|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF ORGANIZATION-ACTIVIST RELATIONSHIPS
Elizabeth Dougall Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, School of Journalism & Mass Communication
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Campus Box 3365, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3365
Phone: (919) 962-6396
Email: [log in to unmask]
Paper submitted April 1 to the AEJMC Public Relations Division (Open
Division) for the
AEJMC Convention San Antonio, Texas
August 10-13, 2005.
Abstract
The public opinion environment is conceptualized as a set of issues
that concern the focal population and their activist publics. An
evolutionary model of organization-activist relationships (EOAR) is
developed, and the propositions derived from this model are explored
using a comparative case study approach. These propositions
anticipate and specify associations between variations in dimensions
of the public opinion environment of an organizational population and
the evolution of organization-activist relationships in the
population. Variations in this "issue set," are described using four
dimensions: stability (turnover of issues), complexity (the number of
issues in the issue set), intensity (volume of media coverage), and
direction (favorability of media coverage for the focal
population). To capture the evolution of the focal relationships,
their state is described on a conflict continuum using
relationship-signaling statements made by organizations and activists
and published by the media. Three cases studies from the same
organizational population, Australia's major banks, are compared over
three different but consecutive seven-year periods from 1981 to
2001. The case studies included the extensive review of industry
reports and several government inquiries, as well as the content
analysis of more than 6, 500 newspaper articles published during each
of the three case study periods.
AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF ORGANIZATION-ACTIVIST RELATIONSHIPS
Arthur W. Page, was credited with arguing, more than half a century
ago, that in a democracy all business begins with the public's
permission and exists by public approval (Newsom, Van Slyke Turk, &
Kruckeberg, 2000). Organizations seek to be accepted by their
publics, the general public, opinion leaders, and government
officials. In this way, they achieve legitimacy. In her book,
Researching the Public Opinion Environment, Devereaux Ferguson (2000)
argued that corporations and governments alike must face the
challenge of coping with "a volatile public opinion environment" (p.
ix). However, the nature of the organizational public opinion
environment, its dimensions and characteristics, remains largely
unspecified. While the term "public opinion environment" appears
intermittently in scholarly and trade publications, the dimensions
and characteristics of this aspect of organizational environments
remain largely unspecified.
The contention that the economic and social stability of an
organization of any type depends on the attitudes and opinions of
multiple publics; in other words, the public opinion environment is
fundamental to public relations practice and scholarship (Newsom, et
al., 2000). On closer examination, this implicitly ecological
concept appears opaque and invites a range of questions. What are
the properties of this public opinion environment, and how can its
composition be captured? In what ways does the public opinion
environment change over time, and how can that change be
characterized? What are the impacts of this "volatile" public
opinion environment for organization-public relationships?
This paper explores two challenges—the first is to conceptualize and
measure variation in an important aspect of contemporary
organizational environments, the public opinion environment, and the
second is to investigate the influence of that environment on the
critical and often highly exposed relationships between organizations
and their activist publics. Such publics include employee unions,
consumer advocates, and shareholder associations. In suggesting a
relationship between variation in the environment and the
evolutionary pathways of organizational relationships, the
perspective underpinning this study is both ecological and evolutionary.
Emerging from the contention that the public opinion environment is
an important environmental sector that similarly affects and
constrains an organizational population, this study investigates the
abiding research problem of whether variations in the dimensions of
that environment are associated with the ways in which
organization-activist relationships in that population
evolve. Classic hypotheses were inappropriate for this exploratory
study. Instead, the evolutionary model of organization-activist
relationships (EOAR) is proposed and four propositions advanced.
The Literature
The evolutionary model of organization-activist relationships emerged
primarily from the research and literature of organizational
sociology, public opinion, social movements and public
relations. That literature is now briefly reviewed. Contemporary
perspectives of public opinion theory and research related to the
organizational context of this study are briefly explored. Two
fundamental concepts—publics and the contested issues around which
they organize—are of particular interest. Next, the ecological
perspective in which the concept of the organizational population is
embedded is explicated and the evolutionary approach framing the
discussion of organization-activist relationships explained. The
perspective of public relations as relationship management is
relatively new but important for contemporary public relations theory
and practice, so in the third section of this review the place of
activist publics in the emerging organization-public relationships
research agenda is argued. Finally, the propositions of the
evolutionary model of organization-activist relationships (EOAR)
model are explored.
The Public Opinion Environment of Organizations - An Ecological Perspective
The public opinion environment is conceptualized as an aggregation or
set of issues that concern organizations and their publics. These
issues are shared by organizations that occupy similar niches and are
similarly constrained by a common environmental setting; that is, an
organizational population. In the same way that biologists study the
relationships of populations of organisms to the carrying capacity of
their environments—the capacity of environments to sustain and
constrain the organisms of interest—population ecologists study
populations of organizations and the carrying capacities of their
environments. The ecological approach to understanding organizations
predicts that environmental factors "select" those organizational
characteristics that best fit the environment and that when
environments change, some types or "forms" of organizations become
obsolete and die while others survive and even become more viable
(Aldrich, 1979, 1999; Baum & Singh, 1994; Carroll, 1988; Hannan &
Freeman, 1977, 1989).
The goal of the ecological perspective is to understand the forces
that shape populations of organizations over long time spans (Hannan
& Freeman, 1989). The ecological perspective interprets
organizational change, not as progress, but as simply achieving a
better fit with the environment (Hall, 2002). In response to
criticisms of organizational ecology as deterministic, Hannan and
Freeman (1989) describe their models as probabilistic, arguing that
the individual actions deemed so critical by strategic management
theorists may be important for individual organizations and their
departments but are much less important for the population of
organizations in which that organization is situated.
Ecological research emerges from longitudinal studies, and strongly
comparable empirical findings across studies are delivered by
organizational ecologists because they are "consistently using the
same essential variable definitions and measurements" (Lewin &
Volberda, 1999, p. 519). Organizational ecologists characterize
successful organizations as having structural inertia, meaning that
the capacity of these organizations to adapt is limited, and they
adapt slowly, if at all (Hannan & Freeman, 1989). In contrast,
strategic management theories focus on adaptation within individual
organizations as a function of their internal strategy and design
decisions (Lewin & Volberda, 1999). The second perspective dominates
contemporary public relations theory, much of which assumes that
organizations are highly adaptive, that structural changes can and
should occur in response to environmental variation, and that the
role of public relations is to support and facilitate the
organization as it adjusts and adapts to a changing environment
(Everett, 2001). A fundamental contention of organization ecology is
that successful organizations are not flexible, adapt slowly or not
at all, and are more likely to fail when undertaking fundamental
change (Hannan & Freeman, 1977, 1989). This contention contrasts
starkly with the assumptions of continuous adaptation that prevail in
the ecological models of public relations (Everett, 2001). He argues
that the continuous adaptation processes described in public
relations theory may actually serve to increase the risk of failure
for an organization that has successfully implemented a change
program. These models also fail to accommodate the role of selection
in describing the relationship between organizational environments
and the direction and implementation of the public relations
activities and strategies of organizations (Everett, 2001).
By acknowledging the power of other organizations in the environment,
the ecological perspective counters and offers correctives to public
relations research that treats the individual organization as an
actor without a setting and other actors (Cheney & Vibbert,
1987). In addition to providing the organizational population as a
level of analysis, the ecological perspective challenges traditional
approaches to public relations theory building. This perspective
provides a contrasting viewpoint from which to understand the
interplay between environments, organizations, and publics by
focusing on the specific associations between variations in one
important sector, the public opinion environment, and the evidence of
relationships that similarly constrained organizations have with
their activist publics.
Publics and Issues
Publics and issues are "core concepts in public relations" (Botan &
Taylor, 2004, p. 654) and both are central to this conceptualization
of the public opinion environment. An issue is created when one or
more human agents attach significance to a situation or perceived
problem (Crable & Vibbert, 1985). Issues are contested because they
concern the self-interests of key publics, leading them to support or
to oppose the actions and policies of organizations (Heath & Douglas,
1990, 1991). Organizations and their publics share concerns for
these issues, even though their positions are often very different
(Heath & Douglas, 1990, 1991). Although often conceptualized and
described in quite singular terms, issues frequently demand the
attention of many organizations and a multitude of publics (Heath,
1997; Smith, 1996; Smith & Ferguson, 2001). In ecological terms,
issues are shared by organizations that occupy similar niches and are
similarly constrained by a common environmental setting. This idea
is effectively captured by the organizational population concept.
