Revisiting Relationship Cultivation Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Strategic Communication Practice in Kenya’s County Governments and Corporate Sectors

Abstract

This study examines how relationship cultivation strategies are interpreted and enacted by strategic communication practitioners in Kenya’s county governments and corporate sector. Drawing on 38 in-depth interviews and guided by relationship management theory, the study employs a theory-informed inductive approach to explore how six key strategies—access, assurances, openness, networking, positivity, and task sharing—manifest in structurally distinct institutional contexts, extending scholarship on relationship cultivation to an underexamined sub-Saharan African setting. Findings reveal that while corporate practitioners operationalize these strategies through deliberate planning, responsiveness, and integrated stakeholder engagement, county government practitioners often face bureaucratic, political, and infrastructural constraints that undermine even basic efforts at relationship building. These sectoral contrasts highlight how the institutional context influences the cultivation of relationships and strategic communication practices. The study contributes to theory by demonstrating the need for a more context-sensitive and adaptive application of relationship management theory, and it offers practical insights for enhancing public engagement in decentralized governance systems. Beyond deepening understanding of strategic communication in Kenya, these findings carry implications for the global study and practice of relationship management across diverse institutional settings.

1. Introduction

Public participation is a foundational element of democratic governance, widely regarded as both a normative ideal and a practical mechanism for enhancing institutional legitimacy, transparency, and responsiveness (Fung, 2006; Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015). In Kenya, citizen participation in governance is not aspirational; it is a legal obligation. The 2010 Constitution explicitly vests sovereign power in the people and mandates inclusive governance through active public engagement at both national and county levels (Government of Kenya, 2010). The County Governments Act of 2012 reinforces this mandate by requiring all 47 county governments to provide timely information, organize participatory forums, and establish communication infrastructure to involve citizens in planning, budgeting, and implementation of development priorities (County Governments Act, 2012).

These mandates place strategic communication, and by extension, public relations, at the center of devolved governance. This positioning at the nexus of government communication, political participation, and media practice situates the present study within broader conversations about the role of communication in democratic governance. Strategic communication professionals in Kenya’s county governments, many of whom are trained in public relations, are expected to serve as democratic facilitators, disseminating information, organizing civic engagement platforms, and building relationships with citizens to foster participation. Yet, previous research has shown that public participation in Kenya remains largely symbolic, hindered by tokenism, poor communication, political interference, and the exclusion of communication professionals from strategic planning (Mbithi et al., 2019; Imbo & Kiruthu, 2019). These barriers challenge the assumption that legal mandates automatically result in meaningful engagement.

Against this backdrop, this study draws on relationship management theory, a key framework in public relations research, to examine how public relations professionals in Kenya enact cultivation strategies, the day-to-day communicative and behavioral efforts to build and sustain relationships. Cultivation strategies, including access, openness, positivity, assurances, shared tasks, and networking, are considered foundational to effective strategic communication in public relations practice (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2006, 2009). Although extensively examined in corporate and nonprofit contexts, cultivation strategies remain underexplored in public sector settings marked by legal mandates and political constraints.

This study adopts an inductive approach, drawing on in-depth interviews with 38 public relations professionals, 22 from county governments and 16 from corporate and agency settings. Rather than relying on predefined questionnaires designed to test specific cultivation strategies, the study allows these strategies to emerge organically from participants’ narratives, offering an empirically driven and context-sensitive perspective on how they are understood and practiced.

By comparing how public relations professionals in two structurally divergent sectors interpret and enact relationship cultivation, this study aims to broaden the theoretical relevance of relationship management theory and contribute to a more contextually grounded understanding of public relations and strategic communication in postcolonial, decentralized systems. It seeks to understand not only which strategies are deployed but also how institutional context shapes their meaning, application, and constraints. In doing so, the study challenges assumptions that universal models can adequately explain relationship-building across all sectors.

While this study is grounded in public relations scholarship, it aligns with a growing scholarly shift that positions public relations within the broader conceptual framework of strategic communication. Strategic communication is increasingly recognized as an umbrella term encompassing diverse forms of purposeful messaging across various fields, including marketing, public diplomacy, financial communication, advocacy, and health promotion (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2015). This expanded view reflects the evolution of public relations as a field. No longer confined to managing communication between organizations and their publics, public relations now embraces ethical responsibility, mutual benefit, strategic intent, and informal interactions across a range of actors and contexts (Artan Özoran & Müge Yıldız, 2025).

Scholars have called for a departure from functionalist, Western-centric models, advocating for a more inclusive view of public relations as a dynamic, relational process of purposeful communication among individuals, groups, and institutions (Edwards, 2011). Building on this perspective, strategic communication has been defined as the intentional use of communication by organizations to participate in conversations that directly support their objectives (Zerfass et al., 2018) and strategic communication campaigns as “a set of deliberate and purposive communication activities enacted by a communication agent in the public sphere on behalf of a communication entity to reach established goals” (Werder, 2015, p. 81). Accordingly, this study treats public relations as a core domain within the broader field of strategic communication, particularly as practiced by communication professionals in public and corporate sectors.

2. Background

2.1. The Development of Public Relations in Kenya

To contextualize the role of public relations in Kenya’s public sector, it is important to understand how the practice has evolved historically. Public relations has evolved in Kenya from a colonial-era propaganda tool into a professional communication practice central to both public and private sector operations. During the colonial period, communication was largely used to reinforce state control. After independence in 1963, the government of Jomo Kenyatta began to adopt structured public relations strategies to inform the public, manage crises, and shape Kenya’s image abroad (Kiambi, 2014).

The formation of the Public Relations Society of Kenya (PRSK) in 1971 marked a significant step toward professionalizing the field. However, progress stalled under the authoritarian regime of President Daniel Arap Moi (1978–2002), which imposed tight controls on communication and instrumentalized public relations as a tool of state power (Wanyande, 1995).

A shift occurred under President Mwai Kibaki, whose 2002 election ushered in greater political openness. His administration supported regular media briefings, allowed ministries to engage with the press, and welcomed international public relations firms. Political actors increasingly relied on public relations consultants, particularly during referenda on the 2010 constitution and election campaigns (Kiambi, 2014).

Today, Kenya’s public relations landscape is hybrid and dynamic. In the public sector, communication professionals help county governments fulfill constitutional requirements for public participation by disseminating information, organizing public forums, and facilitating engagement (Kiambi et al., 2023). In the private sector, strategic communication supports stakeholder relations, reputation management, and brand building. Research by Kiambi and Nadler (2012) shows that corporate public relations in Kenya is often informed by the cultural interpreter, personal influence, and two-way symmetrical models, suggesting a stronger orientation toward dialogic and reciprocal communication.

A defining feature of public relations in Kenya is the integration of traditional and modern approaches. Community barazas (public meetings), storytelling, and dance are often used alongside digital platforms, broadcast media, and social media campaigns. One public relations executive in Kenya noted, “You will see community barazas, dances, and folklore being used alongside radio and television commercials and social media promotional tactics to engage the audience” (Alfred Nganga, personal communication, 29 March 2025).

Despite persistent challenges such as limited professional capacity and ethical concerns around misinformation, the practice continues to grow. Kenya’s cultural richness and increasing digital connectivity offer new opportunities for public relations to promote trust, inclusion, and participatory governance.

2.2. Public Participation and the Role of Communication in Kenya’s Governance

Kenya’s 2010 Constitution enshrines public participation as a core tenet of democratic governance, declaring in Article 1 that sovereign power resides with the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. It reimagined governance by devolving power from the central government and establishing 47 county governments as semi-autonomous units responsible for local development and service delivery. This principle is further operationalized through legislation such as the County Governments Act of 2012, which mandates citizen involvement in planning, budgeting, and development at the county level (County Governments Act, 2012; Kaseya & Kihonge, 2016).

