Dati sulla condivisione dei contenuti su Facebook

Case B2 was an organisation-stakeholder engagement event held in a high-rise office building in the Central Business District of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The building was owned by organisation B. Organisation B provided air-fares and 5-star hotel accommodation for stakeholders attending the committee meeting. The committee was co-Chaired by one organisation member and one stakeholder. Case B2 in this study involved stakeholders and managers who attended a committee meeting held in July 2006. At conclusion of the committee meeting, three stakeholders and three managers were interviewed. Stakeholders and managers selected for case B2 were not interviewed in case B1.

5.2.1. Expectations of effective organisation listening

Data from case B2 was examined within the framework of constructs from listening competency literature.

5.2.1.1. Expectations of an effective listener

Case B2 stakeholders provided thirty-four accounts of attributes expected of an effective listener.

Managers provided twenty-three accounts of attributes expected of an effective listener. Affective and behavioural terms received equally high numbers of accounts from stakeholders (Table B2.1.).

Affective terms received the highest number of accounts from case B2 managers (Table B2.1.).

Case B2 Affective Cognitive Behavioural TOTAL stakeholders 14 6 14 34

managers 9 8 6 23

Table B.2.1. Case B2: Attributes associated with an effective listener

Stakeholders and managers were in agreement that qualities most frequently associated with an effective listener were interpersonal skills, non-verbal and interaction-based behaviours (Table B2.2.).

Case B2

Quality (QCL taxonomy extract) stakeholders managers

interested x x

respond appropriately x x appropriate body language x

attentive x supportive/empathy x

willing to listen x

open-minded x

Table B2.2. Case B2: Qualities associated with an effective listener expected

5.2.1.2. Expectations of an effective listening organisation

Case B2 stakeholders provided thirty-four accounts of attributes associated with an effective listening organisation, (Table B2.2.). Case B2 managers provided thirty-eight accounts of attributes associated with an effective listening organisation. Stakeholders and managers primarily described attributes expected of an effective listening organisation in affective terms (Table B2.3.).

Case B2 Affective Cognitive Behavioural TOTAL stakeholders 15 10 9 34 managers 18 12 8 38 Table B2.3. Case B2: Attributes associated with an effective listening organisation

Stakeholders expected an effective listening organisation to demonstrate open-mindedness.

Although managers had associated open-mindedness with an effective listener (Table B2.2.), it was not a quality primarily associated with an effective listening organisation by managers (Table B2.4.).

Stakeholders and managers were in agreement that an appropriate corporate culture, conducive to stakeholder engagement and appropriate organisation procedures were expected from an organisation that listened effectively (Table B2.4.). An interesting difference between stakeholder and manager responses was that stakeholders primarily expected an effective listening organisation to take action on issues raised; however managers did not primarily expect this quality from an effective listening organisation (Table B2.4.).

Case B2

Quality (QCL taxonomy extract) stakeholders managers

open-minded x respond appropriately x x

take action x

appropriate corporate culture x x appropriate organisation procedures x x appropriate general procedures x

interested x

willing to change x

Table B2.4. Case B2: Qualities associated with an effective listening organisation expected

5.2.1.3. Manager understanding of stakeholder expectations

During the committee meeting, case B2 stakeholders and managers were in agreement that organisation B was primarily expected to exhibit affective characteristics to indicate effective organisation listening (Table B2.5.).

Case B2 Affective Cognitive Behavioural TOTAL stakeholders 29 16 23 68

managers 6 5 4 15

Table B2.5. Case B2: Understanding of stakeholder expectations

Stakeholders and managers were in agreement that stakeholders expected organisation B to take action on issues raised during the committee meeting (Table B2.6.). Managers accurately understood that stakeholders expected them to demonstrate an open-minded attitude and to respond appropriately to stakeholder concerns during committee meetings. Case B2 managers did not recognise that stakeholders expected the organisation to demonstrate appropriate organisation procedures as an indication of effective organisation listening (Table B2.6.). Two managers stated they were not sure what stakeholders expected during the committee meeting (Table B2.6.).