Activists, together with other important but excluded publics, are
not adequately accommodated within established public relations
theory and research agendas, and organization-activist relationships
are an important but neglected subset of organization-public
relationships (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000; Holtzhausen, 2000; Karlberg,
1996). The "organization-centric" approach to understanding
activists as organizational problems, has been extensively
criticized. Dozier and Lauzen (2000) and Karlberg (1996) asserted
that the instrumental bias evident in public relations research into
organization-activist public relationships has contributed to a
predominantly partisan body of knowledge that seeks to prescribe
organizational "solutions" to activist "problems." Activism in
organization-public relationships is most often treated in the public
relations research literature as undesirable for the
organization. Models describing this phenomenon are useful only when
they contribute to the organization's capacity to control and limit
activism (Grunig, 1992; Grunig & Grunig, 1997; Heath, 1997).
Following Dewey's (1927) definition of publics as groups of people
who see they have a common interest with respect to an organization
and that endeavor "to act through suitable structures and thus to
organize itself for oversight and regulation" (p. 29), the
perspective of this research is that activist publics, like all other
publics, are best understood as a process rather than a "thing"
(Botan & Soto, 1988; Botan & Taylor, 2004). Publics "share
interpretations of events and actions in their environment. When
these interpretations lead to something the public wants addressed,
then an issue exists" (Botan & Taylor, p. 655). Activist publics
organize around issues and issues are created when "one or more human
agents attaches significance to a situation or perceived problem"
(Crable & Vibbert, 1985, p. 5). This perspective has more utility
for public relations than the description of activist "groups" as a
hostile part of the organizational environment. Such a distinction
is problematic and redundant in many important contexts. For
example, while an employee union is clearly a separate organization,
the organizational employees they represent, including those who
might be actively seeking some measure of organizational change are
clearly "internal" publics. The problem of distinguishing between who
or what belongs to the organization, and who or what is part of its
environment, is resolved by conceptualizing activists first and
foremost, as publics. In other words, while the activist group is
always an activist public, the activist public is not always an
activist group or organization.
The Evolutionary Approach
The challenge of detecting associations between environmental
variations and variations in the structural or behavioral attributes
of organizations is an evolutionary one. To adapt Hutchinson's
metaphor (1965), the public opinion environment of the organizational
population is the "ecological theatre" in which the particular
"evolutionary play" of interest is the evolving organization-activist
relationships in the population. The evolutionary approach is evident
in this study at several levels. First, it frames the primary
research problem, which investigates the associations, if any,
between external variation in the public opinion environment of an
organizational population and the evolution of organization-activist
relationships within that population. Second, implicit in such a
framework is the identification of organization-activist
relationships in the population as units of selection, the
observation of which helps us to explore their evolution. Third,
this study applies the evolutionary process of transformation to
describe an observable change in the organization-activist
relationships in the population. It anticipates that, at the
population level of analysis, variations in organization-activist
relationships emerge over time in association with variations in the
public opinion environment.
Evolutionary ecology describes the study of ecological processes in
an evolutionary setting (Haila, 1990), and ecological and
evolutionary arguments ask complementary questions about the same
historical processes (Singh, 1990). Aldrich (1999) contended that
the evolutionary approach provided a generic framework for
understanding social change and was an overarching framework for
other approaches to organizational theory. McKelvey (1994) argued
that the theory of competition elaborated by evolutionary ecologists
is much less ideological than that posed by economists because it
does not rest on so many assumptions about human behavior and rationality.
For evolution to occur there must be variations, stable aspects of
the environment differentially selecting from these variations, and
retention processes that hold on to selected variations (Campbell,
1969). Because every new mutation represents the failure of
previously selected forms to be reproduced, variation is inherently
at odds with retention (Campbell, 1969). Further, in arguing for the
applicability of the evolutionary approach to organizational theory,
Allard (1967), Campbell (1969), and later Aldrich (1999) described
these mechanisms—variation, selection, and retention—as generic and
not limited to biological systems. Aldrich, for instance, argued that
these generic processes generate the "critical events occurring in
the life histories of organizational entities" (p. 20) and subsuming
other change processes.
An evolutionary perspective demands that what is being selected be
carefully considered. Selection occurs at two levels: bounded
entities such as groups and organizations engaging in competition and
cooperation, and the routines, operating procedures, and competencies
undertaken by these bounded entities (Aldrich, 1999; Baum & Singh,
1994). Organizations can be viewed as "a mix of routines and
competencies that can vary somewhat independently of one another and
are thus available for selective retention" (Aldrich, p.
36). Organizations are therefore the temporary repositories of
competencies and routines that are held by their members and embedded
in their technologies, material artefacts, and other structures and
processes. Their relationships can be found within the structures
and processes of organizations.
Just as organizations are embedded within populations of like
organizations, so too are the relationships organizations have with
activist publics and others. Organizational relationships diffuse
variations (Burns & Wholey, 1993; Leonard-Barton, 1995), and
"within-population" relationships "can be a route through which
successful routines are transferred" (Aldrich, 1999, p. 236). The
research problem addressed here investigates whether variations in
organization-activist relationships within the focal organizational
population emerge over time in response to variations in the public
opinion environment. Selection and retention of some variations
occur, and organization-activist relationships undergo transformation
if, and when, a major change in the relationship occurs.
The Place of Relationships in Public Relations
Most contemporary approaches to exploring organizational
relationships are useful for capturing the state of a focal
organizational relationship at a point in time or over a limited
period (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000a; Huang, 1997,
2001). However, such approaches are not as useful for exploring the
relationships at the organizational population level of analysis for
a timeframe adequate to that demanded by ecological and evolutionary
perspectives. While organizational relationships are almost
exclusively studied and understood using the perceptions of the
parties in the relationships, Broom et al. (1997, 2000) provided a
model for identifying relationship processes and structures at the
organization-public level of analysis. Drawing extensively from the
interpersonal and interorganizational literature, they argued that
organization-public relationships can be described and studied as
objective phenomena that are not limited to the subjective
experiences of individual participants, and have properties other
than the perceptions of those involved (Broom et al., 1997,
2000). This perspective offers the most utility for describing the
evolution of organization-activist relationships.
Emerging predominantly from interorganizational relationship theory
(Aldrich, 1979; Galaskiewicz, 1985; Van de Ven, 1976), Broom et al.
(1997) argued that organization-public relationships are the dynamic
results of exchanges and reciprocity, and that they are able to be
described at any given point in time. They offered the following definition:
Organization-public relationships are represented by the patterns of
interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage between an
organization and its publics. These relationships have properties
that are distinct from the identities, attributes, and perceptions of
the individuals and social collectivities in the
relationships. Though dynamic in nature, organization-public
relationships can be described at a single point in time and tracked
over time (2000, p.18).
Others have taken a broader approach to defining organization-public
relationships. Ledingham and Bruning (1998), for instance, defined
organization-public relationships as the state existing between an
organization and its key publics "in which the actions of either
entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural
well-being of the other entity" (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, p.
62). They also offer a definition of the "ideal"
organization-public relationship as "the state that exists between an
organization and its key publics that provides economic, social,
political and/or cultural benefits to all parties involved and is
characterized by mutual positive regard" (p. 62). Based on extensive
conceptual development and empirical data, Huang (1998) defined
organization-public relationships as "the degree that the
organization and its publics trust one another, agree on one has
rightful power to influence, experience satisfaction with each other,
and commit oneself to one another" (p. 12). Grunig and Huang (2000)
specified the properties defining relationships, especially good
relationships, and proposed that the most important dimensions of
relationships are control, mutuality, trust, relational satisfaction,
and relational commitment and goal attainment.
While the definitions and approaches offered by Ledingham & Bruning
(1998, 2000a, 2000b), Huang (1997, 2001) and Grunig & Huang (2000)
are useful for understanding organization-public relationships from
the perspective of individuals involved in these relationships, they
have limited utility for exploring the relationships within an
organizational population over a period of time. Such approaches
have no utility for exploring relationships at the organizational
population level of analysis and are also inadequate when the
theoretical paradigm demands more than a snapshot in time.
