Accommodation: Contingency Theory

Accommodation occurs when public relations practitioners attempt to meet the needs of their organization and a stakeholder group through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise. Contingency theory defines pure accommodation as the polar opposite of pure advocacy in public relations. 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 other side.

Accommodation is a central tenet of contingency theory. The contingency theory of accommodation in public relations has been under development since 1997 by a team of researchers led by Glen T. Cameron at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Contingency theory posits that ideal public relations practice is constantly influenced by variables ranging from the experience of the public relations staff to the credibility of an external 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. A key phrase in early contingency theory literature was “It depends.” The ideal stance of an organization in a particular situation depends on a variety of contingencies. Cameron and associates argued 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 theory claims there is no one-size-fits-all normative approach to public relations practice. It suggests that public relations practice is ever changing. Evidence that contingencies affect accommodation in normative public relations practice is the primary contribution of contingency theory.

Contingency theory also suggests that there are ethical implications to accommodation. Contingency theorists argue that there are times when it would be ethically inappropriate to accommodate a public. They have noted that any accommodation of “the Hitlers of the world” (Yarbrough, Cameron, Sallot, & McWilliams, 1998, p. 40) would be unethical.

Accommodation has been compared to symmetrical public relations practice, whereas advocacy has been compared to asymmetrical practice. Symmetry and asymmetry are concepts articulated by James E. Grunig and colleagues in their seminal program of public relations theory building known as the Excellence study (see Excellence theory).

Contingency theorists introduced 86 variables that they suggest influence whether a specific public [Page 2]relations position will be more accommodation or more advocacy. Variables in contingency theory are categorized as external and internal. External variables fall into the subcategories of external threats, industry environment, characteristics of the external public, and the specific issue at hand. Internal variables are subcategorized to address characteristics of the organization, the public relations department, management, individuals, relationships, and internal threats.

As the program of research unfolded, external and internal variables were further subdivided into predisposing and situational variables. Predisposing variables are those that are always present in an organization and set the tone for the organizational response to stakeholder groups. Predisposing variables are more influential than situational variables. Situational variables are responsive to specific circumstances and settings and are therefore more subject to rapid change.

Strong predisposing variables include size of the organization, organizational culture, and inclusion of public relations in the dominant coalition of decision makers. Strong situational variables include characteristics of the public and its claims, potential threats, and the cost or benefit of a particular organizational position.

...