oms exam 1

different understandings of strat comms

1. replacement for integrated comms (management, marketing, PR, polcomm, etc.)

• term for all types of goal-oriented (i.e. economic needs, forming political will, educating citizens) comms initiated by orgs to any kind of stakeholders/audiences

• provides understanding for means (paid, earned, owned, shared media), concepts (campaigns, programs), modes (messaging/listening, monologues/dialogues, arguing/persuading/educating)

2. new role: comms as strategic and decisional (not tactical and supportive) in contemporary, large, private, and publicly treated companies

3. increasing interest in comms in military and national power context

• information warfare (e.g. propaganda)

• more cost effective and morally appealing than weapons

4. strat comms as an alternative term for PR

what is strat comms

the purposeful use of comms by an org in conversations of strategic significance to its goals

• not all purposive comms is strategic

• includes messaging and listening

• convos that have a substantial bearing on the company’s prosperity qualify as strat comms

2 dimensions of crisis

• subjective: focus on perceptions of importance of issues, based on collective sense-making and consensus

• objective: true impact of an issue (only in retrospect)

taxonomy of strategic issues

identification of issue

• strategic: top-down + incorrectly prioritized

• strategic: bottom-up + incorrectly deprioritized

• strategic: bottom-up & top-down + correctly prioritized

• nonstrat: operational/tactical + correctly deprioritized

substantiality of issue

• insubstantial: retrospective analysis + objective dimension

• substantial: retrospective analysis + objective dimension + external constitution

upper left + bottom right = wrong choices

bottom left = correct, but not strategic – operational

upper right = correct

what makes a problem strategic

1. resources (critical resource decisions and involvement ab high value assets)

2. competition [most important] (attempt to gain an edge over competitor in order to evade direct competition)

3. environment (threatens niches and operations, like tech development, political upheaval)

4. risk (make-it-or-break-it, like IPOs)

5. innovation (pioneering efforts, routines are left by the wayside)

6. engagement (where to employ free resources to the best use)

7. operational (when orgs alter ways they go about business)

SCM: strat comms management

attempt to manage the comms of strategic significance with regard to focal entity

strat process: 3 steps

1. strategy formulation & revision

• giving sense to actions

2. strategy presentation

• in reports, etc.

3. strategy execution, implementation & operationalization

• resource allocation

strat comms importance

1. monitoring stakeholder images & expectations

2. informing & influencing stakeholders

3. strategy as making choices

comms levels + 3 major traditions

• micro: individual

• meso: orgs

• macro: societal/system

• social science: objective, scientific methods –> theories

• critical/cultural: reality is subjective (bias)

• interpretative/rhetorical: examines discourse, texts, videos, etc.

social evals

• traditionally slow/stable

• forces changing it: polarization, tech, geopolitical tensions, activism & politicization of business

  • pos impact: social evals have become more salient & impactful by representing a broader range of interests, values, norms

  • neg impact: increasing role of AI + algo systems can distort eval processes, amplify signals, erode trust

social evals include: legitimacy, reputation, status, celebrity/infamy, stigma/esteem

traditional bs digital intermediaries

1. traditional intermediaries (news media & rankings)

• few professional gatekeepers curate what becomes visible

  • which companies/issues people perceive as important

  • how people eval companies

• eval criteria are relatively stable and centralized

• orgs have established tactics to influence coverage

• slower cycle: reporting, editing, publication

↓

2. digital platforms (social media, review sites, marketplaces)

• a heterogenous (big) crowd of evaluators judges in public

• criteria form through algorithms and communities

• visibility is continuous, fast, and often outside firm control

• social + technological dynamics shape the outcome

digital platforms as social eval intermediaries

• they connect evaluators, audiences, evaluated orgs (e.g. review platforms, online marketplaces, social media)

• this infrastructure turns evals into visible reputation signals that help people make decisions (signaling theory)

• social evals are socially constructed through interactions between members of online communities

  • influenced by: interaction speed, emotionality, comms intensity, relationships between evaluators

• evals are jointly produced by human processes and agentic tech

  • agentic tech can process info, recommend, judge, assist/exclude human judgements, algo is opaque

• platforms can empower previously less-established actors

• platforms allow judgement heterogeneity (more diverse stakeholders, values)