The Evolutionary Model of Organization-Activist Relationships (EOAR)
The propositions of the EOAR model are detailed in Figure 1. One of
the challenges of this study was to locate a meaningful and
practicable way of describing the evolving organization-activist
relationships at the population level of analysis. The nature of
organization-activist relationships presupposes a degree of conflict
as activists typically seek to precipitate or prevent organizational
change and organizations resist activist pressures (Grunig, 1992;
Smith & Ferguson, 2001). Measures may be applied over time to
describe the degree of conflict and cooperation in organizational
relationships (Ehling, 1992). The description of cooperation as the
natural opposite of conflict (Ehling, 1992; Levinger & Rubin, 1994)
provides a precedent for the conflict continuum described in Table 1
and embedded in the EOAR model (see Figure 1). These two ends of
this continuum describe extreme and probably rare cases that provide
useful theoretical boundaries but are not expected to represent the
state of most organization-activist relationships; as Murphy (1991)
explained, most situations "are located somewhere along the
continuum" (p. 126).
-------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
-------------------------------------------------
The concept of information flows is applied in this study to locate
the state of these relationships on a conflict
continuum. Information flows are essential processes within all
organizational relationships (Broom et al., 1997, 2000) and more
specifically within the organization-activist relationships
considered in this study. Because of their role in covering the
issues around which activists organize, the news media have an
important role in organization-activist relationships, and evidence
of these relationships is frequently visible in news media coverage
(Grunig, 1992; Heath, 1997; Huang, 1997; Olien, Tichenor, & Donahue,
1989, 1995; Smith & Ferguson, 2001). These information flows provide
cues about the state of relationships to the organizations and
activists and to interested observers. The assumptions made to
operationalize the conflict continuum are that organizations and
activists signal the state of their relationships in public
statements about their shared issues of concern and that some of
these statements are reported by the news media. It is from this
evidence that conclusions about the degree of conflict or cooperation
are drawn.
The dimensions of the public opinion environment organizing the EOAR
model are now advanced. These dimensions—stability, complexity,
intensity, and direction—provide the apparatus with which variations
in the public opinion environment of the focal organizational
population are identified and measured. The foundations for the
propositions of this model are now discussed (see Figure 1).
-------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
-------------------------------------------------
Stability of organizational environments and evolving
organization-activist relationships. One of the primary dimensions of
environments is the extent to which they are static or dynamic
(Duncan, 1972). Stability or instability typically "refers to the
extent of turnover of elements or parts of the environment" (Hall,
2002, p. 212). Much of the literature in organization theory
suggests that turnover, absence of pattern, and unpredictability are
the best measures of environmental stability-instability (Dess &
Beard, 1984). Stable and certain environments generate low levels of
diversity (Hannan & Freeman, 1989), and a less diverse environment is
simpler for organizations to operate within since they can develop
standardized ways of responding (Hall, 2002).
The concept of stability is applied here to describe the turnover of
issues in the issue set comprising the public opinion environment of
the focal organizational population. A stable public opinion
environment is evident when the turnover of issues in the issue set
is very low. Conversely, an unstable public opinion environment is
characterized by high issue turnover. The turnover of issues has two
critical implications for organization-activist
relationships. First, the extent and standardization of relationship
routines and interactions are linked to environmental
certainty. Second, issue longevity affects the duration of the
relationships around which they are organized, creating opportunities
for issue resolution.
When the issue set in the public opinion environment is stable,
allowing organizations and activist publics to organize their
interactions and establish routines that require some degree of
cooperation in relation to issues of concern, these relationships are
more likely to move toward a cooperative state. In an unstable
public opinion environment in which issue turnover is high,
uncertainty is high, and routines and standards in relationships are
not evident, the opportunity and motive to advance the resolution of
issues cooperatively are more limited. Organization-activist
relationships within the focal population are therefore expected to
move toward a conflict state in an unstable public opinion environment.
The stability proposition. The first proposition of the EOAR model
is, therefore, that as the stability of the issue set in the public
opinion environment increases, organization-activist relationships in
the population move toward a cooperative state.
Complexity of organizational environments and evolving
organization-activist relationships. Environmental complexity
describes the number and variety of activities and situations with
which organizations must interconnect over time (Hall, 2002). Dess
and Beard (1984) applied the term complexity to capture the degree to
which organizational environments are heterogeneous or homogeneous
and the extent to which they are concentrated or dispersed. In the
public opinion environment of an organizational population, as the
number and diversity of issues to be negotiated increases, so too
does the complexity of interactions demanded. In this study,
complexity is described by the number of issues in the issue set with
which the organizational population must contend. Complexity is
described by the number of issues of concern to the organizational
population and is measured by the number of issues in the issue set
at intervals over time. The number of issues in the issue set
impacts the organizational population and its activist relationships
in two ways. First, attempts to negotiate, resolve, or deal in other
ways with issues demand the dedication of people, time, and other
organizational resources. More issues means higher demands on
organizational resources, and as these resources are spread more
thinly, the resolution of some issues are given lower priority
(Heath, 1997). Second, activist publics organize around
issues. More issues means more activist publics vying to advance
their interests and more relationships for the organizational
population to sustain. Again, the increasing complexity of issues
adds pressure to the finite human and other resources of the
organizational population.
An increasingly complex public opinion environment is evident when
the number of issues multiplies, competition for the organizational
and other resources rises, and the number of relationships to
negotiate increases. Under such conditions of increasing issue-set
complexity, the opportunity to deal with issues of mutual concern
cooperatively is constrained, and organization-activist relationships
in the focal population are more likely to move toward a conflict
state. When issue-set complexity decreases and fewer issues comprise
the issue set, organization-activist relationships are more likely to
move toward a cooperative state.
The complexity proposition. Emerging from this discussion is the
second proposition of the EAOR model: as the complexity of the issue
set in the public opinion environment increases,
organization-activist relationships in the population move toward a
conflict state.
Intensity of organizational environments and evolving
organization-activist relationships. The third dimension of the
public opinion environment, intensity, is derived from the public
opinion literature and describes how strongly opinions are held by
publics (Glynn, Herbst, O'Keefe & Shapiro, 1999). From an ecological
perspective, the intensity of the public opinion environment of an
organizational population is embedded in the concept of legitimacy,
which is "a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of
an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially
constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions"
(Suchman, 1995, p. 574).
Intensity is applied here as an indicator of the extent of the public
opinion environment confronting the organizational population and is
described by the volume of media coverage of issues in the issue set.
Discussions of intensity and the evolving organization-relationship
revolve around two related points. First, there is consistent
evidence of a relationship between the volume of media coverage and
the level of public concern for an issue (McCombs & Shaw, 1972;
Neuman, 1990). Second, increased media coverage is an important
indicator of an expanding audience for issues, and conflicting
parties are likely to take tougher and more extreme positions as the
size of the audience grows (Levinger & Rubin, 1994). Under
conditions of sustained intensity, the audience expands, and
opportunities for organizations and their activist publics to deal
cooperatively with their issues of mutual concern decline.
The intensity proposition. Therefore, the third proposition of the
EOAR model is that as the intensity of the issue set in the public
opinion environment increases, organization-activist relationships in
the population move toward a conflict state.
Direction of organizational environments and evolving
organization-activist relationships. The direction dimension is
derived from the public opinion literature and describes where people
position themselves in relation to issues (Glynn et al., 1999). Using
the favorability of media coverage as an indicator of public opinion,
direction is applied to describe the degree to which the activities
of organizations attract public support or favor (Deegan, Rankin &
Voght, 2000; Deegan, Rankin & Tobin, 2002; Deephouse,
2000). Strongly positive public opinion about organizational
activities and interests contributes to increased credibility and
acceptance, and these are important indicators of organizational
legitimacy (Deegan et al., 2002).
Direction is applied here to capture the favorability of the focal
organizational population's public opinion environment as described
by the extent to which the media coverage of the organizational
population is favorable. A favorable public opinion environment is
one in which media coverage of issues in the issue set is
predominantly positive for the organizational population, and an
unfavorable public opinion environment is evident when media coverage
of issues is primarily negative.
In the context of organization-activist relationships, it is
anticipated that when organizational populations experience
predominantly negative media coverage, that is, an unfavorable public
opinion environment, they address this situation by attempting to
increase their degree of cooperation with their activist publics. As
the public opinion environment becomes more favorable, the degree of
cooperation in organization-activist relationships decreases as the
pressure for the organizational population to resolve issues reduces.
The direction proposition. The fourth and final proposition of the
EOAR model is that as the direction of the issue set in the public
opinion environment becomes less favorable, organization-activist
relationships in the population move toward a cooperative state.
