（2007）pr bunnies caught in the agency

PR Bunnies Caught in the AgencyGhetto? Gender Stereotypes,

Organizational Factors,and Women’s Careers

in PR Agencies

Romy Fröhlich and Sonja B. PetersInstitute for Communication Science and Media Research

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Against the background of the high feminization of the German agency sector, thisarticle investigates 2 specific factors that help explain women’s careers in public rela-tions agencies: gender stereotypes and the organizational context. We present parts ofa recent German explorative study: Long interviews were conducted with 13 femalepublic relations experts to explain their view on women’s situation in public relationsin general and to describe their own careers. Findings reveal the evolution of a “PRbunny” stereotype that adds a negative touch to the female image as “natural borncommunicators.” Furthermore, our results support the argument that women seem toprefer (a) the organizational culture of public relations agencies, (b) agency-specificjob tasks, and (c) agency-specific work processes. Possible consequences for practi-tioners and the profession are discussed.

In Germany, the number of women in public relations is currently at about 53%(Fröhlich, Peters, & Simmelbauer, 2005, p. 80). Feminization is, therefore, on alower level than in the United States (see L. A. Grunig, Toth, & Hon, 2000, p. 50),but still comparable nevertheless: The “gender switch” in German public relationshas also become a reality, and we can now see a clear trend toward a

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH, 19(3), 229–254Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence should be sent to Romy Fröhlich, Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft undMedienforschung, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oettingenstr. 67 D–80538 München,Germany. Email: [email protected]

female-dominated field. In addition to this, a similar segmentation of the field anddiscrimination against women in terms of salaries, public relations roles, and hier-archical positions has also been observed in the most recent descriptive study onthe public relations field in Germany (Fröhlich et al., 2005).1 The findings, how-ever, show that the number of women strongly varies between different types oforganizations: The highest female majority in public relations can be found in pub-lic relations agencies (69%), followed closely by independent public relations con-sultants (63%), associations (49%), corporations (41%), and government (38%;see Fröhlich et al., 2005, p. 81).

This data clearly show that women are underrepresented the most in exactlythose fields that have the longest tradition of affirmative action—namely, govern-mental organizations. But even in public relations agencies, the type of organiza-tion that has the highest female share not only in total, but also in top positions(here 59% of top positions are held by women), women in comparison to men arestill underrepresented in top positions (only 34% of women as opposed to 52% ofmen are in top positions; Fröhlich et al., 2005, appendix, p. 3).

But why are there such large differences between male and female professionalstatus and representation in public relations? In comparison to research on struc-tural data, explanatory research on sex differences in public relations and on thefactors contributing to discrimination against women is relatively new (see alsoAldoory, 2005). Only recently did the main theoretical and empirical focus shift to-ward understanding the processes lying behind the observed phenomenons (e.g.,Aldoory & Toth, 2002; L. A. Grunig et al., 2000; O’Neil, 2003; Toth, Serini,Wright, & Emig, 1998).

The qualitative study presented in this article is the very first of the explanatorykind in Germany. In its basic conception, our study follows prior explanatory U.S.studies (e.g., Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002). What is more, as it offers new evidence ofthe importance of gender stereotypes and of different organizational contexts forunderstanding the complex and sometimes most subtle mechanisms of discrimina-tion against women in public relations, the study contributes to the development offeminist theory in public relations research. Therefore, this article is as much a re-port on new results of a single national study as it is a synthesis of related researchbeyond national boundaries.

In the following, we (a) summarize the theoretical background of our study, (b)outline the study’s research questions and methodology, (c) present the study’smost interesting results, and (d) draw conclusions from our findings and discusstheir meanings.

230 FRÖHLICH AND PETERS

1Prior quantitative study conducted by independent university researchers. The sample was the re-sult of a complex process and represents the whole German public relations field.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Different Perspectives on the Feminizationand the Segmentation of the Field

To summarize briefly, in public relations and feminization research, there aretwo main perspectives on the sex differences in the field: (a) The radical feministapproach or individualist perspective (see, e.g., Rakow, 1989) suggests explana-tions that lie in the structural demands of organizations and society. Advocatespoint to male-dominated work environments, traditional sex roles (i.e., espe-cially women’s work–home conflict), and the overall devaluation of women andwomen’s work as main processes of selection, canalizing women into jobs andpositions of less prestige and status. Women’s discrimination is described as the“aimed product of patriarchical strategies of power and influence” (Heintz,Nadai, Fischer, & Ummel, 1997, p. 32; translated by authors). Accordingly,changes of social, organizational, and professional circumstances are claimed.(b) In contrast, the liberal feminist approach, or structuralist perspective, focuseson individual, mostly socialized characteristics and preferences—this meansprocesses of self-selection (including, e.g., the human capitalists” model; see,e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2002). Supposed less managerial skills (gender stereo-types) and alleged less interest in managerial tasks (socialized preferences,self-stereotyping) are said to explain sex differences. Women are assumed tohave specific characteristics caused by gender-specific socialization processesthat make them more suitable for certain tasks (like communications) than others(like management). Accordingly, strategies to overcome the glass ceiling aremainly the individual’s responsibility—namely, that women are recommended toadopt male characteristics and behavior. Others rejected this perspective as“blaming the victim” (Hon, 1995, p. 34).

Feminist scholars in public relations research have realized the interdependenceof different factors. In addition, empirical research (Aldoory & Toth, 2002; Hon,1995; Wrigley, 2002) has shown that only a synthesis of both the radical and theliberal perspective can do justice to the complex mechanisms at work in differentsituations. Furthermore, psychological research emphasized that processes ofself-selection—that is, job-related motives, values, preferences, andself-concepts—play as important a role for women’s careers as processes of selec-tion do (see, e.g., Vianen & Fischer, 2002).

Against the background of interconnected processes of selection andself-selection, we put special emphasis on two aspects: (a) the identification ofgender stereotypes and (b) the influence of specific organizational contexts—like,for example, agency or corporate contexts—on women’s careers in publicrelations.

PR BUNNIES CAUGHT IN THE AGENCY GHETTO? 231

The Role of Gender Stereotypes

The center of the controversial debate in research on the feminization of public rela-tions is marked by the interpretation of presumed gender differences. The two mainquestions are (a) whether, and to what extent, women and men are generally suited topublic relationsand (b)women’sandmen’s specific suitability for the twomainpub-lic relations roles—namely, the technical and the managerial role. Advocates of amodel of female superiority in public relations argue that “feminist values” have apositive effect on professional public relations and the efficiency of public relationsas a whole, which consequently would lead to a growing valuation of women, partic-ularly at management level (see Aldoory, 1998; Aldoory & Toth, 2001; Dozier, L. A.Grunig, & J. E. Grunig, 1995; L. A. Grunig et al., 2000; Rakow, 1989). In this con-text, Aldoory outlined her “feminist model of leadership” in public relations, and L.A. Grunig et al. even spoke of a “revolution of the heart” (p. 63), emphasizing “femi-nist values” like “cooperation, respect, caring, nurturance, interconnection, justice,equity, honesty, sensitivity, perceptiveness, intuition, altruism, fairness, moralityand commitment” (p. 49).2 Apart from the United States, this perspective also existsin Germany, although there is less support among researchers than among public re-lations practitioners themselves (see Angerer, 1992, p. 162). German practitionershave argued for quite some time that women are “natural born communicators”(Dinter, 1993, p. 55; translated by authors).

