Using a contingency theory framework, this study examines the relationship between a firm’s business-government relations (BGR) strategy, BGR structure, and BGR performance. Based on previous work, the study hypothesizes that BGR strategy determines, in part, the structure of the public affairs function, as well as the function’s effectiveness. Furthermore, the study contends that an appropriate fit between BGR strategy and BGR structure leads to improved BGR performance. Results indicate that there is a positive association between BGR strategies (buffering and bridging) and BGR performance. There is also a positive association between BGR strategy and BGR formalization (structure). However, the study finds no direct association between BGR structure and performance. Further analysis reveals that it is a fit between a firm’s BGR strategy and BGR structure that leads to improved BGR performance. The associations between strategy, structure, fit, and performance offer empirical support for the relevance of the contingency theory framework to BGR research.
Andrews, P. N. (1987). Public affairs evaluation in large U.S. corporations: Criteria, structure, and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
2.
Blumentritt, T. (2003). Foreign subsidiaries’ government affairs activities: The influence of managers and resources. Business & Society, 42(2), 202-233.
3.
Boddewyn, J., & Brewer, T. (1994). International-business political behavior: New theoretical directions. Academy of Management Review, 19, 119-143.
4.
Brenner, S., & Perrin, N. (1995). Defining organizational business/government relations success. 1995 International Association for Business and Society Proceedings, 192-197.
5.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance, Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
6.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 30, 514-559.
9.
Dunn, S. W., Cahill, M. F., & Boddewyn, J. J. (1979). How fifteen transnational corporations manage public affairs. Chicago: Crain Books.
10.
Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 60-74.
11.
Fennell, M., & Alexander, J. A. (1987). Organizational boundary spanning in institutionalized environments. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 456-476.
12.
Fleisher, C. (1992). Corporate public affairs management evaluation and measurement: An empirical study. 1992 International Association for Business and Society Proceedings, 335-244.
13.
Fleisher, C. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of corporate public affairs efforts. In B. Mitnick (Ed.), Choosing political agency: The construction of competition in public affairs (pp. 274-316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Fornell, C. (Ed.).(1982). A second generation of multivariate analysis. New York:Praeger.
15.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440-452.
16.
Fornell, C., & Larker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
17.
Fornell, C., Lorange, P., & Roos, J. (1990). The cooperative venture formation process: A latent variable structural modeling approach. Management Science, 36, 1246-1255.
18.
Getz, K. A. (2002). Public affairs and political strategy: Theoretical foundations. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(1), 305-329.
19.
Gladwin, T., & Walter, I. (1980). How multinationals can manage social and political forces. Journal of Business Strategy, 1, 54-68.
20.
Greening, W., & Gray, B. (1994). Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 467-498.
21.
Griffin, J. J., & Dunn, P. (2004). Corporate public affairs: Commitment, resources, and structure. Business & Society, 43(2), 196-220.
22.
Griffin, J. J., Fleisher, C. S., Brenner, S. N., & Boddewyn, J. J. (2001). Corporate public affairs research: Chronological reference list: Part 1: 1985-2000. Journal of Public Affairs, 1(1), 9-32.
23.
Harris, I., & Ruefli, T. (2000). The strategy/structure debate: An examination of the performance implications. Journal of Management Studies, 37(4), 587-603.
24.
Hillman, A. (2003). Determinants of political strategies in U.S. multinationals. Business & Society, 42(4), 455-484.
25.
Hillman, A., & Hitt, M. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 825-842.
26.
Hofer, C., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West.
27.
Jennings, D., & Seaman, S. (1994). High and low levels of organizational adaptation: An empirical examination of strategy, structure and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 459-475.
28.
Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 155-187.
29.
Lohmöller, J. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.
30.
Love, L., Priem, R., & Lumpkin, G. (2002). Explicitly articulated strategy and firm performance under alternative levels of centralization. Journal of Management, 28(5), 611-627.
31.
Mahon, J. F. (1982). The corporate public affairs office: Structure, behavior, and impact. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University School of Management.
32.
Marx, T. G. (1990). Strategic planning for public affairs. Long Range Planning, 23(1),9-16.
33.
McAdam, T. (1973). How to put corporate responsibility into practice. Business and Society Review, 6, 8-16.
34.
Meznar, M., & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffer of bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 975-996.
35.
Miles, R. H. (1980). Macro organizational behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
36.
Miles, R. H. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
37.
Miller, D. (1987). Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implications for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 7-32.
38.
Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter’s business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280-308.
39.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
40.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
41.
Post, J. E., & Griffin, J. J. (1997). The state of corporate public affairs final report. Washington, DC: Foundation for Public Affairs.
42.
Post, J. E., Murray, E. A., Dickie, R. B., & Mahon, J. F. (1983). Managing public affairs: The public affairs function. California Management Review, 26, 135-150.
43.
Rehbein, K., & Schuler, D. (1999). Testing the firm as a filter. Business & Society, 38, 144-166.
44.
Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3), 349-377.
45.
Schuler, D., & Rehbein, (1997). The filtering role of the firm in corporate political involvement. Business & Society, 36, 116-139.
46.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
47.
Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322-338.
48.
Venkatraman, N., & Prescott, J. (1990). Environment-strategy coalignment: An empirical test of its performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 1-23.
49.
Wold, H. (Ed.). (1981). The fixed point approach to interdependent systems. Amsterdam: North Holland.
