Assignment week 2- com500 paper

studies1981

Stakeholder.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Assignment week 2- com500 paper

Stakeholder communication in service implementation networks: expanding relationship management theory to the nonprofit sector through organizational network analysis Sarah P. Maxwell1* and Julia L. Carboni2 1 Public Affairs and Social Policy, University of Texas at Dallas, USA

2 School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University—Purdue University Indianapolis, USA

• Nonprofits increasingly participate in government-funded service implementation networks (SINs).

However, extant research does not explore how organizations might strategically tailor communication

to different stakeholder groups or use different communication tools for management. Stakeholders are

not a monolithic group, and communicating with stakeholders within SINs is hypothesized to involve

different forms of communication than communicating with stakeholders outside of the network. In

this paper, relationship management theory is used to examine strategic communication with stake-

holder groups within and outside of SINs. Both traditional and emergent (e.g., social media) forms of

communication are examined. Survey and interview data on communication within and outside com-

munication networks are analyzed using organizational network analysis techniques. The findings in-

dicate strategic communication in the network differs from strategic communication with stakeholders

outside the network. Within the network, organizations place varying emphasis on the use of traditional

and emergent forms of communication for management, implying nonprofit managers funded under

government grants continue to rely on face-to-face and phone communication and have yet to adopt

emerging communication strategies to assist in the management of their programs with their partner

organizations.

Introduction

Over the last two decades, scholars have documented increased use of organizational networks to deliver

*Correspondence to: Sarah P. Maxwell, Public Affairs and Social Policy, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA. E-mail: sarah.maxwell@utdallas.edu

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 19: 301–313 (2014) Published online 12 September 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.1506

government-funded services (Alter & Hage, 1993; Milne, Iyer, & Gooding-Williams, 1996; Austin, 2000; Milward & Provan, 2000; Provan, Isett, & Milward, 2004). Organizational networks are a set of three or more organizations with ties, or relationships, among the organizations; relationships represented by ties vary by context (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004). In this study, we focus specifically on commu- nication practices in service implementation networks (SINs). SINs are organizational networks funded by government to deliver services to clients (Milward & Provan, 2006). Increasingly, government also contracts out management of SINs to nongovernmental organi- zations, resulting in a shift of administrative responsi- bility (Milward & Provan, 2000). For example, a juvenile diversion program to prevent at-risk youth from entering the justice system might include the nonprofit grantee to administer the network along with multiple associated partners to deliver services. These partners might refer at-risk youth to the program, provide job-assistance, find shelter for the youth who might be homeless, or assist the youth with after-school tutoring. Organizations within a SIN communicate fre-

quently. Communication within SINs allows organi- zations to effectively coordinate programs, make decisions regarding placement opportunities for program participants, and coordinate fundraising or programmatic events. Rapidly changing technol- ogy allows organizations to communicate effectively with a vast range of stakeholders; yet nonprofit and communication practitioners have little understand- ing of how nonprofits utilize social media as a strategic communication tool within SINs. Extant scholarship does not fully address communication practices in SINs either. Relationship management theory addresses the

process of managing relationships with internal and external publics, or stakeholders. Relationships are defined as “the state which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either can impact the economic, social, cultural, or political well-being of the other” (Ledingham, 2003, p. 184). In this theory, communication is a

strategic tool to manage relationships. This theory offers a unique lens for viewing communication among networked organizations and key stakeholders, in that it emphasizes the role of relationships with key constituents—“publics”—in an organization’s environ- ment and views communication as a strategic manage- ment tool for attaining organizational goals (Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingham, 2003). Stakeholders are not a monolith, nor do they all require the same level or type of communication strategies. This study con- siders traditional and emergent (e.g., social media) communication strategies with stakeholders within and outside of the SIN. Nonprofit organization managers are hypothesized

to communicate differently using traditional and emergent (e.g. social media) forms of communica- tions with two types of stakeholders—fellow SIN members and external stakeholders of the network. Data for this study come from two federally funded youth mentoring programs. These programs are im- plemented by an SIN with one organization serving as the network administrative organization (NAO) that manages the grant and oversees contracts with partner organizations on behalf of the funder. Data are analyzed using organizational network analysis. Network analysis is a methodology used to under- stand the structure and content of relationships among organizations. It is a powerful way to under- stand the way organizations interact with each other within the network and to understand how the entire network of organizations functions together (Brass et al., 2004; Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007). Network analysis allows communication managers

to understand patterns of interactions and to think more strategically about how the entire organization communicates with various publics. Communications and marketing practitioners within the voluntary sec- tor may benefit from research efforts to distinguish how organizations communicate with different types of stakeholder groups. Building on this study, future re- search may examine which types of communication are most effective with different stakeholder groups. For example, communications related to management

