Hegemonic Discourse And Self- The Author(s) 2013 .
4949652013PRI2310.1177/2046147X13494965Public Relations InquiryPlace and Vardeman-WinterArticleHegemonic discourse and selfdiscipline: Exploring Foucault’sconcept of bio-power amongpublic relations professionalsPublic Relations Inquiry2(3) 305 –325 The Author(s) 2013Reprints and OI: 10.1177/2046147X13494965pri.sagepub.comKatie R. PlaceSaint Louis University, USAJennifer Vardeman-WinterUniversity of Houston, USAAbstractThis qualitative study of 20 public relations practitioners examines power inpublic relations through the lens of bio-power – the control and management ofhuman life through regulatory and discursive forces (Foucault, 1978; Macey, 2009;Vogelaar, 2007). Results suggest that biopower exists as (1) hegemonic knowledgesof ‘brokering information’, ‘shaping public opinion’, ‘adding value’, and ‘pleasingpeople’ and (2) disciplining forces of a workaholic culture and self-censorship.Findings suggest that based on specific hegemonic discourses about public relations,practitioners encounter bio-power and discipline themselves to conform withindustry hegemonic discourses.KeywordsBio-power, discipline, Foucault, hegemony, power, public relationsThe public relations industry can be viewed as a site through which power is exercised,and public relations professionals are players in systems of power dynamics and relations. Holtzhausen (2002), for example, asserted that public relations practitioners are‘nothing but the stooges of powerful corporate managers who use public relations’agency to create forms of discipline and normalization criteria’ (2002: 257). Practitionersare used to establish corporate ideologies and perpetuate normalizing rules and practicesCorresponding author:Katie R. Place, Saint Louis University, 3733 West Pine Blvd., Xavier Hall, Room 320, Saint Louis, MO 63108, USA.Email: katierplace@gmail.comDownloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
306Public Relations Inquiry 2(3)that ‘help already powerful organizational role players sustain their power’ (Holtzhausen,2002: 257).Previous public relations scholarship has focused heavily on individual practitionerpower (e.g. Reber and Berger, 2006; Dozier and Grunig, 1992), but has focused rarely ondiscursive and structural forms of power1 (e.g. Edwards, 2009; Holtzhausen, 2002;O’Neil, 2003; Smudde and Courtright, 2010). In order to better understand power inpublic relations, we must find alternatives to the notion that power is something merelywielded or possessed by individuals and move toward an understanding of power as aseries of relations, events or normalizing practices (e.g. Foucault, 1978, 1980). For decades, scholars have issued such calls. Deetz, for example, argued that influence-baseddefinitions of power in which ‘A’ influences ‘B’ do not fully capture how power exists inorganizations and overlook the importance and complicity of those who serve as therecipients of influence (1987: 37).Public relations serves as communication practice, but it also exists as a site of social,cultural and political discourse and debate (Holtzhausen and Voto, 2002: 79). This studyaims to better understand public relations as a social and cultural site of power. Weattempt to explore the current landscape of power in the public relations industry sinceHoltzhausen (2002) argued that practitioners serve as ‘stooges’ who perpetuate normalizing practices. Specifically, this study examines power in public relations through thelens of bio-power – the control and management of human life through regulatory (e.g.governmental bodies, social policies) and discursive forces (e.g. media, communicationexperts, producers of information) (Foucault, 1978; Macey, 2009; Vogelaar, 2007). Weuse bio-power as a framework to explore multiple discourses among public relationspractitioners, which we differentiate between dominant, hegemonic discourse and subaltern, counterhegemonic discourse.Literature reviewPower, discourse and public relationsTraditional and managerial interpretations of power. Traditional interpretations of poweroften describe it as a capacity (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981) or a tool (McWhorter,2004). Power, as a capacity or tool, is then utilized to influence behaviors and attitudes.Mintzberg, for example, defined power as the capacity to affect the behavior of individuals (1983: 5). Pfeffer explained that power depends on the capacity of individuals‘to enhance their bases of power and to convince others in the organization of theirnecessity and value’ (1981: 98). Thus, in order for individuals to best influence others,power is assumed to be a tool that some people have, but others lack (Foucault, 1980;McWhorter, 2004).Interpreting power as a capacity or tool that individuals utilize to influence othersrepresents a managerialist approach to power in public relations. Managerialism impliesthat managers discursively manipulate employees to perform workplace practices thatbenefit managers more than workers (Holtzhausen, 2002: 256). Citing Benjamin (1989)and Thompson (1990), Holtzhausen argued that public relations professionals thusbecome agents who create societal metanarratives and perpetuate rules, practices andDownloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