Method
The theoretical orientation of this study excludes static or
cross-sectional research approaches and sets the imperative for a
methodology that is simultaneously exploratory and longitudinal. The
comparative case study method was selected as an appropriate
framework with which to describe and explore the public opinion
environment of the focal population and the organization-activist
relationships embedded in that setting. To be effective, comparative
case studies must permit structured and focused comparisons, and this
demands the disciplined and systematic collection of data (George &
McKeown, 1985; King, Keohane & Verba, 1994; Verba, 1967).
The timeframe. The timeframe imperative is located in the ecological
and evolutionary perspectives of the EOAR model. This study examines
the 21 years following deregulation in 1981, which encompassed
episodes of upheaval and relative stability. Prior to 1981,
significant events in the banking and finance sector included the
passing of the Banking Act 1945, the separation of the Commonwealth
and Reserve Banks in 1959, and the 1974 passage of legislation that
aimed to regulate the activities of non-bank financial institutions
(Thomson & Abbott, 2000). While these events may have provided
useful starting points for a different kind of study, the imperative
of this research is to capture changes in this environment that help
to elaborate the propositions of the EOAR model. The year 1981 is a
logical and pragmatic starting point because of the shift in the
regulatory climate that occurred around that time in response to the
wider social and political changes. Those 21 years are divided into
logically derived and purposively selected case studies representing
three seven-year periods. These three periods constitute loosely
significant and natural boundaries in the life of the organizational
population.
The focal population. Political, economic, cultural, technological,
and other environmental dimensions similarly constrain Australia's
major banks, and while these may be differentiated by their marketing
and operational policies, there are uniform national laws and
regulations to which all must adhere. For the 21 years of interest
to this study and for many preceding years, the major banks operated
within a relatively consistent regulatory environment in which they
were required to abide by federal regulations and report to federally
appointed agencies with responsibilities and powers in place
nationally. Banks are intermittently subject to the attentions of
activist publics, including trade unions, farmer advocacy groups, and
retail consumer associations. Because of the scrutiny historically
paid to the major banks by governments, activists, the media, and
various other interest groups and influencers, rich sources of
accessible data are therefore available to build these case studies.
Units of analysis. The two units of analysis important to this study
are the public opinion environment of the organizational population
and the organization-activist relationships within that
population. To explore the propositions of the EOAR model, I have
operationalised these units of analysis as the issue set for the
major banks and the aggregation of public statements from which the
state of the organization-activist relationships can be interpreted.
Collection procedures. Data were systematically sampled from a
selection of the largest circulating national and state newspapers in
Australia from April, 1981 to October, 2001. The newspapers selected
were The Australian, Australian Financial Review, The Age, Sydney
Morning Herald, and Courier Mail. Data from the nominated print
media sources were extracted systematically from the same two months
every year in each seven-year case study. Every sixth month,
specifically April and October, was selected because of the critical
position of these months for the population before and after the
financial year-end of June 30. These are important months in bank
reporting cycles during which annual results and shareholder meetings
are often conducted or forecast (October) and quarterly results are
posted or projected (April). The data were managed using SPSS for
Windows, version 11.5.
Government and other reports as sources of evidence. To provide a
framework for the interpretation and analysis of the newspaper
coverage, the reports from several major government inquiries,
industry reports, and scholarly articles were reviewed. The primary
source documents were the reports from major Commonwealth government
inquiries, beginning with the Campbell Report in 1981, the Martin
Committee of Review in 1983, the 1991 House of Representatives
Standing committee on Finance and Public Administration (Martin
Parliamentary committee), the Financial System Inquiry of 1996, known
as the Wallis Inquiry, and the Report of the Royal Commission into
HIH Insurance (2003). Submissions made to those inquiries by
industry groups, community and church organizations, and various
activist publics appearing as supplements to these reports were
integral to this phase of evidence gathering. Also important were
news media reports concerning the findings of these committees of
inquiry. From this framework a detailed schedule with which to code
the issue set and to map the nature of bank-activist relationships
was derived and applied to the extraction and analysis of newspaper coverage.
Describing the issue sets. The coding schedule consisted of 24
issue classifications and included three options for the
classification of issues. While many articles described more than one
issue, relatively few articles primarily covered more than three
issues with any degree of depth. The additional resource demands at
both the coding and the analysis phases outweighed the diminishing
benefits of recording more than three issues for each article. This
schedule specified standard publication details for each article,
including source, date, and page number. The articles were coded for
issues evident, the banks named, and the activist publics named. The
content of the article in relation to its direction, favorable or
otherwise, to the major banks was then coded for an overall impression.
Articles were rated as favorable when the major banks were praised
for their actions or associated with positively constructed actions
(Deephouse, 2000) or where the content indicated that the operations,
strategies, or performance of the banks was beneficial to, or in
harmony with, the social environment (Deegan et al., 2002). Articles
were rated as unfavorable when the focal banks were criticized for
their actions or associated with negatively constructed actions that
past research indicated have been found to negatively impact public
opinion (Deegan et al., 2002; Deephouse, 2000). A neutral rating was
given when the article reported performance without any evaluative
modifiers or when there was a balance of favorable and unfavorable
reporting. These articles typically provided straightforward reports
of bank operations, strategies, or performance and were neither
positively nor negatively constructed.
Appropriate reliability checks were undertaken. Holsti's (1969)
coefficient of reliability was applied. The results of those
interrater agreement tests are split into three outcomes for each
case study: publication details and actors (banks and activist
publics), the issue set, and the direction of favorability. For
publication details and actors specified in the article, interrater
reliability was 0.99, 0.99, and 0.98 for case one, two, and three
respectively. The second outcome related to the issues evident in
these articles. For this category, interrater reliability was 0.96
for case one and 0.95 for cases two and three. The interrater
reliability for issue-set direction of favorability was 0.85 for case
one, 0.87 for case two, and 0.78 for case three. While the
interrater reliability was lower for this category, it was considered
acceptable given the exploratory nature of this research (Riffe et
al., 1998; Weber, 1990). Also, when coding for something other than
manifest content, interrater reliability is usually lower (Holsti, 1969).
Describing organization-activist relationships. Concurrent with the
issue-set coding, each recording unit was coded for the state of
organization-activist public relationships in the population. The
recording unit for the organization-activist relationship was defined
as the comments contained within a single sentence that referred to
issues in the issue set and were directly or indirectly attributed to
the major banks or their activist publics; in other words, the
recording units were the direct or indirect quotes reported in
newspaper articles attributed to either banks or activists. The
coding scheme required the coder to specify the standard publication
details as derived from the public opinion environment analysis, to
specify the bank or activist source of the statement, and finally to
specify the relationship as reflecting either a cooperative, a
conflict, or a neutral state. The full text of each public statement
from the sampled articles amounted to 2,175; 5,103; and 4, 646
recording units for analysis for case studies one, two, and three
respectively. The interrater outcomes were 0.87, 0.84, and 0.81 for
cases one, two, and three respectively. Before the data were
entered, the coders reconciled disagreements in one of two ways. If
two of the three coders agreed, the coding decision favored the
majority view. If the coders failed to agree, I reviewed the
statement and made a final decision.
Measurement and Analysis
While the case studies emerged from an extensive data set, each case
is built around 14 data points, specifically 14 months sampled over
seven years. It is only when the three cases were compared across
all 42 months that sufficient data points were available to observe
the presence or absence of significant relationships using
appropriate statistical methods. The stability, intensity,
complexity and direction of the issue sets and the state of the
bank-activist relationships were reported for each case. Variations
in the dimensions of the issue sets between the months sampled and
described the evolving bank-activist relationships were determined.
To assess the issue-set stability, I compared the data for two
months, for example April, 1998 and October, 1998, or October, 1987
and April, 1988, and observed the turnover of issues. For example,
if exactly the same 20 issues appeared in two consecutive months,
stability was recorded as 0.0, that is zero turnover of issues. To
assess issue-set complexity, I extracted the issue sets for each
month specified in each case study, as described by frequency reports
on the issues evident. I then made a simple calculation of the
number of different issues appearing in each of the selected
months. Complexity was therefore a calculation of the number of
different issues evident during each month selected. Issue-set
intensity was assessed by making a simple calculation of the number
of articles appearing in each of the selected months. To assess
issue-set direction, articles were coded as favorable (1),
unfavorable (-1), or neutral (0) to the organizational
population. Each article was given equal weight in the measure. For
each period, I aggregated the recording units for analysis using the
coefficient of imbalance originally developed by Janis and Fadner
(1965) to analyze wartime propaganda. I applied this coefficient for
this study to measure the relative proportion of favorable to
unfavorable articles while controlling for the overall volume of
articles. Its formula is:
(f2 – fu)/(total) 2 if f > u; OR 0 if f = u; OR (fu-u2) / (total)2 if u> f
In a given period, "f" equals the number of favorable recording
units, "u" equals the number of unfavorable recording units, and
total equals the sum of the number of favorable, unfavorable and
neutral recording units (Deephouse, 2000; Janis & Fadner, 1965). This
calculation was made for each of the selected months in each case study.
