whereas Waters (2007) found that positivity had an impact on only one relationship quality outcome, control mutuality, Ki s (2006) study showed that positivity is highly related to control mutuality, satisfaction, and trust. In contr ast the present study found that positivity has an effect on satisfaction, trust, and commitment, but not on control mutuality. This means that the efforts by nonprofit organization s to make their donors have positive feelings about their relationship wit h the organization increase satisfaction, trust, and commitment
191 In addition, the study found a positive relationship between openness and control mutuality whereas neither Ki (2007) nor Bortree (2007) found that openness had an effect on any of the four relationship outcomes. Results of th is study show that a nonprofit organization s effort s to open organizational information and resources to donors can enhance the levels of donors satisfaction, trust, and commitment toward the nonprofit organization. Also, the study s result s demonstrated that reciprocity, an element of Kelly s (1998) stewardship, ha s a significant effect on trust and commitment. I n other words, showing sincere gra titude to donors for their gifts allows donors to trust the nonprofit organization more and commit themselves more to the organization and its mission. Finally th is study did not find any effects of both the access and participation strategies on any rel ationship quality outcome. This means that allowing publics to have easy access or inviting them to participate in the organization s decision making process do es not directly lead to publics perceived control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitmen t. Mediating R ole of D onors P sychological E mpowerment on R elationship M anagement S trategies and R elationship Q uality O utcomes One of the most important premises of th is study was the mediating role of donor s psychological empowerment in the association between relationship management strategies and quality outcomes. As a chain relationship among multiple variables, the mediation effect is defined as to a third variable/construct intervening betwee n t w o other related constructs (Hair et al., 2006, p. 844). While many public relationship management scholars (e. g. Bortree, 2007; Ki, 2006; Waters, 2007) have focused on the direct effect of organization s relationship management strategies
192 on the qual ity outcomes, they have ignored other variable s that may intervene in the linkages between the main relationship constructs of strategies and outcomes. By examining the indirect effects of relationship management strategies on relationship quality outcomes psychological empowerment, this study rectifies the previous gap in research. Th ere are two types of mediating effects: full or complete mediating effect s and partial mediating effect s Hair et al. (2006) defined full or complete mediatio n as a relationship between a predictor and an outcome variable becomes nonsignificant after a mediator is entered as an additional predictor (p. 844) T hey referred to partial mediation as effect when a relationship between a predictor and an outcom e is reduced but remains significant when a mediator is also entered as an additional predictor (p. 845). As described in the previous chapter, mediation test s with both regression and second order path analysis were run to test seven hypotheses The results supported the main premise of this study the mediating role of donor empowerment. The mediation analysis with regression results showed that donor psychological empowerment mediated the effect of the seven relationship managemen t strategies on all four relationship quality outcome s of control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. More specifically the analyses found a partial mediation effect of donors psychological empowerment because there were significant direct ef fects of relationship management strategies on relationship quality outcomes when donors psychological empowerment was introduced as an additional variable.
193 While significant mediating roles of donors psychological empowerment were found in all possible linkages between relationship management strategies and relationship quality outcomes, the highest value of the Sobel test score was found in the indirect effect of participation on control mutuality through empowerment whereas the lowest mediating effec t of empowerment was found in the path from access to trust This means that donors psychological empowerment intervenes most strongly in the association between the participation strategy and the relationship quality outcome of control mutuality but its intervening role effect i s the least between the access strategy and trust The Sobel test based on second order path analysis also affirmed the mediating effect of donors psychological empowerment in the association between overall relationship managem ent strategy and overall relationship quality outcomes Both direct and indirect effects of overall relationship management strategy on overall relationship quality outcomes were found. This means that when donors perceive that nonprofit organizations implement various relationship management strategies to manage their relationships with them, donors are likely to perceive that they have a quality rela tionship with the organizations in terms of balanced power satisfaction, trus t and commit ment In addition, when donors perceive the organizations efforts to manage relationships with them, they also feel more empowered and, in turn, they are more likely to perceive that they have high quality relationships with the organizations. T he indirect effect of relationship management strategies on relationship quality outcomes aligns with existing empowerment studies. I n the nursing industry, Laschinger et al. (2001a) found relationship management strategies, which were referred to as
194 structural empowerment in the study, had a direct effect on staff s trust in the organization Expanding the study, Laschinger et al. (200 1b) tested dynamic relationships among structural empowerment psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction. They found that structural empowerment had a direct effect on psychological empowerment, which in turn, had a direct effect on employees job sa tisfaction. R elationship Q uality O utcomes, E mpowerment, and B ehavior al I ntention Because behavior al intention is considered as one of the most important indicator s to predict the likelihood of certain behavior (Ajzen & Fisherbein, 1980), many scholars f rom various fields have researched the factors that predict behavioral intention. In the same vein, t his study further explored how behavior al intention can be predicted by both the four relationship quality outcomes and First, the study sought the association between the four relationship quality outcomes and donors intended future behavior. As the path analysis show ed relationship quality outcomes, as a whole, affected donors intended future behavior. However, when t esting the effect of each relationship quality outcome, results show ed that the effect sizes varied. O f the four relationship quality outcomes, only commitment had a significant effect on donors behavioral intentions, whereas control mutuality, satisfacti on, and trust did not have a direct effect This finding corresponded with the findings of Ki (2006) and Bortree (2007) who demonstrated that relationship quality outcomes as a group had a significant effect on publics behavioral intention. Along those same lines, l ooking at individual effects of the relationship quality outcomes, Ki (2006) found that among the four dimensions of relationship quality outcomes, only commitment had a direct effect on behavioral
195 intention. Similarly, t he strong effect of co mmitment on behavioral intention or actual behavior has been well documented. For example, from the marketing perspective, Sargeant et al. (2004; 2005a; 2005b) conducted several studies that showed commitment is a predictor of donors giving behavior. A p lausible explanation of why relationship quality outcomes other than commitment did not directly influence behavioral intention can be found in the dynamic linkages among these four relationship quality outcomes. Some scholars have explored the dynamic chain of associations among the relationship quality outcomes. Ki (2006) found that satisfaction is directly connected with trust, which, in turn, significantly affects commitment. Testing teen volunteers, Bortree (2007) also found th at control mutuality and satisfaction directly predict both trust and commitment whereas control mutuality also influences satisfaction In other words, this chain of relationship is initiated by control mutuality. Also, Sargeant (2004; 2005a) em pirical studies found that trust had a direct effect on commitment but not on behavioral intention. The fundraising scholars concluded that commitment ha s a mediating role in the relationship between trust and behavior. Sargeant and Lee (2004) defined mutu al influence ( which is the same as control mutuality ) as feels that their views have been influenced or shaped by the nonprofit and the extent to which they believe that they might in turn influence the policy of that organiz (p. 616) They considered control mutuality as one of the aspects of trust. Results should be interpreted with caution because of the high correlation among the four relationship quality outcomes which were commonly found in relationship management studies (i.e., Bortree, 2007; Ki, 2006). Given the high
196 correlations, Bortree (2007) and Ki (2006) also tested the effect of relationship quality outcomes as a uni dimension on behavioral intention, and found a significant effect of overall relationship q uality outcomes on behavioral intention. T he present study predicted a positive effect of donors psychological empowerment on behavioral intention. Both simple regression and path analysis results showed that there was a positive relationship between don empowerment and donors intended future behavior. This means that as donors feel empowered in the relationship with a nonprofit organization, they are more likely to donate in the future and share testimonials regarding the organization with others. Furthermore, in comparison to the effect of relationship quality outcomes on donors intended future behavior, donors psychological empowerment was a more powerful predictor of behavioral intention. Aligning these findings with existing empo werment research that gauged the value of empowerment, th e present study demonstrates that donors psychological empowerment enhances not only relationship quality outcomes but also desired behavior to support nonprofit organizations. Implications for P ub lic R elations T heory I n pursuit of better understanding of the dynamic nature of organization public relationship the present study introduced the concept of donors psychological empowerment as an outcome of re lationship management strategies and a n imp ortant predictor of qu ality organization public relationships As a buzz word in social science ( Knight, 2011; Page & Czuba, 1999 ), the concept of empowerment has been actively adopted by various academic fields to better understand the relationship between an organization and its publics. M o re specifically, it has been considered as the key construct to foster positive relationships between organizations and their publics as well