Place and Vardeman-Winter307norms, which build corporate ideologies (2002: 257). In turn, rules and practices thatsustain the power of influential organizational members are perpetuated (2002: 257).Acknowledging that organizations hold tremendous power over public relations practices and pressure practitioners to conform and comply (Rakow, 1989; as cited in Berger,2005: 25) becomes all the more important. These notions of societal metanarratives,rules and norms relate to the concept of hegemony, which is ‘the struggle to establish andmaintain a dominant ideology’ (McHale et al., 2007: 376).Hegemonic discourses and power. Specifically, hegemony represents the power force orthe ideology that ‘wins’ in the discursive marketplace (Hoffman and Ford, 2010).Hegemony is the process of commodifying – or creating an idea or practice into a goodto be exchanged – meanings through a society to sustain current political and economicsystems (Gramsci, 1971). Thus, collections of reified meanings – or dominant discoursesor preferred readings (Hall, 1993) – through a society sustain current political and economic systems (Gramsci, 1971). Furthermore, a hegemonic reading privileges ‘commonsense’ understandings of a phenomenon (McHale et al., 2007) ‘that it carries with it thestamp of legitimacy – it appears coterminous with what is “natural,” “inevitable,” “takenfor granted,” about the social order (Hall, 1993: 102).Cultural studies have been used to liberate subaltern meanings from dominant discourses, as ethnographers look for cultural members’ counterhegemonic acts, where‘intervention is deemed to be either needed or actively taking place – for example, in theidentification of sites of resistance’ (Slack and Whitt, 1992: 573). Negotiated and oppositional codes signify acts where cultural members reclaim their identities and meanings.Specifically, a negotiated discourse ‘operates with exceptions to the rule. It accords theprivileged position to the dominant definitions of events while reserving the right tomake a more negotiated application to ‘local conditions,’ to its own more corporate positions’ (Hall, 1993: 102). These meanings are ‘shot through with contradictions’ (Hall,1993: 102) because of the situated position subaltern members and meanings have topowerful hegemonic discourses and entities. Furthermore, subaltern discourses of globalhegemonies can bring change at the local level:Whereas, on one hand, globalization has fundamentally disrupted the notion of master narrativesby drawing attention to the fragmented nature of communication and information flow, it hassimultaneously brought society face-to-face with the necessity to theorize about the interplayof power and control through which transnational hegemony shapes policies and influenceslocal and global actions. (Pal and Dutta, 2008: 160)Hegemonic discourses in public relations. In public relations, hegemony is dynamicbecause organizational discourses are constantly challenged by contradictions pointedout by activists, policies, and social disparities (Boyd and Waymer, 2011; Roper, 2005:77). As such, hegemony ‘helps explain the stability of the unequal distribution ofwealth and power in apparently democratic societies’ (Hess, 1997: 115). Public relations processes such as client relations and message dissemination preserve the hegemonic – or dominant – meanings organizations create in the exchange relationships theyhold with publics.Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
308Public Relations Inquiry 2(3)Non-dominant or subaltern discourses have been studied in public relations scholarship (Boyd and Waymer, 2011). Common among the studies and essays regardinghegemony in public relations (e.g. Boyd and Waymer, 2011; Dutta-Bergman, 2005;McHale et al., 2007; Zhang, 2010) are scholars’ purposes to expose the power strugglesthat contribute to establishing and maintaining dominant ideas about public relationspurposes, processes and products. These scholars also highlight subaltern voices/bodiesin order to contribute to alternative readings of public relations purposes, such as investigating/employing a hegemonic model of crisis communication (McHale et al., 2007),intellectual coexistence (Zhang, 2010), subaltern public sphere (Dutta-Bergman, 2005),and transnational hegemony (Pal and Dutta, 2008). Furthermore, hegemonic transmission occurs globally because ‘public relations becomes a conduit for fostering Westernhegemony through the diffusion of Western values and thoughts’ (Pal and Dutta, 2008:177). The consequences of transnational discourse as rooted in public relations are sogreat that Edwards proposed redefining public relations in a ‘heretical’ fashion, as a purposive ‘flow of information’ (2012: 22). Drawing on Appadurai’s (1996) concept ofglobal cultural flows, ‘PR flow’ aggregates individual and organizational trans-actionsacross various contexts: ‘More likely to be visible are the