302 Sarah P. Maxwell and Julia L. Carboni

decisions may be best suited to dialogic communica- tion through specific channels, rather than simple in- formation dissemination. The primary research questions guiding this study

are as follows: Are social media used for communi- cation as a management tool? Alternatively, are tra- ditional forms of communication employed over social media as a management tool? Do uses of me- dia vary by stakeholder group? This study examines these questions in two nonprofit SINs that imple- ment large-scale government programs in the human services field. Using a network perspective to mea- sure communication within and outside of SINs, the findings indicate that strategic communication in the SIN differs from strategic communication with stakeholders outside the SIN. Within the network, organizations place varying emphasis on the use of traditional and emergent forms of communication.

Literature review

Public relationship management theory

Public relationship management theory is concerned with effectively managing common interests and shared goals to result in mutual understanding and benefit for organizations and their public—or stake- holders. Stakeholders are actors in the environment that may influence organizational success or failure (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994; Ledingham, 2003). The meaning of public is extended to include organiza- tions within the SIN in this study. Relationships within the SIN may be characterized as organization-public re- lationships because the success or failure of an organi- zation is partially dependent on its relationships with other organizations in its network environment. Relationship management has evolved in both the

fields of Public Relations and Public Affairs into a management perspective that steers far beyond the simple approach of message bombardment to a monolithic group of stakeholders (Ledingham, 2003). Ledingham and Bruning (2000) suggest that stake- holder relationship management is part of the organi- zation’s larger goals and a necessary function within

strategic planning. In limited research to date, underly- ing differences among organization-public relationships are identified with differences in communication and interaction types between organizations and var- ious publics (Hung, 2005; Waters & Bortree, 2012). However, work on operationalizing these concepts is limited. The ability to collaborate effectively not only in-

cludes communication; it specifically requires pur- poseful communication, and many nonprofits have turned to social media to better communicate with stakeholder groups. A review of the latest ENonprofit Benchmark study (M+R & NTEN, 2012) shows dra- matic increases in both Facebook and Twitter interac- tions among nonprofits and their stakeholders. The industry study states that “Nonprofit Facebook fan ba- ses have seen phenomenal growth between 2010 and 2011, with the average nonprofit increasing its fan base by 70%” (p. 1). However, it is not clear how non- profits differentiate among stakeholder groups in re- gard to communication types. This study examines traditional and emergent forms

of communication with stakeholders. Traditional com- munication forms include phone communication, email communication, and face-to-face communica- tion. These communication forms are likely to be used within SINs to communicate about clients and pro- grammatic elements although the form of communi- cation within SINs has received limited scholarly attention. Emergent communication forms include so- cial media. Social media are distinct from traditional means of communication in three significant ways: (1) social media allow for one person to share a mes- sage with a very large number of others at very low cost; (2) social media allow for low-cost, sustained in- teraction among members of a social network; and (3) social media allow messages in a wide variety of forms (e.g., text, audio, animation, and video) to be traded easily among members of a network. Social media strategies among organizations and

their stakeholder groups within and outside of net- works are fundamental tools in organization-public relations. In practice, social media are touted as mar- keting tools for nonprofits in the voluntary sector’s

303Stakeholder communication in SINs

competitive world of funding, donations, and advo- cacy because of their potential to vastly increase the reach of nonprofits’ message and mission (Waters, 2010). As a relationship management practice, social media are used as tools to reach stakeholders that might have been previously out of range. However, little is known about how nonprofit orga-

nizations use social media within SINs and whether social media can enhance operational effectiveness (Weare, Loges, & Oztas, 2007). Practitioners and scholars alike can benefit from understanding how social media are used to inform, manage, educate, or otherwise communicate with different sets of stakeholder groups. Current research focuses on so- cial media adoption in nonprofit and public agencies (Guo & Saxton, 2014; Mergel & Bretschneider, 2013) but does not consider how social media can be used as a management tool within SINs. A network per- spective is taken to understand how organizations communicate with various stakeholder groups using traditional and emergent forms of social media.