197 as to motivate desired behavior. Yet, there is a lack of empirical stud ies exploring empowerment in the field of public relations Filling a research gap that the current relationship management theory research has neglected, th is study aimed to explain the dynamic power relations and autonomy that publics perceive in the ir relationships with organization s Moreover, by introducing the concept of empowerment, the study explored publics internal states that may elucidate their intrinsic motivation and cognitive reactions to the organizations various activities and practices aimed at build ing and manag ing quality relationships. In doing so, this study makes several contributions to the field of public relations, especially the relationship management paradigm. First, unlike existing research, th is study empirically tested how public relations practices with publics influence publics internal states, psychological empowerment. Also, the study explored how th e internal state of publics is tied to publics evaluation of the relationships they have with the organizations. To date most relationship management studies have neglect ed publics responses to or evaluations of organization activities. Following the assertion of Broom et al. (1997) that publics perceptions, motives, needs, behaviors, and so forth that are posited as contingencies or causes in the formation of (p. 94), th is study bridges organizational behaviors or activities and publics perceptions and internal motivations. Also, in explicating the concept of relationship, Broom et al. (1997) argued that r elationships represent the exchange or transfer of information, energy or resources. Therefore, attributes of those exchanges or transfers represent and define the (p. 94). However, there has been a lack of research that addressed how
198 the exchange of organizational energy and resources influences publics internal state s Addressing Broom et al. s notion of relationship, the study found that organizations efforts or strategies to manage positive relationships with their publics enhance d the publics psychological empowerment which can be an intrinsic motivation or energy for publics to enact a certain behavior in the future. In other words, organizations energy and resources used in relationship s with publics w ere transformed to publi cs empowerment, which, in turn, motivated donors to pay back the organizations by perceiving the relationship positively and intending to enact desired behavio rs in the future Put another way the transfers or exchanges of positive energy in the relation ship between an organization and its publics can generate mutual benefits for both parties. Considering these sequential linkages among various variables tested (i.e., organizations efforts, publics internal states perceptions of relationship quality outcomes, and behavioral intentions ), the study also illustrated the contribution of strategic public relations practices to organizations. Over decades, many public relations scholars have sought to address the fundame ntal question of how public relations practices enhance organizational effectiveness and contribute to organizations (J. E. Grunig, 1992). Under the name of the E xcellence team, J. E. Grunig and his colleagues a ssert ed that the value of public relations ca n be found in managing quality relationships between an organization and its publics. Also, they argued that public relations practices based on the two way symmetrical model is the most effective and ethical. In other words, organizations genuine efforts to seek equilibrium will benefit both parties in relationships. In this thread, many public relationship scholar s introduced two way symmetrical public relations practices, such
199 as Hon and J. E. Grunig s (1999) six symmetrical relationship management stra tegies and Kelly s (1998) stewardship. Moreover, many relationship management scholars (e.g., Bortree, 2007; 2010; Ki & H o n, 2007; Waters, 2007; 2011) sought the direct linkages between these relationship management strategies and the relationship quality outcomes. Yet, despite th e s e effort s previous studies did not explore how two way symmetrical practices can enhance equilibrium in relationship s by empowering publics who can have significant influence over an organization s survival and failure. In resp onse to this dearth of research, the study explored the dynamic linkages between relationship management strategies, psychological empowerment, publics perceptions about relationship quality outcomes, and intended future behavior. More specifically, this empirical study found that psychological empowerment has a mediating effect in the path from relationship management strategies to relationship quality outcomes. This means that organizations efforts and interactive activities (i.e., relationship manageme nt strategies) can have both direct and indirect effects on relationship quality outcomes. Put another way, organizations relationship management strategies not only boost publics psychological empowerment but also evaluatio n about the relationships they have with organizations. Moreover, considering the strong and positive effects of empowerment and relationship quality outcomes on publics behavioral intentions effective relationship management strategies eventually determine publics behavior. Even though the study did not find a significant effect of the participation strategy which is considered a fundamental facilitator for enhanc ing publics psychological empowerment, it found the effects of the othe r relationship management
200 strategies. Similarly to other scholars, the study found that both publics psychological empowerment and four dimensions of relationship quality outcomes were influenced by different relationship management strategies in various ways. Another contribution of this study was finding that empowerment is a possible predictor of publics future behavior. N o ting the importance of behavioral intention, many relationship management scholars have also explored variables that affect public s behavior (Bortree, 2007; 2010; Ki, 2006; Ki & H o n, 2007; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). While these scholars focused heavily on the relationship quality outcomes as the predictors of behavior al intention, the present study added publics psychological empo werment as another possible predictor. Results showed a strong effect of psychological empowerment on behavioral intention, an effect that was more than twice as strong as commitment, the only dimension of relationship quality outcome with a significant ef fect In doing so, the study confirmed the value of public psychological empowerment on relationship quality outcomes and future behavioral intention. Lastly, the study had a significant contribution to building theory in nonprofit management. It introduced the concept of empowerment and explored its linkages with major relationship management variables (i.e., strategies) in the nonprofit setting. Effective relationship management in the nonprofit sector has been the focus of many nonprofit manage ment scholars as the sector has faced numerous challenges (Balser & McClusky, 2005; Harman, 2005; Herman & Renz, 1997; Ospina et al., 2002; Van Til, 2005). In special, understanding donors who can influence a nonprofit organization s success and survival h as drawn many nonprofit management scholars.
20 1 Referring to the need for effective relationship management in the nonprofit sector, Kelly s (1991; 1998) argument to understand fundraising as a specialization of public relations is noteworthy. In fact, there are some public relations scholars dedicated to developing and testing public relations theory in the nonprofit sector ( Cho, ). However, public relations scholars attention to this particular sector stil l is deficient The deficiency is evident in Sallot, Lyon, Scosta Alzuru, and Jones s (2003) research that explored the status of theory building in public relations. In their study Sallot et al. found that o f the 734 journal articles published by the yea r 2000 in major public relations journals, only four articles dealt with fundraising, accounting for less than 1% (0.54%) of all research articles Even though this research was conducted 10 years ago and public relations scholars have since focused more o n nonprofit management, the nonprofit sector needs more theoretical approach es by public relations scholarly research Responding to the lack of research in nonprofit management, the present study contributed to building knowledge in the field of nonprofit management by e xploring donors intrinsic motivation and internal states. Implications for the P ractice This empirical study offers numerous suggestions for public relations practitioners and nonprofit managers in terms of how publics empowerment, quality relationships and desired behavior s may be developed. First, by testing the effect of empowerment, the study provides practical guidance for public relations practitioners on how to develop and manage quality relationships wi th their important publics. As stated earlier, there are many organizations that want to improve relationships with their publics and the
202 s participate in the making process is a famous exemplar of the organizatio n al practice to empower consumers by relinquish ing its power or control (Norton & Avery, 2011). Even in managing an orchestra, Jonathan Spitz a rtistic d irector of the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra also exerts leadership in empowering orchestra members to further engage for better performance ( MacDonald 2011). However, w hile many practices regarding publics empowerment are restricted to invit ing publics to participate in the organizations decision making process (i.e, focused on participation), th is study shows that the participation strategy may not be appropriate for enhanc ing publics psychological empowerment. Rather, the study proposes the use of dive rse strategies to enhance publics empowerment, such as openness, positivity, assurance s sharing of tasks, access, and reciprocity. Th is study identified the unique effects of each relationship management strateg y on publics psychological empowerment an d, as a result, on relationship quality Reflecting on the findings, it can be concluded that by implementing the strategies identified in this study, public relations practitioners can enhance publics psychological empowerment For example, organizations can be more open to publics by sharing substantial information and share publics tasks or concerns in order to improve publics psychological empowerment. M o reover, the study adopted multidimensional empowerment consisting of the four dimensions of mea ning, competenc e autonomy, and impact. By exploring which public relations strategies have positive effects on each element of empowerment, the study offers more detailed guidance on how to improve a specific empowerment