various ways in which PRflow(s) interact with other global cultural flows to change the social, cultural, politicaland economic context – including that of the organization’ (Edwards, 2012: 22).However, while understanding public relations and PR flows as conduits for hegemony are important, there is limited empirical research discussing the hegemonic discourses – or the ‘underlying ideological struggle’ (McHale et al., 2007: 374) publicrelations practitioners perceive may exist in their organizations, industries and communities. Finding out the struggles that practitioners encounter in how they contribute to orresist hegemonic ideals is important to learn the current state of power held within thepublic relations role. We do this through ‘identify[ing] the multiple, overlapping, andconflicting interests that define the organizational voice and heed the interests that caneasily go unnoticed or ignored’ (Boyd and Waymer, 2011: 488).As the framework for this study, we relate hegemony to bio-power (Foucault, 1978),as Gramsci’s concept of hegemony has been likened to Foucault’s (1980) concepts ofregimes of truth as constitutive of power/knowledge (Hall, 1997). In Foucault’s criticalhistory of modern sexuality (1978), he distinguished sex and sexuality as a site forknowledge production. This analysis serves as a metaphor through which truths can beconstituted and accepted by regulatory bodies, which we can compare to the truths ofpublic relations:to account for the fact that [sex] is spoken about, to discover who does the speaking, thepositions and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speakabout it and which store and distribute the things that are said Hence, too, my main concernwill be to locate the forms of power, the channels it takes, and the discourses it permeates inorder to reach the most tenuous and individual modes of behavior how it penetrates andcontrols everyday pleasure in short the ‘polymorphous techniques of power’. (Foucault,1978: 11)Foucault’s method of inquiry observes the ‘will to knowledge’ (1978: 12), which weargue serves as the dominant, hegemonic discourse of public relations. First, however,Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
Place and Vardeman-Winter309we discuss postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault’s interpretations of power, as heoffers a leading perspective on how organizations and regulatory bodies discipline individuals to act according to dominant ideologies.2Postmodern interpretations of power. Postmodernism interprets power not as a possession,a tool, or sovereign right, but as relational and discursive (Foucault, 1980) and ‘dispersed, indeterminate, heteromorphous, subjectless and productive’ (Best and Kellner,1991: 49). As Foucault explained, ‘there are manifold relations of power which permeate, characterize and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannotthemselves be established, consolidated nor implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of a discourse’ (Foucault, 1980: 93). Postmodernism critiques these discursive and often unseen relations of power, showing howindividuals are dominated or subjected in society (Holtzhausen, 2012: 13–14) through‘the hegemony of norms, political technologies, and the shaping of the body and soul’(Best and Kellner, 1991: 49).Foucault, through his genealogical works in particular, offers a lens through which toillustrate and analyze power. On one hand, power operates through discipline and regulation of the human body and the ‘power of life’. Foucault explained that, first, powerfocused on disciplining and optimization of the human body, rendering it docile andintegrating it into ‘systems of efficient and economic control’ (Foucault, 1978: 139).Later, power centered on the body and its biological processes of propagation, birth,mortality and longevity through regulatory controls and economic observation (Foucault,1978: 139–140).In contrast, power serves as a productive, creative force, especially in terms of forming new discourse and knowledge: ‘it traverses and produces things it forms knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network which runsthrough the whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function isrepression’ (Foucault, 1980: 119). McWhorter further explained the creative nature ofpower in building social forms, institutions, routines, beliefs, theories and self-images(2004: 43). Categories of ‘human beings have been invented in institutionalized arrangements of power’, such as the ‘nerd’. Because these categories are dependent upon certainsituations and relations of power, they are always evolving and changing (McWhorter2004: 43). Viewing power as symbolic, discursive and dynamic helps practitioners tomore critically and deeply understand the rhetorical power of public relations (Smuddeand Courtright, 2010) and more reflectively create ‘mutually beneficial relationships’(Heath et al., 2010: 193). Thus, the dynamic, multiple and sometimes dueling nature ofknowledge production is one that we consider important later, for while this is a criticalstudy of practitioners and bio-power, we suggest that public relations embodies hegemonic discourses through which bio-power is achieved.Bio-powerDeveloping the concepts of power as a disciplinary and regulatory, yet productive force,Foucault (1978) coined the term bio-power. Bio-power represents the various techniquesof managing and controlling human life and ‘achieving the subjugation of bodies’Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