• orgs face much greater public scrutiny

  • silent stakeholders can now publicly evaluate

• tensions regarding info accuracy

3 lenses on digital platforms

1. infrastructure

• platforms reduce info asymmetries via ratings, reviews & badges that signal past performance

2. social forums

• relationships, discourse

• communities of interacting evaluators jointly produce social evaluation outcomes in and through their comms

• judgement criteria are negotiated by communities (not by platform)

• judgement criteria manifest as interpretative frames that evaluators apply to assess

• what makes them powerful: connectivity, speed & emotionality, prolonged visibility

3. agentic technologies

• digital platforms as agents that control, do, have their own logic

• algorithms, AI & blockchain shape and co-constitute judgement

• filtering and weighting of data

platforms make organizational social evals harder to control

• identifying relevant issues (that matter to online communities)

• loss of organizational control (social media shifts control)

• intensity of interactions (evals can form/change rapidly)

4 typs of visibility

1. reputation

• reputation communities are a critical part of how constituents’ judgments form and change

2. legitimacy

• interactions between evaluators and firms on X shape organizational legitimacy over time

3. stigma

• online groups reduce stigma through deliberate anti-stigma framing tactics

4. social disapproval

• social media communities can become powerful opponents against firms (dislike button, hate comment, etc)

what can orgs do to manage social evals on platforms

1. design the infrastructure (infrastructure perspective)

• reduce info asymmetries through platform design

• use reputation badges & context-specific scores

• allow responses via permanent replies

2. build relationships (social forum perspective)

• manage evaluations through relationships with communities, not messaging control

• firm-centric: identify issues relevant to the org

• community/stakeholder-centric: co-create issues together with evaluators

3. experiment with algorithms (agentic tech perspective)

• sense-making replaces control as the core management task

• adapt practices reactively to available evaluations and direct feedback

aka playing with the algorithms (seeing what sticks according to the platform), however, it changes so often that it is not successful

how we perceive orgs

by

• the pubilc (i.e. new consumers, social media users)

• the news & social media (i.e. coverage)

via

• interpersonal comms

• primary experience

• media-mediated comms

importance of media-mediated comms for reputation building

• achieves greatest social reach/effect

• social media/datafication have socially expanded the process of reputation building

2 camps

1. visibility of orgs in the media

• how salient an org is in the news media

• frequency: often – never

2. reputation & legitimacy (or: trust) of orgs in the media

• how an org is evaluated in the news media

• tone/valence: pos, neg, neutral

• frames

agenda-setting

• orgs can influence what we think about via news coverage

  • the media agenda influences issue setting and issue transfer on the public agenda

• salience

first-level: media visibility → public salience/awareness

second-level: attributes emphasised by the media → attributes/evaluations held by the public

agenda-setting criticism

too simplistic:

‘Reality’ → ‘Media reality’ aka the media’s agenda

↘ ↙

Public perception of ‘reality’

1. undercontextualized influence of the media on public opinion should be reconsidered due to digital structural changes in the public sphere

2. direction of causality (media → public) is now challenged in hybrid media environment

3. in the social media landscape, the salience/importance of a subject may be determined by the public and then picked up by the media

• eco chambers, filter bubbles, etc.

agenda-building

• orgs can influence the media agenda – how the public thinks about xyz

  • external sources of info, esp political actors, influence the setting and circulation of issues on the media agenda and the public agenda

• tone/valence

DSMM: differential susceptibility to media effects model

• media messages rarely affect everyone equally

• their effects depend partly on characteristics of the person receiving the message.

• one important characteristic is the person’s existing attitude toward the company

(e.g. a strong positive reputation can serve as a buffer for damaging info)

org visibility vs media visibility of orgs

• org visibility: influence of public agenda on org

• media visibility: influence of media agenda on org

what determines how org is covered in news

• news value theory: how do ‘events’ become ‘news’

  • news values/factors help make journalistic decisions

  • news values determine newsworthiness of stories

  • more “relevant”/interesting news results in more public activity online

old vs new news values

“old” news values

• power elite

• celebrity

• entertainment

• surprise

• bad news

• good news

• magnitude

• relevance (personal, community, or society)

• follow-up

• newspaper agenda

“new” news values (in addition to old news values)

• exclusivity

• conflict (crisis, war, substantial)

• audio-visuals

• shareability (attention-grabbing/effective visuals, shocking, simplistic, relevant, clickbait)

• drama (“made-up”, trivial)

what has changed in org visibility & reputation/legitimacy building in the times of social media?