203 construct. For example, to boost p ublics competenc e public relations practitioners can utilize sharing of tasks and reciprocity strategies while they can implement openness and positivity strategies to enhance public autonomy. Similarly, the study explored how relation ship management strategies are tied to publics perceptions about relationship quality outcomes. By implementing appropriate relationship management strategies, public relations practitioners can encourage publics to perceive the ir relationships with the o rganization positively and lead them to enact a desired behavior. For example public relations practitioners may implement positivity assurance s sharing of tasks, and reciprocity strategies to foster a public s feeling of commit ment to wards the organiza tion, which is a strong predictor of intended future behavior among donors Also, by demonstrating the sequential linkage s from organizations public relations practices to publics psychological state s to their perception s about relationship quality outcomes to publics behavior al intention, the study explained how strategic public relations practices can benefit both publics and organizations themselves. In particular by testing this model in the nonprofit donor relations hip context, the study provided practical directions for fundraisers and other nonprofit managers on how to improve their fundraising results By revealing how donors psychological empowerment and their perceptions about relationship quality outcomes infl uence their behavioral intention (i.e., gift giving and endorsing the organization ), the study suggests that nonprofit managers and fundraisers need to develop programs to enhance donors psychological empowerment and quality relationships, which, in turn, could result in donors intended future behavior. As suggested to public relations practitioners,
204 nonprofit managers can also utilize various strategies that enhance both donors psychological empowerment and relationship quality outcomes. M o reover, this study reaffirms the findings by Gagn (2003) who argued that donors psychological empowerment is positively related to their pro social behavior. In doing so, this study offers practical fundraising advice for nonprofit managers. Also, the study recommend s that based on the type of donors (annual giving donors or major gift donors), nonprofit managers need to implement tailored relationship management strategies to enhance donors psychological empowerment. More importantly, the study helps fund raisers better understand their roles within the organizations. As Kelly (1998) argued, the purpose of fundraising is not to raise money, but to help a nonprofit organization build quality relationships with donor publics to achieve the organization s miss ion. Yet many people misunderstand the purpose of fundraising as merely solicit ing gifts. This narrow minded scope may threaten the positions of fundraisers within the organization when nonprofit organizations fail to reach philanthropic dollar goals, espe cially in the current economic situation. However, by highlighting the importance of quality relationships between a nonprofit organization and its donors, th is study affirms the role of fundraisers as well as their contributions to nonprofit organizations L i mitations of the S tudy and S uggestions for F uture R esearch By seeking a more comprehensive model of the value of effective public relationship management enhancing publics psychological empowerment, managing positive relationship quality outcomes, and encouraging desirable behavior s th is study expanded existing relationship management theory and provided practical guidance for
205 the field of public relations. Yet, despite it s unique and important contributions to both the academy and the practice, the study has several limitations that need to be acknowledge d and the limitation point to future avenues of research which also a re discussed in this section First, the study lim ited its setting to only the nonprofit sector (and more specifically to nonprofit charitable organizations ), and a specific type of publics, donors. Thus, given the distinctive natures of the sector and its publics, it is possible that the findings may be different for other types of organizations and publics Therefore, future studies should test the model presented here in various organizational setting s, such as for profit business government agencies or other types of nonprofit s, as well as with diff erent types of publics such as employees, consumers, community members, and investors. Also, even in the nonprofit sector, while donors are one of the most important publics of charitable organizations, there are still many types of publics with whom nonp rofit organizations should build and manage relationships, such as trustees volunteers, employees, and clients who consume the service s the organizations provide. By r eplicating the model in various settings, the study s findings may acquire greater ext ernal validity. Similarly, the study has a generalizability limitation Even though the study collected sample s from five different nonprofit charitable organizations which support various social issues (i.e., arts and culture, girls and youth support, e nvironmental/animal rights community service, and immigrant support ) r ather than focusing solely on one nonprofit there are numerous nonprofit charitable organizations that advance society with different and various missions Moreover even though
206 educat ion and healthcare nonprofits are the ones that received most gift dollars (Kelly, 1998), the study did not include these types of organizations. Also, the organizations studied here are relatively small nonprofit organizations, which may have provided bia s. Despite its attempt to ensure cross validation of the model, the study did not include a comprehensive sample of the whole nonprofit organizations and their donors to portray the variety of the sector. Thus, the study s findings might not be generaliz ab l e to the entire population of nonprofits and donor publics. In addition, although variances in giving exist by regions ( Havens & Schervish, 2005 ), organizations participating in this study are located in a one, small geographic area. M o reover, the majority of the donor sample is skewed toward older ( M = 57.21), female, well educated Caucasians and over half of the sample ha s lived the community 20 years or longer. Given the distinctive natures of both the geographic area and the sample, caution is required when interpretation of the findings. A nother concern related to external validity is the study s relatively low response rates of 17.55% for total responses and 14.27% for complete responses. Considering that the typical response rat e for an online survey is between 1% and 30% (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006), the study yield ed a moderate response rate. Yet the response rate is considered low, which may have resulted in response bias. Another limitation of the study is related to its method ological approach. The study employed an analytic survey to describe interrelationships among the variables. T h is study used path analysis in SEM based on theoretical assumptions to explain possible causality among the variables Hair et al. (2006) argued that path analysis results can explain causal relationship s if four conditions are met: 1) systematic
207 covariation (correlation) between independent variables and dependent variables, 2) temporal sequence between the cause and the effect, 3) nonspurious co variance, and 4) theoretical support. While the study satisfied the two conditions of covariation and theoretical support, the other two conditions were not met To better explain the causality found in the model, experimental designs with some controlled manipulation or longitudinal studies should be adopted for future research. Lastly, the study found high correlations among the variables, especially between the seven relationship management strategies and the four relationship quality outcomes. T his phenomenon has also been traced in previous studies (e.g., Bortree, 2007; Ki, 2006). Th e high correlation s suggest that relationship management strategies and relationship quality outcomes should be considered as uni dimensional concepts although each con struct has unique theoretical aspects of public relationship management practices and quality. To address this issue, scholars are urged to revisit the existing literature that explores relationship management strategies and quality outcomes to modify the existing variables and provide redefined relationship management strategies and quality outcomes. As some scholars have observed, some of the relationship management strategies suggested by many public relations scholars appear to be somewhat overlapp ing or interconnected. For example, an organization s openness and access strategies have commonalities in sharing organizational information and resources. Similarly, the sharing of tasks strategy that addresses an organization s efforts to help the other par ty s concerns may imply positivity, which helps public s enjoy the relationship through pleasant experiences Also, even though they are defined
208 conceptually differently, public relations practitioners may utilize the strategies in combination W hen an orga nization decides to be more open in communicati ng with publics, its efforts may involve both sharing information publically and giving publics easy access to organizational staff or resources. T o make the relationship management strategies more applicable to practice a more simplified and condense d list of relationship management strategies is recommended In a similar manner future research need revalidat e the existing measurement scales to better measure the distinctive characteristics of relationship variables. Conclusion P u blic empowerment has been discussed for several decades in both the literature of numerous social science disciplines and the ir related practices. While empowerment, as a social process, arises in relationships between two partie s, public relations scholars have neither participated in this debate nor actively explored the linking concept with public relations practices. Filling this scarcity of research, the present study examined the concept of publics psychological empowerment and antecedents and consequences of empowerment in the relationship management context. M o re specifically, applying the concept to the nonprofit sector, the study examined how public relations practices can enhance donors psychological empowerment, whic h in turn, affects the relationship quality out comes and results in positive intention by donors to enact desirable behavior s in the future This study empirically tested how relationship management strategies based on the two way symmetrical model are li nked to donors psychological empowerment which is composed of four dimensions: meaning, competenc e autonomy, and impact.