310Public Relations Inquiry 2(3)(Foucault, 1978: 140). Through tactics of knowledge-power, biological existence evolvedinto political existence, and power as the sovereign threat of death evolved into the mastery of exercise over life and body (Foucault, 1978: 142). Bio-power represents howhuman life and its mechanisms entered the ‘realm of explicit calculations and madeknowledge-power an agent of transformation of human life’ (Foucault, 1978: 143).Bio-power involves the internalization of these regulatory and political forces.Vogelaar explained, ‘Bio-power is effective only when it becomes an integral, vital function that every individual embraces and reactivates of his or her own accord’ (2007: 7).Under the process of internalization, individuals, therefore, become disciplined subjects‘capable of self-knowledge and subjects knowable to others’ (Hayden, 2001: 34). Theshaping of the subject occurs under the supervision and gaze of authority (Foucault1973). What results, Hayden explained, are docile and productive individuals who havecome to serve as their ‘own best guards,’ through the processes of compartmentalizationand internalized surveillance (2001: 35). Foucault conceived bio-power as having anability to manufacture consent of its ‘subjects’: ‘the law operates more and more as anorm A normalizing society is the historical outcome of a technology of power centered on life’ (1978: 144).Bio-power also represents the incorporation of the individual into capitalistic idealsand production (Foucault, 1978). Capitalism ‘would not have been possible withoutthe controlled insertion of bodies into the machinery of production and the adjustmentof the phenomena of population to economic processes’ (Foucault, 1978: 141). Profitand production were enabled by the exercise of bio-power and ‘the investment of thebody, its valorization, and the distributive management of its forces’ (1978: 141).Vogelaar highlighted the implications and consequences of the bio-power on the individual: ‘individuality and sexuality are constituted in ways that connect with issues ofnational policy and capital production It could be argued then that the productive(not necessarily healthy) human body is the fundamental asset in a capitalist nation’(2007: 7). This study incorporates these readings of bio-power as the frameworkthrough which to study the disciplining of public relations practitioners, as bio-power‘has significance for public relations in that it helps us to understand how organizational practices discipline practitioners and the role practitioners play in discipliningothers, while simultaneously creating an understanding of the possibilities of resistingpower’ (Holtzhausen, 2012: 121).Bio-power and public relationsFoucault’s work has received some attention among public relations scholars (e.g.Holtzhauzen, 2012; Øyvind and van Ruler, 2007; Weaver et al., 2004) as ‘the use ofFoucault’s work highlights some of the deeply problematic, contradictory and even questionable aspects of this complex profession by placing meaning production, powereffects, truth claims and knowledge systems at the centre of our thinking and investigations’ (Motion and Leitch, 2007: 263). However, few empirical studies have applied theconcept of bio-power to public relations contexts and theory. Furthermore, public relations scholars have conceived of power differently, utilizing the term to reflect ‘politicalwill’ (Reber and Berger, 2006: 200) or ‘inner power’ (Holtzhausen and Voto, 2002: 62).Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
Place and Vardeman-Winter311Bio-power, seen as political will or internal fortitude, can be used to change the power ofothers (Reber and Berger, 2006: 203). Bio-power, as an individual’s ‘inner power,’ relieson self-knowledge and moral consciousness (Holtzhausen and Voto, 2002: 69).Holtzhausen and Voto argued, ‘Postmodern public relations practitioners have a duty touse their bio-power (Foucault, 1980), their power from within, to assert themselves evenif they are not part of the dominant coalition’ (2002: 69).According to public relations scholarship, practitioners utilize bio-power when theyresist power relations and serve as organizational activists (Holtzhausen, 2000: 2012;Holtzhausen and Voto, 2002). Holtzhausen asserted that public relations employees aresubjected to controlling practices that can be resisted: ‘The individual has a duty to usethe power from within, their bio-power, to stand up to destructive power’ (2000: 104).Thus, public relations practitioners become ‘organizational activists, working fromwithin to resist injustices done to employees and society’ (Holtzhausen, 2000: 