• control

• ease but also more negativity

• speed

• bulk of content

how do platform dynamics impact agenda-building in the case of CSR comms?

• the more the org posts on FB, the more it gets picked out in the news – legacy media matters

• the more positive the news about company CSR, the more it improves company reputation

• but overall, the news was negative (but corp reputation was less negative/more positive the more positive the news)

news visibility consequences for orgs

• negative news courage has more intense effects on reputation than positive news coverage

• prior positive reputation buffers the impact of negative news

• more visibility of a company in the news is linked to a decline in its reputation

mere exposure effect: repeated exposure to x (e.g. politician) can increase familiarity and lead to more positive evals

CSR paradox

• public expects companies to behave responsibly (baseline)

• companies actively talk about their responsibility

• = skepticism can arise, neg media attention, reputational consequences

+news media don’t reproduce pos CSR messages companies want to communicate

• media may therefore cover: environmental pollution, governance violations, irresponsible corporate behavior, other neg CSR issues

legitimacy & why’s it important

• generalized perception/assumption that the action of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate in socially constructed systems of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions

• social norms, moral values, does a company do the right thing

importance

• it’s relational: links a legitimacy object (act, org, practice) to an evaluator who confers it first (bestowed view)

  • legitimacy objects include: a rule, procedure, routine, group, an org, a system of power, etc.

• it’s a resource: unlocks material and ideational support (funding, staff, media goodwill) – essential for orgs (possession view)

legitimacy is contested: definition is broad –> scholars keep arguing what “proper” means & for whom

other forms of social judgement (re: legitimacy) & who judges

• reputation

• image

• licence to operate: important to have someone who evaluates critically

• trust

• status

who judges

• media (journalists, socials users)

• regulators

• investors

• advocacy groups

• citizens

• other types of stakeholders

org features that are judged

• pragmatic: does the company contribute to my interests and expectations?

• moral: does the company act in line with broader societal expectations?

• regulative: does the company meet gov expectations and follow their rules?

• cognitive (cultural): does the company have the right to exist?

  • this legitimacy is either taken for granted or developed over a long time (e.g. pharmacy, the doctor’s) –> it’s not questioned anymore

corporate legitimation

• society creates expectations

• comms (objective or not) is at the core: if there’s no comms about societal expectations and orgs, it’s hard for us to judge legitimacy

so: society –> comms –> legitimacy

multilevel perspective on legitimacy

individual belief ≠ collective fact

• micro: one evaluator’s personal belief that sth is appropriate for its social context (propriety=it’s appropriate)

• meso: how much evaluators agree with each other in their propriety beliefs (consensus)

• macro: a collective, institutionalized perception exists as a social fact, even if the belief underneath is thin (validity)

media legitimacy

• audience-based type of legitimacy

• reflected in comms via printed media, tv, or radio, and social media

different functions of mass media and social media in legitimation processes

• media as the battleground for legitimacy disputes

• media as a source of info for judgements about orgs

• media as the amplifier of others’ judgements

• media legitimacy as a reflection of public legitimacy?

  • media legitimacy is also questioned nowadays

media as an institution

• involved in the creation, maintenance, and disruption of organizational legitimacy

• not only reflects broader social values but embodies, produces, and reproduces particular values and beliefs (agenda-setting and framing)

institutional theory

core shift: “logic of consequences” –> “logic of appropriateness”

• asks what actions are considered socially appropriate and legitimate by orgs

• –> org behaviour is shaped by the social and institutional environment in which they operate

• media influence isn’t random: journalistic routines create logic of appropriateness that determine which orgs/issues receive attention and how they’re portrayed

4 phases of mediatization

• most important source of info: experiences/interpersonal comms vs media

• media dependent vs independent on/of political institutions

• media content mainly governed by political logic vs media logic

• political actors governed by political logic vs media logic

–> for orgs: media most important source of info, media mainly independent from orgs, orgs adapt to media logic

mediatization of orgs

• orgs integrate ideas about the media in contexts where the media was absent previously