Case B2 Quality (QCL taxonomy extract) stakeholders managers

open-minded x x

respond appropriately x x appropriate corporate culture x

take action x x

attentive x knowledgeable x supportive/empathy x understand/comprehend x appropriate organisation procedures x

appropriate general procedures x

willing to listen x ask/answer questions x

not sure x

Table B2.6. Case B2: Understanding of stakeholder expectations

5.2.2. Perceptions of effective organisation listening

Case B2 stakeholders provided forty accounts of effective organisation listening perceived.

Managers self-reported fifty accounts of effective organisation listening demonstrated during the committee meeting, providing more examples than stakeholders perceived (Table B2.7.). Stakeholder and manager accounts were most frequently described in behavioural terms (Table B2.7.).

Case B2 Affective Cognitive Behavioural TOTAL stakeholders 11 6 23 40

managers 14 17 19 50

TOTAL 25 23 42 90

Table B2.7. Case B2: Attributes of effective organisation listening perceived

Case B2

Quality (QCL taxonomy extract) stakeholders managers ask/answer questions x x respond appropriately x x appropriate body language x

open-minded x approachable x address all issues x

appropriate organisation procedures x x appropriate venue & set up x x appropriate general procedures x

respectful x

supportive/empathy x

Table B2.8. Case B2: Qualities associated with an effective organisation listening perceived

Case B2 stakeholders and managers were in agreement that effective organisation listening was indicated by manager abilities to respond appropriately to questions (Table B2.8.). Agreement

was evident that appropriate organisation procedures indicated effective organisation listening to stakeholders and managers (Table B2.8.).

5.2.3. Perceptions of NON-effective organisation listening

Case B2 stakeholders and managers reported a similar number of accounts of NON-effective organisation listening perceived during the committee meeting. Stakeholders perceived primarily behavioural attributes whereas case B2 managers primarily described NON-effective organisation listening in cognitive terms (Table B2.9.).

Case B2 Affective Cognitive Behavioural TOTAL stakeholders 7 12 18 38

managers 10 22 3 35

TOTAL 17 34 21 73

Table B2.9. Case B2: Attributes of NON-effective organisation listening perceived

Stakeholders and managers were in agreement that inappropriate organisation procedures were an indication the organisation did not listen effectively during the committee meeting (Table B2.10.).Stakeholder descriptions included interpersonal skills, non-verbal, verbal and interaction-based behaviours perceived the committee meeting that were indicative of NON-effective organisation listening during (Table B2.10.).

Case B2

Quality (QCL taxonomy extract) stakeholders managers not open-minded x x not willing to change x

not respond appropriately x not ask/answer questions x not take actions x

not appropriate organisation procedures x x not appropriate venue & set up x x not appropriate general procedures x

not appropriate written procedures x not willing to listen x not understand/comprehend x

Table B2.10. Case B2: Qualities of NON-effective listening perceived

5.2.4. Discrepancies between expectations & perceptions

Discrepancies were evident between manager self-perceptions and stakeholder observations of managers’ listening behaviour. Case B2 stakeholders described managers as ‘average’ listeners.

Case B2 managers rated themselves higher, describing their own listening effectiveness as

‘effective’ (Table B2.11.).

Case B2 Rating stakeholders managers

very very effective very effective effective/v.effective

effective 3

average 3

ineffective no response

Table B2.11. “How do you rate managers as listeners?

Two of three stakeholders believed their expectations were NOT met during the committee meeting; in contrast, two of three managers interviewed considered organisation B met stakeholder expectations (Table B2.12.).

Case B2

Expectations stakeholders managers

yes 1 2

no 2 1

no response

Table B2.12. “Were stakeholder expectations met?”

These results were consistent with earlier indications that case B2 managers were over-confident in perceptions of their listening effectiveness (Tables B2.7. & B2.9.).