But there are also voices that express concern about this essential stressing of“feminist values.” Wrigley (2002) considered that the “new” feminist values reallymean a reinforcement of traditional gender role socialization and are of little helpin changing the male-dominated status quo and structures (p. 43). And Fröhlich(2004) even went beyond this when she criticized that

as a result of the thesis that women are better communicators, more importance willbe attached to gender as a social category and it will once again be linked to strict,culturally determined stereotypes. Women could be forced into a fixed corset—inthis case the corset takes the form of the ideal communicator—which will more thanlikely determine our/their behavior. (pp. 67–68)

Fröhlich suggested, “women’s ‘exceptional’ communication skills are nothingmore than the learned (if not always fully conscious) use of particular behaviorsand strategies, acquired during childhood socialization that positioned them as lessimportant than boys/men” (p. 71). Cooperative behavior, therefore, is to be under-stood as “the result of [women’s] limited social power, whereas the hierarchical


2A similar but far more critical argumentation is followed by Lisbet van Zoonen (2006, in press)on behalf of journalism: “It is exactly the traditional cultural prescriptions of femininity—goodlooks, interest in other people, care and compassion—that the new market driven journalism seemsto ask for.”

and direct behavior of men is a result of their greater dominance and status” (p. 72;in this context, see also Alfermann, 1996; Henley, 1977). Consequently, Fröhlichdeveloped her “model of the friendliness trap,” which suggests a vicious circle be-tween the emphasis of “feminist values” and the glass ceiling phenomenon: At en-try level, female attributes like orientation toward dialogue and consensus reallycan be advantageous. But as soon as the time of promotion to top management co-mes, the female characterization becomes an own goal and functions as the justifi-cation for the discrimination toward women because female attributes (like sensi-tivity, warmth, honesty, fairness, or morality) are then recoded as a lack ofmanagement skills (viz., lack of assertiveness, poor conflict management, andweak leadership skills). That means that even though expectations of the femalerole have changed for the better, the role itself actually remains fixed, and only anew social categorization of women is fostered. The stereotypes of women as the“natural born communicators” could, therefore, turn out to be a “career killer” andcould serve to hinder any real innovation of women’s self-concepts (Fröhlich,2004, pp. 71–72). In this context, it is important to note that gender stereotypes notonly can be decisive in processes of selection (like, e.g., personnel selection), butalso in influencing women’s own beliefs about their specific skills—that is, pro-cesses of self-selection (self-stereotyping). This interconnection has to be linked topsychological strategies of dealing with sex differences. Hon (1995), for example,described the “denial” of sex differences in public relations not only as a strategyto deal with the problem, but also as one important factor contributing to the per-petuation of the problem. In any case, a lack of consciousness of the interconnec-tion between processes of selection and self-selection (as also described inFröhlich’s “friendliness trap”) is very likely to maintain the status quo of genderroles and values. Furthermore, the continual male dominance of the managerialrole (and with this the male dominance of defining power) seems to support the ex-istence and the subtle mechanisms of such “new” gender stereotypes in public re-lations. Such stereotypes offer an insight into the tension for (women in) this occu-pation—that is to say, the tension associated with choosing gender-basedoccupational identity to support women’s claim to this particular professionalarena and the concurrent danger this presents in terms of deprofessionalization.Certainly, the “newness” of such stereotypes is questionable, because they repre-sent exactly the same set of attributes as the well-known “traditional” female gen-der role. A very similar case is historically offered by the occupation of nursing.Women successfully claimed the occupation, but lost the professional autonomyand status by being subjugated to doctors. But what is “new” about gender stereo-types in the public relations sector is that through concepts like the “feminist val-ues” (L. A. Grunig et al., 2000), this traditional set is now being viewed as an ad-vantage for communication professions like public relations in general. We doubtthe positive effects of this meaning making on women’s innovation ofself-concepts and rather believe it to lead to simply another kind of self-deception.


The Role of the Organizational Context

As shown previously, in Germany the number of women varies between differenttypes of public relations organizations (Fröhlich et al., 2005). But why are theresuch large differences between different types of organizations? In particular, whyare there so many women in public relations agencies (69%) and comparativelyfew in other types of organizations (associations, government, corporations)? Upuntil now, there has been no detailed research on the role of specific organizationalcontexts for women’s careers in public relations. However, qualitative U.S. studies(e.g., Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002) have shown that the organizational context defi-nitely matters in terms of circumstances concerning the work–home conflict ormale dominance.

Women’s surge toward agencies, therefore, has to be of importance when it co-mes to our understanding of the processes of selection and self-selection in publicrelations. What is also as interesting as the female proportion in agencies is thehigh ratio of female independent consultants3 and male government employees.However, in this article, we decided to concentrate on female employment, whichis highest in public relations agencies. In agencies, the barriers for women mightbe smaller or at least different to other types of organizations because of a lessmale-dominated work environment (numerically speaking). Accordingly, it wouldseem plausible that women in agencies experience less discrimination and, be-cause of this, might be less suitable participants in research on discrimination. We,however, think that women in agencies are of particular importance in the identifi-cation of the “glass ceiling” phenomenon. First of all, the latest data on public rela-tions in Germany (Fröhlich et al., 2005) provides evidence that, in relative terms,men in agencies still dominate the managerial role. Consequently, this means thateven women in the most female-dominated work environment still somehow expe-rience the “glass ceiling.” In addition, women in public relations agencies contrib-ute a unique point of view to the field in general. Both Hon’s (1995) and Wrigley’s(2002) findings show that women in agencies have quite often deliberately chosenthis particular work environment to avoid discrimination.

Organizational Culture and Structure

The Dutch psychologists Vianen and Fischer (2002) offered a plausible explana-tion for women’s self-selection in general: the gender differences in organiza-tional culture preferences. Using two sample surveys, Vianen and Fischer inves-tigated women’s motives for pursuing a career in top management. Theirfindings show that women in nonmanagerial positions have less masculine


3We conducted a separate study on the trend of female independent consultants in January 2006,which has not yet been published.

cultural preferences4 than men of the same sample group. In contrast to this, “thepromotion of a relational self, maintaining balance in life activities, participa-tion, and collaboration within the organization” (p. 316) are described as typicalcharacteristics of a female-oriented organizational culture. One could supposethat women possibly prefer specific public relations fields or types of public re-lations organizations, such as public relations agencies, because these fields ortypes of organizations are possibly less dominated by a masculine culture—atleast from a woman’s point of view. This may, for example, mean a higher flexi-bility between different hierarchical levels, more teamwork, and less fixedtask-profiles. At least we know from some qualitative U.S. studies that organiza-tional contexts do play a certain role in women’s career decisions. The interviewparticipants “made it clear they believe the cultures of corporations are very dif-ferent from the cultures found in agency environments” (Wrigley, 2002, p. 40)or “argued that male dominance varies by type of organization” (Hon, 1995, p.46). Consequently, the participants assumed that women had a better chance ofbeing promoted in fields with less male-oriented cultures.

Vianen and Fischer’s (2002) findings also contribute to the body of knowledgeof research on public relations roles. That is to say, their studies also show a corre-lation between masculine culture preferences and the hierarchical position ofwomen and men in organizations. Furthermore, their findings on ambition showclear gender differences: “At all organizational levels, women were shown to haveweaker managerial ambitions than men” (p. 331). In addition, extrinsic incentiveslike status and salary were less important for women than for men when acceptinga top position, and the work–home conflict was described by all women as themain barrier to accepting a top position (p. 333). Overall, the findings of these psy-chological studies offer a new and most illuminating explanation for the persistentmale dominance of the managerial role even in clearly numerically female-dominated fields like public relations agencies: “even in less masculine-orientedcultures, managers have relatively large masculine culture preferences comparedwith other employees in the organization” ( p. 332).