The Act emphasizes communication as essential to meaningful engagement. Part VIII requires county governments to provide timely access to relevant information, including data, relevant documents, and reports, so that citizens are equipped to participate in decision-making processes (County Governments Act, 2012). This underscores the idea that informed publics are critical to participatory governance.

To support inclusive engagement, the Act identifies both communication channels and infrastructure as critical tools for public participation. These include digital platforms such as websites, social media pages, mobile apps, and emails, as well as traditional mechanisms like public barazas/public meetings, town halls, budget forums, and notice boards. Counties are also required to invest in communication infrastructure such as community radio stations, local broadcasting systems, digital media centers, and traditional outreach platforms to disseminate information on policy areas like agriculture, education, health, and the economy (County Governments Act, 2012).

Yet, the implementation of these provisions remains uneven. Studies from counties like Kericho, Bomet, and Narok point to persistent barriers, including low public awareness, weak civic capacity, political interference, and insufficient incentives for participation (Mbithi et al., 2019; Ronoh et al., 2018; Imbo & Kiruthu, 2019). As Ronoh et al. (2018) observed, participation is also often hampered by a lack of political goodwill and citizen time constraints.

While the legal framework places communication at the heart of public participation, realizing this vision depends on how it is enacted by public relations professionals on the ground. This study focuses on their role in fostering participatory governance, particularly through relationship cultivation strategies. Situating public relations within the broader field of strategic communication, the next section reviews the theoretical foundations that inform this inquiry.

3. Literature Review

3.1. Strategic Communication and Democratic Governance

Strategic communication, particularly in its public relations application, plays a vital role in democratic governance systems. Beyond the unidirectional flow of information, it enables two-way communication, fosters civic dialogue, and supports accountability and trust between institutions and their publics (Kang & Park, 2017; Kent, 2023; Li & Lee, 2024). In participatory democracies, where institutional legitimacy depends on public involvement in policy decisions, strategic communication becomes a mechanism for facilitating deliberation, responsiveness, and shared meaning-making (Curtin & Gaither, 2005; Sommerfeldt, 2013; Edwards, 2016).

Within this broader framework, public relations contributes to inclusive governance by enabling strategic, two-way communication between institutions and their publics. Excellence Theory posits that public relations enhances organizational effectiveness when guided by symmetrical communication practices (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). In democratic contexts, this approach emphasizes mutual understanding and the development of long-term relationships over one-way persuasion. More recent scholarship extends this democratic role, highlighting public relations as a facilitator of participatory decision-making and a contributor to institutional legitimacy (Motion, 2005; Fung, 2006).

Scholars have increasingly advocated for a communitarian perspective of public relations, emphasizing that organizations should view society as their most important stakeholder and ground their communication in mutual respect, dialogue, and openness to change (Starck & Kruckeberg, 2001; Valentini et al., 2012). Heath (2006) highlights the role of public relations in supporting societal well-being, while Willis (2012) frames stakeholder relationships as collective spaces built on equity, transparency, and legitimacy. In this context, Taylor (2010) links public relations to civil society by arguing that public relations plays a vital role in facilitating interaction and understanding among citizens, organizations, and government institutions, thereby contributing to democratic discourse.

Public relations practitioners serve not only as messengers but also as facilitators of access, interpreters of institutional intent, and stewards of public relationships (Taylor, 2010; Waymer, 2013). In decentralized political systems like Kenya’s, where public participation is a constitutional requirement, their role is especially critical. Through town halls, public barazas/meetings, budget forums, social media, and other participatory platforms, they help translate democratic ideals into practice. As Sommerfeldt and Taylor (2011) argue, meaningful participation requires more than procedural access; it depends on sustained communicative relationships grounded in trust, inclusion, and mutual responsiveness.

This study builds on these perspectives to examine how public relations and strategic communication professionals working in public institutions interpret and enact their roles in participatory systems. The next section introduces relationship management theory as a framework for assessing how such professionals cultivate and maintain relationships in support of inclusive governance.

3.2. Relationship Management Theory and Its Limits in Public Sector Contexts

Relationship management emphasizes that public relations is most effective when it strategically manages the organization–public relationship (OPR) over time to promote mutual understanding and benefit (Ledingham, 2003). The theoretical foundation was laid by Ferguson (1984), who argued that relationships should be the central unit of analysis in public relations research. Building on this idea, Broom et al. (1997) conceptualized OPRs as forming when parties share mutual perceptions and expectations, rely on one another for resources, or are connected by structural, situational, or legal factors.

Broom et al. (1997) developed a model that identified three constructs of OPRs: antecedents to relationship formation, strategies for managing the relationship, and consequences or outcomes that result from that relationship. Antecedents include factors such as the duration of the relationship, underlying motives, and shared needs. OPR outcomes include behaviors, attitudes, and goal achievement, with the overall quality of these relationships commonly evaluated using four core dimensions identified by Hon and Grunig (1999): trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Ki & Hon, 2007). The third construct, strategies for managing the relationship, commonly referred to as relationship cultivation strategies, will be discussed in detail in the next section of this paper.

However, while relationship management has found widespread application in corporate and nonprofit sectors, its utility in the public sector, particularly within government communication, remains limited and contested. Scholars have argued that the traditional relationship management framework assumes ideal conditions of strategic autonomy and voluntary association, which rarely exist in government systems. As Waymer (2013) contends, the very notion of mutually beneficial OPRs may be oxymoronic in public governance, particularly for marginalized or historically mistreated groups who may prefer to distance themselves from the state rather than engage with it.

Government communicators face additional structural challenges that further complicate relationship building. Unlike corporations, governments cannot select their publics; they are mandated to serve all citizens, including the underserved and disenfranchised (Bowen & Lovari, 2021). This creates a context of obligation, not mutuality. Bureaucratic hierarchies, politicized decision-making, and limited institutional capacity often restrict public relations professionals from initiating genuine dialogue or enacting symmetrical strategies (Liu & Horsley, 2007). As a result, communication in government settings frequently becomes one-way, symbolic, or informational, detached from the relational ideals of relationship management theory.

In addition, government organizations engage diverse publics who often hold fragmented interests and deep-rooted grievances, particularly among marginalized groups who have experienced systemic neglect (Liu et al., 2010; Waymer, 2013). Many of these publics may actively avoid engagement with government institutions, further complicating efforts to cultivate balanced relationships (Waymer, 2013). Legal, political, and managerial constraints also limit government communicators’ ability to adopt dialogue-based strategies often promoted by relationship management theory (Liu & Horsley, 2007; Liu et al., 2010).

Beyond these relational complexities, democratic governance itself introduces additional challenges for public relations practice. As Diamond (2005) explains, liberal democracies demand fairness, freedom, participation, responsiveness, and political equality, creating heightened expectations for transparency and citizen engagement that government communicators must navigate. However, as Diamond (2005) also observes, persistent inequalities in access to political power, information, and participation further complicate these expectations, challenging the reciprocal relationships envisioned in relationship management theory and requiring public relations practitioners to address structural barriers and amplify marginalized voices to foster inclusive governance.

These critiques underscore the need to adapt or refine existing models when examining public relations in government, especially in contexts characterized by limited institutional capacity, historical exclusion, and weakened public trust. The following section focuses on relationship cultivation strategies, the third construct in the management of OPRs.