• eventually these ideas affect org activities, routines, decisions, resource allocation, and comms

e.g. ING Newsroom and TikTok

4 legitimation processes in the news media

A) by default, most orgs are accepted

• majority of orgs are “under the radar” aka not featured in news

B) a nr of large public orgs are routinely evaluated

C) some orgs are debated based on poor performance/problematic practices

• hence, org’s claim to legitimacy is being questioned (typically in a series of reports) since expectations aren’t met/norms breached

• legitimacy is at threat

D) rarely, orgs face disruption as large-scale media storms erupt & corporate responses fail

• media storms erupt when problems become scandalas and spread across media outlets & arenas

• legitimacy is questioned at a level where it’s almost impossible for the org to address issues

org legitimacy in social media

• social media can be considered as contributing to the co-construction of org legitimacy

  • bc of impact, credibility, and increasing volume, judgments on socials

• ppl perceive orgs and their output (on their TLs) & react affectively (e.g. joy, disappointment)

• legitimacy is conferred to orgs based on these affect-based responses, which affect judgements

= affect-based responses are verbalized and expressed as evaluative judgements about orgs and their actions

hypertexts

• links and blocks of texts are formed via shared content where different users share similar evaluations (co-associations)

  • co-authorship, fluidity

• hypertexts make intended and self-conscious connections, situating them in existing power relations

• they’re capable of enabling, coproducing, and/or contesting actors

e.g. a hashtag

tipping point of refracted attention

• point is reached when large volumes of heterogeneous evals converge through a hypertext

• one clear frame emerges: increases likelihood that new media will cover citizens’ evals with similar legitimacy

reverse agenda-setting

• social media democratize news creation to the point that individuals indicate to the news media how and what to focus their coverage on

• this phenomenon can be explained by journalists’ increased use of social media as news sources, monitoring the attention that issues attract on social media

framing

• media influence how people think about an org by selecting and emphasizing particular aspects of a story

• framing = making certain aspects more prominent, which can influence how audiences define, interpret, and evaluate an issue

e.g., coverage focused heavily on CEO, leadership, national identity, company history, etc., rather than structural aspects of the org

mediatization vs mediation

• beyond agenda-setting and framing

• news media have become an independent institution with their own rules and norms, and orgs increasingly adapt to these rules

• mediation: media act as an info-carrying channel between actors

• mediatization: media actively select & shape info according to own “media logic”

→ over time, this media logic becomes integrated into how other institutions & orgs operate

• bc media coverage can affect their legitimacy, reputation, brand, & policies

media logic: 3 factors

consists of:

1. journalistic professionalism: journalistic norms, ideals, news values & routines

2. commercialism: economic/business pressures affecting what media produce

3. media tech: characteristics of different platforms and tech

crisis

• period of time during which the regular org routine is interrupted by an event that poses threats (physical, financial, political, economic, social)

• likelihood of loss of trust & reputation increases

role of comms in crisis

• although crises have real origins, they are constituted in the communicative interplay

  • between several actors whose perception of a series of events as a “crisis” produces real consequences for…

    • political parties, corporate enterprises, financial institutions, protesters, consumers, & the news media

attribution theory

• how we interpret others’ actions by assigning causes & motives to their behaviour

• in the context of SCCT: based on attributions, people try to determine who is responsible for a crisis (e.g. to what degree is the org responsible)

SCCT: situational crisis comms theory

• explains how orgs should respond to crises based on the situation

  • what makes it situational: attribution of responsibility

• attribution of responsibility & crisis comms strategies as central elements of reputation-building/-losing

• response should match the level of crisis responsibility stakeholders attribute to the org

crisis types + attribution of responsibility

• victim: very low responsibility → e.g. natural disasters, workplace violence, product tampering

  • org = victim (=couldn’t help what happened)

• accidental: moderate/mild responsibility → e.g. technical errors

• preventable: high responsibility → e.g. human error, management misconduct

  • org = fully responsible

contextual modifiers can increased perceived responsibility:

• neg prior reputation/relationship

• history of previous crises

• culture & different voices in the crisis may also matter

crisis cues

• natural disasters

• workplace violence/outside attack

• product tampering: some agent alters a product to make it harmful

• technical-error product harm: software/hardware malfunction

• technical-error accident: industrial/transpotation accident due to software/hardware malfunction

• human-error product harm: employee error

• human-error accident: industrial/transportation accident due to employee error

• management misconduct: managers’ intentional harmful decision

• scansis: managers place stakeholders at risk for financial gain

crisis comms strategies/responses

what strategy to choose depends on:

