Search results

The co‐orientation model is used as a vehicle for framing the perceptions of different stakeholder groups. This study aims to operationalize the principles of sustainable development in the chain‐of‐custody and measure two selected stakeholder groups' perceptions of their importance.

The co‐orientation model provides guidance for improving communications and stakeholder relationships by identifying different co‐orientation states of the communicating parties. The implications for the development of effective sustainability communication strategies for organizations are discussed.

Sustainability communications requires a systematic approach in which all the communication activities are directed toward achieving increased understanding between the organization and its relevant stakeholders about the issues. The co‐orientation model enables the identification of unique initiatives to overcome the communication problems caused by the different co‐orientation states. This insight can be utilized by communication managers to fine‐tune their organization's communication strategy to be more sensitive to the specific requirements of the communication situation. Some of the recommendations to manage the communication process include assumption surfacing, orgainzational reflection, improved stakeholder management and dialogue.

The co‐orientation model is a quite complex concept. This study tries to use the model in a concret case and develops different approaches for improving communications and stakeholder relationships by identifying different co‐orientation states of the communicating parties.

Organisations are undergoing dramatic changes as stakeholder groups exert an ever‐increasing influence on the place and responsibilities of organisations in society. Important drivers in this process include the environmental movement, the search for total quality management, the concept of sustainable development, ethics and organisational learning. Because the various stakeholders can view these complex issues quite differently from the organisation, it is important that those working with communications are able to understand the underlying complexities of stakeholder relationships. Work in a number of diverse fields has provided an understanding of the factors involved in developing an effective communications strategy. Stakeholder theory is an important contributor in that it provides a means for uncovering the relevant participants in the process. The authors contend that, as part of this process, the co‐orientation model can provide a unifying framework for identifying the nature of the relationships between stakeholders or actors in a communication process. At the heart of this model lies the notion of “mental models” from the organisational learning literature and the recognition that in order for any communication process to be effective these models must be “oriented” properly. The authors build on research from the organisational learning field to gain a deeper understanding of the processes that influence our perceptions of stakeholder groups. Three specific communication skills are identified that enable the communications manager to engage stakeholders in a meaningful dialogue, and thereby enhance the effectiveness of the organisation’s communication efforts. These communication skills are reflection, inquiry and advocacy.

This paper adds to the literature on societal grand challenges by shifting the focus away from business firms and other formal organizations as key actors in addressing such challenges toward the inherent organizing capacity that lies in the use of language itself. More specifically, we focus on the organizing capacities of metaphor-based communication, seeking to ascertain which qualities of metaphors enable them to co-orient collective action toward tackling grand challenges. In addressing this question, we develop an analytical framework based on two qualities of metaphorical communication that can provide such co-orientation: a metaphor’s (a) vividness and (b) responsible actionability. We illustrate the usefulness of this framework by assessing selected metaphors used in the public discourse to make sense of and organize collective responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, including the flu metaphor/analogy, the war metaphor, and the combined metaphor of “the hammer and the dance.” Our paper contributes to extant research by providing a means to assess the co-orienting potential of metaphors in bridging varied interpretations. In so doing, our framework can pave the way toward more responsible use of metaphorical communication in tackling society’s grand challenges.

Organizations put their reputations at risk when they misunderstand what their stakeholders expect from them. People expect specific behavior from an organization regarding societal issues or questions, and when an organization ignores or denigrates issues and in the worst case contributes to making conditions worse, stakeholders will react. The purpose of this paper is to propose the PZB model of service quality as a tool that organizations can use to align expectations and perceptions with organizational behavior and communication.

The paper provides two cases of the use of CSR communication as a marketing mechanism to position an entity as environmentally friendly. In both instances, the messages were declared illegal and had to be removed. The PZB model of service and the co‐orientation model are used to illustrate the principles discussed.

The cases illustrate the need for organizations to not only be more aware of the expectations of their stakeholders but also to implement organizational practices that ensure they are abreast of expectations and operate accordingly.

The value of the paper is that it provides organizations with a proven tool that can be used not only for customers but for other stakeholders as well. Its real strength, however, is that it provides guidelines for internally‐ as well as externally oriented behavior and communication.

The paper extends the PZB model to a more stakeholder approach and demonstrates its usefulness when it comes to a deeper understanding of legitimacy by organizations.

This paper provides an analytical theory of appropriateness judgments that introduces structural dimensions in the study of social rationality of organization members. This approach helps explore the coevolution of members’ relative position in structure and normative choices in their organization. Illustration of this approach is based on the study of controversial judicial decisions and dynamics of advice networks in a courthouse where lay judges have to choose between punitive and nonpunitive awards in cases of unfair competition in business. In this case, coevolution is facilitated by an endogenous process of centralization–decentralization–recentralization of advice networks over time, and by use of a procedural “weak legal culture” that helps align and homogenize conflicting normative choices among organization members. It is suggested that this approach to social rationality helps revisit our understanding of social processes, in this case collective learning and secondary socialization in organizations and flexible labor markets.