3.3. Relationship Cultivation Strategies

Relationship cultivation strategies are defined as “any organizational behavioral effort that attempts to establish, cultivate, and sustain relationships with strategic publics” (Ki & Hon, 2009, p. 5). Originating from interpersonal communication literature (Stafford & Canary, 1991), these strategies were adapted for public relations by Y. H. Huang (1997) and Hon and Grunig (1999). The six core strategies—access, openness, assurances, positivity, networking, and task sharing—reflect the principles of symmetrical communication, which promotes mutual understanding, responsiveness, and collaboration between an organization and its publics (J. E. Grunig, 2006). Each of these strategies is discussed briefly below.

Researchers have applied these strategies across diverse organizational settings, targeting multiple publics and utilizing a range of communication platforms (Q. Huang et al., 2021; Men et al., 2017; Men & Tsai, 2012; Waters, 2008). For instance, Ki and Hon (2008), in their study of a grassroots organization, found that access, positivity, task sharing, and assurances were significantly associated with higher levels of relationship quality. More recent scholarship has examined how media affordances shape cultivation strategy deployment. Kang and Ki (2024), examining relationship cultivation in metaverse environments, found that networking and positivity were nearly universal (used in 99% and 98% of spaces, respectively), while access and openness were far less common, demonstrating that even within corporate contexts, strategy deployment varies significantly based on platform affordances and organizational priorities.

Despite their wide adoption in corporate and nonprofit contexts, the deployment of cultivation strategies in public sector communication remains under-examined and contested. Government communicators often work within bureaucratic hierarchies and politically constrained environments where they lack strategic autonomy and where publics may approach engagement with skepticism (Liu & Horsley, 2007). Waymer (2013) notes that marginalized publics may not view engagement with government as beneficial or legitimate, undermining the basic premise of symmetrical relationship building. Notably, research in public diplomacy has shown that not all cultivation strategies emerge uniformly across contexts. Storie (2017), in a qualitative study of U.S. public diplomacy practitioners, found that while networking, positivity, and assurance were frequently used, strategies such as shared tasks and openness did not emerge, reflecting how institutional mandates and operational constraints shape which strategies are feasible. This precedent suggests that the presence or absence of certain strategies may itself be theoretically meaningful, signaling contextual adaptation rather than methodological limitation.

These challenges have sparked renewed calls for alternative frameworks that better reflect the realities of public sector communication. One such response is the Care-Based Relationship Cultivation Model, proposed by Dong and Morehouse (2022), which integrates empathy, attentiveness, and moral responsibility into the practice of government communication. The model critiques the transactional nature of traditional cultivation strategies and advocates for a relational ethic grounded in public service, particularly in local government contexts.

While acknowledging such critiques and emerging models, this paper is grounded in the six relationship cultivation strategies as originally operationalized by Ki and Hon (2008). Their study developed and validated a multi-item scale that conceptualizes these strategies as concrete, observable organizational efforts directed toward building, nurturing, and sustaining relationships with publics. In line with Ki and Hon’s (2008) approach, this study focuses on organizational behaviors rather than mutual or public-initiated behaviors when examining how public relations professionals in Kenya’s county governments and corporate sectors apply these strategies, particularly within a legally mandated public participation framework. Each of the six cultivation strategies is reviewed next.

3.3.1. Access

Access refers to the degree of effort an organization makes to provide communication channels that enable its publics to reach decision-makers and express their concerns (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2008). Originally adapted from Hon and Grunig’s (1999) conceptualization, access involves offering publics opportunities for direct communication, such as through phone calls, emails, meetings, or public forums, thereby facilitating dialogue and responsiveness. In a study of Chinese companies during the pandemic, Q. Huang et al. (2021) found that access significantly enhanced cognitive, emotional, and behavioral public engagement, with companies that provided contact information, responded to comments, and addressed concerns eliciting more active engagement and positive emotional responses. On the flipside, Zeqiri (2021) found that limited access to government institutions in Albania contributed to widespread public distrust, as many citizens explicitly expressed a complete lack of trust in government due to poor accessibility.

3.3.2. Positivity

Positivity reflects an organization’s efforts to make interactions with its publics enjoyable, respectful, and supportive (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2009). Derived from interpersonal communication literature (Canary & Stafford, 1994), positivity includes behaviors such as courteous communication, expressions of appreciation, and efforts to maintain a pleasant and constructive relationship climate. Oh et al. (2025) analyzed TikTok videos posted by top retail companies and found that positivity was the most frequently used cultivation strategy. Nearly half of the videos used at least one message appeal, and the combination of positivity and message appeals significantly boosted public engagement.

3.3.3. Openness (Disclosure)

Openness represents an organization’s willingness to share honest, transparent, and complete information about itself with its publics (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2009). This includes disclosing organizational decisions, challenges, and future plans, and encouraging publics to provide feedback. Openness is regarded as a critical dimension of trust and relationship quality in OPRs (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000). Q. Huang et al. (2022) found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, companies in both China and the U.S. most frequently used the openness strategy, with proactive, honest, and candid communication contributing to increased public engagement amid high uncertainty. A meta-analysis by Zhan and Zhao (2023) confirmed the centrality of openness, finding strong correlations (0.52 to 0.72) between organizational openness and organization-public relationship quality. Notably, the study also found that relationships between openness and OPRs differed across organizational types, including for-profit versus government organizations, underscoring the need to examine cultivation strategies across sectoral contexts.

3.3.4. Sharing of Tasks

Sharing of tasks captures an organization’s willingness to collaborate with its publics in addressing issues of mutual interest and solving shared problems (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2008). This strategy emphasizes joint responsibility and partnership, where organizations actively engage publics in initiatives such as community projects, policy development, or environmental programs to achieve interdependent goals. Ertem-Eray and Ki (2022) found that Fortune 500 companies used sharing of tasks on corporate blogs as interactive online communication channels to foster stronger community bonds and enhance relational commitment.

3.3.5. Networking

Networking refers to the organization’s efforts to build coalitions with groups that are important to its publics, such as community organizations, unions, NGOs, or activist groups (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2009). Storie (2017) found that in public diplomacy contexts, networking often relied on third-party introductions, especially for governments seeking to reach foreign publics that may be skeptical or difficult to access. Third-party endorsements from trusted local organizations helped overcome public distrust and facilitated relationship building where direct government engagement was not feasible (Storie, 2017).

3.3.6. Assurances

Assurances involve an organization’s expressions of commitment to maintaining the relationship and addressing public concerns (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2008, 2009). These efforts communicate to publics that their interests are recognized, valued, and attended to, which helps build trust and reinforce relational commitment (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). Al-salhi et al. (2021) found that assurance, as part of a set of relationship cultivation strategies, significantly enhanced both relational outcomes and institutional reputation in conflict-affected Yemeni universities.

Although relationship cultivation strategies have been extensively explored in corporate and nonprofit settings, their application in government communication, particularly in legally mandated and politically constrained systems, remains underexamined. In Kenya’s devolved governance context, public relations professionals operate within complex institutional environments shaped by constitutional obligations (Government of Kenya, 2010; County Governments Act, 2012), bureaucratic structures (Liu & Horsley, 2007), and political interference (Mbithi et al., 2019; Ronoh et al., 2018). These factors raise important questions about whether and how traditional relationship cultivation strategies are interpreted, adapted, or constrained in such settings. To address this gap, this study explores two interrelated research questions:

• RQ1: Which relationship cultivation strategies are enacted by public relations professionals in Kenya’s county governments and corporate sectors?
• RQ2: How do institutional structures such as legal mandates, bureaucratic systems, and political dynamics influence the application of these strategies in Kenya’s county governments?