• type of crisis –> attribution of responsibility

• intensifying factors (crisis & performance history)

• timing

• ethical base response

  • instructing info: what people should do to protect themselves physically

  • adjusting info: helps people cope psychologically (explain what happened, corrective actions, sympathy)

then, if necessary:

• deal: apology/compensation → accepts responsibility + focuses on victims

• bolstering: reminds people of past good actions/praises helpers → only a secondary/supplementary strategy

• diminish: justification/excuse → no longer recommended because research has not shown clear benefits

• denial: should not be used for an actual crisis; can worsen damage when the org has responsibility

→ when responsibility is low, ethical base response may be enough

→ when responsibility is high, add reputation-repair strategies such as apology/compensation

crisis response timing: stealing thunder

• to use someone else’s idea for one’s own advantage, or to pre-empt them

• during crises: comms could take place either

  • before the problem becomes publicly known & turns into a crisis (stealing thunder or proactive comms)

  • or after the problem has been known by the public (thunder or reactive comms)

  • you set the frame/narrative

outcomes of a crisis

• public safety

• financial loss

• or reputation loss

when a crisis is social-mediated, its potentially negative outcomes might be amplified to an unconceivable extent

social forum

• everyone can share their opinion on socials (alson on org scandals)

• → (active) comms might become a serious threat for orgs in crises

e.g. Dove, H&M “coolest monkey in the jungle”

SMCC: social-mediated crisis comms

• explains how orgs, news media & the public generate, consume, & share info online/offline

  • before, during & after a crisis

  • processes are dynamic (e.g. diff social media publics in circles)

3 types of publics (that can generate crisis info)

• influential social media creators (create for others to consume, initiate & amplify)

• social media followers (consume the content)

  • consume based on 3 motivations:

    • issue relevance

    • info seeking & sharing

    • emotional venting & support

• social media inactives (consume the content via WOM w/ followers & traditional media)

factors that affect whether audiences seek social or traditional media for crisis info

• social media & traditional media

  • convenience

  • involvement

  • personal recommendation

  • info overload

• for social media additionally: humour appeal & perceived function of social media

• for traditional media additionally: credibility

target audiences of crisis response

• victims: who are directly affected by the crisis (e.g. physically, psychologically, or financially injured)

• nonvictims: who aren’t injured by a crisis, but can still experience crisis-induced emotions

  • potential victims: at-risk publics who aren’t harmed by a crisis, but potentially could have been

  • voyeurs: publics who aren’t at risk for crisis harm, but, nevertheless, pay close attention to how a crisis unfolds

RAT: rhetorical arena theory

• assumption that when a crisis occurs, the social space opens to multiple voices to engage in comms activities

• the inclusion of social media sub-arenas & how multiple voices are presented & related to each other reflects the dynamics & complexity of crisis comms on social media

regenerative crisis model

• the regenerative crisis life cycle indicates that each crisis has its own trigger event

  • but some factors might be influential enough to change how publics perceive the crisis

    • e.g. response misconduct or social media users’ neg comments)

  • and can create new crises (or “secondary crises”) in the original crisis

• when the crisis situation changes, a new “sub-crisis” occurs: starts with new trigger events & different topics discussed in a new life cycle

  • the trigger events of new sub-crises = turning points

• the life cycle of a sub-crisis usually overlaps with the original crisis & other sub-crises

emotions in crisis

• emotions can be caused by people’s attribution of an org’s responsibility to the crisis

  • which can be formed by locus of control, intentionality & controllability

• attribution-dependent emotions: associated with neg relational outcomes, people’s info processing, & disclosing behaviours

  • anger, surprise, worry, fear, contempt, alert, disgust, relief

• attribution-independent emotions: may lead to supportive behaviours & pos relational outcomes

  • confusion, shame, sympathy

emotions can be experienced simultaneously

refined SMCC aka SISMI: self-involved social media influencer

• self-involved social media influencer can be org/politican/celebrity

  • rarely discuss the crisis itself – instead, influencers have a clear standpoint (e.g. for/against the org) with strong attitudes/emotional expressions

  • strategically engage in a crisis by picking an opportune time & sensational rhetoric for their own purposes