In case B2 all stakeholders believed past experience with organisation B influenced their expectations. Communication sources identified by two out of three stakeholders included emails, annual documents and relationships between stakeholders and organisation B staff (B2.13.).

Case B2 managers interviewed stated they did not know what communication sources may have influenced stakeholder expectations. Two out of three managers identified background briefing documents and past experience with organisation B as communication sources that may have influenced stakeholder expectations (Table B2.13.).

Case B2

CommunicationSource stakeholders managers past experience x x

emails x annual documents x

relationships x background briefing documents x

did not know x

Table B2.13: Basis of stakeholder expectations

5.2.5. Participatory communication

Data from case B2 was re-examined within the framework of constructs from participatory communication literature.

5.2.5.1. Knowledge

Case B2 managers were more optimistic than stakeholders in their belief organisation B was knowledgeable about, or interested in, stakeholder issues (S=4; M=21) (Table B2.14.). Managers indicated a high level of confidence in their own knowledge of the committee’s objectives;

however their statements reflected conflicting opinions as to the purpose of the committee. The [committee] is more issues focused. It can be more of a critical environment… In this forum, the issues are wider” (B2.M1)”; [CRM] told me they were a group of people who come with vested interests from their respective fields, and are more worried about their constituents than their business”(B2.M2); “ it is quite often difficult to do it in a forum like that, when you've got a wide range of interest and this person is just interested in their own little narrow … They are paid to represent their special narrow interest group” (B2.M3); “'It’s a forum funded by [organisation B], where they pull together people who represent a whole range of special interest groups so that they can talk about [industry]and learn about what [organisation B] is. Stakeholders suggested they preferred to consult with organisation B managers who demonstrated prior knowledge of the committee “if the presenter has sort of dealt with us a fair bit, they have an idea of what they're going to cope with, and if they're skilful, they'll come back in a way that they know that we will appreciate” (B2.S1).

Challenge to knowledge

There were more statements from case B2 managers than stakeholders to indicate challenges to the organisation’s knowledge about, or interest in, stakeholder issues (S=5; M=12) (Table B2.14.).

Two managers recognised their lack of knowledge as regards stakeholders on the committee, or community groups represented. In response to the question “how much did you know about the people that were there?” one manager states “not a lot” (B2.M2). Managers confirmed there was a lack of background briefing for managers invited to attend the committee meeting as guest speakers “no, we were just given, these are the things they would like to hear about. This is the time that you have available.

Please leave time for questions and we were given a time slot and that was it” (B2.M3); “I don't think I know enough ….about their expectations, what they would be influenced by to comment” (B2.M2).

Consistent with case B2 manager self-perceptions, stakeholders considered guest speakers did not make sufficient effort to familiarise themselves with stakeholder issues prior to the committee meeting “I did see some people who had just come for the one session where they are presenting, which I feel is sometimes a pity, because there is a round table of people who could give them so much input into what they're doing and would be pretty valuable to have that input” (B2.S1). One stakeholder described a presentation

by a guest speaker that introduced a new project to the committee as a ‘fait accompli’. During presentation of the new project, stakeholders became aware promotional material associated with the project had not been pre-tested with the target market “I think they were quite surprised that they missed the obvious of checking it out with older people when that was their direct focus for this particular project (B2.S1). Stakeholders expressed frustration that one manager made a presentation to the committee on a topic he was not familiar with “he was a bit out of his depth because the main [organisation B] people knew more than he (B2.S3).

Three managers provided different interpretations of their reasons for presenting at committee meetings. One manager understood his presentation was intended as a sales presentation, offering business-related services to the respective businesses represented by committee members. Another manager understood his role to be as ‘information deliverer’ to the committee, stating he would have preferred a lectern to speak from. The third manager perceived his role to be as a ‘speaker, not a listener’. Managers were in agreement their role at the meeting was to present information, rather than to facilitate two-way dialogue.