To measure the organization-activist relationship state,
relationship-signaling statements were coded as indicating
cooperation (1), conflict (-1) or neutral (0). I then aggregated the
scores for the months selected. Interpretations as to the state of
these relationships emerged from descriptive and enumerative
approaches to measurement. First, for each month, I aggregated the
total frequencies of conflict, cooperative, and neutral statements
and made notes describing the relationship state using a standardized
set of phrases, such as "very low conflict, some cooperation
evident—moving toward a co-operative state from low to very low. On
the basis of this detailed description, I interpreted whether the
relationship state was moving toward a conflict or a cooperative
state or remaining static. Second, to effectively measure the
relative proportion of statements reflecting a conflict state in
comparison to those reflecting a cooperative state and controlling
for the overall volume of statements, I applied Janis and Fadner's
(1965) coefficient of imbalance. The outcomes for each month were
used to place the relationship on the continuum between -1 (total
conflict) and 1 (total cooperation).
The outcomes of both descriptive and enumerate approaches in order to
better understand the data set. While the coefficient of imbalance
provides a useful measure of the relationship state, the descriptive
approach provides a more detailed understanding of this data in
relation to the interplay between the two groups, banks and
activists, and variations in manifest conflict, cooperation, and
neutrality. These insights are invaluable for interpreting the
results of the analysis in relation to the propositions of the EOAR model.
To analyze these separate and distinct sets of data—the issue set
and bank-activist relationships—I organized the outcomes for each
issue-set dimension and for the bank-activist relationships for each
case using tables and graphs (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I then made
interpretations about the extent to which the outcomes support,
oppose, or are neutral in relation to the propositions of the EOAR
model. For example, if the intensity proposition of the EOAR model
was supported in 7 of the 14 months sampled, that is, if intensity
increased and bank-activist relationships moved toward conflict, or
intensity decreased and the relationships moved toward cooperation,
the result was reported as follows: "Support for the intensity
proposition is evident in 50% of the months sampled (n = 7)."
In the second, comparative phase of this analysis, I explored the
data for evidence of any statistically significant associations
between variations in issue-set stability, complexity, intensity and
direction, and the bank-activist relationships. Using the Pearson
product-moment correlation, I analyzed the data for all 42 months
sampled across the three case studies for significant
relationships. These outcomes were intended only to supplement this
exploration given the small sample size and were thus treated
conservatively. The results of the data analysis for each case study
and the comparison of all three case studies are now reported.
Results
Stability and Evolving Bank-Activist Relationships
The first proposition of the EOAR model contends that, as the
stability of the issue set in the public opinion environment
increased, organization-activist relationships in the population
moved toward a cooperative state. Using the Pearson product-moment
correlation, no significant relationship emerged between variations
in issue-set stability and the location of bank-activist
relationships on the conflict continuum. To further explore the
stability proposition, the bank-activist relationship data was
analyzed using the raw frequencies of conflict, cooperative, and
neutral statements. Some significant relationships emerged between
variations in issue-set stability and the frequencies of these
statements. As issue-set stability decreased and issue turnover
increased, the number of cooperative statements made by the banks
increased, r = -0.327, p < 0.05 (one-tailed), as did the frequency of
conflict statements made by the activists, r = -0.258, p < 0.05
(one-tailed). When the frequencies for conflict, cooperative, and
neutral statements from both banks and activists were aggregated,
significant relationships between issue-set stability and the
frequencies of neutral and cooperative statements emerged. When
issue stability decreased, the frequency of neutral statements
increased, r = -0.261, p < 0.05 (one-tailed), as did the frequency of
cooperative statements r = -0.287, p < 0.05 (one-tailed).
When the stability of the issue set decreased and there was an
increase in the turnover of issues in the issue set, the banks were
more likely to make cooperative and neutral statements, while the
activists were more likely to make statements indicating a conflict state.
Complexity and Evolving Bank-Activist Relationships
The complexity proposition of the EAOR model contends that, as the
number of issues in the public opinion environment increased, as
described by the issue set, organization-activist relationships in
the population moved toward a conflict state. The complexity
proposition was not supported. To further explore the complexity
proposition, raw frequencies of conflict, cooperative, and neutral
statements were analyzed using the Pearson product-moment
correlation. Significant relationships emerged between variations in
issue-set complexity and the frequencies of conflict, cooperative,
and neutral statements from which conclusions about the state of
bank-activist relationships were derived. As issue-set complexity
increased, so, too, did the total number of conflict, cooperative,
and neutral statements, r = 0.567, p < 0.01 (one-tailed). As
complexity increased, both banks and activists tended to generate
more relationship-signaling statements.
Other ways to effectively describe the complexity of the issue set
were considered. The concept of complexity as the number of
activists that the banks must engage with, or respond to, over issues
of concern was explored. The foundations of this conceptualization
of complexity emerged from the interorganizational relationship
literature, in which the number of relationships an organization must
sustain is considered to be an important aspect of organizational
environments (Aldrich, 1979; Broom et al., 1997, 2000; Hall, 2002;
Van de Ven, 1976). The complexity of activist publics was therefore
operationalized as the number of bank-activist relationships in the
issue set, as described by the number of activist publics mentioned
in the print media coverage. The "complexity of activist
relationships" proposition anticipated that any increase in the
frequencies with which activist publics were mentioned would be
associated with bank-activist relationships moving toward a conflict
state, and any decrease would be associated with moves toward a
cooperative state. The frequencies with which activist publics were
mentioned were extracted and aggregated for each month, and the
outcomes explored in relation to this "complexity of activist
relationships" proposition. A significant, but not strong
relationship was detected between the complexity of activist
relationships and the total bank-activist relationship outcome, r =
-0.280, p < 0.05 (one-tailed).
Intensity and Evolving Bank-Activist Relationships
The intensity proposition of the EOAR model contended that, as the
intensity of the public opinion environment increased,
organization-activist relationships in the population moved toward a
conflict state, and as issue-set intensity decreased, these
relationships moved toward a cooperative state.
Issue-set intensity varied from a low of 18 articles in April of 1981
to a high of 356 articles in April of 1992. Using the Pearson
product-moment correlation, I could not detect significant
relationships between the intensity of the issue set and the location
of bank-activist relationships on the conflict continuum. Again,
this outcome must be treated with caution and is intended only to
supplement this exploration given the small sample size.
As with the stability and complexity dimensions, significant
relationships emerged between intensity and the frequency of conflict
statements r = 0.554, p < 0.01 (one-tailed), the frequency of
cooperative statements r = 0.444, p < 0.01 (one-tailed), and the
frequency of neutral statements r = 0.630, p < 0.01 (one-tailed). It
is important not to overstate the significance of this
outcome. Intensity described the volume of media coverage,
operationalised in this study by the frequency of newspaper
articles. Frequencies of bank and activist relationship-signaling
statements were extracted from those articles. The fact that the
volume of articles and the frequencies of statements increased and
decreased in tandem adds little value to this analysis. However, it
is important to note that when the increase or decrease in intensity
was more extreme, that is more substantial in range, bank-activist
relationships were more likely to move along the conflict continuum
toward conflict or toward cooperation in the ways anticipated by the
propositions of the EOAR model.
Direction and Evolving Bank-Activist Relationships
The direction proposition anticipates that as the public opinion
environment becomes less favorable, organization-activist
relationships in the population move toward a cooperative state. The
direction proposition was supported in just 14.6% of the months
analyzed (n = 6) for all three case studies. In each case, the
evidence supported the opposite contention; in other words, as
issue-set direction varied from favorable to unfavorable,
bank-activist relationships were more likely to show evidence of
movement toward a conflict state. When I explored the 1981-2001 data
using the Pearson product-moment correlation, significant
relationships between the direction of the issue set and the
frequencies of relationship-signaling statements were
evident. Significant relationships emerged between direction and the
frequency of conflict statements r = -0.613, p < 0.01 (one-tailed),
the frequency of cooperative statements r = -0.395, p < 0.01
(one-tailed), and the frequency of neutral statements r = -0.358, p <
0.01 (one-tailed). As the direction of the issue set became less
favorable, the banks generated more cooperative, conflict, and
neutral statements, and the banks made fewer relationship-signaling
statements when the direction was more favorable, r = -0.445, p <
0.01 (one-tailed). The activists responded similarly with more or
less relationship-signaling statements associated with issue-set
direction, r = -0.507, p < 0.01 (one-tailed).