  • usually engage in a crisis for empathy in dialogical comms with the involved publics & to get significant responsiveness from the general public

e.g. Lancôme’s crisis

SISMI vs traditional influential social media creators

• SISMI are more strategic in framing & influential

• their followers are difficult to persuade

• their comms can easily trigger debate & develop a regenerative crisis

• unlikely to be affected by org comms

crisis info vetting

• publics need to assess the accuracy & credibility of crisis info

  • primary vetting: assessing the accuracy of info

  • secondary vetting: assessing the validity of own judgment

crisis info consumption

• publics’ perspective: effective crisis comms requires understanding how publics process, transmit & act on crisis info

• publics process info to cope with crises

–> understanding crisis emotions

–> info consumption/engagement precedes info seeking & sharing

paracrisis

an org risk that can be seen on social media rather than a real crisis

• bc the risk has not been manifested to become an immediate crisis

inout-output model

expains relationships that benefit the org

stakeholder theory + initial model

• focus on any group or individual that can affect or is affected by the achievement of an org’s objectives

  • emphasizes long-term relationships

adapted stakeholder model

• different stakeholder levels added

stakeholders vs stakewatchers vs stakekeepers

• stakeholders: who have a concrete stake

• stakewatchers: who protect the interests of real stakeholders

• stakekeepers: who have no stake in the firm but have influence & control

  • they impose regulations and constraints, while the firm has little reciprocal direct impact on them

stakeholder models’ criticism

• (still) not clear regarding an org’s environment

• identification & selection of stakeholders

• rights or relationships? (legal vs managerial)

• central place of the org → management/control?

pre-digital vs digital stakeholder relations

pre-digital

• audience: institutional actors (NGOs, activist groups, interest groups)

• engagement & relationship: institutional long-term

• voices & type of stake: stake in the company

• segmentation variable: opinions (sentiment/tone, interests/opinions)

• expected impact: segment stakeholders to influence their perception

digital

• audience: digital collectives (#boycotters, slacktivists)

• engagement & relationship: light form of engagement

• voices & type of stake: personal stake, personal publicity, self-enhancement, identity building

• segmentation variable: comms behaviour (dependence, influence)

• expected impact: engage stakeholders to dialogue with them

issue arenas

• real or virtual spaces where stakeholders and orgs interact & publicly discuss a particular issue

  • ideas and issues are discussed that are of interest to both stakeholders and the org

• issues & topics at the centre of comms – not orgs anymore

  • orgs & stakeholders have a more equal position than traditional models suggest

• propose a paradigm change: shift from org-centered thinking & unilateral relationship management to monitoring & dialogue on issue arenas that are outside the org’s control

  • org survival depends not only on communicating with the “right stakeholders” but also on finding and participating in the right issue arenas

  • not participating = potentially affecting reputation + legitimacy

  • they need to listen to multiple voices, not push own viewpoint

  • controlling may create conflict

• different definition of stakeholder: org as stakeholder of an issue

• constantly evolving arenas (e.g. crisis)

• arenas involve a struggle between different actors, agendas, frames, and interests

• orgs usually operate several arenas simultaneously

• arenas are interrelated & compete for limited public attention

= model with org as central player outdated

6 axioms of issue arenas

1. an issue arena is a place where the public debate about an issue is conducted

2. the interaction takes place in the traditional or virtual media

3. the actors can be active or passive, one could be “on the stage” or “in the audience”

4. the arena is dynamic; actors may be more or less active when time passes or leave entirely to go to another arena

5. an org can be active in multiple arenas, monitoring actions of other parties and/or engaging in actively in the interaction

6. as the arenas are interrelated, an organization needs to coordinate and balance its communication strategies

issues from an org perspective

• disputation: divergent public points of view

• expectation: to what extent do the organization’s actions meet public expectations?

• impact: positive consequences (e.g., positioning opportunities) or negative impact (e.g., reputational damage)

issue management

• the monitoring or scanning of the org environment in order to identify issues and trends, adapt to changes, and/or to decide for managerial or communicative actions that are aimed at creating mutual understanding with relevant stakeholders

• proactively identifies emerging problems/changes before they escalate into crises

  • important for detecting early warnings & potential legitimacy gaps between org behaviour & societal expectations

• a systemic process, where issues are managed in an organized and systematic manner that serves strategic decision-making

• after monitoring: agenda-setting and decision-making within orgs: how to convince other org actors (e.g., board)?

stakes vs issues

• stake: tied to a particular stakeholder and their investment/interest in the org

• issue: broader; can involve many actors and does not “belong” to one stakeholder or org

= orgs are thus one participant among many in debates surrounding issues

= involvement can be emotional, ideological, or economic

SLO: social licence to operate

• social license to operate constructed in media

  • is the corporation fulfilling social and moral expectations?