Managers and stakeholders had conflicting opinions on the role of the committee. There was evidence of a lack of agreement between stakeholders and the Community Relations Manager (CRM) as regards the purpose of the committee. During his interview, the CRM described the committee as a forum:

1. for community groups to provide input to the company;

2. for organisation B to gain understanding of industry-related issues affecting specific sections of the community;

3. to assist organisation B in industry-specific public policy development.

During their interviews, stakeholders described the committee as a forum:

1. for community groups to provide input to the company;

2. for organisation B to gain understanding of industry-related issues affecting specific sections of the community.

Stakeholders did not indicate their role as committee members was to develop, or advise the organisation on industry-related public policy.

Case B2 stakeholders managers Case B2 stakeholders managers knowledge 4 15 challenge to knowledge 5 12 appropriate 11 32 challenge to appropriate 16 8 sincerity 11 13 challenge to sincerity 13 1 comprehension 15 30 challenge to

comprehension 10 14

TOTAL 41 75 TOTAL 44 34

Table B2.14. Case B2: Validity claims met Challenge to validity claims

5.2.5.2. Appropriate

Case B2 managers were more optimistic than stakeholders that the organisation behaved

‘appropriately’ during the meeting (S=11; M=32) (Table B2.14.). “I was there representing [organisation B] to the best of my ability (B2.M2); “I sought feedback often, particularly when we were talking about a particular issue” (B2.M3); “I listened carefully to the questions and answered them to the best of my ability” (B2.M1). Managers demonstrated a limited understanding of what was expected of them during the meeting. One manager stated “that's probably part of the problem, we go in to a speaking engagement rather than a listening engagement” (B2.M1).

Stakeholder comments primarily related to ‘appropriate’ organisation procedures in the set-up and coordination of the committee. Stakeholders perceived the staff involved with the committee were appropriate “we're always seeing people who are in decision-making parts of the organisation for the issue that we are looking at” (B2.S3); “he was talking anecdotally rather than expressing just a policy or a principle, so he talked with us rather than talked at us, and that was important” (B2.S1); “the presenter was not overly defensive of the criticisms and was very open in both his body language” (B2.S3).

Challenge to appropriate

Stakeholders provided twice the number of statements as managers to indicate the organisation behaved inappropriately during the committee meeting (S=16; M=8) (Table B2.14.). Stakeholders perceived managers to demonstrate a superior attitude towards the committee. In addition, stakeholders perceived managers to demonstrate defensiveness and arrogance during the committee meeting “often they are very defensive and the response of the council is quite aggressive, and that can be a very interesting process"(B2.S3); “I think they feel that they're too senior to spend their time talking to [name of committee] (B2.S2).

Stakeholders expressed frustration at the number of times organisation B did not consult with the committee on issues that impact on stakeholder constituents “we expect to have some input and we are concerned that very often that input is far too late” (B2.S1). Stakeholder perceptions were reinforced when managers used their presentations as ‘information delivery’, rather than an opportunity to gain committee members feedback and advice, prior to decision-making by the organisation.

The majority of statements from managers related to self-perceptions that organisation procedures associated with the committee were inappropriate. Managers suggested the meeting room was shabby. Two managers complained background briefing documents prepared by the CRM were not appropriate for committee members “I assumed what he would put in would be easy to read and I shouldn't have” (B2.M2); “No, [CRM] has previously prepared…some in-depth information on that particular topic. I'm not sure exactly what he had sent” (B2.M1]. There was no indication either manager felt it may have been more appropriate to prepare their own background briefing material.

5.2.5.3. Sincerity

Twenty-one items indicated organisation B was perceived as sincere in attempts to address stakeholder concerns (S=11; M=10) (Table B2.14.). Managers involved with the committee on a regular basis were considered sincere in their attempts to address stakeholder concerns “[CRM]

was focused on the [committee], not on the [organisation B] corporate policy (B2.S2); “the people we work with a lot, I have every faith in them. I do think they're effective” (B2.S1). Stakeholders believed organisation B’s corporate culture was not conducive to participatory communication between the committee and the organisation “[manager] indications were that he would carry that information forward. Now, having said that, I think in general he believes he will, but whether there will be an achievement out of that is a different matter” (B2.S3).