4. Methodology

This study draws on qualitative data from 38 in-depth interviews with public relations practitioners in Kenya, conducted through two separate research projects between July 2021 and August 2023, with follow-up interviews continuing through July 2025. Of these practitioners, 22 worked within county governments and 16 were employed in corporations or public relations agencies. Although each project was originally designed to explore broader questions about public relations practice in Kenya, a secondary inductive analysis of the combined dataset revealed notable conceptual alignment with relationship cultivation strategies. Importantly, this alignment emerged organically and only after categories had been developed inductively across both projects.

Both research projects received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the primary researcher’s university. The first project (IRB Number: 20210721285EX) remains valid through July 2026, and the second project (IRB Number: 20220621992EX) remains valid through July 2027.

5. Research Design

A qualitative research design was employed to examine how public relations practitioners conceptualize and enact stakeholder engagement and relationship-building in Kenya’s public and private sectors. This study was not designed around relationship cultivation strategies, and no theoretical framing guided the initial interviews. This design allowed participants’ own definitions, relational challenges, and strategic practices to shape the findings, offering an empirically driven perspective that contrasts with deductive studies designed to test specific relationship cultivation strategies (e.g., Men & Tsai, 2012; Ki & Hon, 2009). Instead, insights related to cultivation strategies surfaced naturally as practitioners recounted their experiences with stakeholder engagement, citizen communication, and relationship-building efforts.

The two interview projects were conducted independently and initially analyzed separately. During early analysis, recurring patterns emerged in both datasets, including themes related to communication accessibility, transparency practices, and organizational responsiveness. These patterns bore strong conceptual resemblance to the six cultivation strategies identified in relationship management scholarship (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2009). Convergence across the two projects became apparent only after open coding and early category development, prompting the decision to pursue a combined comparative analysis.

6. Sampling and Participants

Purposive and snowball sampling guided participant recruitment. In the county government project, 22 communication officers from 21 of the 47 counties participated, representing rural, peri-urban, and urban settings. Participants held titles such as Director or Manager of Communications and had between seven and 13 years of experience. The corporate and agency sample included 16 senior practitioners from multinational firms, national corporations, and public relations agencies, selected based on a minimum of 10 years of professional experience and current managerial or director-level positions.

Table 1. County Government Practitioners Interviewed.

	Job Title	County Type	Years of Experience	Gender
1	Communications Manager	Rural	11	Male
2	Assistant Communications Manager	Urban	8	Female
3	Director of Communications and PR	Peri-Urban	10	Male
4	Public Communications Manager	Rural	7	Male
5	Senior Manager, Public Relations	Rural	8	Male
6	Communications Officer	Rural	9	Male
7	Assistant, PR & Communications	Rural	7	Male
8	Director of Public Relations & Communications	Rural	12	Female
9	Communications & PR Officer	Rural	8	Male
10	Communications & PR Officer	Rural	7	Male
11	Public Communications Manager	Rural	10	Male
12	Communications & PR Officer	Urban	9	Male
13	Communications Manager	Urban	11	Male
14	Public Communications Manager	Rural	10	Female
15	Communications & PR Manager	Peri-Urban	9	Male
16	Assistant Manager, Communications	Rural	7	Male
17	Manager, Communications & PR	Peri-Urban	9	Male
18	Public Relations Officer	Rural	7	Male
19	Director of Communications & PR	Rural	12	Male
20	Public Communications Manager	Rural	8	Male
21	Assistant Manager, Communications	Peri-Urban	11	Female
22	Public Communications Director	Rural	13	Male

and

Table 2. Corporate and Agency Practitioners Interviewed.

	Job Title	Organizational Type	Industry Sector	Years of Experience	Gender
1	Partner & Director	PR Agency	All Sectors	24	Male
2	Legal, Regulatory & Public Policy Manager	Corporation	Telecommunications	15	Female
3	Lead Consultant & Public Relations Manager	Independent Consultancy	Higher Education	12	Male
4	Principal Consultant	Independent Consultancy	Manufacturing	15	Female
5	Senior Public Communications Officer	Corporation	Public Affairs	20	Male
6	Senior Communications and Head of Public Policy	Corporation	Transportation/Rideshare	20	Male
7	Communications Manager/Consultant	Independent Consultancy	All Sectors	15	Female
8	Senior Manager of Government Affairs & Communications	PR Agency	Telecommunications/All Sectors	12	Male
9	Media Executive	PR Agency	All Sectors	10	Male
10	Public Relations & Communications Manager	PR Agency	All Sectors	17	Female
11	Head of Research & Public Communications	Communications Consultancy	County Governments	22	Male
12	Public Relations & Communications Manager	Corporation	Telecommunications	22	Male
13	Public Relations Manager	PR Agency	All Sectors	17	Female
14	Communications Manager	PR Agency	All Sectors	15	Male
15	Public Relations & Corporate Communications Manager	Corporation	Tourism	25	Female
16	Communications Manager	Corporation	Tourism	18	Male

provide participant characteristics for each sector.

7. Data Collection

Data were collected between July 2021 and August 2023 through Zoom, phone, in-person, and email interviews, depending on participant availability and infrastructural conditions. This multi-modal approach is consistent with established practices for geographically dispersed qualitative studies (Howlett, 2021). Initial interviews lasted between 45 and 60 min.

County government interviews explored practitioners’ understanding and practice of public relations in the context of public participation and stakeholder engagement. Key questions included “What does your job entail?”, “What is your understanding of public relations?”, “What challenges do you face that prevent you from engendering public participation?”, “In what ways does social media impact the building of relationships between your county and its residents?” Corporate and agency interviews examined distinctions between public relations and public affairs, stakeholder relationship management, and trust-building practices. Key questions included “What does your job entail?”, “Who are the key stakeholders in public affairs?”, “In what ways does social media impact the building of relationships between your organization and its publics?”, and “How do you utilize social media to build trust with key stakeholders and publics?” All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and supplemented with field notes.

8. Follow-Up Interviews

All 38 participants were re-engaged for follow-up interviews between November 2024 and July 2025 after preliminary inductive patterns surfaced during initial coding. These follow-ups aimed to clarify ambiguous statements and obtain concrete illustrations of practices described earlier. Prompts were drawn exclusively from participants’ earlier responses using their own language; no theoretical terminology was introduced.

A trained research assistant conducted 29 of the follow-ups, while the primary researcher conducted nine. Critically, the research assistant was intentionally kept unaware of relationship cultivation strategies and received only annotated transcripts with participant-specific clarifying prompts. This safeguard ensured that follow-up questions did not prime participants toward theory-aligned responses. For example, when a county practitioner initially stated they “give citizens forms to write views, but we don’t follow up,” follow-up questions explored what happens after citizens submit forms and whether feedback ever led to changes. Follow-up interviews lasted 15 to 35 min and were conducted via phone, Zoom, or in person.

9. Data Analysis

Data analysis followed a multi-stage inductive thematic process. Transcripts were reviewed line by line to generate initial codes using participant terminology (Charmaz, 2009; Braun & Clarke, 2013). During open coding, contrasting patterns became evident: county practitioners used language emphasizing limited accessibility and one-way information flows (e.g., “we post on Facebook but don’t respond,” “rely on posters and church announcements”), while corporate practitioners emphasized proactive engagement (e.g., “we’re always reachable,” “respond within 24 h”).

Several methodological safeguards mitigated potential confirmation bias. First, inductive coding preceded any mapping to cultivation strategy constructs. Second, follow-up prompts used participants’ own words rather than theoretical terminology. Third, the research assistant conducting most follow-ups was uninformed about the theoretical framework. Fourth, analysis actively sought disconfirming evidence. Fifth, analytical memos documented interpretive decisions throughout the process.