Networked collaboration

Strategies and tactics employed to better serve clients and coordinate efforts among government agencies and nonprofits in networks include collaboration (Milward & Provan, 2003). Collaboration, by defini- tion, includes communication (Ball-Rokeach & Loges, 2000). The media available to members of a network affect the network’s communication structure, and potentially, its performance (Weare et al., 2007). How- ever, coordination and information sharing across organizational networks where relationships are hor- izontal rather than hierarchical remains a major man- agement challenge for government and nonprofits (Agranoff & McGuire, 2006). This is evidenced by epic coordination and information sharing failures among organizations in disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. In the case of SINs, multiple organizations must

communicate to effectively serve a client. A network perspective facilitates an understanding of the

communication structures in which networks are embedded, in ways not possible when focusing on individual actions of organizations or bilateral com- munications outside the network context (Provan et al., 2004, 2007). At the whole network level, cen- tralization and density of communication networks can provide insight as to how information is spread through a network. Centralization is a network level measure that reflects variance in individual actor centrality in the network. More central actors are better connected to the network and may be crucial for sharing information. Density is a network level measure that reflects the proportion of all possible ties that are present. More dense communication networks reflect a greater degree of ties among all or- ganizations, potentially facilitating the spread of infor- mation through redundant paths among organizations in the network. Density is related to centralization in that central-

ized networks tend to be less dense than decentralized networks. However, the measures are not perfect cor- relates. Centralization is an index of individual actor centrality scores, whereas density accounts for the percentage of all ties in a network irrespective of the distribution of ties among specific actors. Social media seem by default designed to minimize centralization and maximize density in social networks. Services such as Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn encourage new tie creation and information sharing (e.g., updates to your wall on Facebook). Constant, deliberate con- trol of who learns what about your status is difficult to exercise and in many ways defeats the purpose of the service. Given the nature of the work within a SIN, those

who are planning day-to-day operations for clients or programs will have decentralized communication networks. Although one main organization coordi- nates the network, other actors in the network will communicate with each other using traditional media forms. For example, organizations may need to speak to one another to organize an event, coor- dinate services, or discuss other programmatic is- sues. These forms of communication are more secure, even though they can be cumbersome and

304 Sarah P. Maxwell and Julia L. Carboni

repetitive. Face-to-face communication, along com- munication through other traditional media such as telephone, email, and face-to-face contact, will be prevalent within the SIN, resulting in a less central- ized, denser communication network. Following this, Hypotheses 1 and 2 are offered:

H1: Intra-SIN communication networks using

traditional forms of communication will be

decentralized.(centralization hypothesis).

H2: The density of an intra-SIN communication

network using traditional forms of communica-

tion will be high (density hypothesis).

The communication capacity of social media— especially their ability to distribute information in many different formats—makes them potentially valu- able tools in the communication management within the SIN and with external stakeholders. Although social media provide a potentially transformative way to share information, intra-SIN communication is unlikely to take place through social media because such media diminish the information-management capability of the central node in the SIN. Social media use still has a number of unknown implications, particularly for sharing and controlling sensitive client information. Whereas organizational communi- cation with external stakeholders may occur fre- quently, intra-SIN communications through social media are likely to be sent through the coordinating agency. Control over social media is important in government-funded programs for vulnerable popula- tions (e.g., juvenile offenders). Social media are antici- pated to be highly centralized by coordinating organizations. Hypotheses 3 and 4 follow:

H3: Social media forms of intra-SIN communica-

tion will be highly centralized through the coordi-

nating organization (centralization hypothesis).

H4: Density of an intra-SIN communication net-

work will not significantly increase when social

media use is considered (density hypothesis).

Social media can play a valuable role in establish- ing and maintaining ties outside the SIN, with stake- holders who could benefit from knowing the status of the SIN’s projects. Generally, social media are a one-way form of communication used for informa- tion sharing. In SINs, partner organizations may em- ploy social media to highlight the work of the program, but social media are less likely to be used to build management communication and cohesion among partner publics. Hypothesis 5 follows:

H5: SINs will use social media more frequently

for external communication than for intra-SIN

communication.

In sum, organizational communication strategies will vary by stakeholder group. Intra-SIN communica- tion is more likely to employ traditional forms of com- munication as purposive tools to manage programs and clients, including sharing information, which may be sensitive. Intra-SIN social media use within the network will be tightly controlled by the coordi- nating agency. Communication with external stake- holders is more likely to employ social media strategies. External stakeholders do not need to know the details of intra-SIN deliberations and decision pro- cesses but may evaluate potential collaboration, dona- tion, and referrals based on a profile on social media sites such as Facebook or updates on Twitter.