Apart from this, Vianen and Fischer’s (2002) findings help to explain O’Neil’s(2003) results of a first quantitative study that investigated “whether the perceivedorganizational influence of men and women in corporate public relations was re-lated to formal structural power, relationship power, or gender” (p. 151). In con-trast to the former qualitative studies’ argument (Aldoory & Toth, 2002; Hon,1995; Wrigley, 2002), O’Neil in her quantitative survey could not find a correla-tion between gender and influence within the organization (O’Neil, 2003, p. 174).Vianen and Fischer’s results suggest that O’Neil’s sample, which was limited to


4That is, promotion of independence, autonomy, hierarchical relations, competition,task-orientation, establishment of status, and authority (Vianen & Fischer, 2002, p. 316); for Germany,see Wienand and Stoltenow (2001), whose findings are initial.

top-level corporate public relations practitioners (senior management), might beone of the main reasons for the missing influence of the “sex” variable: Vianen andFischer’s findings make clear that the specific culture, type, and size of an organi-zation shape the extent of gender differences (e.g., organizational culture pre-ferences, ambition, job-related motives and values, etc.). These gender differ-ences—and this is crucial—decrease the higher the hierarchical level. Against thisbackground, it becomes clear that a limitation of a survey sample to top-levelcorporate public relations practitioners also reduces the influence of the “sex”variable.

It should be noted that Vianen and Fischer (2002) without doubt saw that pro-cesses of self-selection—as investigated in their work—are tightly interconnectedwith processes of selection (structural and organizational circumstances). Theirstudies show that, especially at the so-called second glass ceiling,5 mechanisms ofselection become a main barrier to women’s advancement toward top manage-ment: “The glass ceiling is specifically located between the middle managementlevel and the top level” (p. 331).

The “work–home conflict” has repeatedly been commented on in research as amain factor that causes discrimination toward women (see, e.g., Aldoory & Toth,2002; Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002). In most families, women who are still the onesresponsible for looking after children or elderly people, often have to work onlypart-time—or at least cannot compete with childless colleagues or male parents inworking overtime—and, consequently, often have to make do with lower salariesand poorer promotion prospects. Therefore, the work–home conflict is of criticalimportance in understanding women’s choice of specific work environ-ments—that is, types of public relations organizations. If we think of women’ssurge toward public relations agencies in Germany, it would seem highly plausibleto assume that agencies in some way also offer better opportunities for employedmothers to manage the “balancing act” than other types of organizations. But asyet, there has been no research on the real differences in organizational family pol-icy in relation to different types and cultures of organizations.

Different Job Tasks

Next to gender differences in organizational culture preferences, particular jobtask preferences might assist in the understanding of women’s surge toward publicrelations agencies. Against the background of discussing women’s specificjob-related motives, preferences, and values, a “new” role concept in public rela-


5Vianen and Fischer (2002) distinguished three hierarchical levels: (a) staff employees, (b) middlemanagement, and (c) top management. Accordingly, there are two steps (“glass ceilings”) between thethree levels that have to be taken during advancement up the organizational ladder.

tions research could be of particular importance. Testing previous classificationsof public relations roles (technicians and managers), Toth, Serini, Wright, andEmig (1998) identified this new profile: the so-called agency profile that is charac-terized by “counseling; research; programming decisions; communicating withclients, peers and subordinates; handling correspondence and phone calls; and,making media contacts” (p. 145). If we think of what is said to be the specific fe-male characteristics, then a certain similarity to the “agency profile” is more thanobvious. In our opinion, the following interpretation of this similarity seems plau-sible: It could well be that female public relations practitioners’ job-related talentsand interests are extremely closely met by agency-specific job tasks. And perhaps,more than in other fields of public relations, do women actually find the opportu-nity to combine the tasks of both the managerial and the technical role in public re-lations agencies (see Creedon, 1991)? If yes, one could deduce important pro-cesses of self-selection contributing to our understanding of women’s surgetoward public relations agencies.

But, without doubt, processes of selection also matter a great deal in this con-text. For example, not only women’s real job-related values and motives count insituations like personnel selection or promotion. It is quite plausible that person-nel managers’ decisions are also deeply influenced by gender stereotypes aboutwomen’s (presumed) particular talents and job task preferences. And, accord-ingly, women’s beliefs about their traditionally ascribed skills and preferences(self-stereotyping) may also cause female public relations practitioners tochoose certain work environments. We cannot rule out that different people—notleast because of different socialization backgrounds (women/men)—have verydifferent ideas of what “personal success” entails in their working life. Thesecan feature anywhere from the very poles of a somewhat “traditional” concept ofsuccess with rather extrinsic values and preferences (e.g., status, salary, power,progression to a higher level) to a more “alternative” concept that takes into ac-count more intrinsic values and preferences (e.g., work–life balance,team-oriented organizational culture, individual job satisfaction). We thereforesee, once again, how deeply interconnected mechanisms of selection andself-selection can be.

With the background described so far in mind, we conducted a qualitative studyamong German female public relations professionals in agencies. In doing so, thestudy in its basic conception followed previous qualitative U.S. studies (e.g., Hon,1995; Wrigley, 2002) on the factors influencing the careers of female public rela-tions practitioners. In this article, we present parts of the study’s find-ings—namely, on (a) gender stereotypes and (b) the organizational context. Bothaspects have yet to be the subject of sufficient empirical research. Our study, there-fore, is an initial exploration of the fundamental processes at work in the agencysector.


RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

In consideration of the theoretical background and according to the study’sexplorative character, the following open research questions arose: (a) How dofemale public relations practitioners in public relations agencies generally per-ceive and judge the role of gender stereotypes for women’s careers in public rela-tions? How do female public relations practitioners judge other women in thefield? Are female public relations practitioners aware of the possibly hiddenthreats of stereotypes? Do they actually believe in the existence and impact of suchstereotypes at all? (b) What differences between the specific organizational con-texts of agencies6 and corporations do female public relations practitioners in pub-lic relations agencies describe? How are these differences being judged in generaland in the context of the participants’ own careers? Is the high female majority inagencies a sign of women’s general problem of identifying with the structures of amale-dominated work environment? What roles do structural and individual fac-tors play in women’s perceptions of the agency sector?

According to the study’s explorative character, qualitative methods were used.Long interviews were conducted in 2003 to give 13 female public relations expertsthe chance to explain their own personal views on women’s situation in public rela-tions in general, and to give a detailed description of their own careers. As a result,our study does not claim representativity.

Long Interviews With a Biographic Approach

Some main methodological aspects were adopted from similar previous U.S.studies (Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002). Like Hon, we conducted long interviews7

(average 84 min). In addition, like Hon, we also used a “schedule of generalquestion areas” (p. 39), which gave room for spontaneity and flexibility with


6Although in Germany, just like in the United States, there is a trend away from the expression“agency” toward more general ones like “PR firms,” we decided to stick to the still more common termagency. In Germany, agencies are usually external service firms working for various clients with vari-ous topics and issues in contrast to corporate public relations departments in organizations. However,without a doubt, not only the “types” of organizations (agency, corporation, government, etc.) consti-tute different organizational contexts. Therefore, participants were asked to specify their work environ-ment in terms of size and structure (number of employees, hierarchical structure, international network,proportion of male and female leaders and employees, etc.) as well as organizational culture (atmo-sphere among colleagues, evaluation of leaders, family policy, etc.). Detailed comparisons of these in-tervening variables, of course, formed part of our study and indeed provided most interesting results.Their detailed presentation, however, would have required too much space in this article. Therefore, wedecided to only summarize the main trends and the most interesting findings.