209 Also, the study demonstrated how relationship management strategies affect donors perceptions o f the relationship quality outcomes of control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Furthermore, the study found that donors overall psychological empowerment and commitment, a relationship quality outcome, are strong predictors of donors futur e behavior. T he effect of empowerment on donors behavior al intentions is much stronger than the forecasting effect of commitment which is a particularly noteworthy finding By revealing the sequential linkages between an organization s efforts to manage relationships with its publics publics internal states and perceptions of relationship quality, th is study highlighted how strategic public relations practices can benefit publics by empowering them, as well as contribute to organizations by improving evaluations of their r elationships with the organization and by increasing publics intentions to enact desired behavior s In short, the study demonstrates how public relations practices based on the two way symmetrical approach can generate mutua l benefits for both an organization and its publics. Resonating with J. E. Grunig and Hunt s (1984) two way symmetrical public relations practices, the study empirically shows how public relations practices in the win win zone described by Dozier et al. (1 995) are normative and positive and lead public s to feel empowered
210 APPENDIX A RESEARCH INVITATION LETTER TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Date
211 APPENDIX B SURVEY INVITATION LE TTER ( ORGANIZATION NAME ) is preparing to launch a study to explore the relationships that donors have with the charitable nonprofits to which they contribute. We are working with a doctoral candidate in the UF College of Journalism and Communications to design the survey and analy ze the results, under the supervision of her dissertation committee chair, Dr. Kathleen Kelly. Survey results will advance our fundraising and public relations efforts to yield desired outcomes high quality relationships with donors and their continued l oyalty to ( ORGANIZATION NAME ). I invite your participation in this study to assist our effort to improve ( ORGANIZATION NAME ability to best serve your needs. In a few days you will receive an email from ( ORGANIZATION NAME ) with a lin k to a survey that asks questions about relationships between ( ORGANIZATION NAME ) and its donors. The results will help rate the job ( ORGANIZATION NAME ) is doing and will help us improve the level of service to you in the future. Please look for the surve y link in the next few days. It is extremely important that you complete it promptly to allow the graduate student time to gather her data for analysis. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NAME ) at Phone number, or t he researcher at (352) 870 9311 or firstname.lastname@example.org. Sincerely, (NAME) (TITLE) (NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION)
212 APPENDIX C COVER LETTER DATE (FIRST NAME) (LAST NAME) (ADDRESS) (CITY), (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Dear (DONOR NAME) : (ORGANIZATION NAME) needs your your input to help make our fundraising efforts more efficient. We are working with a research team at the University of Florida that specializes in fundraising to better understand and improve the relationship we have with our donors. This survey focuses on the different strategies that (ORGANIZATION NAME) uses to develop relationships with donors. Your answers will be combined with other donors to help us understand the views of our community. Your participation will help us streamline and improve our fundraising programs. Reevaluating our fundraising efforts will allow us to focus our efforts on ways that we can pursue the mission of (ORGANIZATION NAME) more efficiently. The survey will take approx imately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Your response is extremely important and valuable for the results because a limited number of surveys were distributed. Your answers will be used for statistical purposes and will be anonymous. If you decide to parti cipate in our efforts, please click the link below and complete the survey. [Insert survey link] If you have any questions about the project, please feel free to contact me at (PHONE NUMBER) or e mail me at (EMAIL ADDRESS). Thank you for your continued support of (ORGANIZATION NAME). Sincerely, (NAME) (TITLE) (NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION)
213 APPENDIX D REMINDER Recently, you received an email encouraging your completion of a survey designed to help us improve our fundraising efforts. If you have already com pleted the survey, thank you! If you have not had the time to finish the survey yet, we hope you will take a few moments to complete the survey. The results of the survey will help us design a fundraising plan that will help us more effectively and effici ently pursue the mission of (ORGANIZATION NAME). Please click on this link: [Insert survey link] Thank you in advance for your participation! (NAME) (TITLE) (NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION)
214 APPENDIX E UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD INFORMED CONSENT APPROVAL Protocol Title: Public empowerment to enhance nonprofit donor relationships and giving behavior Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: motivation for engaging with nonprofit organizations and their giving behavior. nonpr ofit charitable organizations they donate. What you will be asked to do in the study: Upon reading the description about the study and agreeing to participate, you will be asked to complete the survey questionnaire that asks your perception about the rela tionship with nonprofit organizations and your psychological state. Time required : About 10 15 minutes Risks and Benefits : We do not anticipate there will be any risks or direct benefits to you as a consequence of your decision to complete the survey. C ompensation : No monetary compensation will be given for participating in this study. Confidentiality name will not be connected to your responses. Your identity will remain anonymous. Volu ntary participation : Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You can choose not to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Right to withdraw from the study : You have the right to withdraw f rom the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Ms. Moonhee Cho, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Public Relations, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida; 352 870 9311, email@example.com Dr. Kathleen S. Kelly, Professor, Department of Public Relations, College of Journalism a nd Communications, University of Florida; 352 392 9359, firstname.lastname@example.org
215 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study : IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone (352) 392 0433 email@example.com Agreement : If you agree to participate in the study, please click the button to proceed the survey. Click here
216 APPENDIX F SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer the following questions about you and your charitable giving. 1. How long have you lived in your current community? a. Less than 2 year s b. 2 to 10 years c. 10 to 20 years d. 20 years or longer 2. How many years have you been donating to (Name of Nonprofit Organization)? ______ _____ Years 3. Approximately how much in total did you donate to (Name of Nonprofit Organization) during the last three years ? $______________________ _____ 4. Including (Name of Nonprofit Organization), how many organizations do you donate to each year, on average? ______ ___ Number of organizations 5. The items below may or may not describe how (Name of Nonprofit Organization) treats its donors. For eac h statement, please click/circle the number that best represents your response on the 7 point scale provided, where Strongly Neutral Strongly Disa gree A gree source of information for donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization provides detailed information to donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization makes a genuine effort to provide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization is involved in managing issues that donors care about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization provides donors with opportunities to meet its staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thank you for taking time to participate in this survey This research examines your perception about the relationship you have with (Name of Nonprofit Organization) To complete the survey, please refer to (Name of Nonprofit Organization) as the organization ." Even though some questions seem repetitive, they are essential to measure your relationship with (Name of Nonprofit Organization) Thus, please complete the survey without skipping Your answers will be used only for statistical purposes and will remain strictly confidential. Please read the instructions carefully and answer all questions
217 The organization always sends donors a thank you letter for their donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization attempts to make its interactions with donors enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization communicates the importance of its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization takes the time with donors to understand who they are and what they need. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization shares enough information with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization works with donors to develop solutions that benefit donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization involves donors to help identify the information they need. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 When donors have questions or concerns, the organization is willing to answer their inquiries. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization makes it easy to find the information donors need. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization provides donors with adequate contact information for specific staff to deal with specific issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization provides donors with enough information to understand the issues it faces. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Because of their previous donations, the organization recognizes donors as friend s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization asks for feedback from donors about the quality of its information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization is flexible when working with donors to come to mutually beneficial solutions to shared concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Receiving regular communications from the organization is beneficial to donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization acknowledges donations in a timely manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization asks the opinions of donors before making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 When donors raise concerns, the organization takes these concerns seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization does not provide donors with enough information about what it does with donations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The information the organization provides donors is of little use to them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Donors do not believe that the organization really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
218 cares about their concerns. The organization and donors do not work well together at solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization does not provide donors with adequate contact information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization is not sincere when it thanks donors for their contributions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. The items below describe feelings donors sometimes have about their giving. Please respond to each statement based on your giving to (Name of Nonprofit), referred to in your response on the 7 point scale provided, where Strongly Neutral Strongly Disa gree A gree My giving to the organization is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My impact on what happens in the organization is large 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have mastered the skills necessary for giving effectively. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I give to the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have significant influence over what happens in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My giving to the organization is meaningful to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have a great deal of control over what happens in the organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can decide on my own how to go about making my gifts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am confident about my ability to give to meet my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My philanthropic activities with the organization are personally meaningful to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have significant autonomy in determining how I give to the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am self assured about my capabilities to perform my philanthropic activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
219 7. The items below may or may not describe your relationship with (Name of Nonprofit Organization). For each statement, please click/circle the number that best represents your response on the 7 point scale provided, equals Strongly Neutral Strongly Disa gree A gree The organization and donors are attentive to each 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this organization more. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Donors are happy with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization really listens to what its donors have to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to accomplish its mission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Both the organization and its donors benefit from their relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would rather have a relationship with this organization than not. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization respects its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization gives donors enough say in the decision making process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship the organization has established with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe donors have influence on the decision makers of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Most donors enjoy dealing with this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long term commitment with donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises to donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Most donors are happy in their interactions with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe that the organization takes the opinions of donors into account when making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There is a long lasting bond between the organization and its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 When donors interact with this organization, they have a sense of control over the situation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 When the organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
220 The organization fails to satisfy the needs of its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I cannot see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with its donors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization does not believe the opinions and concerns of its donors are important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The organization does not have the ability to meet its goals and objectives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Based on your overall experience with (Name of Nonprofit Organization), please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to take the following actions. For each statement, please click/circle the number that best represents your response on the 9 point sc ale provided, where Strongly Neutral Strongly Disa gree A gree I will continue donating to the organization in the near future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will increase the amount of my gifts to the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will recommend to my friends and relatives that they donate to the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will say positive things about the organization to my friends and relatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If I am ever in the position of making a very large gift, I will talk to this organization first. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please answer the following questions based on your personal demographic information to help us better interpret your answers. 9. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female 10. What is your age? __ ____ _____ Years old 11. What is your ethnicity ? a. African American/Black b. Asian c. Caucasian d. Hispanic/Latino e. Middle Eastern f. Native American g. Other (specify) :_________________ 12. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (check one)
221 a. High school b. Some college degree c. Four year college degree d. Graduate degree (e.g., MA, PhD.) e. Other (specify): _______________ _________________ 13. What is your current employment status? a. Employed full time b. Employed part time c. Unemployed d. Retired e. Student f. Homemaker g. Other (specify) :_________________ ______ __ 14. What was your approximate household income last year before taxes? a. Less than $50,000 b. $50,001 $100,000 c. $100,001 $ 150,000 d. $150,001 $ 200,000 e. $200,001 $250,000 f. More than $250,000 That completes the survey. Thank you for your help.
