Social Media and Strategic Communication

Social Media and Strategic Communication

The introductory chapter presented the role of social media as being especially suited to use as a

springboard to study strategic communication insofar as these new digital communication channels

represent ideas of decentralization, a participatory culture, and inclusion, which challenge established

and conventional communication approaches centering on control, effectiveness, and a managerial

perspective (c.f., Deetz, 1992; Jenkins, 2006; Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012; Shirky, 2008). The

development and use of new digital technologies have always attracted attention, often associated with

hopes of general changes of general empowerment and participation throughout society. Similarly,

social media have spread and become adopted to diverse organizations with similar connotations

& Schultz, 2010). It has been noted that social media (and digital communication technologies) is one of

the central challenges to communication practitioners today (Kent, 2010). Simultaneously, the use of

social media is rapidly growing in different organizations and in society, presenting an intriguing context

for continued exploration (c.f., Findahl & Davidsson, 2015; Moreno, Navarro, Tench, & Zerfass, 2015; D.

K. Wright & Hinson, 2011; D. K. Wright & Hinson, 2013, 2014, 2015; A Zerfass, Verhoeven, Tench,

Moreno, & Vercic, 2011). Kaplan and Haenlein (2010, p. 61) defined social media as “a group of Internet-

based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that

allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content.”.

A similar understanding, which consequently requires a few words on Web 2.0. Tim O'Reilly

(2005) argued that we should understand Web 2.0 based on six trends programs become platforms, the

presented six types of social media in their influential paper: collaborative projects (e.g., wiki), blogs,

content communities (e.g., YouTube, Flickr), social network sites (e.g., Facebook), Virtual game worlds,

and Virtual social worlds.

However, more related and applicable in a strategic communication context is the work of Bartlett

and Bartlett (2012), who in their overview (from a perspective on social media’s legitimacy in

communication) defined four categories of social media types: social networking (e.g., Facebook),

knowledge collaboration (e.g., a wiki), content sharing (e.g., YouTube, Flickr), and blogging (e.g., blogs,

Twitter). These broad categories function as guiding concepts to approach social media in this study.

Social media are hence considered as sites with the possibility for networking and interactions, and

places for production and sharing of various content (e.g., photography, video, and audio), or engaging

classified as social media, are un-social (Papacharissi, 2015)? Hardly. This, however, was not a topic for

this dissertation, but an inspiration to remain open to interpretations of social media throughout the

research project. Although social media are broadly acknowledged as generators of social change, giving

organizations a human voice (Weinberger, Locke, Levine, & McKee, 2009) and putting the user

(stakeholders) in a stronger position (Solis & Breakenridge, 2009).

Blogging is an early archetype of social media that stresses informal and personal content being

shared with its readers, also offering a change for the reader to comment on the content (Puschmann,

2010; Rettberg, 2013). Interactive blogs, where personal relationships may arise, have been found to

foster positive attitudes towards organizations (Yang & Kang, 2009). In a recent Danish study,

AgerdalHjermind and Valentini (2015) found that a government agency sought to increase its visibility.

Individuals now have access to channels to spread ideas, to react, and it is possible to rapidly

gather a diverse group of people to join a specific cause. This condition, however, is also true for

organizations. This new relationship, together with the managerial perspective in strategic

communication, does not provide anything new, especially as the control of communication by

organizations and communicators is fundamentally questioned, and rejected (Falkheimer & Heide, 2015;

Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2015b; Macnamara, 2010).

From a strategic communication perspective, social media can be assumed to be approached and

situated as integrated and managed from a central location, overseen and operated by professional

communicators to assume a role as channels for organizations to use according to organizational goals

and needs. However, as the idea of control is generally acknowledged as problematic in communication,

Social media´s roles in the strategic communication process is not extensively researched, in

particularly not in how they are adopted and used within organizations. To date, research shows that

found evidence of a “social media bubble” in which communicator perceptions seem to show an over-

estimation of their own knowledge and skills (see also Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012). Qualitative

research, from a micro level, is scarce. Some studies have investigated contextual conditions: for

example, Briones, Kuch, Liu, and Jin (2011) who studied the American Red Cross and their social media

use in relationship building, Fitch (2009) studied social media use in a Singaporean PR consultancy, and

Working with communication in organizations is complicated and, as already noted, outcomes are

difficult to control. However, contributing and addressing the issues identified above, there are several

branches of development of strategic communication, combining and drawing on insights from various

disciplines and a host of social theories (for example Cheney & Christensen, 2001; Christensen &

Hence, in this work I adopt the ideas formulated in the school of organizational neoinstitutional

theory (Greenwood et al., 2008; John W. Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2014) to study strategic

communication. Instead of driving research on strategic communication towards the elaboration of

concepts such as efficiency and “best practices” and the approach to communication as a tool, the

institutional perspective understands strategic communication through the study of organizational

environments´ influence and the interaction with interpretations inside organizations. Sandhu (2009, pp.

75- 76) suggests adopting a neo-institutional analysis of strategic communication to create an

understanding beyond viewing communication as instrumental and a strategic function as it

acknowledges: 1) the organizational embeddedness in and influence of social environments; 2) an

understanding of the carriers of institutional elements; and 3) how organizations face and cope with

similar sets of social expectations. Strategic communication is here understood as enabled and

constrained by socially constructed rules, norms, and ideas, rerouting our focus to the social

expectations.

(Wehmeier, 2006). The managerial approach in strategic communication, including the idea of

centralization of communication with delegated roles and responsibilities, the planning and execution of

communication activities, and the notion of control, are, from the neo-institutional perspective, closely

institutional theory has gained considerable attention in strategic communication research with several

conceptual works together with a growing body of empirical studies, often with a “Scandinavian” touch.

Most of these studies have been qualitative field studies (c.f., Frandsen & Johansen, 2009, 2013;

Fredriksson, Olsson, & Pallas, 2013; Fredriksson & Pallas, 2015; Kjeldsen, 2013; Schultz & Wehmeier,

2010; Tench et al., 2009; Wakefield, 2008; Wæraas & Sataøen, 2013). However, except for the

Scandinavian research stream, neoinstitutional research in strategic communication has aligned to the

interpreted in the wider frame of strategic communication): institutional logics, translations, and

institutional work.

institutionalism. This approach allows the study of how strategic communication, as an institutionalized

practice, travels between organizations and becomes meaningful in new organizational settings

(Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996). The translation perspective of neoinstitutional theory encourages the

researcher to adopt an approach that includes both a broader and a narrower perspective to study

strategic communication. It departs from the dominant management perspective, which has produced

insightful knowledge and results, but tends to focus on a limited part of strategic communication. A

translation approach, on the other hand, includes both the external environment’s expectations and

demands and the internal organizational conditions and processes. Neo-institutional theory thus offers a

References

Armstrong, J. S. and Overton, T., S. (1977). "Estimating nonresponses in mail surveys." Journal of

Marketing Research 14 (August): 396-402.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G., B. (2002). "The influence of multiple store

environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions." Journal of

Marketing 66 (April): 120-141.

Bech-Larsen, T. (1996). "Danish consumers' attitudes to the functional and environmental

characteristics of food packaging." Journal of Consumer Policy 19 (3): 339-363.

Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff,

A., Shen, D., Timko, M. and Walden, D. (1993). "Kano's methods for understanding

customer-defined quality." The Center for Quality Management Journal 2 (4): 3-36.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). "Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee

responses." Journal of Marketing 54 (April): 69-82.

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B., H. and Stanfiel Tetreault, M. (1990). "The service encounter: Diagnosing

favorable and unfavorable incidents." Journal of Marketing 54 (January): 71-84.