7Long interviews “are similar to in-depth interviews; but long interviews go beyond studying indi-vidual perceptions and feelings—identifying shared mental categories among participants as the pri-mary goal” and still “provide an opportunity for women to speak for themselves” (Hon, 1995, p. 39).

regard to the participants’ own trains of thought. Furthermore, we used abiographic approach, which was achieved by a detailed analysis of every inter-viewee’s individual professional life (from their curriculum vitae handed inbefore the interview, and from the descriptions given during the interview8) andcontributed deeper insights into subconscious and sometimes even subtler keymechanisms beyond the participants’ explicit testimony. This combination ofproblem-centered and biographic elements in the interviews proved to be a mosthelpful instrument in revealing both general patterns and individual experiencesand, consequently, enabled us to compare these two aspects and to discover hid-den processes or contradictions. For example, we asked our participants both (a)for a general comparison of circumstances in agencies and corporations and (b)for an explanation of their individual choice of the agency sector. And we alsoasked them to comment on both (a) the general meaning of gender in public re-lations and (b) the impact of their being a woman on their individual profes-sional experiences.

In our research, we were not merely interested in one stage of a female’s careerpath (progression to senior levels of management); rather, we asked our partici-pants (who varied in age, position, and time of professional experiences) to reporton their whole careers, starting from education all the way through to different oc-cupations, roles, and experiences. In our biographic approach, we paid special at-tention to the participants’ very individual definitions of success and asked themfor their individual objectives for their professional careers. Apart from this, themain focus on progression to senior levels of management derives from the merefact that it is especially there where sex segregation becomes most evident—notonly in Germany.

Sampling and Data Analysis

Against the background of (a) the organizational context’s crucial importance ingeneral, (b) the extraordinarily high female majority in public relations agencies(69% women in Germany), and (c) the previous lack of research on women in pub-lic relations agencies, we decided to question female public relations practitionersin public relations agencies exclusively. As discussed previously, such a limitationof the sample makes sense, as women in agencies are believed to be of particularimportance in identifying the “glass ceiling” phenomenon.

Individual case-definition was realized by “theoretical sampling” (Glaser &Strauss, 1979). This is a way of selecting small but heterogeneous samples for


8The combination of CVs handed in before the interview and descriptions of individual experiencesduring the interview was also supportive in terms of validity, because in addition to the participants ob-vious honesty, openness, and accurateness in the interviews, key facts told during the interview couldbe compared with information from the CVs afterwards.

qualitative studies by theoretically relevant criteria. Following Hon (1995) andWrigley (2002), we focused on diversity regarding three main individual criteria:(a) age, (b) hierarchical position, and (c) martial status and existence of children.Apart from this, we required (a) a minimum tenure of 5 years and aimed at diver-sity in terms of (b) agency size and (c) public relations area (e.g., lifestyle, technol-ogies, fashion, etc.). Using a multilevel snowball sample, we recruited 13 partici-pants from nine agencies. Their age ranged from 32 to 58 years old, and positionsranged from middle to top level. Four women worked part-time, 5 had children,and 1 was pregnant. Seven participants were married, 3 were single (including ayoung widow), and 3 were in a permanent relationship.

Interviews were taped, transcribed, and paraphrased to a short summary ofmain statements in the participants’ own language. Data analysis followed the ap-proach of qualitative content analysis by Mayring (2002) and the approach of in-terpretative analysis strategy by Meuser and Nagel (1991) and was conducted withthe help of MAXQDA software for qualitative data analysis. Recoding of all inter-views a second time was performed to support the data’s validity.9

RESULTS

Our findings support results of prior U.S. studies—for example, by Hon (1995)and Wrigley (2002)—but at the same time substantially contribute to the identifi-cation of specific gender stereotypes in public relations, as well as to the character-ization of organizational factors that influence women’s careers in public relations.

A “New” Gender Stereotype: The PR Bunny

All interviewees describe women’s exceptional communication skills as the mainfactor in explaining the female majority in public relations. In the same tenor as inthe theory of “feminist values” (L. A. Grunig et al., 2000), women’s (presumed)specific skills are seen as being ideal qualities for public relations. In summary, it isargued that men lack crucial sensitivity and empathy toward maintaining relation-ships with clients, journalists, and target groups; women, in contrast, are “naturallysuited,” as one participant puts it, for service-oriented professions like public rela-tions. Here are some statements from our interviews:10


9For more information on the studys data analysis, see Peters (2004) or http://www.maxqda.com/10Our study was originally conducted in German. Herein, we present adequate and idiomatic trans-

lations of our participants statements. The aim was to keep individual styles, in terms of both languageand expressions.

• I still find it typically female that women—because of their body, their beinga woman—can put themselves into other people’s position better than men can.This is not a rating; it’s just a matter of fact. … It is women’s nature that makesthem more suitable for public relations. (Veronika, 58, agency leader, technology,married, two stepchildren)11

• Well, it is simply a female domain. And this will always be so. … It has alsobeen proven by scientific research that women are just better at communicating;they love to chat and talk their heads off, and that this is different for men. And inPR you have to talk a lot! This is absolutely crucial. (Ines, 34, part-time freelancerin fashion/outdoor/high-tech/IT, widowed, one child)

• Women are chattier, women are more communicative, and women can talkbetter, … they often talk before they think (laughs)—or faster. And this really is agood thing in this job. (Helga, 40, part-time freelancer in fashion/out-door/high-tech/IT, married, one child)

But at the same time, primarily positively valued female characteristics arerecoded negatively by our interviewees when it comes to women’s competence inmanagement. The traditional gender stereotype of a female’s “lack of managementcompetence” can be said to be clearly evident. Although the participants describetheir own difficulties with discrimination toward women because of gender stereo-types, their own judgments of women, for the most part, support those stereotypes.In this context, our findings offer the first support to Fröhlich’s (2004) argumentthat stereotyping women as “naturally suited communicators” could lead to theevolvement of “new” (seemingly positive) and more complex gender stereotypesin communications that work as “new” factors that perpetuate the problem of theglass ceiling. Such a stereotype was found in our study. We refer to it as the “PRbunny” stereotype. This term is coined after similar expressions that are used by al-most all interviewees independent of each other: “PR clone” (Astrid, 34, agencyleader, IT/telecommunications, lesbian relationship); “PR auntie,” “PR waffler,”or “agency snipe” (Alex, 35, senior account director, fashion/lifestyle, single); “PRgirly” (Kerstin, 34, junior consultant, IT, single); “PR slut” (Karola, 36, agencyleader, IT/e-commerce/tourism, married); “Barbie doll” (Ines, 34, part-timefreelancer, fashion/outdoor/high-tech/IT, widowed, one child); or really “PRbunny” (Elisabeth, 33, consultant, IT, long-term relationship).