222 LIST OF REFERENCES Abzug, R., & Webb, N. J. (1999). Relationships between nonprofit and for profit organizations: A stakeholder perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28 (4), 416 431. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. ( 2009 ). Statistical methods for the social sciences ( 4 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ahern, T., & Joyaux, S. P. (2008). Keep your donors: The guide to better communications & stronger relationships Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Alsop, R. & Heinsohn, N. (2005). Measuring empowerment in practice: Structuring analysis and framing indicators. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3510 Retrieved January 19, 2010 from: http://www.sasanet.org/documents/Curriculum/ConceptualFramework/Measurin g%20Empowerment%20in%20Practice.pdf Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. In L. Berkowitz ( E d.), Advances in e xperimental p sychology Vol. 14. Orlando FL : Academic Press. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and in novation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123 167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Anderson, M. R. (2010). Community psychology, political efficacy, and trust. Political Psychology, 31 (1) 59 84. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 10 411 423. Anderson, R. E., & Huang, W. (2005). Empowering sales people: Personal, manageria l, and organizational perspectives. Psychology & Marketing, 23 (2), 139 159. Anderson, R. M., & Funnel, M. M. (2005). Patient empowerment: Reflections on the challenge of fostering the adoption of a new paradigm. Patient Education and Counseling, 57 (2), 15 3 157. Arnett, R. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 89 105.
223 Auger, G. A. (2011). An experimental analysis of the effect of transparency on charitable nonprofit and for profit business organizations Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1), 69 97. Avery, J. B., Hughes, L. W., Norman, S. M., & Luthans, K. W. (2008). Using positivity, transformational leadership and empowerment to combat employee negativity Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29 (2), 110 126. Bab bie, E. R. (2010). The practice of social research Belmont, C A : Wadsworth Cengage. Backman, E. V., & Smith, S. R. (2000). Healthy organizations, unhealthy communities? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10 (4), 355 73. Bagozzi, R. P. (1995). Reflections on relationship marketing in consumer markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 272 277. Balser, D., & McClusky, J. (2005). Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15 ( 3), 295 315. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 191 215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barman, E. A. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of nonprofit organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80 (4), 1191 1222. Barnes, B. (2004). The concept of power. In K Pheby (Ed.) Power and organizations Durham NC : Durham Business School MBA Durham University. Baron, R. M, & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and S ocial Psychology, 51 (6), 1173 1182. Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science, 17 (4), 319 325. Berger, B. K. (2005). Power o ver, p ower w ith, and p ower to r elations: Critical R eflections on p ublic r elations, the d ominant c oalition, and a ctivism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (1), 5 28. Bok, S. (1989). Secrets : O n the ethics of concealment and revelation New York: Vintage Books.
224 Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables New York: Wiley. Borghei, R., Jandaghi, G., Martin, H. Z., & Dastani, N. (2010). An examination of the relationship between empowerment and organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Sciences, 7 (2), 63 79. Bortree, D. S. (2007). R elationship management with adolescent publics: The role of relationship management strategies and relationship quality outcomes on Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville. Bortree, D. S. (2010) Exploring adolescent organization relationships: A study of effective relationship strategies with adolescent volunteers. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22 (1), 1 25. Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field Journal of Communication, 54 (4), 645 661. Bowen, S. A. (2004). Organizational factors encouraging ethical decision making: An exploration into the case of an exemplar. Journal of Business Ethics, 52 (4), 311 324. Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1992). The empowerm ent of service workers: What, why, how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 33 (3), 31 39. Bracht, N., Finnegan, Jr., J. R., Rissel, C., Weisbrod, R., Gleason, J., Corbett, J., & Veblen Mortenson, S. (1994). Community ownership and program continuation foll owing a health demonstration project. Health Education Research, 9 (2), 243 255. Breckenridge, L. P. (1999). Nonprofit environmental organizations and the restructuring of institutions for ecosystem management. Ecology Law Quarterly, 25 (4), 692 706. Broom G. M. ( 2009 ). (10 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Res earch, 9 (2), 83 98. Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization public relationships. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Brunin g (Eds). Public r elations as r elationship m anagement : A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 3 22). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
225 Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Rev iew, 28 (1), 39 48. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi dimensional organization public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25 (2), 157 170. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Organization and key public relationships: Testing the influence of the relationship dimensions in a business to business context. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds). Public r elations as r elationship m anagement : A relational approach t o the study and practice of public relations (pp. 159 173). Mahwa h, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization public relationship` scale: E xploring the role that structural and personal commi tment play in organization public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29 (3), 309 319. Bruning, S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2004). Building relationships between organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent. Communication Studies, 5 (3), 435 446. Bryce, H. J. (2007). The public's trust i n nonprofit organizations: The role of relationship marketing and management. California Management Review, 49 (4), 112 131. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51 (3), 193 214. B urlingname, D. F., & Hulse, L. J. (Eds.). (1991). Taking fund raising seriously: Advancing the profession and practice of raising money. San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Burnett, K. (2002). Relationship fundraising: A donor based approach to the business of raising money San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Burke, E. M. (1999 ). Corporate community relations: The principle of the neighbor of choice Westport, CT: Praeger. Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marria ge. Communication Monographs, 59 239 267. Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Communication Research R eports, 10 (1), 5 14.
226 Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3 22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Canar y, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. A. (2002). A panel study of the associations between maintenance strategies and relational characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 (2), 395 406. Casalo, L. V., Flavian, C., & Guinaliu, M. (2010). Generating t rust and satisfaction in e services: The impact of usability on consumer behavior. Journal of Relationship marketing, 9 (4), 247 263. Chang, W. (2005). Online civic participation, and political empowerment: Online media and public opinion formation in Kore a. Media Culture & Society 27 ( 6 ), 925 935 Cho, M. (2009 August ). Unveiling types of relationship s between corporate donors and charitable organizations based on the coorientation model Paper presented to the Public Relations Division Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication National Convention Boston, MA. Cho, M., & Auger, G. (2011 Auguest ). empowerment, faculty interaction, and perceived relationship investment as dete rminants of relationship quality with their academic department. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication National Convention St. Louis, MO. Coleman, J. C. (1988). Social capital in t he creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 S95 S120. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471 482. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). It's not just PR: Public relations in society Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub lishing Cornell Empowerment Group. (1989 October ). Empowerment and family support. Networking Bulletin, 1 (2), 1 23. CornwalI, J. R., & Perlman, B. (1990). Organizational entr epreneurship. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Cotterrell, R. (2000). Transparency, mass media, ideology and community. Cultural Values, 3 414 426. Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participatio n: Diverse forms and different outcomes. The Academy of Management Review, 13 (1), 8 22.
227 Craig, G., & Mayo, M. (1995). Community empowerment: A reader in participation and development London: Zed Books. Czerwinski, S. J. (2007). Nonprofit sector: Increasi ng numbers and key role in delivering federal services United States Government Accountability Office (GAO 07 1084T): Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Dagron, A. G. (2009). Playing with fire: Power, participation, and communication for development Development in Practice, 19 (4 5), 453 465. Dahl, R. A. (1957). On the concept of power. Behavioural Science, 2 201 215. deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior New York: Academic Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self d etermination research Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 580 590. Deci, E. L., Eghari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facili tating internalization: The self determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62 119 142. Dee, J. R., & Henkin, A. B. (2006). Communication and donor relations: A social skills perspective. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 8 (2), 107 119. Dell, C. (2009). Stewarding culture and donors: A study of stewardship in the fundraising practices of U.S. accredited museums Unpublished master s thesis University of Florida, Gainesville. De Wulf, K., Odekerken Schroder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). I nvestments in consumer relationships: A cross country and cross industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65 (4), 33 50. Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Q uarterly, 18(4), 453 461. Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer seller relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 61 (2), 35 51. Dove, K. E., Martin, V. L., Wilson, K. K., Bonk, M. M., & Beggs, S. C. (2002). Cond ucting a successful development services program San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass Publishers.