104).Practitioners can achieve resistance through dissensus, by which they encourage changeand make others aware of conflict (Holtzhausen, 2000: 108). Holtzhausen and Votofound that those who are aware of their bio-power were more likely to resist organizational power structures and act as organizational activists (2002: 78).For purposes of this study, the authors align their definition of bio-power with thosesimilar to Foucault (1978) to conceptualize bio-power as the management and normalization of individual life, which works as regulatory and controlling, but also a creativeand productive phenomenon. The authors also conceive of bio-power as that which tiesthe body to the ideals of production, capitalism and profit (Foucualt, 1978).Purpose and research questionsThe purposes of this article are to explore the occurrence of bio-power in public relationsand to more fully illustrate public relations as a system of power relations, normalizationpractices, and regulatory discourses – or bio-power. To first understand what are thedominant ideals that public relations supports, RQ1 asked: What are the hegemonic discourses of public relations, according to practitioners? Then, to link hegemony to thetype of people that can perform hegemonic discourses and uphold dominant ideals, RQ2asked: How do public relations practitioners discipline themselves or their practices toalign with industry ideals?MethodA qualitative research method was most appropriate for this descriptive study of publicrelations professionals and bio-power. Qualitative research best explores the experiencesof participants and examines how ‘meanings are formed through and in culture’ (Corbinand Strauss, 2008[1998]: 12). Thick qualitative description of experiences and contextsenables practices, historical situations and particular meanings to be understood (Hodder,2003: 169). An empirical approach versus a conceptual approach was chosen in order toillustrate theoretical notions of bio-power in public relations: specifically, how systemsof discursive power play an integral role in shaping public relations professionals’notions of workplace culture.Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
312Public Relations Inquiry 2(3)SampleIn-depth, semi-structured interviews were used for this study to obtain rich detailsabout individuals’ experiences, feelings, perceptions and thoughts (Lindlof andTaylor, 2002) about power in their organizations and public relations. Participantswere selected using purposive and snowball sampling methods. A purposive methodsought to select practitioners of varying levels of expertise, industry type or geographic background in order to capture a variety of professional experiences.Purposive sampling was also done in order to further explore and better understandrival explanations to themes that arose during the interview process. Later, purposively selected participants recommended other practitioners to participate in thestudy, which furnished a snowball sample. The researchers ceased the sampling andinterviewing process once they began to establish a ‘saturation point’ or when no newdata emerged (Corbin and Strauss, 2008[1998]).Twenty public relations professionals from the Midwest (nine practitioners), South(six practitioners), and East Coast (five practitioners) regions of the USA were interviewed. Sixteen practitioners are women, and four are men. Their ages span from sixpractitioners in their 20s, 10 in their 30s, three in their 50s, and one in her 60s. Seventeenpractitioners are White, one is Middle Eastern, one is Latina, and one is African American.Finally, 13 participants worked in an agency setting (including working as independentconsultants, contracting their services to multiple clients simultaneously), whereas fourworked for nonprofit organizations, two worked in corporations and one worked as anindependent practitioner.ProcedureData was collected using in-depth, semi-structured interviews guided by an interviewprotocol that featured broad, open-ended questions in a predetermined order that rangedin specificity. Initial broad questions seeking to build rapport with the participantincluded, ‘What do you like best about the public relations profession?’ More specificopen-ended questions examining concepts related to bio-power were then asked, including, ‘Tell me about at time when you experienced ‘power’ in the public relations industry?’ and ‘How has working in the public relations industry, in a sense, shaped who youare?’ Researchers asked follow-up questions and probes such as ‘Why?’ to elicit furtherdescription and dialogue from the participants.Interviews were conducted in person or via telephone and ranged in length from 45 to100 minutes. The researchers incorporated member checks and follow-up emails orinterviews to request confirmation or further elaboration on specific topics.Data analysisTo analyze the data, the researchers used a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss,1967), which involved the constant comparison of data and the coding of data for themesand patterns. Interviews were fully transcribed and all words and phrases of each interview transcript were coded for themes using open, axial and systematic codes. To achieveDownloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