Methods

Participants and procedures

Data come from semi-structured interviews and net- work surveys conducted with members of two SINs that share basic structural characteristics (Milward & Provan, 2006). The networks studied are both working under a US Department of Justice grant to provide mentoring to at-risk youth. The core organi- zation is the main contact under the grant and coor- dinates the network. It must establish partnerships with other organizations to effectively implement the grant. SIN 1 has four members representing two nonprofit organizations, one school district,

305Stakeholder communication in SINs

and one local government agency. SIN 2 has six members, representing four nonprofits, one school district, and one local government agency. There was a 100% response rate for each SIN. Semi-structured interviews included the network

survey and were conducted by phone. Each call lasted about 45 min. Questions covered how fre- quently, in the month prior to the interview, the core organization has been in contact with the fol- lowing: (1) direct members of the SIN—that is, other members of the network who are providing services under the supervision of the core organiza- tion; and (2) stakeholders that are not members of the SIN but have an interest in the work that the SIN is doing (e.g., potential donors, sympathetic organizations, and other organizations with similar clientele). The media through which such contact took place was noted—face-to-face contact, tele- phone contact, email contact, and social media con- tact—and recorded separately in order to calculate the impact on network density of each medium. This method of comparing contributions to network density from a variety of media is closely based on that used by Weare et al. (2007). The questions were phrased as the following:

“We’d like to know about your communication with the members of your program. We’ll ask about each member organization. We’re only interested in your communication with people you count on to make decisions or commitments on behalf of the organiza- tion.” The interviewer then read the organizations previously listed by the interviewee as serving as a member of the SIN, asking about contact via phone, email, face-to-face, and social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn, or other). Next, the inter- viewer asked the interviewee to focus only on their use of social media. The interviewer asked for any additional comments the interviewee would like to add following the survey. The use of social media for communication outside

the SIN was also measured. Respondents were asked about phone, email, face-to-face, and social media communication with stakeholders outside the SIN. Stakeholder groups were foundations, potential donors,

other nonprofits, community members in general, government agencies, potential consumers of the organization’s services, and other community-based organizations. Besides learning whether social media were used to communicate inside and outside the network in the previous 2 weeks, respondents were asked about how the coordinating organization makes use of social media for both internal and exter- nal communication.

Results

Two network level measures were derived to analyze intra-SIN communication patterns and communica- tion with external stakeholders. The measures are network centralization and network density. Both measures were introduced in the literature review and given detailed treatment in the succeeding text. Each SIN has five scores: network centralization based on traditional communication use, network centralization based on social media communication use, network density based on traditional communi- cation use, network density based on social media communication use, and network density based on both traditional communication and social media communication use. Communication with external stakeholders was also analyzed.

Centralization

Centralization is a network level measure that re- flects variance in individual actor centrality. High centralization scores indicate many links connected to only one or few nodes in the network. The for- mula for Freeman’s (1979) centralization index is given as follows:

Ca ¼ ∑ g

i ¼1 Ca n*ð Þ � Ca nið Þ½ �= max ∑

i ¼1 Ca n*ð Þ � Ca nið Þ½ �

where Ca is the general centralization index set between 0 and 1 (reported as a percentage);

∑ g

i ¼1 Ca n*ð Þ � Ca nið Þ½ � is the sum of differences

306 Sarah P. Maxwell and Julia L. Carboni

between the largest individual actor centrality and the

other observed values; and max ∑ g

i ¼1 Ca n*ð Þ � Ca nið Þ½ �

is the theoretical maximum sum of differences in actor centrality, pairwise between actors.

In highly centralized networks, one actor may have high degree centrality (many connections), whereas other actors have low degree centrality (few connections). Centralization can increase the efficient distribution of information, and thus hasten network members’ learning of news (such as a meet- ing agenda sent from one person to the entire net- work). Centralization can also allow greater control over intra-network communication by coordinating organizations, so that information is not shared with those who should not have it (for legal reasons, if no other). In highly decentralized networks, there is less variance in the degree centrality of individual members of the network—all members have about the same number of ties. Skocpol (1999) notes that decentralized networks are more democratic and distribute the various burdens of network member- ship among the members. Hypothesis 1 considers intra-SIN network cen-

tralization in communication networks using tradi- tional forms of communication. It predicted that centralization would be low for intra-SIN commu- nication network using traditional forms of com- munication. Centralization was calculated using Freeman’s (1979) network centralization index for each SIN communication network taking into account all traditional types of communication (phone, email, and face-to-face contact) in the net- work. As expected, the centralization score for SIN 1 is 38.89%, indicating relatively low centralization (less than 50%). The centralization score for SIN 2 is 34%, similar to the SIN 1. These findings lend support to Hypothesis 1. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the

communication network with traditional types of communication for the SIN 1. Figure 2 provides a visual representation of the communication network with traditional types of communication for the SIN 2.