The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise how the chief executive officer (CEO) and chairperson of the board (Chair) construct their relationship through their leadership practices, and to analyse the meaning of these practices to the relationship. An empirical investigation from both partners’ viewpoint is conducted.

The data were gathered through in-depth interviews with 16 CEOs and 16 chairpersons from the same companies. Content analysis was used to analyse the data.

Four types of leadership practices in the CEO-Chair relationship were conceptualised: emergent practices on company- and person-related issues, and scheduled practices on company- and person-related issues. For the effectiveness of the relationship, emergent practices on company-related issues seem to be most important.

The basing of the analysis on interviewees’ descriptions rather than on the observation of leadership practices in action can be considered a limitation.

Knowledge of leadership practices in the CEO-Chair relationship and their meaning to the relationship can be utilised in leadership training.

This research contributes to the relational leadership literature by highlighting a specific leadership relationship, the CEO-Chair relationship, from both partners’ viewpoint. Additionally, the value of the study is that it shows that the CEO-Chair relationship is more multifaceted than traditionally assumed in prior literature.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how the US Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) communicatively engaged in legitimization concerning accreditation.

This study utilized the rhetorical analysis approach outlined by Hoffman and Ford (2010) to explore the accreditation-related texts from an online source created by CHEA, Information About Accreditation.

The analysis identified three overarching approaches to include: isomorphism to address regulatory legitimacy, organizational identity management to address pragmatic legitimacy, and a dialogic approach to address normative legitimacy. This analysis also developed a new theoretical model for the rhetorical construction of legitimacy, “A Model for the Rhetorical Construction of Legitimacy,” that can be summarized as: organizations foster a type of legitimacy through a legitimizing strategy by demonstrating how the purpose of the legitimizing strategy is achieved by the implementation of the legitimizing strategy.

Limitations include that data were gathered only from online, web-based texts during a period in which the rhetorical situation was ongoing.

This study expands research concerning the rhetorical approach to issues management in that it examines the way legitimacy is negotiated through the various rhetorical strategies of an organization. Additionally, information is offered about the rhetorical structure of texts when an organization seeks to legitimize certain ideas.

This analysis developed a theoretical model for the rhetorical construction of legitimacy, “A Model for the Rhetorical Construction of Legitimacy,” that demonstrates important relationships between legitimizing strategies and types of legitimacy. Understanding these relationships may allow for a better interpretation of how legitimacy theory is represented within a communicative venture.

Considers the various roles that public relations practitioners play and the implications of those roles for the status of public relations within the organisation. Within the context of local authorities in Scotland, considers the organisational constraints within which public relations practitioners operate and the extent to which the practitioner’s role is affected by the expectations of those within the organisation responsible for determining public relations policy. The results indicate that chief executives and politicians have very definite perceptions of public relations and expectations of practitioners and that even practitioners themselves have a limited view of the role that public relations can play in decision making within local authorities. This implies that they are not, nor likely to be, part of the dominant coalition, with consequent implications for the development of excellence in public relations.

Investigates which attributes were perceived to be important for the success of graduates from apparel design programs. The research design used was Q‐methodology, where 29 respondents from the apparel design industry and academia sorted 47 positive statements on a Likert scale. Results showed disparity of thought between the university educators and the apparel design professionals. The industry believed strong affective skills were the most desirable characteristics for the success of future design professionals. In contrast, almost half of the educators chose cognitive attributes as most important to students’ success. The industry’s general agreement was that academicians would rate different characteristics as important than did the industry professionals.

The purpose of this paper is to offer critical reflection on the role played by the concept of dialogue in public relations theory, pedagogy, and practice.

This paper is theoretical and therefore focused on the elucidation of the history, meaning, and application of “dialogue” in public relations in comparison with two other academic disciplines and professional fields: political science and organizational communication.

The paper argues that, despite the key normative position occupied by the concept of dialogue in much mainstream public relations scholarship, public relations as an academic discipline has not engaged extensively with the theory of dialogue. While other academic and expert practitioner fields have developed much theoretical reflection, a range of dialogical tools, and created spaces in which the expertise is applied, public relations' normative interest in dialogue seems not to have translated into developing expert dialogic tools or spaces in which public relations experts routinely use such tools.

The paper introduces literature and debates about dialogue largely ignored in the mainstream public relations scholarship and aims to stimulate fresh discussion about the nature of public relations knowledge and practice.