Evidence therefore emerged to support the contention that, as the
issue set grew more unfavorable, the frequency of
relationship-signaling statements increased. In other words, when
the anticipated associations between issue-set favorability and
bank-activist relationships were reversed, the revised proposition
was well supported.
Discussion
When organization-activist relationships are described at the
population level of analysis, the required lens is necessarily long,
and the resulting description is a landscape of change rather than
the close-up portrait more familiar to public relations
research. Some important aspects of the variation, selection,
retention, and transformation of organization-activist relationships
were evident using the lens provided by the conflict continuum and
the relationship-signaling statements comprising that continuum. The
findings are summarized in Figure 2 and suggest that the evolving
bank-activist relationships are more tightly coupled to the
complexity of activist relationships (number of activist publics),
direction (favorability), and intensity (volume of media coverage),
than to the stability (issue turnover) and complexity (number of
issues) dimensions. The revised EOAR model is described in Figure 3.
-------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 3 about here
-------------------------------------------------
The Stability Proposition
The stability propositions of the EOAR model anticipated that, as the
issue set stabilized and the turnover of issues decreased,
organization-activist relationships in the population moved toward a
cooperative state. Although variations in issue-set turnover were
not consistently associated with moves toward or away from a conflict
state, as anticipated by the EOAR model, some evidence of significant
relationships emerged. As the issue set became more unstable and the
turnover of issues in the issue set increased, relationship-signaling
statements from both banks and activists increased in
frequency. More specifically, as the stability of the issue set
decreased, the major banks were more likely to generate statements
signaling a cooperative relationship state, while their activist
publics were more likely to generate statements signaling conflict.
Two explanations are offered for the lack of support for the
stability proposition. First, in contrast to an issue set that
varies frequently, a stable issue set can provide more opportunities
for organizations and activists to gather resources and to advance
their positions on issues of mutual concern. Second, when issue
turnover is higher, the more intermittent media coverage given to
issues heightens the challenge for organizations and activists to
attract interest to their issues of concern, and this limits the
evidence available to track the evolving relationships.
One further explanation for the lack of consistent support for the
association between a stable public opinion environment and
heightened relationship conflict is that, as the issues in the issue
set stabilized, organizations and activists had more opportunity to
pursue issues of mutual concern, to marshal resources, and to advance
and substantiate more sophisticated arguments. In other words, a
stable issue set can provide a more conducive environment for a
heightened conflict state as activists and organizations have further
opportunities to advance their positions on issues of mutual
concern—positions that are frequently in opposition and therefore
predisposed to conflict. With the time and opportunity provided by
issue-set stability, the relationships between the banks and
activists become more visible in media coverage.
Furthermore, in an unstable public opinion environment characterized
by higher issue turnover, it is also potentially difficult for
activist publics to build and sustain public interest using the more
intermittent media coverage available as attention shifts from one
issue to the next. Even if the relationships are in a heightened
state of conflict during times of higher issue turnover, less
consistent media coverage of the issues of concern means fewer
relationship-signaling statements and therefore more limited evidence
from which to track the relationships.
The Complexity Proposition
The complexity proposition of the EOAR model contends that, as
issue-set complexity increased, organization-activist relationships
moved toward a conflict state, and as complexity decreased, these
relationships moved toward a cooperative state on the conflict
continuum. The findings of this study do not support these
associations. Variations in other dimensions of the public opinion
environment were more closely associated with the evolving
organization-activist relationships. However, variations in the
number of issues were associated with the volume of
relationship-signaling statements these organizations and activists
generated.
Several important points emerge from the consideration of the
findings in relation to this proposition. First, the inertia of the
issue set—that is, the consistency of the issue set of the focal
population—was not anticipated. Because of this inertia, the range
of variation evident in the issue set was limited, particularly
between the first and third case studies when the number of issues
varied only slightly between the months sampled. Second, variations
in the number of issues are already accounted for in the stability
dimension, and as a single dimension, complexity becomes less useful
when variations in complexity are more limited. Third, complexity
can be conceptualized in other ways. Two important ways to describe
complexity are the number of relationships with which organizations
must contend (Hall, 2002; C. Oliver, 1990) and the concentration or
dispersion of an environmental sector (Aldrich, 1979; Dess & Beard,
1984). The number of activist publics responding to, or engaging
with, issues of concern was operationalized by assessing the
frequency with which activist publics are mentioned. In a public
opinion environment where complexity increases, as described by the
number of activist relationships within the organizational
population, the strain on organizational resources also
increases. Organizations must then negotiate with multiple publics,
either by spreading resources or by prioritizing their publics (Heath, 1997).
Specified as one of the important properties of environmental
variation, concentration-dispersion is defined from an ecological
perspective as the degree to which resources are evenly distributed
or concentrated in particular locations (Aldrich, 1979; Dess & Beard,
1984). In the context of the public opinion environment,
concentration can be conceptualized on a continuum from highly
concentrated to highly dispersed and described by the relative
proportions of media coverage given to each issue. A concentrated
issue set, therefore, is one in which a few dominant issues attract
most of the media coverage, and in a dispersed issue set, public
attention is evenly distributed across most issues. A dispersed
issue set is characterized by the absence of dominant issues, with
media coverage spread evenly across the issue set.
The concentration-dispersion aspect of issue-set complexity was not
explicitly addressed in the original complexity
proposition. However, preliminary consideration of the concentration
of the issue set using the data in this study indicated at face value
that the higher the concentration of the issue set, the more likely
there would be evidence of a heightened state of conflict in the
focal bank-activist relationships. Both concentrated and dispersed
issue sets were observed, and variations were evident in the degree
to which the issue set was more or less concentrated over
time. Because the number of issues addressed could not adequately
capture issue-set complexity and because there were evident
variations in issue-set concentration over time, this aspect of
complexity is included in the revised EOAR model (see Figure 3).
Revised Proposition 1
As the number of activist publics organized by the issue set
increases, organization-activist relationships move toward a conflict
state. When the number of activist publics organized by the issue
set decreases, organization-activist relationships move toward a
cooperative state on the conflict continuum.
Revised Proposition 2
As the concentration-dispersion of the issue set becomes more
variable, as described by the range of variation in the proportion of
media coverage given to issues, organization-activist relationships
move toward a conflict state.
The Intensity Proposition
The intensity proposition of the EOAR model anticipates that as
issue-set intensity increases, bank-activist relationships in the
population move toward a conflict state, and when issue-set intensity
decreases and the volume of media coverage declines, these same
relationships move toward a cooperative state. Limited support for
the anticipated associations between important relationship outcomes
was most evident from 1988 to 1994. However, evidence emerged to
suggest that these associations were more consistent when variations
in issue-set intensity were extreme and more random when variations
in intensity were small or moderate. While the original intensity
proposition accounted for variations in intensity, it did not
differentiate between marginal and substantial variations. The range
of variation is thus made explicit in the revised intensity
proposition of the EOAR model. This anticipates that a more
consistent relationship between variations in issue-set intensity and
the evolution of organization-activist relationships is likely when
the variations in intensity are more extreme (see Figure 3).
Revised Proposition 3
As variations in issue-set intensity become more extreme in range,
organization-activist relationships are more likely to move toward a
conflict or cooperative state in anticipated ways. In other words,
as issue-set intensity increases, organization-activist relationships
move toward a conflict state, and as issue-set intensity decreases,
organization-activist relationships move toward a cooperative
state. When variations in issue-set intensity decrease and the range
of variation is small or moderate, the anticipated associations with
the state of organization-activist relationships are less evident.
The Direction Proposition
The direction proposition of the EOAR model contends that as the
public opinion environment becomes less favorable,
organization-activist relationships in the population move toward a
cooperative state. The associations between bank-activist
relationships and the direction propositions of the EOAR were not
supported as anticipated. Instead, comparisons of issue-set
direction for all three case studies supported the opposite
contention; when the issue set became less favorable, bank-activist
relationships moved toward a conflict state.