In Figures 1 and 2, squares (nodes) represent indi- vidual organizations. Node size reflects the in degree centrality of nodes or the number of ties that node has with other organizations as reported by its ties. Lines between nodes indicate that the organizations communicate via traditional types of communica- tion (phone, email, and fac- to-face). Organizations used multiple types of traditional communication forms. Line thickness indicates the number of types of communication employed between organizations. Thicker lines indicate increased types of communica- tion between organizations. Hypothesis 3 considered social media forms of

intra-SIN communication. It predicted that social me- dia forms of intra-SIN communication would be highly

Figure 1. Service implementation networks 1—traditional forms of communication.

Figure 2. Service implementation networks 2—traditional forms of communication.

307Stakeholder communication in SINs

centralized through the coordinating organization. Again, centralization was calculated using Freeman’s (1979) network centralization index for each SIN communication network taking into account social media forms of communication. The centralization score for SIN 1 is 0%, indicating social media is not used within the SIN. The centralization score for SIN 2 is also 0%. Although only the coordinating agencies used social media as a communication tool within the network, there was not sufficient use of social media among other actors to create an index score for either network. This finding lends support for Hypothesis 3.

Density

Density is a network level measure that reflects the number of actual ties in the network divided by the number of possible ties in the network. The for- mula for density is given as follows:

Δ ¼ ∑ g

i ¼1 ∑ g

j¼1 xij

! = g g � 1ð Þð Þ

where Δ is the density measure set between 0 and 1; ∑g

i¼1∑ g

j¼1xij is the sum of all ties in the network; and g(g � 1) is the total number of ties in the network (Wasserman & Faust 1994). Density is related to the developing shared knowl-

edge and experience and building trust in networks along with information exchange (Coleman, 1988; Monge & Contractor, 2003; Weare et al., 2007). Al- though density may promote information exchange among many actors, it can also have negative effects on communication. For example, information ex- changes may become redundant in dense networks because an actor may receive the same information from multiple ties (Burt, 1992). Hypothesis 2 considered intra-SIN network den-

sity within SINs using traditional forms of communi- cation. It predicted that the density of intra-SIN communication networks using traditional forms of communication would be high. The intra-SIN density

score for traditional forms of communication SIN 1 is 0.75 indicating that 75% of all possible ties use tradi- tional forms of communication. The intra-SIN density score for SIN 2 is 0.667 indicating that 66.7% of all possible ties use traditional forms of communication. This lends support to Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 4 considered how the addition of so-

cial media as a communication strategy would affect intra-SIN network density. It predicted that the addi- tion of social media as a form of communication in the SIN would not significantly increase network density. The intra-SIN density score for social media communication alone in SIN 1 is 0.083, indicating low social media usage, or that about 8% of possible ties use social media. The intra-SIN density score for SIN 1 with both traditional and social media commu- nication is 0.75. In SIN 1, the intra-SIN density did not change with the addition of social media forms of communication, indicating that the social media tie that existed was used in conjunction with tradi- tional forms of media. The intra-SIN density score for social media communication in SIN 2 is 0.033, also indicating low social media usage, or that only about 3% of possible ties use social media. The intra-SIN density score for SIN 2 with both tradi- tional and social media communication is 0.70. In SIN 2, the intra-SIN density increased slightly with the addition of social media forms of communication (from 0.677 to 0.70), indicating that the addition of the social media tie reflected a new connection be- tween two non-core organizations. In both SINs, social media were not a widely used form of communica- tion. These findings provide support for Hypothesis 4. Comments from interviewers confirmed the den-

sity associated with traditional media use. As these program managers are also responsible for oversee- ing social media with their programs, it was clear that, as program managers, they are trained to run nonprofit grants, work with youth, and coordinate their nonprofit partners. One respondent commented: “I am satisfied generally with our social media, as we use it to obtain the word out about events for our youth.” Such comments indicate the role social media might play outside of the SIN but notes the limits on

308 Sarah P. Maxwell and Julia L. Carboni

two-way dialogic communication with the SIN. An- other respondent noted the practicality of social media limits: “We don’t use social media. There are too many regulations from the organization [in which I work] such as privacy concerns and logo copyrights. Every time I want to use social media, I have to go through our communications department at our national headquarters.” Such comments provide considerable insight into how and why nonprofit program man- agers fail to adopt the larger organizational commu- nication strategies.

