Accommodation: Contingency Theory

Accommodation occurs when public relations practitioners through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise attempt to meet the needs of both their organization and a stakeholder group. Contingency theory defines pure accommodation as the polar opposite of pure advocacy in public relations. Pure accommodation can also be termed capitulation—when an organization accedes to a public's demands. Pure advocacy occurs when public relations practitioners attempt to meet the needs or desires of their organization or a stakeholder group to the exclusion of the needs or desires of the opponents of the position being advocated. Typically, advocacy refers to the practitioner's role in representing his or her employer, whether an organization or a client.

Accommodation is a stance or strategic position that a public relations practitioner may choose to take with a public. It is most appropriate when the stance is mutually beneficial for the accommodating organization and the accommodated public.

Accommodation is a central tenet of contingency theory. The contingency theory of accommodation in public relations was introduced in 1997 by a team of researchers led by Glen T. Cameron. Contingency theory posits that ideal public relations practice is constantly influenced by more than 80 variables ranging from the experience of the public relations staff to the credibility of a contending public.

An accommodation continuum ranging from pure accommodation to pure advocacy was developed to illustrate contingency theory and the dynamic nature of public relations practice. Cameron and associates argue that at any particular time a practitioner's position may shift toward or away from accommodation or advocacy, depending on the presence of influential internal or external variables. Contingency theorists claim that there is no one-size-fits-all normative approach to public relations practice. Evidence that contingencies affect accommodation in normative public relations practice is the primary contribution of contingency theory.

Accommodation is compared to two-way symmetrical public relations practice, whereas advocacy is compared to asymmetrical practice. Symmetry and asymmetry are concepts articulated by James E. Grunig (2001) as the essence of the Excellence study.

The role of accommodation in public relations was tested through empirical research, such as interviews and surveys of public relations professionals. The research confirmed that accommodation is usually not the default response in public relations practice. Advocacy is the default. As a situation changes, the most effective practice is dynamic, moving between accommodation and advocacy.

In testing the concept of accommodation, the Cameron team used in-depth interviews to examine variables that affect the level of accommodation by an organization. Practitioners at larger corporations reported that the corporation's size [Page 2]often made them more likely to accommodate a powerful external public, such as consumer activists. Corporate culture variables, for instance the position of the CEO in a specific public relations situation, were also identified as potentially strong influences on the level of accommodation. Accommodation is also shown to be affected by predispositions or emotions of organization leaders and/or stakeholders involved in an issue.

Contingency theory also suggests there are ethical implications to accommodation. Contingency theorists argue that there are times when it is ethically inappropriate to accommodate a public. For example, researchers asked whether it is ethical public relations practice to accommodate the demands of a dictator. Furthermore, as a paid representative of your organization it is undesirable, if not unethical, to accommodate an activist group focused on the elimination of your business. For instance, animal rights activists and furriers have goals that are diametrically opposed to those of the fur industry, so accommodation of the activists by that industry is unlikely.

...