• The real PR sluts? Well, it’s those women who are always hopping around atparties. … There are people who are there just for fun. And there are people whospread their calling cards and they laugh too loud and too much. And they are al-


11All interviews are anonymized. To preserve the impression of individuality, we therefore use ficti-tious names and a short description of relevant demographics.

ways perfectly styled. All these exhausting things. Scuttling round in stilettos.(Karola, 36, agency leader, IT/e-commerce/tourism, married)

• Well, such a perfect-blond haircut and looking rather like a stewardess.(Astrid, 34, agency leader, IT/telecommunications, lesbian relationship)

• We always called it the “PR clone”: Louis Vuitton bag, pearl necklace, andhair in a bun. (Astrid, 34, agency leader, IT/telecommunications, lesbian relation-ship)

• Agency snipe, and what I mean by that is you’re someone who talks a lot butdoesn’t actually say anything. … And there are really too many women who walkround in trendy outfits and tell clients great plans, but they do not actually deliveron any of them. (Alex, 35, senior account director, fashion/lifestyle, single)

These statements show that the “PR bunny” stereotype gathers several compo-nents that in former research have been observed somewhat in isolation: themarginalization of the public relations function and women’s reduction to physicalattributes (“sexism,” “lookism,” “ageism”; see, e.g., Hon, 1995). Female public re-lations practitioners are being ascribed by female public relations practitioners tobe the good-looking companions of male doers at parties and events with their pub-lic relations function merely being a trivial “small talk tool.”12 This means that ex-ceptional female communication skills are not only being devalued, but are evenbeing recoded as a sign of a lack of professional (public relations) skills in general.Our study shows that this aspect of devaluation is even applied by female profes-sionals when commenting on female professional behavior. Most interesting, themajority of our interviewees argue that in areas like fashion and lifestyle, more“real” PR bunnies can be encountered than in other fields or areas of public rela-tions like technology.

However, not all of our participants see the “PR bunny” stereotype merely nega-tively. There is also the opinion that the behavior of a typical “PR bunny,” the use of“women’s natural weapons” as participants term it, might well be a legitimate andsubtle strategy to outwit male dominance. One participant argues that image andshow in public relations are quite simply part of professionalism itself: “PR sluts!(laughs) We call ourselves that! And I don’t have a problem with it. We are ser-vice-people. And you just have to play the game of service, don’t you?” (Karola,36, agency leader, IT/e-commerce/tourism, married). But all participants sharingthis perspective explicitly clearly distinguish between a deliberate use of feminin-ity and unprofessional exaggerations. What they say is that women in public rela-tions in particular have a natural advantage, in that the “other side of the table” inthe German agency sector (journalists and clients) is often dominated by men. Oneparticipant even describes female public relations consultants as a kind of bond


12Hons (1995) participants referred to this devaluation of public relation practitioners with the term“party planners” (p. 43).

between the male-dominated worlds of journalists and clients because women, dueto their empathy and intuition, are able to handle claims from both sides:

This means that a woman is simply able to use her charm better and her femininity toget rid of information. And this really works perfectly. … Sometimes we have jokeda lot about PR sluts, yes—but it is like that. I don’t prostitute myself in favor of anyclient. It’s more like this: You’re good-looking, you’re nice, you’re able to have apleasant conversation and you’re nice to have around. And this is a pleasant story. Fora journalist in search of information, it’s simply much nicer to have to deal with awoman with whom he can go for a coffee once in a while. (Ines, 34, part-timefreelancer in fashion/outdoor/high-tech/IT, widowed, one child)

What is decisive is that every single woman has to know the threats of playing withthe “PR bunny” stereotype. There is a thin line between a successful use of “typicalfemale” attributes and becoming a victim of the stereotype:

There are definitely fields where you can find the typical image of a PR girly: themain thing is to be good-looking and talkative. But often there is not much behind it. Ithink in the long term you will not be successful with that. I believe that clients wantsomebody in their agency who really knows what they’re doing. That’s what they payfor: professional consulting and top quality work. (Kerstin, 34, junior consultant, IT,single)

The majority of the participants outline the stereotype not only in general, but alsodescribe individual experiences of being labeled a “PR bunny.” But, and this isvery important, it is clear that there is a strong discrepancy between participants’perceived image of themselves and the image they have of other female public re-lations practitioners. There is a clear tendency to support the stereotype on behalfof others—even their own colleagues—but on behalf of oneself, the dominant feel-ing seems to be one of unjustly being labeled a “PR bunny.” We therefore have tounderstand that stereotypes such as the “PR bunny” stereotype are most likely notonly the product of men’s prejudices or the beliefs of people outside public rela-tions, but that they are concurrently substantially (re)produced by female publicrelations practitioners themselves.

What is most interesting in the context of our second research question of therole of specific organizational contexts is that our participants believe that the“PR bunny” stereotype, in particular, is being attached to women in public rela-tions agencies—more so than to women in other types of organizations. And be-cause stereotypes never only concern individuals but groups, one agency leadereven relates the “PR bunny” stereotype to the agency sector itself. She thinksthat one-gendered (completely female) agencies, in particular, are being threat-ened by a “henhouse image” (Andrea, 37, agency leader, IT/telecommunica-tions, married, pregnant), as she explicitly labeled it. She therefore emphasizes


the importance of building a positive agency image by showing that the agencyis not being ruled by the “principles of a bunch of women.” There are severalsimilar statements by other participants that imply that comparable “principlesof a bunch of men” do not exist.

The Role of the Organizational Context

In the interviews, not only the general relevance of structural criteria for thework–home conflict was addressed, as participants were also asked to give a de-tailed description of their own agencies’ family policy and—if they had their ownchildren—to describe their individual solutions to the work–home conflict. Al-though the study provides rich findings on these aspects, general patterns were noteasy to identify—for the most part, opinions even differed completely. This onceagain underlines how highly complex the mechanisms behind this problem are. Inaddition, the participants’ different views show that even women working in thesame type of public relations organization have very different individual prefer-ences and standpoints that make it rather difficult to believe in general solutions forthe general work–home conflict of women in public relations. However, if there isobviously no generalization possible on agency-specific circumstances regardingthe work–home conflict, what differences between agencies and corporations canactually explain women’s surge toward agencies? Indeed, our findings support theargument that, above all, female public relations practitioners’ preferences ofagency-specific job tasks and organizational culture can help explain the femalemajority in the German agency sector. Finally and apart from general compari-sons, our biographic approach enabled us to investigate the specific role played bymale dominance for our participants’ individual career decisions, as we explicitlyasked for the reasons behind job changes—in particular, moves between differenttypes of organizations.

Structural Criteria and the Work–Home Conflict

Type of organization (agency vs. corporation). Our results do not offer adistinct answer to the question of which type of organization is most fam-ily-friendly. In this regard, participants differ fundamentally and also describesometimes absolutely polar experiences. Some argue that as a result of more flexi-ble structures, agencies in general offer better chances for employed parents thancorporations, and the freelancer status means an additional possibility to workpart-time in public relations. Corporate public relations departments are often runby a single person, and, therefore, working part-time or as a temporary replace-ment is almost impossible as working long hours is the rule. Others recount thatagencies, in particular, are dedicated to serve clients and journalists and thusdemand a great deal of flexibility and willingness to perform. But in terms of


flexibility and long working hours, mothers are certainly being set certain limits.This side also sees the freelancer status as being very critical, as self-employmentalso involves an element of uncertainty in terms of a lack of regular income, healthinsurance, paid vacancies, and so forth, and therefore is particularly dangerous forworking mothers who depend on these factors even more than childless people do.

Size of organization. Also, in regard to these aspects, opinions are exact op-posites. One side thinks that very small organizations like agencies, in particular,make it possible to have tighter cooperation between employees and leaders.Therefore, individual arrangements can be made less bureaucratically, and, if nec-essary, temporary replacements of missing colleagues can be organized farquicker. The larger the organization, the more everyone is bound to rather inflexi-ble, official structures. In contrast, the other side argues that small organizationslike agencies do not allow for any redistribution of tasks because all employeeshave to cope with a maximum workload in any case. It is also remarked that thelarger the organization, the better the chances for part-time employment, becauselarger organizations can simply afford to pay double social welfare contributionsfar more easily than smaller ones. In addition, clearer structures in larger organiza-tions are interpreted as providing a higher level of security and certainty rather thaninflexibility.