Communication with external stakeholders

Hypothesis 5 suggested that social media are used more frequently for external communication with out- side stakeholder publics, rather than inside the SIN. Stakeholder groups included foundations, potential donors, nonprofit organization outside the network, community members, government agencies, clients, and other community organization. In SIN 1, the coor- dinating agency indicated that it used traditional forms of communication with six of these seven stakeholder groups. SIN 1 reported using social media forms of communication with three of these seven stakeholder groups. In SIN 2, the coordinating agency indicated that it used traditional forms of communication with seven of these seven stakeholder groups. SIN 2 re- ported using social media forms of communication with three of these seven stakeholder groups. Respon- dents seemed much more willing to engage in social media use to share general information with groups outside the network. Respondent comments reinforce these findings. One respondent stated as follows: “So- cial media are not really needed. We use it to inform kids at school about announcements.” Another said the following: “[Social media] are just not part of our organization’s overall strategy.”

Discussion

This study applied public relationship management theory to SINs operating programs under federally

funded grants using a network analytic perspective. Research questions concerned traditional and emer- gent forms of communication among various publics or stakeholder groups. Our findings indicate that intra-SIN communication is largely accomplished using traditional communication forms while use of emergent communication forms is limited. Commu- nication with stakeholders outside the network is more likely to employ emergent forms of communi- cation but still relies more heavily on traditional forms of communication than emergent forms. Hung (2005) expanded the organization-public re-

lationship definition to include management, suggest- ing that interdependence produces consequences that, in turn, need to be addressed or managed by the organizations (see Waters, 2008, p. 40). The liter- ature has not considered varying communication strategies for different stakeholder groups though. This study demonstrates that intra-SIN communica- tion is different from communication with external stakeholders and that usage of communication form (traditional or emergent) varies by group. Findings concerning centralization and density of communica- tion networks provided support for the hypotheses. To date, literature on social media use suggests

that nonprofits are not using Facebook and other forms of social media for interactive purposes (Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009), although it is well established that social media can be catalysts for collective action as evidenced by the Arab Spring that began in 2010 and 15-M Movement in Spain in 2011–2012 (Khondker, 2011; Casero-Ripolles & Feenstra, 2012). Findings in this study support re- cent scholarship that suggest social media are gener- ally used for limited, one-way, rather than dialogic communication. Importantly, not only is dialogic communication low across all forms of communica- tion in this study but also the opportunity for in- creased, two-way, strategic communication is not exploited. The organizations in this study are already

existing partners within the SINs and therefore do not face the additional challenge of forming relation- ships with their publics through social media and

309Stakeholder communication in SINs

other forms of communication. In this study, the SINs within network organizations are existing partners that strategically organized to apply for the initial grant. Management-focused and decision-focused communication that could improve programmatic operations does not include social media use nor are program managers using social media to convey information to their stakeholder publics outside of the immediate operational network. These stake- holders may be potential donors, other nonprofits, community members, and potential consumers of the grant services. Overall, there is a disconnection among program

staff for potentially adopting communication cam- paigns or strategies that move beyond informing the public of an event and creating a new platform for two-way, decision-making communication. By analyzing their own Facebook, Twitter, or other so- cial ties, program managers and communications professionals within one organization can use network analysis tools to communicate strategically. From a mar- keting perspective, understanding network centraliza- tion and network density can provide organizations with tools to understand strengths and weaknesses in communication networks and to communicate strate- gically. It should be the first step in planning efficacious communication, with an emphasis on the unique na- ture of organizational publics and where those stake- holders fit within organizational strategic goals. At present, SINs operating under large-scale feder-

ally funded grants tend to shy away from the opportu- nities to connect with partner agencies and nonprofits to market the overall grant, improve communication among the network of providers, or share best prac- tices, for example. Respondent comments and net- work data confirmed the expectation that operating youth programs is easily performed via traditional forms of communication. If a young person needs a mentor, the program manager may email or simply pick up the phone to call a partner organization for the referral, although social media may be more effi- cient. Government-funded programs require ongoing and often horizontal organizational management structures, as decisions are made rapidly at times and

within the context of changing environments. For managers of these complex programs that require on- going communication with their partner publics, so- cial media as a decision-making tool are not deemed helpful by the grantees. From a practical perspective, it makes little sense to have every member of the SIN participating in every minor decision associated with a program, but a certain level of collaboration and information dissemination would be expected among nonprofits. In this case, that collaboration is not occurring through social media. In sum, this study highlights the importance of

continued research in the role of social media to spark two-way, dialogic communication among pro- grammatic partners and community members. As highlighted by a few of the respondents comments, communication staff tends to place limits on social media use within the organizational protocol, thus limiting social media communication among pro- grams from the initial point of contact. Social media are conceivably too transparent, as many partici- pants in the program may prefer not to be identified. Offering Facebook communication among agencies opens the risk for lawsuits or possible misuse of so- cial media by nonprofit managers. The field is still young, and few handbooks exist to either facilitate effective communication for program managers and their partners or to educate those nonprofit managers who are not assigned to the communica- tions department within the organization.