• repeatedly renew social “permission” to operate by both anticipating and responding to their social environment

• hence, societal engagement becomes especially crucial for corporations now that the socio-political domains and agendas

  • and therewith those groups who grant corporations their SLO, have the tendency to shift on a regular basis, often in opposing directions

SLO is:

• fluid and ongoing;

• based on stakeholder perceptions;

• capable of being revoked;

• closely connected to corporate legitimacy

societal changes that altered orgs’ environment

• polarization: opposing principles becoming increasingly separated, stakeholders more often unable to see eye-to-eye

  • supply side: more niche/partisan media offering ideologically tailored content

  • demand side: audiences selectively consume information that confirms their existing views (selective exposure/confirmation bias

• mediatization: growing social visibility & responsibility of orgs

  • increased focus on SLO

  • 2 important changes:

    • orgs receive greater media scrutiny and visibility, often through conflict-, negativity- and drama-oriented coverage

    • orgs themselves increasingly prioritize comms, PR and media relations internally

4 forms of polarization

• dispersion of attitudes

• clustering around 2 opposing positions

• ideological polarization: positions on different issues become connected

• identity-based polarization: systematic differences between social groups

= strengthens in-group vs out-group distinctions

politicization

• difficult to escape societal role (with mediatization)

• pressure to engage with their environment (renew SLO)

  • esp socio-political issues high on media/public agenda

• politicization of corporations and their environment

  • corp comms and political issues inherently intertwined

• challenges of engaging with polarized issues and renewing SLO

PR & politicization

major shift:

• traditional PR: organization-centered → managing relationships/messages

• issue-arena approach: issue-centered → monitoring, dialogue, participation and adaptation

= PR becomes a bridging function between orgs & actors

• one strategy is insufficient bc arenas involve different actors & interests

  • CPA might fit some situations, political CSR, etc. others

corporate political activity (CPA)

• strategic attempts on behalf of corp actors to shape & manage gov policy & political actors in such ways that is favourable to the corp

  • via lobbying, financial incentives, info, etc.

• basis for engagement: self-interest

• meaning of SLO: only relevant in the context of business interest

• role of issue arenas: instrumental to business goals

• role of PR: acting on behalf of business interests

too business-centered

political corporate social responsibility (PCSR)

• a form of (global) dialogical governance, whereby corps play an active role in the regulation of market transactions & seek to impact socio-political situations for the better

  • when govs cannot adequately address societal problems

• basis for engagement: stakeholders/societal interest

• meaning of SLO: determined by societal consensus where interests of multiple stakeholders are balanced out

• role of issue arenas: places for deliberation

• role of PR: fostering dialogue & mutual understanding

  • acts as a broker/mediator

too consensus-oriented: balancing stakeholder interests becomes difficult due to their incompatible political positions

corporate political advocacy

• voicing public & explicit support for specific ideals, groups, or individuals with the intention to persuade others to do the same

• basis for engagement: interest is in the socio-political issue at stake

• meaning of SLO: granted on the basis of issue positions, intrinsic values & moral convictions

• role of issue arenas: places for issue advocacy

• role of PR: advocate the crops’ standpoint

favoured bc captures situations where corgs publicly choose & promote one position based on their values

= value- & issue-driven > stakeholder-balancing

4 phases of mediatization adapted to the context of orgs

• media become the most important source of information

• media become/are mainly independent from orgs

• media content is mainly governed by media logic (instead of other orgs’ logics) → adaptation to media logic

• other orgs (political institutions, other organisations) adapt to the logic of the media → adoption of media logic

normative concerns + new trends

concerns

• political interference of corps desirable for all issues?

• privatization of social issues?

e.g. corps rolling back DEI, corps pulling out of Russia

trends

• from progressive to more conservative values?

• increased popularity of rightwing and conservative politicians

• americanization?

  • issue research focuses on US topics (i.e. gun control)

• new values pop up, new orgs pop up – what is relevant? how to relate?

comms responses to issues

• issues are communicatively constructed (combo of frames, emphases, salience)

• when?