228 Dozier, D. M. & Grunig, L. A (1992). The organization of the public relations function. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 395 417) Hillsdale, NJ: L awrence Erlbaum Associates Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager's guide to excellence in public relations and communication management Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Drucker, P. F. (2006). Managing the nonprofit organization. New York: Collins. movement: The politics of scale and political empowerment in the World March of Women. Social Science Quarterly, 88 (5), 1152 1173. Duhon Haynes, G. M. (1996 March ). Student empowerment: Definition, implications, and strategies for implementation Paper presented at the Third World Symposium, G rambling, LA. Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and com munication to an organization. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 617 638) Hillsdale, NJ: L awrence Erlbaum Associates Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit secto r: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64 (2), 132 140. Ellis, K., & Shockley Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate supervisor: The relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and information r eceiving. Communication Quarterly, 49 (4), 382 398. Ergeneli, A., Ari, G. S., & Metin, S. (2006). Psychological empowerment and its relationship to trust in immediate managers. Journal of Business Research, 60 41 49. Ettington, D. (1992). Successfully plateaued middle managers Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Ferguson, M. A. (1984 August ). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships Paper presented to the Public Relations Divisio n, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication National Convention Gainesville, FL. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research Reading, MA : Addison Wesley Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together: Building a relationship that gets to y es Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
229 Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage. Fowler, A. F. (1998). Authentic NGD O partnerships in the new policy agenda for international aid: Dead end or light ahead? Development and Change, 29 137 159. Fredricks, L. (2001). Stewarding your donors for their next enhanced gift. In L. Fredricks (Ed.), Developing major gifts: Turning small donors into big contributors (pp. 177 196). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers. Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach Boston: Pitman. Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young worker s Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246 255. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. The Academy of Management Review, 24 (2), 191 205. Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The psychological effects of Journal of Marketing, 74 65 79. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity New York: Free Press. Fller, J., Mhlbacher, H., Matzler, K ., & Jawecki, G. (2009). Consumer empowerment through internet based co creating. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26 (3), 71 102. Ga g en MacDonald (2011). Empowering o thers. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from http://www.letgoandlead.com/2011/08/jonathan spitz empowering others/ Gagn, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27 (3), 199 223. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 70 87. Geroy, G. D., Wright, P. C., & Anderson, J. (1998). Strategic performance empowerment mod el. Empowerment in Organizations, 6 (2), 57 65. Gist, M. E. (1987). Self efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12 472 485. Givens, T. H. (1987). Applying ethical theory to public r elations. Journal of Business Ethics, 6 (3), 195 200.
230 Giving USA Foundation (2011). Giving USA : The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2010 Executive summary Retrieved August 2, 2011, from http://www.givingusareports.org/products/GivingUSA_2011_ExecSummary_Prin t.pdf Gmez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader member exchange as a link between manage rial trust and employee empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 26 (1), March 2001 53 69. Gordon, S. E., Strode, C. B., & Brady, R. M. (1993). Student affairs and educational fundraising: The first critical step. New Directions for Student Service s 6 3 5 15. Gose, B. (2011). Charities t hat w ork t ogether d o b etter in t ough t imes The Chronicle of Philanthropy 23(9) p. 19. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25 (2), 161 178. Grace, K. S. (1997). Beyond fund raising New York: John Wiley & Sons. Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A. Soetanto, R., & King, N. (2005). Employee perceptions of empowerment. Employee Relations, 27 (4), 354 368. Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner resources for school Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 508 517. Grunig, J. E. (1984). Organizations, environments, and models of public rel ations. Public Relations Research and Education, 1 (1), 6 29. Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton, Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17 44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management Hillsdale, NJ: L awrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: O ngoing research on public re lations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 (2), 151 176. Grunig, J. E. & Huang, Y H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships and outcomes. In J. A. Ledingh am & S. D. Bruning (Eds.) Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23 53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
231 Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations N ew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig, J. E., & White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and practice. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 31 64). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Grunig, L. A. (1992). Power in the public relations department. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 483 502) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig, (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65 90 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hall, P. D. (2005). Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations in the United States. In R. Herman & Associates, The Jossey Bass h andbook of n onprofit l eadership & m anagement ( 2 nd ed. pp.3 38). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Han, X. (2006). An investigation of the relationship between customer empowerment and service. Service Systems and Service Management, 1 47 52. Harlow, R. F. (1976). Building a public relations definition. Public Relations Review 2 (4) 34 37. Havens, J. J., & Schervish, P. G. (2005). Geography and generosity: Boston and b eyond Boston College: Center on Wealth and Philanthrop y. Helmig, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research overview. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25 (2), 101 116. Herman, R. D. (2005). The Jossey Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass.
232 Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26 185 206 Hibbert, S., Piacentini, M., & Dajani, H. A. (2003). Understanding volunteer motivation for participation in a community based food cooperative. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8 (1), 30 42. Hobson, C.J., Rominger, A., Malec, K.L., Hobson, C., & Evans, K. (1996). Volunteer friendliness of nonprofit agencies: Definition, conceptual model, and applications. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 4 (4), 27 41. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for mea suring relationships in public relations Gainesville FL : Institut e for Public Relations. Hon, L. C., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). Women in public relations: P roblems and opportunities. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.) Excellence in public relations and c ommunication management (pp. 419 438) Hillsdale, NJ: L awrence Erlbaum Associates. Hong, Y. (2006). Relationship maintenance with financial publics: Investor relations link of Forbes 200 best small company Web sites. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Journal of Development Studies, 43 (2), 265 293. Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Sample size, reliability, and test of statistical mediatio n. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 195 222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternativ es Structural Equation M odeling, 6 1 55. Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict management strategies Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Maryland, College Park. Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross cultural, multiple item scale for measuring organization public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 61 90. Huang, X. Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust: The differential effects on managerial and non managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31 122 143.
233 Huczynsi, A., & Buchanan, D. (2001). Organisational behavior: A n introductory text Harlow UK : Prentic e Hall. Hung, C. J. F. (2002). The interplays of relationship types, relationship cultivation, and relationship outcomes: How multinational and Taiwanese companies practice public relations and organization public relationship management in China Un publi shed doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park. Hung, C. J. F. (2005). Exploring types of organization public relations and their implications for relationship management in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (4), 3 93 426. Hutton, J. G., Goodman, M. B., Alexander, J. B., & Genest, C. M. (2001). Reputation management: The new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations Review, 27 247 261. Janse, G., & Konijnendijk, C. C. (2007). Communication between science policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry: Experiences from the Neighbourhoods project. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6 (1), 23 40. Jarvenpaa, S., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M (2000). Consumer trust in an i nternet store. Information Technology and Management, 1 (1), 45 71. Jeavons, T. H. (2005). Ethical nonprofit management. In R. Herman & Associates, The Jossey Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership & management (2 nd ed. pp. 204 229 ). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Jin, B. (2009). Th e roles of public relations and social capital for communal relationship building: Enhancing collaborative values and outcomes Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville. Jo, S. (2006). Measurement of organization public relati onships: Validation of measurement using a manufacturer retailer relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 225 248. Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2004). Organization public relationships: Measurement validation in a u niversity setting Journal of Communication Management, 9 14 27. Johnson Grossnickle Associates (2010, April 5). New survey of Millennial donors finds they want relationships, specific appeals and input opportunities. Achieve Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.achieveguidance.com/news/new survey of millennial donors finds they want relationships specific appeals and input opportunities Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107 (1), 4 25.