Conclusion

This study combines the nonprofit management and public relations fields, as a starting point for contin- ued analyses regarding social media use in effective management of SINs. Given the unique nature of SINs, social media use may not be widely adopted among the internal SIN’s stakeholders in compari- son with the same nonprofit’s social media use with other stakeholder groups such as potential donors. Management of these networks is critical to imple- mentation effectiveness of the service being

310 Sarah P. Maxwell and Julia L. Carboni

provided, making Twitter, Facebook, and other types of social media complicated in an environ- ment of sensitive client information, program opera- tion communication, and other types of interaction that could require private conversation. More work is needed on this topic, as preparing

nonprofit managers to communicate effectively and strategically offers the potential to improve overall organizational communication under complex funding arrangements and with varying stakeholder groups. One limitation is that the study does not delineate among organizational types within and outside of the SINs. Waters and Bortree (2012) suggest the use of net- works for this purpose. Presently, studies continue to treat organizational types as equal, assuming that the same public relations strategy will work across a non- profit or a government agency. This limitation may prove especially important to further studies, as principal-agent problems are inherently difficult in nonprofit-government relationships. The SINS are working as agents, for the government principal, which, by definition, skew the power. Indeed, non- profits may be more inclined to foster communica- tion with the funding principal rather than other agents under the grant. This study is also limited in that it includes only two

networks. The small sample problem is endemic in network research (Provan et al., 2007). In future stud- ies, a larger sample of networks and comparison of net- works to each other is warranted. It is difficult to draw conclusions comparing a small sample of networks because of variance in context and other conditions. These networks were used to illustrate hypotheses and offer evidence of communication types in SINs but did not compare the networks or analyze the data statistically because of the small sample size. It appears that nonprofits in these networks are

not actively engaged in social media in ways that help them manage programs. Bortree and Seltzer (2009) summarize the use of social media by non- profits, suggesting that nonprofits erroneously be- lieve that the simple creation of social networking sites is sufficient; rather, nonprofits miss the oppor- tunity to “build mutually beneficial relationships

with stakeholders” (p. 318). Continued research into the practical aspects of managing networks un- der federal grants, and ways to improve effective communication among all partners, is still needed. Nonprofit management studies remain ill-informed about social media use as a management tool, espe- cially in managing grants with multiple and diverse stakeholder groups. It is unfortunate that research on social media use

is lacking. Waters et al. (2009) suggest that social networking could be adapted as a strategic tool to communicate with different stakeholder groups. Instead, nonprofits report that social media are, in fact, overseen by college interns or others who would have no management function within the or- ganization (Westcott, 2007). Evidence does not sup- port a widespread movement toward the adoption of new communication strategies through virtual collaborative interaction between government and stakeholder groups. Indeed, in their study, much of the communication continued to exist on a more traditional level (Brainard & McNutt, 2010). This study suggests that social media are employed

by nonprofits, but not in a manner that supports mutual or substantive communication that might be required in a management setting. As organizations seek to manage horizontally across SINs, two-way communication could be improved among stake- holders within the network, as well as those outside. As a management tool, social media use could be ad- vanced to improve communication, while maintain- ing confidentiality. Future research should examine specific messaging within and outside of SINs. For example, questions about what SINs communicate with stakeholders in addition to how they communi- cate are worthwhile pursuits.

References

Agranoff R, McGuire M. 2006. Inside Collaborative Net- works: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Ad- ministration Review 66(S1): 56-66. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x.

311Stakeholder communication in SINs

Alter C, Hage J. 1993. Organizations Working Together. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Austin J. 2000. The Collaboration Challenge: How Nonprofits and Businesses Succeed Through Strategic Alliances. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Ball-Rokeach S. J, Loges W. E. 2000. Allyor Adversary? Using Me- diaSystemsforPublicHealth.PrehospitalandDisasterMed- icine 15(4): 188-195. DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X00025309.

Brainard L. A, McNutt J. C. 2010. Virtual Government Citizen Relations: Informational, Transactional, or Collaborative? Administration and Society 42(7): 836–858. DOI: 10.1177/0095399713481602.

Bortree D, Seltzer T. 2009. Dialogic Strategies and Out- comes: An Analysis of Environmental Advocacy Groups’ Facebook Profiles. Public Relations Review 35: 317–319. DOI:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002.

Brass D. J, Galaskiewicz J, Greve H. R, Tsai W. 2004. Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Journal 47(6): 795–817.