  • issue salience: life cycle phase

  • agency: active (self-created/-associated/unenforced involvement) or passive issue (involuntary/enforced involvement)

• how?

  • requires reflection

  • sensitivity of the org’s political, societal and media environments

  • scenario-thinking

issues lifecycle

• if you want to associate yourself with an issue that does not have ownership yet: potential

• if you want to bandwagon: current

active vs passive issues

• active: self-created/-associated

• passive: involuntary/enforced involvement

active vs passive issues (pov: org)

active

• proactively trying to put an issue on the public or media agenda, or to establish an association between your org and an ongoing issue

e.g. Ben & Jerry’s LGBTQ+

passive

• the other way around: what if the org is involuntarily associated with an issue? which comms options do orgs have in those situations?

e.g. top US chemical firms paid billions to settle water contamination lawsuits (they knew way before, but only acted when they came under backlash)

evaluating issues to guide responses

1. to what extent is it important? do people care about it?

2. to what extent is it polarized? is there a unified public ready to act?

3. variability: do perspectives change or is it predictable?

4. capability: does it fit the org identity for you to communicate effectively?

5. involvement: to what extent is the org committed?

OID: organization-issue dynamics model

org ↔ issue ↔ public

• treats the relationship between an org and a sociopolitical issue as dynamic rather than treating the issue merely as an external factor

• helps to explain whether orgs move between advocacy, accommodation & strategic silence

• orgs increasingly face complex, polarized sociopolitical issues and need to decide whether and how to take a stance

• stance-taking is an ongoing process involving interaction, exchange, negotiation and recalibration

• orgs simultaneously maintain relationships with multiple issues, just as they maintain relationships with multiple publics

  • they should therefore gather info about an issue's:

    • development;

    • societal significance;

    • risks;

    • possible trade-offs

= this allows orgs to take more coherent and sustainable positions

2 dimensions: issue complexity & org commitment

• issue complexity: importance, divisiveness, variability

• commitment: capability, involvement

strong OID means the org…

• understands the issue's complexity

• has sufficient capability

• genuinely invests in the issue;

• is prepared to sustain its position;

• participates meaningfully in issue-related discourse

= supports reputation, purchase intention, WOM, favourable attitudes

important OID point

• an org’s relationship with an issue can change without the org’s underlying values or the issue itself changing

• external constraints can alter what the org is actually capable of doing

e.g. Ben & Jerry’s under Unilever

subdimensions of issue complexity

• importance

  • how significant, relevant and urgent an issue is within a particular society/community

  • importance is not fixed: it differs between publics, industries and points in time

• divisiveness

  • degree of distance/disagreement between opposing positions.

  • greater distance between positions = greater divisiveness.

  • depends on context and how the competing positions are defined

• variability

  • situational conditions that cause importance and/or divisiveness to change over time

    • e.g. political climate, cultural norms, social dynamics, societal consensus, unexpected events

• therefore, an issue's complexity is dynamic rather than fixed

subdimensions of org commitment

• org commitment: org’s ability and willingness to form, invest in and sustain a relationship with an issue

capability: can the org effectively engage w this issue? aka ability to…

• communicate its stance effectively;

• maintain stance-action consistency;

• create an authentic/truthful connection with the issue;

• deal with challenges resulting from stance-taking.

involvement: how much is the org actually committed/invested?

• resources allocated to the issue;

• investment;

• priority given to stance-taking;

• persistence despite potential risks;

• willingness to influence the issue

shaped by org values, social norms, strategic priorities

stance, accommodation, advocacy

• stance: an org’s position in a particular situation, at a particular time, toward a particular public

• contingency theory’s basic principle is “it depends”: there is no universally correct stance

stances traditionally exist on a continuum:

pure advocacy ←────────→ pure accommodation

• advocacy: organization argues for/defends its own position.

• accommodation: organization adjusts or makes concessions toward publics.

orgs can move along this continuum as situations and stakeholder expectations change

positioning

• orgs continually determine and adjust their stance throughout issue management, crisis prevention, crisis response and recovery

  • broader and more dynamic than a single stance

positioning must respond to changes in:

• issue characteristics;

• public expectations;

• media portrayals;

• org circumstances

OID adds a Q: how does the org position itself toward the issue itself?