234 Jonker, C. M., & Treur, J. (1999). Formal a nalysis of models for the dynamics of trust based on experience In F. J. Garijo & M. Bowman (Eds .), Proceedings of MAAMAW'99: Multi agent system engineering Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Johnston, K. A. (2010). Community engagement : Exploring a relationa l approach to consultation and collaborative practice in Australia. Journal of Promotion Management, 16 (1 & 2), 217 234. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation New York: Basic Books. Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circui ts. Harvard Business Review, 57 (4), 65 75. Kanter, R. M. (1986). Empowering people to act on ideas. Executive Excellence 2 5 6 Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2 nd ed.) New York: Basic Books. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2 nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J.E. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interd ependence Wiley, New York. Kelloway, K (1998 ) Using LISREL for s tructural e quation m odeling: A r g uide Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso ciates. Kelly, K.S. (1998). Effective fund raising management Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K.S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In R. L. Heath. (Ed.), Handbook of p ublic r elations (pp. 279 289). Thou sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kelly, K.S. (2002).The state of fund raising theory and research. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), New s trategies for e ducational f und r aising (pp. 39 55). Westport, CT: Praeger Kelly, K. S. (2003). Continuum of fundraising Unpublished class materials. University of Louisiana at Lafayette Lafayette, LA. Kelly, K. S. (2008). Fundraising. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communication 5 (pp. 1914 1917). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
235 Ki, E. J. (2006). Link ages among relationship maintenance strategies, relationship quality outcomes, attitude, and behavioral intentions Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Ki, E J., & Shin, J. H. (2006). Status of organization public relatio nship research from an analysis of published articles, 1985 2004. Public Relations Review, 32 194 195. Ki, E. J., & H on, L. C. (2006). Relationship maintenance strategies on Fortune 500 company web s ites. Journal of Communication Management, 10 (1), 27 43 Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization public relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19 (1), 1 23. Ki, E J., & Hon, L. C. (2009). A measure of relationship cultivation strategies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21 (1), 1 24. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 42 (1), 58 74. Klagge, J. (1998). T he empowerment squeeze: Views from the middle management position. Journal of Management Development, 17 (8), 548 558. Kline, R. B. (20 05 ). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling ( 2 nd ed ). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Knight, P. (201 1, February). Employee empowerment: Is it just a buzz word? Message posted to http://patriciaknight.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/employee empowerment is it just a buzz word/ Knol, J., & van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: The effect of structural and psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65 (2), 359 370. Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (1988). Public relations and community: A reconstructed theory New York: Praeger. Kuokkanen, L., & Leino Kilpi, H. (2000). Power and empowerment in nursing: Three theoretical approaches. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31 (1), 235 241. Langdridge, D. (2004 ). Introduction to research met hods and data analysis in psychology. Harlow, E NG : Pearson Prentice Hall. Laschinger, H. K. S., & Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economics, 23 (1), 6 13.
236 Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001a). The impact of workplace organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review, 26 (3), 7 23. Laschinger, H. K. S., Fi negan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2001 b ). Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work setting. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31 (5), 260 272. Lawler, E. E., III. (1973). Motivation in work organizations Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government community relationships: E xtending the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27 (3), 285 295. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15 (2), 181 198. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24 (1), 55 65. Ledi ngham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds). Public relations as relatio nship management : A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 55 69). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, J. A., & Lesko, C. (1997). The transferability of interpersonal relationship dimensions into an organizational setting. Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 1 23 43. Levy, R. (1999). Give and take: A candid account of corporate philanthropy Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and the stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye & I. L. Reiss ( E ds). Contemporary theories about the family New York: Free Press. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 407 416. Lord, J., & Hutchison, P. (1993). The process of empowerment: Implications for theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 12 (1), 5 22. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 695 706.
237 Luthans, F., & Church, A. H. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. The Academy of Management Executive, 16 (1), 57 75. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annua l Review of Psychology, 58 (1), 593 614. MacMillan, K., Money, K., Money, A., & Downing, S. (2005). Relationship marketing in the not for profit sector: An extension and application of the commitment trust theory Journal of Business Research, 58 (6), 806 81 8. Marquart Pyatt, S. T., & Petrzelka, P. (2008). Trust, the democratic process, and involvement in a rural community. Rural Sociology, 73 (2), 250 274. May, R. (1969). Love and will New York: Dell. McCort, J. D., (1994). A framework for evaluating the relational extent of a relationship marketing strategy: The case of nonprofit organizations. Journal of Direct Marketing, 8 (2), 53 65. McQuillan, P. J. (2005). Possibilities and pitfalls: A comparative analysis of student empowerment. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (4), 639 670. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the side best theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (3), 372 378. Mehra, B., Merketl, C., & Bishop, A. P. (2004). The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media & Society, 13 (5), 781 802. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. In G R. Miller (Ed .), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 87 104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1987). Relational dimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.) Interpersonal processes: N ew directions in communication research (Vol. 14, pp. 117 139). Newbury Park, CA : Sage Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (2010). Principles & practices for nonprofit excellence: A guide for nonprofit board members, managers and staff Retrieved July 19, 20 11, from http://www.minnesotanonprofits.org/Principles_Practices.pdf Moore, C. W. (1996). The mediation process San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Moorman, C., Deshpand, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in marketing research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 81 101.
238 Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpand, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of marketing research relationships. Journal o f Marketing Research, 29 314 329. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20 38. Morton, T. L., Alexander, J. F., & Altman, I. (1976). Communication and relationship definition. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 105 126). Beverly Hills CA : Sage. Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 3, pp. 115 132). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mwaura Muiru, E. (2010). Empowerment for grassroots women. Development, 53 (2), 197 199 National Center for Charitable Statistics (2010, Nov ember). NCCC quick facts. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved July 31, 2011, from http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm Neufeld, A., & Harrison, M. J. (1995). Reciprocity relationships: Variations and consequences. Qualitative Health Research, 5 (3), 348 365. Ni, L. (2007). Refined understanding of perspectives on employee organization relationships: Themes and variation. Journal of Communication Management, 11 (1), 53 70. Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Face to face: Making network organizations work. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 288 308). Boston MA : Harvard Bus iness School Press. Norton, M. I, & Avery, J. (September, 2011). The Pepsi r efresh p roject: A t hirst for c hange Harvard Business Review. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from http://hbr.org/product/the pepsi refresh project a thirst for change/an/512018 PDF ENG?referral=00304 Nudd, S. P. (1991). Thinking strategic ally about information (pp.174 189). In H. A. Rosso (Ed.), Achieving excellence in fund raising San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Nyland, J. (1995). Issue networks and nonprofit organizations. Review of Policy Research, 14 195 202.
239 Oksiutycz, A. (2006). Po wer, empowerment and organizational communication. Communicare: Journal for Communication Sciences in Southern Africa, 25 (2), 25 41. Public Relations Review, 33 (1), 99 102. term success: An investigation of how communications contribute to trust, satisfaction, and commitment in a nonprofit organization. Journal of Promotion Management, 14 263 274. Ospina, S., Diaz, lessons from identity based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31 (1), 5 31. Ouschan, R, Sweeney, J., & Johnson, L. (2006). Customer empowerment and rela tionship outcomes in healthcare consultation. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), 1068 1086. Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension, 37 (5). Retrieved, August 23, 2011, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/comm1.php Papineau, D., & Kiely, M. C. (1996). Participatory evaluation in a community organization: Fostering stakeholder empowerment and utilization. Evaluatio n and Program Planning, 19 (1), 79 93. Perkins, D.D. & Zimmerm an, M.A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and a pplication. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23 (5), 569 579. Pew Internet and Americ an Life Project. (2000). Wired workers: Who they a re and what they're doing o nline. The Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/20/report_display.asp Pew Internet an d American Life Project. (2006). Daily Internet activities. The Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/tre nds/Daily_Internet_activities_7.19.06.htm Pfeffer, J. (1972). Merger as a response to organizational interdependence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (3), 382 394. Pheby, K (2004). Power and organizations Durham NC : Durham Business School MBA, Dur ham University. Pires, G. D., Stanton, J., & Rita, P. (2006). The internet, consumer empowerment and marketing strategies. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), 936 949.