Hierarchical position and job tasks. Last but not least, all interviewedwomen judge the hierarchical position and related job tasks as being crucial factorsin influencing women’s ability to juggle family and work. On the one hand,time-consuming tasks like leadership and customer care are considered less suit-able for mothers because, in the context of family commitments, fixed workinghours are extremely important, which is not always easy to achieve in a service oc-cupation like public relations. Text, research, or background work (technician) aredescribed as tasks better suited to employed mothers. One participant remarked,“As a mother you somehow take a back seat and write texts” (Elisabeth, 33, consul-tant, IT, long-term relationship). This means employed mothers, even more so thanwomen in general, face the threat of being forced into the technical role. On theother hand, participants’ descriptions show that a higher hierarchical position canalso be an advantage: In particular, agency leaders among the participants arguethat they had an extraordinarily high amount of freedom to structure their ownlives. One agency leader commented, “In short, self-employment represents boththe major barrier and the greatest chance for balancing family and work” (Karola,36, agency leader, IT/e-commerce/tourism, married).

Preferences of Job Tasks and Work Processes All participants of ourstudy describe individual preferences of agency-specific job tasks as an important


criterion for their own choice of an agency—namely, a greater variety of areas,spheres of activity, and contact outside the organization. They derive these differ-ences from the fact that most agencies consult several clients, whereas public rela-tions experts in corporations virtually only have one client—their own organiza-tion. Relevant statements in the interviews suggest that women actually prefer theagency sector because they prefer job tasks similar to the “agency profile.” Fur-thermore, different work processes in relation to the organization’s size are a sec-ond important criterion in favor of (small) public relations agencies. Several par-ticipants explain that smaller organizations in particular offer more room forcreativity, spontaneity, and flexibility, in addition to shorter and less bureaucraticways of decision making. However, negative attributes of agencies are said to be astrong dependency on clients, an uncompromising obligation to service, and a(presumed) higher workload than in corporations.

Organizational Culture Preferences

We were able to show that 7 out of 13 participants, after a certain corporate ten-ure—some even lasting several years—moved to the agency sector. This step—aswell as the step to obtaining the status of independent consultant—was signifi-cantly motivated by having experienced frustration due to the glass ceiling, littleprospect of promotion, and little room for developing one’s own ideas in corpora-tions. This provides further support to the thesis that women’s surge toward publicrelations agencies can be understood as their deliberate choice for the agency sec-tor to avoid discrimination (see also Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002).

Against the background of Vianen and Fischer’s (2002) findings on sex differ-ences in “organizational culture preferences,” our study confirms the argumentthat organizational cultures in public relations agencies better suit women’sjob-related motives, preferences, and self-concepts than in other fields of publicrelations. This explanation for women’s surge toward public relations agencies isstrongly supported by some participants’ statements on the differences of organi-zational cultures of agencies and corporations: They say that, especially in smallerpublic relations agencies, a familiar and team-oriented atmosphere was being cul-tivated, whereas big corporations in particular are dominated by a rather harsh, in-dividualistic, and competitive atmosphere. Two agency leaders even compare theresponsibility of leadership to the responsibility of a parent and, with this, describetheir team to be almost a kind of “substitute family.”

• To be a boss is a long learning process because you can basically compare itto a child’s education, in a way. You need a lot of discipline and you have to set lim-its. Well, it’s certainly not as easy as I thought. (Astrid, 34, agency leader, IT/tele-communications, lesbian relationship)


• To lead an agency in its entirety also means getting along with people everyday, to have problems like in a personal relationship, or like in a family every day.And we are trying to maintain a familiar atmosphere and a friendly tone.(Veronika, 58, agency leader, technology, married, two stepchildren)

In addition, a freelancer explains in this context that women, also in their profes-sional life, put stronger emphasis on long-lasting interpersonal relationships,whereas men mainly pursued their individual careers and view agencies merely asan entry to big corporations’ marketing departments: “Men want to have a fastercareer. That means they try to climb the ladder by job-hopping, even though theirqualifications are insufficient. Women prefer to stay longer with one em-ployer—and try to find continuity” (Eva, 48, agency leader, IT, married, twochildren).

What we do not know is whether, and to what extent, the organizational culturein agencies in general meets our participants’ beliefs about a team-oriented,friendly atmosphere. At least some descriptions of their own experiences by ourparticipants show that the image of a “harmonious agency-family” is probably nottrue in reality: In some cases, closer descriptions revealed that a female-dominatedagency is not necessarily a guarantee for harmony per se. In particular, variousstatements by one participant from a one-gendered (completely female) agency onthe struggle for power and intrigues inside the agency clearly show that even with-out men, the male competitive game is still being played. This finding refers to keywords like “bitchiness,” the “queen bee syndrome,” or “women turning againstother women” from prior U.S. studies (see Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002).

DISCUSSION /CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides interesting findings for our understanding of women’s careersand problems in public relations by identifying “new” gender stereotypes. The ex-istence of a “PR bunny” stereotype among female public relations professionalsshows a new devaluation of women’s soft skills by women and offers initial confir-mation of Fröhlich’s (2004) model of the “friendliness trap,” which argues that thestereotyping of women as “natural born communicators” is being accompanied bya recoding process of female attributes as deficiencies in managerial tasks, profes-sionalism, and public relations competence and, therefore, fundamentally threat-ens women’s ability to overcome the glass ceiling effect. Interesting enough, thisrecoding process is also applied by women when judging other women.

What do phenomenons like the evolvement of “new” gender stereotypes meanto women’s future in public relations and public relations’ future as a (feminized)field in general? At the moment we can only speculate; it will be one importantchallenge to future feminist public relations research to further characterize these


meanings. At least, it is more than obvious that the “PR bunny” stereotype adds acertain negative touch to women’s exceptional communication skills. But, in addi-tion, with the manifestation of such a stereotype, a trend becomes apparent thatprovides rich nourishment to pessimistic scenarios about the future of public rela-tions. Stereotypes like the “PR bunny” (re)produce women’s prescription to thetechnical role and, in doing so, delay the process of professionalization of publicrelations and damage the field’s image. As long as public relations skills andknow-how—both of the managerial and the technical role—are not acknowledgedas the result of a well-founded education, but instead are discussed as natural or so-cialized attributes, public relations will have to make do with the image of merelybeing a vocational profession.

Furthermore, we have to understand that (male) prejudices or the beliefs of peo-ple outside public relations are not the only driving force behind the (re)productionof gender stereotypes, but that the shown discrepancy between the participants’perceived image of themselves and the image they have of other female public re-lations practitioners is of crucial importance, too. First of all, women themselveswill have to realize the problem of stereotyping (a) to be able to avoid stereotypicalbehavior, (b) to be prepared to be treated like a “PR bunny” and know strategies toovercome the problem, and (c) to not unconsciously harm other women in the fieldby stereotyping them.

The discrepancy between avowed and ascribed identity is linked to psychologi-cal strategies like “denial” (Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002) or “negotiated resignation”(Wrigley, 2002), which help to assimilate into the system. Like Wrigley, we be-lieve that “denial” is a factor that not only explains, but also contributes towomen’s discrimination. Wrigley explained how “denial” hinders consciousnessof structural criteria when she stated, “blame is turned back on the woman herself,on a lack of experience or credentials, or not working hard enough. The structure isnot questioned. Women, instead, question themselves. The structure, the statusquo, remains unchallenged” (p. 43).