Related codes were then clustered into broader conceptual categories through axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Only after inductive categories were fully developed were they examined for alignment with relationship cultivation strategies. Categories such as communication accessibility patterns, transparency practices, and collaborative versus superficial participation aligned naturally with the six strategies identified in the literature. This alignment occurred after both interview rounds were complete, reflecting what this study terms the “spontaneous emergence” of cultivation strategy constructs from practitioner narratives. Appendix A shows examples of a coding progression of how initial codes were clustered into axial categories and aligned with cultivation strategies.

Trustworthiness was enhanced through follow-up interviews with all participants, constant comparison, memo-writing, and cross-sector triangulation. As Arceneaux (2024) notes, inductive methods are particularly effective in international research as they facilitate interpretation without assuming semantic equivalence.

10. Findings

This section presents the findings organized around six core relationship cultivation strategies: access, assurances, openness, networking, positivity, and sharing of tasks. These strategies emerged inductively from interviews with public relations professionals across Kenya’s county governments and corporate sectors. Each thematic subsection highlights how practitioners interpret and apply these strategies in context, illustrating both cross-sector differences and institutional constraints. Direct quotes ground the analysis, offering insight into how structural factors such as legal mandates, political dynamics, communication infrastructure, and bureaucratic systems influence the enactment and viability of relationship cultivation efforts. The first six subsections address the first research question (RQ1) by examining how each strategy is interpreted and enacted across sectors. The final subsection turns to the second research question (RQ2) by examining how institutional structures—legal mandates, bureaucratic systems, and political dynamics—shape the application of these strategies in county government settings.

10.1. Variations in Access to Communication Channels Across Sectors

Access, one of the foundational strategies of relationship cultivation, emerged as a clear point of divergence between the corporate and county government sectors. Practitioners in corporate and agency contexts described access as an intentional, technology-enabled commitment to being available and responsive. “We have hotlines, social media, and in-person activations; we’re always reachable,” explained an agency-based public relations manager. Others emphasized the integration of real-time feedback into routine campaigns. “Feedback channels are embedded in all campaigns. Customers can reach us in real-time,” said a legal and public policy manager with a telecommunications firm. An independent communications consultant said, “I urge clients to respond within 24 h, whether it’s via Twitter or community channels,” highlighting the sector’s prioritization of rapid, multi-channel responsiveness. This proactive posture was further reinforced by operational norms such as 24-h response policies and channel-specific monitoring. “There are WhatsApp lines specifically managed by comms officers to monitor issues,” a senior public communications officer with a corporation noted.

In county governments, however, access was characterized by infrastructural constraints, inconsistent communication channels, and ad hoc outreach methods. “Some counties like ours still solely rely on posters and church announcements to share news,” reported a practitioner with a rural county. Another communications officer with a rural county stated, “We don’t have a functional website. When there’s a forum, we call administrative chiefs and ask them to inform the public.” Even when digital channels existed, they were rarely maintained or interactive. A county public relations manager admitted, “Our social media isn’t interactive. It’s mostly one-way info. We rarely respond to comments or questions from the public.” Perhaps most revealing was the experience of a communications officer with a peri-urban county who noted, “People ask how to reach us, but we don’t even have an updated office telephone number online… We get a line today, and a week later, we get a different line.”

These accounts reveal a stark structural divide in how access is realized across organizational settings. In corporate and agency contexts, access is deliberately integrated into communication strategy, supported by robust communication infrastructure and clearly defined systems of engagement. In contrast, county government practitioners operate within fragmented bureaucracies and face persistent challenges such as unreliable communication channels, limited ICT investment, and institutional disorganization. These systemic constraints hinder even basic public outreach efforts. As a result, access in government settings is less a matter of strategic intent and more a reflection of institutional capacity, demonstrating that the viability of relational cultivation strategies depends heavily on the structural conditions in which they are applied.

10.2. Opportunities and Constraints in Providing Public Assurances

Assurances, the verbal or symbolic signals that an organization values its publics and intends to meet their needs, emerged as another point of sharp divergence between sectors. In corporate and agency settings, assurances were actively constructed through timely responses, purpose-driven messaging, and demonstrable follow-up. “We provide timely responses to concerns and show stakeholders that their input matters,” said a public relations lead with a corporation. An agency-based practitioner echoed this sentiment, adding, “Every message is crafted with purpose and intentionality. That’s how we build loyalty.” Practitioners consistently framed assurances as a trust-building mechanism: “We don’t just acknowledge feedback, we act on it and loop back,” explained a head of public policy and communications with a corporation. The tone of commitment extended even to policy influence. “We always tell people their opinions will inform policy or product updates,” noted an agency-based practitioner.

By contrast, county government practitioners painted a picture of assurances that were either hollow or structurally impossible to deliver. “Sometimes we are called the same day and expected to invite people to a forum. That’s not reassurance,” said a communications officer with an urban county. Others described procedural rituals like written feedback forms that lacked meaningful follow-up. “We give citizens forms to write views, but we don’t follow up, making it very difficult to build a relationship,” shared an officer with a rural county. In several cases, frontline communicators were excluded from post-forum processes entirely. “The governor may promise things during a forum, but we don’t get to explain when those things don’t happen. We just move on like nothing was ever promised,” said a practitioner with a peri-urban county. Some expressed outright resignation: “I’ve stopped assuring people of anything because we’re rarely given updates ourselves, which is very frustrating,” remarked a director of public relations with a rural county.

These accounts show that assurances require more than intention; they rely on follow-through, internal coordination, and institutional support. In corporate settings, communication professionals typically have the authority and resources to make and keep commitments to stakeholders. In contrast, county government practitioners often lack the autonomy, support, or consistent information needed to follow through on public assurances. This creates a disconnect, where communicators are tasked with projecting trust and responsiveness but are unable to deliver on those promises. The findings highlight how bureaucratic constraints and political dynamics undermine the effectiveness of assurances, reinforcing that relationship cultivation is shaped by the broader organizational context.

10.3. Different Approaches to Building and Sustaining Stakeholder Networks

Networking through building alliances with influential stakeholders to sustain relationships was widely described as a strategic asset in corporate and agency settings. Practitioners emphasized proactive stakeholder mapping, consistent engagement, and long-term relationship cultivation. “Stakeholder mapping is the first thing we do before a major campaign. I have been doing this for two decades now, and I know for sure that if you have no reliable network of stakeholders, you will not get much accomplished,” said an agency-based partner and director. An independent consultant in the education sector noted, “We maintain ties with media, government, and community groups. It’s a strategic effort.” A media executive with an agency framed networking as essential to organizational resilience: “When launching products, we involve legislators, NGOs, and media. If you don’t network throughout, you’ll have no one in your corner when you need them.” Others highlighted the strategic value of engaging trusted intermediaries to strengthen community relationships. “Networking by sustaining dialogue with gatekeepers and community influencers has paid dividends in my work,” said a public communications officer with a corporation.

In county governments, by contrast, networking was inconsistent, informal, and frequently disconnected from communication planning. “We attend barazas when invited, but rarely organize stakeholder forums ourselves,” reported a practitioner in a rural county. In some counties, the basic tools for stakeholder engagement were missing. “Our office doesn’t even have a full contact list of the ward reps; we depend on local administrative chiefs,” said an officer with a rural county. Others described a structural divide between political and communication roles. “Networking? That’s for the political side. We’re not looped in. As public communications people, we are not motivated to network with even the most important of stakeholders,” said an assistant manager of communications with a rural county. Even collaboration within county departments proved difficult. “We try to coordinate with other departments, but there’s no shared calendar or goals for communication campaigns. Efforts to network even with those in the same county offices where I work are nearly impossible,” explained a communications manager with a rural county.