Burt R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Casero-Ripolles A, Feenstra R. A. 2012. The 15-M Move- ment and the New Media: A Case Study of How New Themes Were Introduced into Spanish Political Dis- course. Media International Australia 144: 68–76.

Coleman J. S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Sociological Review 94: 95–120. DOI: 10.1177/0539018410377130.

Cutlip S. M, Center AH, Broom GM. 1994. Effective Public Relations. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Dozier D. M, Grunig L. A, Grunig J. A. 1995. Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communi- cations Management. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ.

Freeman L. C. 1979. Centrality in Social Networks: Con- ceptual Clarification. Social Networks 1(3): 215–239. DOI: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.

Guo C, Saxton G. 2014. Tweeting Social Change: How So- cial Media are Changing Nonprofit Advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1): 57–79. DOI: 10.1177/0899764012471585.

Hung C. F. 2005. Exploring Types of Organization Public Relationships and Their Implications for Relationship

Management in Public Relations. Journal of Public Rela- tions Research 17(4): 393–426. DOI: s1532754xjprr1704_4.

Khondker H. H. 2011. Role of New Media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations 8(5): 675–679. DOI: 10.1080/ 14747731.2011.621287

Ledingham J. 2003. Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 15(2): 181–198. DOI: 10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1502_4.

Ledingham J, Bruning S. D. 1998. Relationship Management in Public Relations: Dimensions of an Organization- Public Relationship. Public Relations Review 24(1): 55–65. DOI: 10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9.

Ledingham J, Bruning S. D. 2000. Public Relations as Rela- tionship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ.

Mergel I, Bretschneider S. I. 2013. A Three-Stage Adoption Process for Social Media Use in Government. Public Administration Review 73(3): 390–400. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12021.

Milne G. R, Iyer E. S, Gooding-Williams S. 1996. Environmen- tal Organizational Alliance Relationships Within and Across Nonprofit, Business and Government Sectors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 15(2): 203–215.

Milward H. B, Provan K. G. 2000. Governing the Hollow State. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 359–379.

Milward H. B, Provan K. G. 2003. Managing the Hollow State: Collaboration and Contracting. Public Management Re- view 5(1): 2–18. DOI: 10.1080/1461667022000028834.

Milward H. B, Provan K. G. 2006. A manager’s Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Monge P. R, Contractor N. S. 2003. Theories of Communica- tion Networks. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.

M+R & NTEN. 2012. eNonprofit Benchmarks Study: An Analysis of Online Messaging, Fundraising, Advocacy, So- cial Media, and Mobile Metrics for Nonprofit Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.e-benchmarksstudy.com/ [accessed on 25 February 2014].

Provan K. G, Fish A, Sydow J. 2007. Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level: A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks. Journal

312 Sarah P. Maxwell and Julia L. Carboni

www.philantrophy.com/article/Face-Time/54580

of Management 33(3): 479–516. DOI: 10.1177/ 0149206307302554.

Provan K. G, Isett K. R, Milward H. B. 2004. Cooperation and Compromise: Conflicting Institutional Pressures on Interorganizational Collaboration. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(3): 489–514.

Skocpol T. 1999. Advocates without members: the recent transformation of American civil life. In Civic Engagement in American Democracy, Skocpol T, Fiorina MP (eds). The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC; 461–510.

Wasserman S, Faust K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.

Waters R. D. 2008. Advancing Relationship Management Theory: Coorientation and the Nonprofit Organization- Donor Relationship. VDM Verlag: Saarbrucken, Germany.

Waters R. D. 2010. The use of Social Media by Nonprofit Organizations: An Examination from the Diffusion of Innovations Perspective. IGI Global: Hershey, PA.

Waters R, Bortree D. S. 2012. Advancing Relationship Management Theory: Mapping the Continuum of Relationship Types. Public Relations Review 38(1): 123–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.018.

Waters R. D, Burnett E, Lamm A, Lucas J. 2009. Engaging Stakeholders Through Social Networking: How Non- profit Organizations are Using Facebook. Public Rela- tions Review 35: 102–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev. 2009.01.00.

Weare C, Loges W. E, Oztas N. 2007. Email Effects on the Structure of Local Associations: A Social Network Anal- ysis. Social Science Quarterly 88(1): 222–243. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00455.x.

Westcott S. 2007. Face Time: Charities Flock to Social- Networking Web Sites to Reach Out to New People, Spark Discussion, and Help Raise Money. The Chronicle of Philanthropy 19(7). www.philantrophy.com/article/ Face-Time/54580/ [accessed on 2 September 2014].

313Stakeholder communication in SINs

www.philantrophy.com/article/Face-Time/54580

Copyright of International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.