However, we do not only claim consciousness of structural factors (selection)but, in addition, claim consciousness of one’s own role in the reinforcement of thestatus quo. We believe that the shown discrepancy between avowed and ascribedidentity is clear proof of women’s own lack of consciousness of the impact of gen-der stereotypes: Women themselves stereotype each other in the traditional (male)categories—and, what is most important, at the same time believe themselves notto be stereotyped. This contradiction results in the maintenance of the status quoand, moreover, in certain ways of behavior that, in a kind of vicious circle, will bedeemed as being “typically female” and hindering women’s careers: “women turn-ing against other women” (Wrigley, 2002), “catfighting,” or the so-called “queenbee syndrome” (Hon, 1995).

Apart from the problem of stereotyping others, the interconnection between the“denial” of the impact of gender stereotypes and the belief in the superiority of “fe-


male values” for public relations produces exactly the hidden mechanisms thatFröhlich (2004) outlined in her model of the “friendliness trap.” Here, women’s(positive) self-concept and the denial (or, at least, the lack of consciousness) of thenecessity to reconceive its meanings for one’s own career could virtually become aserious career killer. In our opinion, concepts like the “feminist values” (L. A.Grunig et al., 2000) contribute to women’s self-stereotyping instead of supportinga more conscious and individual development of self-concepts. We believe this tobe one of the most important preconditions to be able to avoid stereotyping others(be it men or women).

Talking about the evolution, change, and meaning of stereotypes, we also haveto consider that stereotypes never only just concern the individual, but primarilyrefer to a group of individuals. Therefore, it becomes evident that theovergeneralization of attributes as the central problem of stereotypes (see, e.g.,Heilman, 1997, 2001) mainly concerns groups of women in the field of public rela-tions. In this context, we have to ask whether there is a connection between the “PRbunny” stereotype and the extraordinarily high female majority in agencies. Here,one finding is critically important: Several of our participants believe that the “PRbunny” stereotype is, above all else, being related to women in public relationsagencies—more so than to women in other types of organizations. How then dodifferent components of the “PR bunny” stereotype and the high number of womenin agencies work together? If, for example, a public relations agency with specialexpertise in fashion areas mainly employs women who, in addition, are all rela-tively young, then the stereotype finds rich nourishment. This example demon-strates that the “PR bunny” stereotype in particular might become a serious threatfor female-dominated public relations organizations like, for example, agencies.This problem will be dealt with again later.

What is more, our findings underline the importance of the specific organiza-tional context for understanding women’s surge toward public relations agencies,as they provide support to the argument that women prefer (a) the specific organi-zational culture of public relations agencies, (b) agency-specific job tasks, and (c)agency-specific work processes. Our findings on the problem of male-dominatedand anachronistic organizational structures and cultures in corporations as the ma-jor cause of the glass ceiling effect widely support the results of prior U.S. studies(Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002) and, therefore, here in reference to those studies and toenhance comparability, can be briefly summarized by some well-known key wordslike the male “similarity preference,” an “unofficial glass ceiling policy,” the male“senior set,” or the “good-old-boys network” (see, e.g., Hon, 1995). The compari-son of structural criteria in public relations agencies and corporations, however,did not result in a clear decision in favor of one type of organization.

Participant’s judgments of the possibilities for solving the work–home conflictin agencies and corporations differed fundamentally. Only one general pattern be-came apparent: Flexibility seems to be a crucial criterion. But it is not clear which


type of organization really offers the highest level of flexibility. Even so, overalland against all reasoning that public relations agencies in particular could offersuitable (due to the higher flexibility) jobs for mothers, our study shows once againthat the work–home conflict strongly concerns women in all types of public rela-tions organizations. All interviewees judged the “women’s balancing act” (Hon,1995, p. 52) as a major threat to a successful career, which has repeatedly beendemonstrated by their own experiences. Interesting, this also applies to Germany,which is well known for its splendidly constructed social security system and ex-ceptional family-friendly labor laws.13

A question that has to be left unanswered is whether, and to what extent, the or-ganizational culture in agencies actually fulfils our participants’ perceptions abouta team-oriented, friendly atmosphere. In respect to men’s general dominance ofthe managerial role and of top positions in public relations, it is not at all clearwhether a female organizational culture has a realistic chance at all of developingin agencies. It would seem plausible that men also have a crucial influence in agen-cies on the dominant organizational culture and its definition. But against the back-ground of psychological findings on “organizational culture preferences” (Vianen& Fischer, 2002), it is also not clear whether male influence necessarily leads to a“typically” male culture. That is to say, it would also seem plausible that men, justlike women in the agency sector more so than public relations professionals in cor-porations, lean toward female organizational culture preferences.

But even if the image of a “harmonious agency-family” is not just pure inven-tion, we have to wonder what consequences such an image might have. Theovergeneralization of this image may develop into a serious problem for public re-lations agencies, just as has happened with regard to the field of public relations ingeneral when a threat to the profession itself was being derived from the increasingnumber of female public relations practitioners: the “velvet ghetto.”14

Therefore, (a) the extremely high feminization trend of the agency sector incombination with (b) the image of an agency-specific, female-oriented organiza-tional culture, and (c) the belief that “PR bunnies” are encountered for the mostpart in agencies could virtually lead toward a “scenario of double threat on the or-ganizational level.” This assumption is supported by our study, in particular by ourfindings on the participant’s fear of a negative agency image because of the high


13For example, laws on maternity protection (3 months maternity leave with continuation of pay-ments, night work prohibition), dismissal protection for up to 3 years during family leave, special pa-rental leave subsidy for about 12 months (up to 60% of the last income), child benefits (about 150 eurosper child per month), and tax relief for parents.

14Early findings (Broom, 1982; Broom & Smith, 1979; Cline, 1989; Cline et al., 1986; Toth &Cline, 1989) nourished the fear of a so-called deprofessionalization as a consequence of thefeminization of public relations. De- or semiprofessionalization was considered a possible conse-quence of a trend toward a typical womans job: the loss of prestige, reputation and status, and decline inthe average salaries (Bates, 1983; Hunt & Thompson, 1987, 1988).

number of female employees (see previous: “henhouse image” and “principles of abunch of women”). Here, one could credibly deduce the fear of a scenario that pre-dicts a development of the agency sector toward an “agency ghetto” for womenand is characterized by further loss of power and status for female public relationspractitioners. This possible trend will have to be the subject of further research.

In addition, a stereotypical image is not the only possible negative effect of theextraordinary feminization of the agency sector. Apart from this, we have to con-sider the particular roles of different types of organizations and individuals withinthe whole process of public relations, and the distribution of power among them.First of all, eternal consulting organizations like public relations agencies are fun-damentally weakened by their dependence on clients and budgets. Several partici-pants of our study referred to this problem. Second, public relations agencies tendto adopt a kind of mediating position between clients and journalists and feel theneed to satisfy the demands of both sides. Bearing in mind the argument ofwomen’s “natural” suitability for service occupations, then on the one hand, a fur-ther explanation for the high number of women in the agency sector could be de-duced: One could argue that women are not only extremely well-suited to publicrelations in general, but also that within the field, they best meet the requirementsof public relations agencies. However, on the other hand, in this function as a ser-vice mediator we could as well locate a possibly problematic consequence of thefeminization trend—namely, that public relations agencies as virtually all “femaleorganizations” are threatened by an accelerating loss of influence within the pro-cess of public relations itself, in particular, if clients and journalists are mainlymale. Further research will have to observe the real effects of the feminization ofthe agency sector.