These accounts reveal stark sectoral differences in how networking is conceptualized and enacted. Corporate and agency professionals treat stakeholder engagement as a continuous, planned process integrated into campaigns and supported by clear organizational mandates. In county governments, however, fragmented institutional systems, unclear boundaries between political and administrative roles, and the absence of strategic coordination reduce networking to a sporadic or reactive activity. While private-sector networking reinforces relationship cultivation through sustained alliances, public-sector efforts are frequently limited by bureaucratic silos, role marginalization and lack of political will.

10.4. Navigating Organizational Transparency and Information Sharing

Across corporate and agency contexts, openness was described not only as a professional expectation but as a cultural norm. Practitioners framed openness as essential to credibility, crisis preparedness, and stakeholder trust. “We listen to what the public says about us… and help the company respond appropriately,” explained a public relations manager with a leading telecommunications firm. An agency-based practitioner echoed this commitment: “When there’s a crisis, we get ahead of it with facts, not spin.” Several professionals emphasized the importance of internal honesty as a prerequisite for external openness. “Openness is a culture at our agency. Our bosses expect us to report bad news to the client. If the client doesn’t have a true picture of how the public perceives them, there will be little to no effort to correct any problems,” said another agency-based practitioner. An independent consultant added, “I believe in being forthright with my clients even when there’s backlash. That is the real public relations.”

In stark contrast, county government communicators described limited openness rooted in exclusion from decision-making and institutional secrecy. “We are not brought in until decisions are made. So, we just communicate what’s already been decided in the boardroom in our absence,” explained a practitioner from a rural county. Others described constrained citizen engagement masked as participation. “We tell citizens the agenda, but they have no power to contribute to the agenda or to change anything,” noted an officer from a peri-urban county. The lack of internal transparency also hampered external openness. “There’s so much secrecy, even we in communications don’t know the full budget until it’s done,” said a practitioner in a peri-urban county. A communications director with a rural county shared: “We’re told to ‘just inform the people.’ But transparency means more than that.”

These divergent accounts show how sectoral environments shape the meaning and practice of openness. In the private sector, communicators are empowered to shape narratives proactively and truthfully, aligning openness with strategic responsiveness. In the public sector, however, openness is hindered by rigid hierarchies, political gatekeeping, and uneven access to information, even within the institution. As a result, openness shifts from a dialogic strategy to a one-way dissemination task, leaving little space for meaningful exchange. This contrast underscores the institutional conditions that enable or restrict openness as a relational practice and highlights its vulnerability in settings where communicators lack both authority and full access to decision-making processes.

10.5. Framing Communication with Optimism in Diverse Institutional Contexts

Corporate and agency communicators consistently emphasized positivity as a deliberate, strategic tool for shaping perception and sustaining stakeholder goodwill. “We share success stories to sustain goodwill,” said an agency-based communications manager. A corporate communications manager noted that “part of our job is to highlight progress even during tough times,” while an independent public relations consultant described how optimism is embedded in communication tone: “Our tone is always hopeful, showing people what’s possible because if you do not do that, a competitor will get the attention of your stakeholders.” Several underscored the role of narrative in generating emotional resonance and credibility. “Every CSR report is written like a story, not just stats,” explained an agency-based director and partner, pointing to the sector’s focus on emotional storytelling rather than procedural reporting.

By contrast, county government officers described efforts to project positivity that were often met with public skepticism, internal contradictions, or leadership failures. “We try to keep citizens hopeful, but turnout is low because they don’t trust us,” explained a practitioner from a rural county. Another practitioner from a peri-urban county stated, “We run posters about development projects, but many are incomplete.” These communication efforts often lacked credibility because they were not backed by consistent performance. As an officer from a rural county reflected, “We highlight what’s going well, but people say we’re lying. How do we change that when the county leadership does not lead by example? Honesty leads to positive perceptions and our leaders must embrace honesty even when it is tough to share not-so-good news.” Another practitioner from a rural county added, “It’s hard to be positive when even your own department doesn’t take itself seriously.”

These narratives illustrate that positivity, while often framed as a universal relationship cultivation tool, is deeply shaped by organizational credibility, institutional leadership, and the communicative environment. Corporate practitioners can frame challenges constructively and lean on success stories that reflect actual achievements. In county governments, positivity often risks being perceived as propaganda or deflection, especially in contexts of broken trust and inconsistent service delivery. The ability to maintain a positive communication climate, therefore, is not just about tone; it is tied to institutional coherence, audience trust, and communicators’ belief in the integrity of their own work and messaging.

10.6. Evolving Practices of Public Collaboration and Participation

In corporate and agency contexts, sharing of tasks was described as central to building meaningful stakeholder relationships. Practitioners emphasized collaboration not as an afterthought but as a foundational principle in strategy and execution. “We never go it alone. For every initiative, we identify partners such as community groups, media houses, and even competitors who can help us co-create and implement,” said a communications manager with an agency. Another agency-based professional offered a concrete example: “During our most recent campaign with a client in the insurance industry, we co-hosted events with county officials, boda-boda (motorcycle taxis) associations, and schools. It’s not just about talking; it’s about doing things together.” A senior communications and public policy manager with a corporation noted that the shift toward such collaboration was strategic: “Clients today don’t want top-down campaigns. They want authentic partnerships with stakeholders where everyone contributes.”

In county governments, however, collaboration with the public was far more limited and often symbolic. “We ask citizens to give their views, but rarely do they even get a briefing from us on what the county decided to implement and what it will not implement,” explained a practitioner from a rural county. One communications officer from a peri-rural county shared a rare exception: “Some of the best forums I’ve seen were when youth groups helped us mobilize. But those are rare.” Others highlighted the routine nature of superficial engagement. “During budget forums, citizens just come, speak, and leave. There is no follow-up to show them how their input helped improve affairs in the county,” said a communications manager with an urban county. A practitioner with a rural county cited practical barriers: “We lack funds to involve people beyond the meeting. They give views but don’t see the results. Our department needs to be well-funded and taken seriously by the county executives.”

These findings illustrate a sharp contrast in how the strategy of sharing tasks is enacted across sectors. In corporate environments, it is operationalized through structured partnerships, joint campaigns, and co-ownership of outcomes. In county governments, public participation often ends at consultation, with limited resources or political will to support deeper forms of collaboration. What emerges is a tension between normative ideals of participatory governance and the constraints of bureaucratic and financial systems that reduce co-creation to procedural compliance. In this context, sharing of tasks reveals itself not as a universally applied strategy, but one whose realization depends heavily on organizational incentives, institutional capacity, and systemic support by the political leaders.

10.7. Institutional Structures Shaping the Enactment of Cultivation Strategies (RQ2)

The preceding sections examined how each of the six cultivation strategies is interpreted and enacted across Kenya’s county governments and corporate sectors (RQ1). This section turns to the second research question by examining how three institutional forces—legal mandates, bureaucratic systems, and political dynamics—influence the application of these strategies in county government settings.

The County Governments Act (2012) requires county administrations to facilitate citizen engagement, yet practitioners consistently described a gap between this mandate and the conditions needed to fulfill it. One practitioner explained, “Public participation is on the calendar because the law says it must be there. We convene the forum, we take photos, we write the report—and then we move on. But genuine engagement is not measured, so it becomes a box-ticking exercise.” Another added, “Sometimes the public forum is treated like an event to ‘clear’ rather than a dialogue to build. We spend more time proving we held it than ensuring the public was heard.” The mandate also lacked corresponding institutional investment. As one officer observed, “The Act mandates public participation, but it does not fund communication. It does not say how many staff you need, what tools you need, or what budget should be set aside—so the responsibility lands on an office that is already stretched.” A practitioner with a peri-urban county put it more sharply: “Public participation is treated as a legal requirement, not an operational function. There is no serious investment in the communication unit, yet we are judged on outcomes we do not have the capacity to deliver.” The downstream effects were visible in practitioners’ inability to close the feedback loop: “We collect views from citizens, but there is no clear mechanism to feed those views back into planning, and no accountability if departments ignore them. So people ask, ‘What changed because we spoke?’ and we have no honest answer.”