240 Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate phil anthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80 (12), 56 68. Psoinos, A., Kern, T., & Smithson, S. (2000). An exploratory study of information systems in support of employee empowerment. Journal of Information Technology, 15 211 230. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making d emocracy w ork: Civic t raditions in m odern Italy Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (2000). B owling alone: The collapse and revival of American community N ew Y ork : Simon and Schuster. Quinn, R.E., & Spreitzer, G.M. (1997). The road to empowerment: S even questions every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26 (2), 37 49. Randolph, W.A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational D ynamics, 23 (4), 19 50. Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21 (1), 71 99. Ray, M. L. (1973). Marketing communication and the hierarchy of effects. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication resear ch Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55 (1), 120 151. Rhoades, L., Eisengberg er, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organizations: The contribution of perceived organizational support Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 825 836. Roth, M. S. (1994). Enhancing consumer involvement in health care: The dynamics of control, empowerment, and trust. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13 (1), 115 132. Rosso, H. & Associates. (1991). Achieving excellence in fund raising : A comprehensive guide to principles, strategies, and methods San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35 (4), 651 665. Rusbult, C.E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit voice loyalty neglect model In D. Pernal & S. Duck ( Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 209 237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
241 Ryan, W. P. (1999). The new landscape for nonprofits. Harvard Business Review 77 (1) 127 136. Saidel, J. R. (1989). Dimensions of interdependen ce: The state and voluntary sector relationship. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18 (4), 335 347. Saidel, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration review, 51 (6), 543 553. Salamon, L. M. (1996). The crisis of the nonprofit sector and the challenge of renewal. National Civic Review, 85 (4), 3 16. Salamon, L. M. (1999). The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10 (1), 5 23. Salamon, L. M. (2002). The state of nonprofit America Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press Salamon, L. M. (2003). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit America Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press. Salamon, L. M. (2005). The changing context of American nonprofit management. In R. D. Herman ( Ed .) The Jossey Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership & management ( 2 nd ed, pp. 81 101). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1992). In search of the non profit sector. I: The question of definitions Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3 (2), 125 151. Sallot, L. M., Lyon, L. J., Acosta Alzuru, C ., & Jones, K. O. (2003). From aardvark to z ebra: A new millennium analysis of theory development in public relations academic journals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15 (1), 27 90. Salzer, M. S. (1997). Consumer empowerment in mental health organizations: Concept, benefits, and impediments. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 24 (5), 425 434. Sargeant, A. (2001). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 12 (2), 177 192. Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Building donor loyalty Sa n Fra n cisco: Jossey Bass. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the U. K. charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33 (2), 185 202.
242 Sargeant, A., & McKenzie, J. (1998). A lifetime of giving: An analysis of donor lifetime value West Malling UK : Charities Aid Foundation. Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59 (2), 155 165. Sargeant, A. & Woodliffe, L. (2005). The antecedents of donor commitment to voluntary organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16 (1), 61 78. Saxton, G. D., & Benson, M. A. (2005). Social capital and the growth of the nonprofit sector. Social Science Quarte rly, 86 (1), 16 35. Shabbir, H., Palihawadana, D., & Thwaites, D. (2007). Determining the antecedents and consequences of donor perceived relationship quality: A dimensional qualitative research approach. Psychology & Marketing, 24 (3), 271 293. Sheehan, B., & Hoy, G. (1999). Using e mail to survey internet users in the United States: M ethodology and assessment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4 (3). Retrieved January 31 20 12 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personal Review, 29 (6), 703 722. Sjoberg, L. Olsson, G., & Salay, F. (1983). Cathectic orientation, goal setting and mood. Journal of Personal Assessment, 47 (3), 307 313. Soska, T. M. (2011). If they build it, they will come or letting the people decide: Lessons in building community participation, partnership, and public trust for social and economic justice. Journal o f Community Practice, 19 (1), 1 9. Sparrowe, R. T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospitality industry: An exploration of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 17 (3), 51 73. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in t he workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5), 1442 1465. Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (2), 483 504. Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. & Nason, S.W. (1997) A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction and strain. Journal of Management 23 (5), 679 704.
243 Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies a nd romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of S ocial and Personal Relationships, 8 217 242. Stewart, J. G., McNulty, R., Griffin, M. T. Q., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2010). Psychological empowerment and structural empowerme nt. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 22 (1), 27 34. Sung, M., & Yang, S. U. (2009). Student university relationships and reputation: A intentions toward s their university. Higher Education, 57 (6), 787 811. Swift, C., & Levin, G. (1987). Empowerment: An emerging mental health technology. Journal of Primary Prevention, 8 71 94. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 666 681. Thomlison, J. A. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as rela tionship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 177 203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thomsen, S. R. (1997). Public relations in the new millennium: Understanding the forces that are shaping the pr ofession. Public Relations Quarterly, 42 (1), 11 17. Ugboro, I., O., & Obeng, K. (2000). Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: An empirical study. Journal of Quality Management, 5 247 272. Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self determination and persistence in a real life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 1161 1176. Van Horn, J. E., Schaufeli, W. B.,& Taris, T. W. (2006). Lack of reciprocity among Dutch teachers: Validation of reciprocity indices and their relation to stress and well being. Work & Stress, 15 (3), 191 213. Van T il J. (1990). Critical issues in American philanthropy: S trengthening theory and practice San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Van Til, J. (2005). Nonprofit organizations and social institutions. In R. D. Herman (Ed.) The Jossey Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership & management ( 2 nd ed, pp. 39 62). San Francisco: Jos sey Bass.
244 Van Til, J., & Ross, S. W. (2001).Looking backward: Twentieth century themes in charity, voluntarism, and the third sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30 (1), 112 129. Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2000). Public relations: An emergi ng social science enters the new millennium. Communication Yearbook, 24 319 342. VeneKlasen, L., & Miller, V. (2002) Power and empowerment PLA Notes, 43 39 41. Vercic, D., & Grunig, J. E. (1995 July ). The origins of public relations theory in economics and strategic management Paper presented at the Second International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia. Vogt, P. (1997). Transfer of power. Credit Union Management 20 (6), 44 45. Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21 213 228. Waters, R. D. (2007). Advancing relationship management theory: Coorientation and the nonprofit donor relationship Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville. Waters, R. D. (2011). Increasing fundraising efficiency through evaluation: Applying communication theory to the nonprofit organization donor relationship. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (3), 458 475. Wat ers, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35 (2), 102 106. Wells, C. V. (2001). Trust, dependency, and control in the contemporary organization. Journal of Business & Psychology, 15 (4), 593 604. Wentowski, G. J. (1981). Reciprocity and the coping strategies of older people: Cultural dimensions of network building The Gerontologist, 21 (6), 600 609. Werner, D. (1988). Empowerment and health. Contact Christian Medical Commission 102 1 9. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relations hip framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 513 530. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organization: A normative view. The Academy of Management Review, 7 (3), 418 428.
245 Wilson, L. J. (2000). Building employee and community relationships through volunteerism: A case study. In J. A. Ledingham & Bruning, S. D. (Eds). Public relations as relationship management : A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 137 144). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction (38th e d.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Wing, K. T., Roeger, K. L., & Pollak, T. H. (2010). The nonprofit sector in brief: Public charities, giving, and volunteering, 2010. Urban Institute. Retrieved, July 31, 2011, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412209 n onprof public charities.pdf World Bank Group (1999). The World Book Participation Sourcebook Retrieved April 18, 2011, from http://www.worldbank.org/afr/particip/keycon.htm Worth, M. J. (Ed. ). (2002). New strategies for educational fund raising Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Wright, L. T, Newman, A., & Dennis, C. (2006). Enhancing consumer empowerment. European Journal of Consumer Marketing, 40 (9/10), 925 935. Wright, W. H., & Bocarnea, M C. (2007). Contributions of unrestricted funds : The donor organization public relationship and alumni attitudes and behaviors. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18 (2), 215 235. Xiang, Y., & Wang, L. (2008). Socially oriented values and reciprocity norm predict organizational commitment Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11 247 252. Yang, S U. (2007). An integrated model for organization public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19 (2), 91 121. Yang, S U & Grunig, J. E. (2005). Decomposing organisational reputation: The effects of organisation public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organisations and evaluations of organisational performance. Journal of Com munication Management, 9 (4), 305 325. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 (1), 31 46. Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23 (5), 581 599. Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: P sychological, organizational, and community leve ls of analysis. In J. Rap paport & E. Seidman (Eds.) Handbook of
246 community psychology (pp. 43 63) Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
247 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Moonhee Cho received her Ph.D. from the College of J o urnalism and Communications at the University of Flori da. Her research interests include public empowerment, nonprofit management organization public relationship management, and the effect s of emerging media on public engagement. During her doctoral studies, Moonhee was recognized as an e merging s cholar by the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organization and Voluntary Action in 2010 and won best paper awards at the A ssociation for E ducation in J ournalism and M ass C ommunication for three consecutive years. Also, her Thesis Award, sponsored by the Institute for Public Relations. Her research work has appeared in various journals and a book chapter. She is a former fundraiser at Partners for the Future Foundation, the charity arm of the Americ an Chamber of Commerce in Korea She also worked at United Way North Central Florida to develop a donor relations program. Moonhee received her Master of Arts degree in mass communication, with an emphasis of public relations, from the University of Flor ida in 2009 and her Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and advertising and public relations from Ewha Women s University in 2003.