While they were quoted more frequently and more extensively, the
major banks operated within a consistently unfavorable public opinion
environment. In exploring this finding, it is important to reiterate
that many of the articles coded as unfavorable did not quote activist
publics, but instead included commentary reporting the perspectives
of activists or other actors, such as politicians and
bureaucrats. Journalists authoring opinion pieces and editorials
made critical comments about the major banks, and these contributed
to the direction of the public opinion environment, which was most
often unfavorable. The focus of media coverage in these case studies
was very clearly on the dominant powers, the major banks, with the
activities and comments of activist groups selectively and, in
relative terms, minimally reported. This gave the appearance of
balanced reporting at times, but when total media coverage is
systematically sampled, the imbalance evident illustrates the extent
to which these publics were kept at the margins of mainstream
discourse. What transpired in this media coverage could quite
reasonably be described as the ongoing discourse between a select
group of journalists, bankers, bureaucrats, and politicians that was
occasionally interrupted by comments from activists.
The direction proposition correctly anticipated that when the
direction of the public opinion environment became unfavorable, the
banks would respond by making fewer conflict statements and more
cooperative and neutral statements. While more evidence of
cooperation in the form of cooperative statements from banks was
apparent in the findings of this study, these statements alone were
not enough to move the bank-activist relationship toward a
cooperative state (see Figure 3).
Revised Proposition 4
As the direction of the issue set in the public opinion environment
becomes less favorable, organization-activist relationships in the
population move toward a conflict state, and as that environment
becomes more favorable, organization-activist relationships in the
population move toward a cooperative state.
Limitations
A fundamental challenge confronted in this study was to meet the
imperatives imposed by the ecological and evolutionary lens, as well
as the demands of the comparative case study approach. The former
demanded that the phenomena of interest be examined over a timeframe
adequate for observing change at the population level of analysis,
and the latter demanded thick, rich description. In negotiating the
constraints imposed by the resources available to a single researcher
over a limited period of time, I could not always pursue the
explorations of other events and turning points that may have
enriched this study. For example, it may have been useful to apply
multiple methods, or triangulation, including interviews with news or
assignment editors to consider news routines to provide other
perspectives for issue-set inertia. Furthermore, to establish a
robust coding scheme that was adequately detailed to describe this
set of issues and yet extensive enough to be applied longitudinally,
the issues comprising the issue set had to be broadly
defined. Issues defined within the issue set shifted in emphasis as
events and topics changed. However, more consistencies than
differences emerged over time, and it was on the basis of these
consistencies that the decisions shaping the issue set were founded.
The compromise between timeframe and the provision of the detail
necessary to build comparative case research also manifested in the
use of media coverage to describe the state of bank-activist
relationships. The state of bank-activist relationships were
necessarily constructed using artefacts of those relationships,
specifically evidence collected from statements published in the
public domain. An alternative way of describing the bank-activist
relationship state that was not bound to media coverage would have
been useful for providing further insights into the bank-activist
relationship state.
Conclusions
The public opinion environment at the organizational population level
of analysis is resistant to change over time and characterized by
inertia. This inertia was revealed only when the dimensions of the
issue-set—stability, complexity, intensity, direction, and complexity
of activist relationships—were identified and tracked over time. In
other words, the degree of issue-set inertia is revealed by exploring
the issue-set dimensions over time. When issues of concern to
organizations and publics emerge in the issue set comprising the
public opinion environment at the population level of analysis, the
stage may be set for the relationships between organizations and
their publics for some years to come. One strategic response to
issue-set inertia for organizations is to differentiate an
organization's activities and operations from its cohorts in the
population, reframe the perceptions of their publics, and extend the
foundations on which relationships with publics are built. Such a
contention is ripe for further exploration in the issues management
professional literature. To ensure that their issues of concern
attract consistent rather than intermittent attention, activist
publics can adopt strategies to link issues of concern to the
organizational population rather than just one or two organizations
and, more importantly, to apply strategies that do not depend for
impact on the limited exposure given to activists by the mainstream media.
The bank-activist relationships most likely to "fit" the public
opinion environment as described by their preservation and
reappearance over time were the relationships organized around
multiple persistent issues. These activist publics engaged not only
with the organizations in the focal population, Australia's major
banks, but with other organizations in other populations. The
existence of these activists and, therefore, their relationships with
the banks was not limited to the negotiation of one issue with a few
organizations but extended to multiple issues and many organizations
in different populations.
Even while the major banks were enjoying record profits in the third
case study, from 1995 to 2001, the public opinion environment
remained unfavorable, with the banks enduring heavy and extensive
criticism in what became known colloquially in the mid-1990s as
"bank-bashing." Banks responded to this increasingly unfavorable
public opinion environment by refraining from being drawn into
exchanges with activists, especially exchanges expressing conflict;
they preferred instead to make more cooperative and neutral
statements, intent on bringing public opinion back in support (Deegan
et al., 2002). The outcomes of these three case studies call into
question the value of advice that encourages organizations to
escalate their use of neutral statements in response to issues of
concern. The public opinion environment was consistently unfavorable
as the flow of neutral statements from banks increased. The outcomes
of this study contest the value of this strategy, suggesting that the
banks' "neutral" comments at best had no impact and, at worst,
incensed the activists to the point where they were more vocal that
ever. If the major banks employed these strategies as a means of
improving their image and encouraging more favorable media coverage,
the outcomes of this study reveal nothing that would support such a
contention. If anything, it might be inferred from the increasing
number of conflict statements that the banks' "neutral" comments
spurred the activists on to assert their positions more aggressively
and were quoted the media more frequently. Without elaborating
beyond the available evidence, the outcomes of these three case
studies call into question the value of the advice of public
relations practitioners that encourages organizations to deal with
issues of concern and contention by seeking to downplay the issues
and the activist public associated with those issues.
The concept of the variable public opinion environment of an
organizational population as a set of issues that can be
dimensionalized according to their stability, complexity, intensity,
and direction emerges from the organizational and public opinion
literature. The dimensions proposed in both the original and refined
EOAR model provide a robust lens that researchers can now apply and
refine to detect and measure public opinion environment
variation. Although the relationships between variations in the
public opinion environment of an organizational population and the
evolving organization-activist relationships, as anticipated by the
propositions of the EOAR model, were not extensively supported, this
study captures, describes, and measures important properties of an
organizational population's public opinion environment. Therefore
the ambition of this study, to enrich contemporary public relations
theory, is achieved by conceptualizing and measuring variation in the
public opinion environment of an organizational population, bringing
this complex and multi-dimensional environment more sharply into
focus for both scholars and practitioners. This study challenges
traditional approaches to public relations theory building. Advanced
within is a theoretical apparatus with which one of the most
persistent but untested assumptions of public relations theory,
continuous adaptation, can be investigated by focusing on the
specific associations between variations in one important sector, the
public opinion environment, and the evolving relationships that
similarly constrained organizations have with their publics.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage.
Allard, A., Jr. (1967). Evolution and human behaviour. New York:
Natural History Press.
Australian Financial System Inquiry. (1997). Financial system inquiry
final report overview. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
(Wallis Inquiry)
Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (1994). Evolutionary dynamics of
organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Botan, C.H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the
field. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 645-661.
Botan, C. H., & Soto, F. (1998). A semiotic approach to the internal
functioning of publics: Implications for strategic communication and
public relations. Public Relations Review, 9(2), 83-98.
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and
theory of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 9(2),
83-98.
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of
organization-public relationships. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning
(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational
approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 3-22).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brosius, H., & Kepplinger, H. (1990). The agenda setting function of
television news: Static and dynamic views. Communication Research,
17(2), 183-211.
Burns, L. R., & Wholey, D. R. (1993). Adoption and abandonment of
matrix management: Effects of organizational characteristics and
interorganizational networks. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 106-138.
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Variation and selective retention in
socio-cultural evolution. General Systems: Yearbook for the Society
of General Systems Research, 16, 69-85).
Carroll, G. R. (1988). Ecological models of organizations. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Cheney, G., & Vibbert, S. L. (1987). Corporate discourse: Public
relations and issues management. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts,
& L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An
interdisciplinary perspective (pp.165-194). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and
influencing public policy. Public Relations Review, 11, 3-16.
Crespi, I. (1997). The public opinion process: How the people speak.
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the
corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312-343.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000). Firms' disclosure
reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting
Forum, 24(1), 101-130.
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An
integration of mass communication and resource-based theories.
Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091-1112.
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task
environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52-73.
Devereaux Ferguson, S. (2000). Researching the public opinion
environment: Theories and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M., M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual
domain from the practice: Public relations, activism and the role of
the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 3-22.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments
and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17, 313-327.
Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and
communication to an organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W.
P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence
in public relations and communication management (pp. 617-638).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Everett, J. L. (2001). Public relations and the ecology of
organizational change. In R. L. Heath & G. Vasquez (Eds.), Handbook
of public relations (pp. 311-320). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Interorganizational relations. Annual Review
of Sociology, 11, 281-304.
George, A. L., & McKeown, T. J. (1985). Case studies and theories of
organizational decision making. Advances in Information Processing in
Organizations, 2, 21-58.
Glynn, C. J., Herbst, S., O'Keefe, G. J., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1999).
Public opinion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1997, July). Review of a program of
research on activism: Incidence in four countries, activist publics,
strategies of activist groups, and organizational responses to
activism. Paper presented at the Fourth Public Relations Research
Symposium, Lake Bled, Slovenia.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational
effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of
relationships, public relations strategies and relationship outcomes.
In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as
relationship management (pp. 23-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, L.A. (1992). Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of
organizations and how excellent public relations departments respond.
In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C.
Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and
communication management (pp. 483-502). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gunter, B. (2000). Media research methods: Measuring audiences,
reactions and impact. London: Sage.
Haila, Y. (1990). Ecology finding evolution finding ecology. Biology
and Philosophy, 5, 235-244.
Hall, R. H. (2002). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of
organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and
public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1990). Involvement: A key variable in
people's reaction to public policy issues. In J. E. Grunig & L.
Grunig, A. (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 2, pp.
93-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1991). Effects of involvement on
reactions to sources of messages and to message clusters. In J. E.
Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol.
3, pp. 179-193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and
humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 93-114.
Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational
outcomes, and conflict management strategies. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Huang, Y.H. (1998, May). Public relations strategies and
organization-public relationships. Paper presented at the 49th annual
conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco.
Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for
measuring organization-public relationships. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 13(1), 61-90.
Hutchinson, G. E. (1965). The ecological theatre and the evolutionary
play. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Janis, I. L., & Fadner, R. (1965). The coefficient of imbalance. In
H. D. Lasswell, N. Leites & Associates (Eds.), Language of politics
(pp. 153-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations
research: From theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 8(4), 263-278.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social
inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in
public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship.
Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55-65.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000a). A longitudinal study of
organization-public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of
communication in the practice of relationship management. In J. A.
Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship
management (pp. 55-70). Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000b). Public relations as
relationship management. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an
indicator of the perceptions and behaviour of members of a key
public: Monitoring and predicting organization-public relationships.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2), 167-183.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and
sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lepper, J. (2004, January 16, 2004). Activists Inc. PR Week, p. 22.
Levinger, G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1994). Bridges and barriers to a more
general theory of conflict. Negotiation Journal, 201-215.
Lewin, A. Y., & Volberda, H. W. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: A
framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms.
Organization Science, 10(5), 519-534.
Lucarelli-Dimmick, S., Bell, T. E., Burgiss, S. G., & Ragsdale, C.
(2000). Relationship management: A new professional model. In J. A.
Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship
management (pp. 117-136). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Maley, K. (1995, April 1). Cheaper loans by banks to woo the wealthy.
Sydney Morning Herald, p. 3.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda setting function of the
mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
McKelvey, B. (1994). Evolution and organizational science. In J. A.
C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations
(pp. 314-326). New York: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to
symmetric and asymmetric public relations. Public Relations Research
Annual, 3, 115-131.
Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Neuman, W. R. (1990). The threshold of public attention. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 54, 159-176.
Olien, C. N., Tichenor, P. J., & Donahue, G. A. (1989). Media
coverage and social movements. In C. Salmon (Ed.), Information
campaigns: Balancing social values and social change (pp. 139-163).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships:
Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review,
15(2), 241-265.
Riffe, D. T., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1998). Analyzing media messages:
Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Singh, J. V. (1990). Organizational evolution: New directions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, M. F. (1996). Issue status and social movement organization
maintenance: Two case studies in rhetorical diversification.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
Smith, M. F., & Ferguson, D. P. (2001). Activism. In R. L. Heath
(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 291-300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stimson, J. A., MacKuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1994). Opinion and
policy: A global view. Political Science & Politics, 27(1), 29.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and
institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Thomson, D. & Abbott, M. (2000). Australian financial prudential
supervision: An historical view. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 59(2), 75-88.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1976). On the nature, formation, and maintenance
of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review, 24-36.
Verba, S. (1967). Some dilemmas of political research. World
Politics, 20, 111-128.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wholey, D. R., & Brittain, J. W. (1989). Characterizing environmental
variation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 867-882.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.,
Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Table 1
The Conflict Continuum – Concept Summary and Indicators
Conflict State
Cooperative State
All efforts by organizations and their activist publics in the
population focus on
• maximizing their own separate gains on issues of mutual concern.
• minimizing their losses within a "win-lose" or self-gain orientation.
All efforts by organizations and their activist publics in the
population focus on
• reconciling their mutual interests.
• cooperating to reach joint benefits.
• resolving issues to their mutual satisfaction.
Indicators of a Conflict State
Indicators of a Cooperative State
Public statements attributed to relationship participants by the news media
• explicitly reject cooperation as desirable and necessary or omit
any reference to cooperation.
• describe the relationship as being in a state of conflict.
• focus on conflict-seeking and the points of dissension on the
issues of mutual concern.
Public statements attributed to relationship participants by the news media
• openly acknowledge cooperation as desirable and necessary.
• suggest that cooperation is occurring and that consensus is evident.
• focus on solution-seeking and the points of consensus on the issues
of mutual concern .
Figure 1
The Evolutionary Model of Organization-Activist Relationships
The Public Opinion Environment
The Issue Set
Stability
(issue turnover)
Low
High
Complexity
(number of issues)
High
Low
Intensity
(volume of media coverage)
High
Low
Direction
(favourability to focal organizations)
Favorable
Unfavorable
Organization-Activist Relationships
The Conflict Continuum
Conflict
State
Cooperative
State
Figure 2
Summary of Findings—Evolutionary Model of Organization-Activist
Relationships
The Public Opinion Environment
The Issue Set
Stability*
(issue turnover)
Low
(more issue turnover)
High
(lower issue turnover)
Complexity of Issues* (number of issues)
High
(more issues)
Low
(fewer issues)
Complexity of Activist Relationships
(number of activist relationships)
High
(more activist publics to negotiate)
Low
(fewer activist publics to negotiate)
Intensity
(change in volume of media coverage)
Low to High
(volume of issue coverage increases dramatically)
High to low
(volume of media coverage decreases dramatically)
Direction
(favourability to focal organizations)
Unfavourable
Favourable
Organization-Activist Relationships
The Conflict Continuum
Conflict
State
Cooperative
State
Relationship-signaling statements
More relationship-signaling statements
• More cooperative statements from organizations
• More conflict statements from activists
Fewer relationship-signaling statements
• More conflict statements from organizations
• More cooperative statements from activists
*Note that the complexity (number of issues) proposition was not
supported and the stability proposition was largely
unsupported. However, some weak associations were detected between
variations in stability and complexity and variations in
relationship-signalling statements.
Figure 3
The Revised Evolutionary Model of Organization-Activist Relationships
The Issue Set
Proposition 1
Complexity of activist relationships
High
Low
As the number of activist publics organized by the issue set
increases, organization-activist relationships move toward a conflict
state. When the number of activist publics organized by the issue
set decreases, organization-activist relationships move toward a
cooperative state on the conflict continuum.
Proposition 2
Concentration
Variable
Constant
As the concentration-dispersion of the issue set becomes more
variable, as described by the range of variation in the proportion of
media coverage given to issues, organization-activist relationships
move toward a conflict state.
Proposition 3
Intensity
Low to High
High to Low
As variations in issue-set intensity become more extreme in range,
organization-activist relationships are more likely to move toward a
conflict or cooperative state in anticipated ways. In other words,
as issue-set intensity increases, organization-activist relationships
move toward a conflict state, and as issue-set intensity decreases,
organization-activist relationships move toward a cooperative state.
Proposition 4
Direction
Unfavorable
Favorable
As the direction of the issue set in the public opinion environment
becomes less favourable, organization-activist relationships in the
population move toward a conflict state, and as that environment
becomes more favourable, organization-activist relationships in the
population move toward a cooperative state.
Organization-Activist Relationships
The Conflict Continuum
Conflict
State
Cooperative
State
|