These legal gaps were compounded by bureaucratic fragmentation. Across all six strategies, practitioners described infrastructural deficiencies that limited access—absent websites, unreliable telephone lines, and dependence on administrative chiefs to relay information. Internal coordination was equally fragmented, with officers lacking departmental contact lists, shared calendars, or inclusion in planning processes. As one practitioner noted, “There’s so much secrecy, even we in communications don’t know the full budget until it’s done.” These deficiencies cascaded across strategies: limited information undermined openness, absent follow-up systems rendered assurances hollow, fragmented structures reduced networking to a reactive activity, and insufficient funding curtailed meaningful public collaboration. Communication units consistently emerged as institutionally marginalized, under-resourced, under-informed, and disconnected from the decisions they were expected to communicate.

Political dynamics further constrained practitioners’ capacity to cultivate relationships. Political actors shaped communication agendas in ways that undermined multiple strategies simultaneously. One practitioner recounted, “The governor may promise things during a forum, but we don’t get to explain when those things don’t happen.” The boundary between political and administrative roles limited networking. “Networking? That’s for the political side. We’re not looped in,” while political gatekeeping restricted openness, with citizens given no power to influence agendas. Leadership failures undercut positivity: “How do we change that when the county leadership does not lead by example?” These dynamics did not merely limit individual strategies; they eroded the institutional credibility upon which all relationship cultivation depends.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that legal mandates, bureaucratic systems, and political dynamics do not simply provide the backdrop against which cultivation strategies are enacted; they actively constrain and, in some cases, foreclose meaningful relational practice. Operating in combination, these forces create an institutional environment in which relationship cultivation in county governments is reduced from a strategic function to a largely symbolic exercise.

11. Discussion

This study set out to explore how relationship cultivation strategies are understood and enacted by communication professionals across Kenya’s county governments, and corporate and agency sectors. Drawing on 38 in-depth interviews, the research offers a comparative lens on strategic communication practices shaped by divergent organizational structures, bureaucratic constraints, political dynamics, resource environments, and professional norms. By focusing on six well-established cultivation strategies namely access, assurances, networking, openness, positivity, and task sharing, the study provides new insights into how these strategies are variably implemented, reinterpreted, or constrained across sectors. What emerges is a layered understanding of public relations as a practice shaped by context, one in which sectoral conditions determine not only what strategies are possible but also how they are enacted.

A key strength of this study is its theory-guided inductive approach, which combined the structure of an established framework with the flexibility of open-ended inquiry. Rather than testing predefined constructs (e.g., Men & Tsai, 2012; Ki & Hon, 2009), this study allowed cultivation strategies to emerge from participants’ lived experiences while remaining grounded in relationship management theory. This approach ensured both conceptual relevance and empirical openness, enabling the study to capture how these strategies are practiced, adapted, or constrained across distinct institutional contexts. It also allowed for the discovery of sector-specific reinterpretations that might be overlooked in more deductive, survey-driven designs. As Arceneaux (2024) notes, inductive analysis offers particular advantages in cross-cultural and international contexts by allowing researchers to uncover both overt and nuanced meanings without presuming that terms or concepts carry the same significance across settings.

Interpreting Sectoral Divergence and Rethinking Relationship Cultivation

The findings reveal a stark divergence in how relationship cultivation strategies are enacted across sectors, a divergence that is not merely operational but structural. The constraints documented in county government settings—fragmented bureaucracies, politicized communication roles, under-resourced communication units, and legal mandates that demand participation without supporting it—are not simply logistical barriers. They reflect deeper tensions around mandate, authority, and institutional culture (Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011; Waymer, 2013; Bowen & Lovari, 2021; Liu & Horsley, 2007). County communicators are expected to cultivate relationships within systems that limit meaningful dialogue, an expectation that clashes with the bureaucratic hierarchies, political interference, and lack of autonomy commonly found in public sector institutions (Liu & Horsley, 2007; Mbithi et al., 2019; Ronoh et al., 2018). Scholars have linked these limitations to broader structural and cultural forces that shape communication practice in government settings (Curtin & Gaither, 2005).

Particularly notable is the role of legal mandates in shaping, and paradoxically constraining, relationship cultivation. The County Governments Act (2012) requires public participation, yet the findings show that this legal framework produces procedural compliance rather than substantive engagement. Practitioners described forums convened to satisfy legal requirements but lacking the communicative infrastructure, follow-up mechanisms, or institutional accountability needed to translate participation into meaningful relationships. This finding extends critiques raised by Waymer (2013) and Liu and Horsley (2007) by showing that legal mandates, often assumed to enable public engagement, can themselves become structural constraints when they prescribe participation without resourcing the communication functions essential to sustaining it. In this sense, the law creates the expectation of relationship cultivation without creating the conditions for it, a distinction that existing scholarship has not sufficiently examined.

These patterns invite a critical reexamination of relationship management theory, particularly how it conceptualizes the enactment of cultivation strategies across diverse organizational settings. While the cultivation strategies model offers a robust framework for understanding strategic relationship-building, it is often grounded in assumptions of institutional capacity, managerial discretion, and two-way communication infrastructure that may not hold uniformly across sectors. The findings suggest that in contexts such as Kenya’s county governments, relationship cultivation becomes less about strategic choice and more about what this study terms as institutional possibility, the degree to which organizational structures, mandates, resources, and power dynamics enable or foreclose the enactment of cultivation strategies. This concept captures a pattern that emerged consistently across the data: practitioners who recognized the value of strategies such as openness, assurances, and networking but were structurally prevented from enacting them in meaningful ways. Institutional possibility thus shifts the analytical focus from whether practitioners choose to cultivate relationships to whether their institutional environments permit them to do so.

This interpretation aligns with broader critiques of public sector communication. Scholars have noted that legal, political, and managerial constraints often limit government communicators’ ability to adopt dialogue-based strategies, even when such approaches are formally promoted (Liu & Horsley, 2007; Liu et al., 2010; Mbithi et al., 2019; Ronoh et al., 2018). The concept of institutional possibility builds on these critiques by offering an integrative lens, one that accounts for how legal, bureaucratic, and political forces operate not in isolation but in combination to determine the boundaries of relational practice. The ability to enact any given strategy, whether it be task sharing or networking, is contingent on these sector-specific conditions.

The findings, therefore, suggest that dominant relationship models may need to be reexamined. A one-size-fits-all framework underestimates the sectoral variation in public relations practice and overlooks how power, discretion, resources, and legitimacy shape what is strategically feasible. Future models should account for these contextual dynamics, offering more flexible, layered frameworks that reflect the complexity of communication practice in both public and private settings.

12. Implications for Theory and Practice

12.1. Theoretical Implications

This study deepens the understanding of relationship management theory by showing how its core strategies are enacted or obstructed within different institutional settings. While the six strategies examined—access, assurances, networking, openness, positivity, and task sharing—remain analytically useful, the findings reveal that their implementation is far from uniform. Across Kenya’s decentralized governance landscape and more mature corporate environments, the same strategies take on different forms, meanings, and constraints. These divergences signal the need for a more adaptive, context-sensitive approach to theorizing relationship cultivation. Importantly, this study’s contribution lies not in uncovering new cultivation strategies but in demonstrating how established strategies manifest, or fail to manifest, under different institutional conditions. Given the limited research on relationship cultivation in sub-Saharan Africa, extending these strategies to Kenya advances theory by broadening its geographic and institutional scope.