Place and Vardeman-Winter313consistency, the researchers utilized the same interview protocol, co-created and sharedcoding themes, and shared coded transcripts. The researchers sought to enhance the dataanalysis process and generate researcher reflexivity by utilizing memos, observer comments and scholar-to-scholar dialogue. Additionally, the researchers reflected upon andcritically examined their biases as researchers and former public relations practitioners,and how their opinions, feelings and backgrounds may affect the data collection, dataanalysis and final write-up processes.LimitationsLimitations of the study include the inconsistencies in the data collection method, thelack of diversity in the types of organizations represented by the practitioners and thepractitioners themselves. Specifically, some use of phone interviews may have affectedhow and why interviewees disclosed information or diminished the interviewer’s abilityto view interviewee’s non-verbal responses. Additionally, most participants came fromagency settings, meaning that nonprofit or corporate organizations are under-representedin this study. Furthermore, the majority of the practitioners interviewed were Whitewomen in their 20s and 30s. Thus, this study represents consistencies of perspectivesamong a specific demographic of practitioner. Additionally, the sample of public relations practitioners is not generalizable to the public relations industry at large. However,the dominance of a certain ‘type’ of practitioner suggests that (a) some industries maysubtly permit their practitioners to participate in such research, whereas others may discipline their practitioners to abstain; and (b) the findings in this study are further validated because of the consistency of the identities of the participants.ResultsHegemonic discourses of public relationsTo understand how bio-power functions in public relations, RQ1 sought to learn thedominant discourses that practitioners believe public relations as a function representsand perpetuates. This section solely discusses how practitioners believe those in the fieldand those external to the field (e.g. clients, personnel in other organizational functions,media, partners) think about the role of public relations. Practitioners perceive thehegemonic discourses of public relations are to broker information, to shape public opinion, to add value and to please people. These categories are likely not surprising to anyresearchers and professionals in the field; however, highlighting them as the dominantideals that practitioners struggle over is a relatively new approach to understanding howpower influences the actions of practitioners and thereby the social and industrial perceptions and expectations of public relations.To broker information. All participants talked to some degree about the power of publicrelations to generate and craft information for particular groups. Ron, a professional inhis 20s at an agency on the East Coast, called public relations the ‘birthplace ofinformation’:Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 24, 2015
314Public Relations Inquiry 2(3)Information from a brand is top secret until they release the information and then the informationcomes out through a press release and there, at that point, PR is the frontrunner. It’s where allthe other outlets or websites get the information. I think they are in a power position, becausethey are the ones up on the pedestal, while others are looking and waiting for the informationto drop.Ron situates public relations practitioners as those with power, thereby placing them indominant social positions over those without power. Differently, Marie, a digital mediastrategist in her 30s for government agencies on the East Coast, proposed that publicrelations today has shifted from a position of withholding information to sharing information because of the advent and possibilities of new media:I think right now it’s about sharing information It us
As the framework for this study, we relate hegemony to bio-power (Foucault, 1978), as Gramsci’s concept of hegemony has been likened to Foucault’s (1980) concepts of regimes of truth as constitutive of power/knowledge (Hall, 1997). In Foucault’s critical history of modern sexuality (1978), he distinguished sex and sexuality as a site for
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Computational Models of Discourse Regina Barzilay MIT. What is Discourse? What is Discourse? Landscape of Discourse Processing Discourse Models: cohesion-based, content-based, rhetorical, intentional
Food outlets which focused on food quality, Service quality, environment and price factors, are thè valuable factors for food outlets to increase thè satisfaction level of customers and it will create a positive impact through word ofmouth. Keyword : Customer satisfaction, food quality, Service quality, physical environment off ood outlets .