Our findings contribute to our understanding of the high female majority inpublic relations agencies because they show the importance of the organizationalcontext in connection with women’s own preferences. From this, new questionsarise (a) on the individual level, (b) on the organizational level, and (c) about thefield of public relations itself being imbedded into the economic process: Do agen-cies really represent an alternative type of organization that resembles the socialstructures of families? Do childless women even choose agencies as a kind of“substitute family?” Does the “agency profile” really correspond to women’s ex-ceptional communication skills more than other public relations roles do? Andmight it therefore even be plausible to view agencies within the whole public rela-tions process as a kind of “female” mediating factor between clients and the me-dia? What consequences do such structures have on women’s status in public rela-tions and on the judgment of the feminization trend? These questions will have tobe the subject of further research.

Our study shows that it is most important for the further development of re-search to investigate more on (a) structural criteria of the specific labor market, (b)aspects of organizational cultures, and (c) the individual professional biographies


in detail. We take neither an exclusively radical nor liberal standpoint, but we wantto stress how strongly interconnected structural and individual aspects, factors ofselection, and self-selection are. We think that the awareness of these interconnec-tions will definitely further contribute to the development of feminist theory inpublic relations research. Here, for example, Giddens’ (1984) structuration theoryin our opinion could be very fruitful. And it is up to future research to eventuallydeliver more detailed insights into the reasons and conditions of evolvement andchange as well as the meanings and consequences of the described phenomenons.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the review committee and the editor for their helpful comments on ear-lier versions of this article. All German quotations are translated by the authors or atranslator. Special help to the latter—Andrew Bannon—who was of great help tosmooth our “Genglish” (German English) style.

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L. (2005). A (re)conceived feminist paradigm for public relations: A case for substantial im-provement. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 668–684.

Aldoory, L. (1998). The language of leadership for female public relations professionals. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 10(2), 73–101.

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2001). Two feminists, six opinions: The complexities of feminism in com-munication scholarship today. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 24 (pp.345–361). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A developing theoryfor public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 103–126.

Alferman, D. (1996). Geschlechterrollen und geschlechtsspezifisches Verhalten [Gender roles and gen-der specific behavior]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.

Angerer, M.-L. (1992, March). “Über Ängstliche und Angstvolle.” Weibliche und männlicheArbeitnehmer in der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit [“Fearful and timid people.” Male and female employeesin PR]. Medien Journal, pp. 161–165.

Bates, D. (1983, July). A concern: Will women inherit the profession? Public Relations Journal, pp.6–7.

Broom, G. M. (1982). A comparison of sex roles in public relations. Public Relations Review, 8(3),17–22.

Broom, G. M., & Smith, G. D. (1979). Testing the practitioner’s impact on clients. Public Relations Re-view, 5(3), 47–59.

Cline, C. G. (1989). Public relations: The $1 million penalty for being a woman. In P. J. Creedon (Ed.),Women in mass communication: Challenging gender values (pp. 263–275). Newbury Park: Sage.

Cline, C. G., Toth, E. L., Turk, J., Masel-Walters, L., Johnson, N., & Smith, H. (1986). The velvetghetto: The impact of the increasing percentage of women in public relations and business communi-cation. San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation.


Creedon, P. J. (1991). Public relations and “women’s work”: Toward a feminist analysis of public rela-tions roles. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 3, pp.67–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dinter, M. (1993, March). PR-Gehälter 1993: Money, money, money … [PR salaries 1993: Money,money, money …]. PR Magazine, p. 55.

Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relationsand communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Fröhlich, R. (2004). Feminine and feminist values in communication professions: Exceptional skillsand expertise or “friendliness trap?” In M. de Bruin & K. Ross (Eds.), Gender and newsroom cul-tures: Identities at work (pp. 65–77). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Fröhlich, R., Peters, S. B., & Simmelbauer, E.-M. (2005). Public Relations. Daten und Fakten dergeschlechtsspezifischen Berufsfeldforschung [Public relations. Data and facts from gender-specificresearch]. München, Germany: Oldenbourg.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, Eng-land: Polity Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1979). Die Entdeckung gegenstandsbezogener Theorie: EineGrundstrategie qualitativer Sozialforschung [The discovery of objective theory: A basic strategy ofqualitative social research]. In C. Hopf & E. Weingarten (Eds.), Qualitative Sozialforschung (Orig.1969, pp. 91–111). Stuttgart, Germany: Klett.

Grunig, L. A., Toth, E. L., & Hon, L. C. (2000). Feminist values in public relations. Journal of PublicRelations Research, 12(1), 49–68.

Heilman, M. E. (1997). Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: The role of sex stereo-types. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 877–889.

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascentup the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.

Heintz, B., Nadai, E., Fischer, R., & Ummel, H. (1997). Ungleich unter Gleichen. Studien zurgeschlechtsspezifischen Segregation des Arbeitsmarktes [Studies about the gender-specific segrega-tion of the job market]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.

Henley, B. N. (1977). Body politics. Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Hon, L. C. (1995). Towards a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research,7, 27–88.

Hunt, T., & Thompson, D. W. (1987, August 1–4). Making PR macho: Reversing the sex gap in under-graduate public relations programs. Paper presented at the 7th annual meeting of the Association forEducation in Journalism and Mass Communication, San Antonio, TX.

Hunt, T., & Thompson, D. W. (1988). Bridging the gender gap in PR courses. Journalism Educator,43(1), 48–51.

Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung (5th Ed.) [Introduction to qualitativesocial research]. Weinheim, Basel, Germany: Beltz.

Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). ExpertInneninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitragzur qualitativen Methodendiskussion [Expert interviews—Often conducted, rarely considered. Acontribution to the discussion on qualitative methodology]. In D. Garz & K. Kraimer (Eds.),Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung. Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen (pp. 441–471). Opladen,Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

O’Neil, J. (2003). An analysis of the relationships among structure, influence, and gender: Helping tobuild a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 151–179.

Peters, S. (2004). Ladykiller PR? Nahaufrahmen zu den Bedingungen der beruflichen Karriere alsPR-Frau. Eine explorative Studie. Masters thesis, University Munich, Germany.

Rakow,L.F. (1989).Abridge to the future:Re-visioninggender incommunication. InP. J.Creedon(Ed.),Womeninmasscommunication:Challenginggendervalues (pp.299–312).NewburyPark,CA:Sage.


Toth, E. L., & Cline, C. G. (Eds.). (1989). Beyond the velvet ghetto. San Francisco: IABC ResearchFoundation.

Toth, E. L., Serini, S. A., Wright, D. K., & Emig, A. G. (1998). Trends in public relations roles:1990–1995. Public Relations Review, 24, 143–163.

Vianen, A. E. M. van, & Fischer, A. H. (2002). Illuminating the glass ceiling: The role of organizationalculture preferences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 315–337.

Wienand, E., & Stoltenow, S. (2001, December 27). Schön, reich und berühmt! Berufsziele undKarriereerwartungen im Berufsfeld PR [Beautiful, wealthy and famous! Career objectives and ex-pectations among PR professionals]. Retrieved October 26, 2005, fromhttp://www.pr-recruiting.de/SchoenReichUndBeruehmt.pdf

Wrigley, B. J. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view theglass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public Relations Re-search, 14, 27–55.

Zoonen, L. v. (2006, in press). Women in serious and popular journalism. In R. Fröhlich & S. Lafky(Eds.), Women journalists in the Western world: Equal opportunities and what surveys tell us. Lon-don: Hampton.


（2007）pr bunnies caught in the agency

Documents

lawrence erlbaum associates

pr bunnies caught

studys explorative character

natural born communicators

iabc research foundation

public relations agenciesmore

senior account director

public relations review