With this orientation, the study offers four specific theoretical contributions. First, the study challenges the assumption embedded in Hon and Grunig’s (1999) widely used framework that relationship cultivation strategies are universally transferable. In practice, many of these strategies require enabling conditions such as managerial support, adequate resourcing, clear mandates, and autonomy. These conditions were largely absent in Kenya’s county governments, where bureaucratic fragmentation, politicized communication roles, and weak infrastructure constrained even basic strategic intent. As the findings on institutional structures demonstrate, legal mandates that prescribe participation without resourcing communication, bureaucratic fragmentation that isolates communication units from decision-making, and political dynamics that marginalize practitioners’ roles collectively determine the boundaries of what is strategically possible. Relationship management theory, therefore, may need to move beyond its ideal-type assumptions and account for what this study terms institutional possibility, the extent to which organizational structures, power dynamics, and resources make cultivation strategies feasible.

Second, the findings reveal that sectoral contexts shape how communicators understand and enact strategic relationships. Corporate practitioners had access to digital infrastructure, operational flexibility, and performance metrics that facilitated deliberate relational practices. By contrast, government communicators operated under mandates for citizen engagement without the institutional means to deliver it. This contrast suggests that relationship management theory could perhaps benefit from incorporating insights from organizational studies and public administration to better account for how sectoral governance structures, accountability demands, and hierarchical rigidity shape the practice of relationship-building. This sectoral variation aligns with meta-analytic evidence. Zhan and Zhao (2023) found that associations between openness and organization-public relationship quality differed between for-profit organizations and government entities, reinforcing the need to examine cultivation strategies across distinct institutional contexts.

Third, this study demonstrates the value of inductive, empirically grounded approaches to theory development. Unlike deductive studies that pre-select and impose theoretical categories, the present analysis allowed cultivation strategies to emerge through an inductive reading of practitioner narratives originally gathered to explore broader strategic communication themes. This approach enhances theoretical sensitivity, revealing context-specific reinterpretations (or limitations) of widely accepted strategies. It also supports ongoing efforts to ground public relations theory in practitioner experiences and to test theoretical assumptions in diverse, underexamined settings, a direction Aldoory (2005) notes as essential to developing more heuristic and valid theory.

Finally, the study opens space for theoretical expansion through complementary frameworks. In environments where cultivation is constrained by symbolic participation, limited discretion, and weak institutional support, models such as advocacy public relations (Toledano, 2016), Ubuntu-informed public relations (Mersham et al., 2011), or the cultural interpreter model (Kiambi & Nadler, 2012) may offer more relevant tools. These frameworks center context, values, and cultural nuance, areas where relationship management theory is currently underdeveloped. Rather than displacing relationship management theory, such models can support a more pluralistic, integrated approach to relationship theory, one that acknowledges both structural limits and the agency of practitioners working within constrained environments.

12.2. Practical Implications

The findings also point to several practical considerations for strengthening public relations and strategic communication practice across sectors. In Kenya’s county governments, where legal mandates, bureaucratic systems, and political dynamics constrain practitioners’ capacity to cultivate meaningful relationships, urgent reforms are needed. These include professionalizing recruitment to minimize politicization; embedding communication units closer to executive leadership; increasing funding for public engagement tools and training; and clarifying mandates to move beyond symbolic participation. Without such reforms, the promise of strategic communication will remain aspirational, and citizen engagement will continue to be procedural rather than substantive.

In the corporate and agency sector, the study affirms the strategic value of well-resourced and empowered public relations and communication teams. Organizations that integrate relational strategies into operational routines, particularly through digital access, assurance mechanisms, and internal and external collaboration, are better equipped to build public trust, stakeholder loyalty, and long-term reputational capital. The findings reinforce the importance of treating public relations not as a transactional output but as a core function of strategic management.

Across both sectors, there is a pressing need for stronger collaboration between academic institutions, training bodies, and professional associations. Universities can play a critical role in embedding context-specific case studies and strategy adaptation into curricula. Professional bodies such as the Public Relations Society of Kenya (PRSK), in turn, must develop competency frameworks and certification processes that reflect the realities of working in structurally unequal environments. Excellence in public relations is not merely about following best practices; it requires institutional commitment, cultural competence, and adaptive strategy rooted in the lived realities of practitioners on the ground.

13. Limitations and Future Research

As with any qualitative study, this research has limitations. Its sample was limited to 38 professionals working in Kenya and may not capture the full diversity of strategic communication practice across all counties or sectors. While rich in depth, the study is not designed to generalize findings across national or global contexts. Future research could build on this work by employing mixed-methods or survey-based approaches to test the prevalence, variability, and outcomes of relationship cultivation strategies across a larger sample and broader geographic scope.

Moreover, the study’s findings regarding institutional structures are drawn from practitioner accounts rather than independent analysis of policy documents, budgets, or governance records. While these accounts offer valuable experiential insight, future research could triangulate practitioner perspectives with documentary evidence to further strengthen claims about the role of legal, bureaucratic, and political forces in shaping communication practice.

Furthermore, while the study documents substantial differences between county government and corporate sectors, it did not identify notable variation within each sector. This relative homogeneity may reflect shared institutional constraints among county governments and similar professional norms across corporate settings, though future research with larger samples might reveal within-sector differences not captured here.

Additionally, while the study focused on six well-established cultivation strategies, future work might explore alternative or emergent strategies, especially those rooted in non-Western communication philosophies or developed in response to structural constraints. Comparative studies across countries with different governance models and public engagement mandates could further refine our understanding of how institutional settings shape relational strategy.

Lastly, this study invites further theoretical innovation. Scholars should continue exploring how theories like relationship management theory can be adapted, extended, or complemented by frameworks that emphasize cultural specificity, political context, and practitioner discretion. Frameworks such as advocacy public relations, Ubuntu-grounded public relations, and the cultural interpreter model may offer promising directions for developing more inclusive and responsive theories of relationship-building in public relations.

14. Conclusions

This study advances public relations theory by critically examining how relationship cultivation strategies are understood and enacted across two markedly different institutional settings in Kenya: county governments and corporate/agency sectors. Drawing on inductively analyzed interviews with 38 public relations and communication professionals, the research underscores that while the six core relationship cultivation strategies—access, assurances, networking, openness, positivity, and task sharing—retain conceptual value, their real-world application is deeply shaped by structural, political, and organizational dynamics.

By comparing public and private sector enactments of these strategies, the study challenges the assumption of universal applicability embedded in dominant theoretical frameworks. Instead, it offers a more contextually grounded understanding of relationship cultivation, one that recognizes institutional possibility as a key determinant of whether, and how, these strategies can be implemented. In particular, the study shows how legal mandates, bureaucratic systems, and political dynamics operate in combination to constrain the enactment of cultivation strategies in Kenya’s county governments. Importantly, the study highlights how county government practitioners, though often motivated and committed, are structurally constrained from engaging publics in the strategic, dialogic ways envisioned by relationship management theory. These findings suggest that the theory’s assumptions may need to be recalibrated to account for environments where mandates for participation exist but supporting conditions do not.

This research also demonstrates the value of inductive, empirically grounded inquiry in expanding theory. Unlike studies that test preselected constructs, this project allowed themes to emerge organically from practitioner narratives, offering a bottom-up perspective on what relationship cultivation means in complex governance and business contexts. In doing so, it encourages a more pluralistic and adaptive view of public relations strategy, one that resists normative prescriptions in favor of situational analysis and practitioner agency.