Challenge to sincerity

In case B2, organisational culture and corporate policy emerged as conditions that stakeholders associated with a ‘challenge to the organisation’s sincerity’ (S=13; M=0) (Table B2.14.).

Statements included “It's not the individual in most cases, you know. Obviously there are exceptions. Mostly the individuals want to do the right thing but it's the corporate policy” (B2.S2); “the only time they listen is when they can find an advantage from a marketing point of view ….I have become quite used now to having information given to us, too late for us to have much input” (B2.S1). There were no statements from managers to indicate they challenged their own sincerity in attempting to address stakeholder concerns during the committee meeting.

5.2.5.4. Comprehension

Stakeholders and managers recorded a similar numbers of statements to indicate they understood the other party’s position and the issues involved (S=15; M=12) (Table B2.14.). Stakeholders and managers suggested there was mutual understanding between the two cohorts that, in general, managers were doing their best to meet the committee’s requirements. Stakeholders understood the committee’s level of influence on some issues was limited, whilst on other issues stakeholders expressed confidence their feedback was valued by managers “I don't think I'm naive about

[organisation B] and I know that they're a company, and it comes through all the time in all of the presentations from particularly the younger people, who now see their primary responsibility not to the Australian population but to the shareholder” (B2.S3); “okay, we have to accept that these people are not there to do our bidding. They have very big jobs as well and these days people seem to find more and more tasks loaded on to them, and so they have less time to run around with this group of consumers”(B2.S1). One manager was confident he understood stakeholder concerns “but I understood -- I understand better than a lot of people about what their concerns are… Most of the people in there understand that we are doing our level best to meet their requirements” (B2.M3).

Challenge to comprehension

There was a medium level of congruency between stakeholders and managers in regards to

‘challenges to comprehension’ (S=10; M=14) (Table B2.14.). Managers recognised they did not have time to establish a relationship with committee members and therefore their understanding of the committee membership was limited “It's only a fleeting thing because I was just in there for one hour talking about [topic] so I haven’t had the opportunity to generate a rapport”(B2.M3). Examination of the meeting agenda showed the topic referred to by the manager was a regular agenda-item. One manager believed his presentation was not relevant to the audience “I'm going into these businesses to talk to them who have no interest in profit whatsoever. Their sole purpose is to deliver to constituents, so from a starting point we are poles apart”. Managers perceived support material distributed during presentations was difficult for stakeholders to understand ‘the only thing they got was one page or one or 2 pages of the pricing construct. I would expect any normal person to blow over that as reading the pack and not understand it, given the way it was presented” (B2.M2). Two managers suggested the structure of the committee was problematic. One manager suggested the scope of the committee was so wide, interests of individual members so varied that it was difficult for the organisation to meet the committee’s needs “the way it's been structured, and the fact that there's been no sort of coalescing of their needs…..Oh, I think the scope of the [committee] is so wide and the interests so varied and the subjects are so eclectic, that it's very, very hard for people to sort of think to the level of depth required” (B2.M1). Another manager considered competition within the stakeholder group themselves was evident, as they endeavoured to represent their respective constituents in committee meetings.

‘challenges to comprehension’ (S=10; M=14) (Table B2.14.). Managers recognised they did not have time to establish a relationship with committee members and therefore their understanding of the committee membership was limited “It's only a fleeting thing because I was just in there for one hour talking about [topic] so I haven’t had the opportunity to generate a rapport”(B2.M3). Examination of the meeting agenda showed the topic referred to by the manager was a regular agenda-item. One manager believed his presentation was not relevant to the audience “I'm going into these businesses to talk to them who have no interest in profit whatsoever. Their sole purpose is to deliver to constituents, so from a starting point we are poles apart”. Managers perceived support material distributed during presentations was difficult for stakeholders to understand ‘the only thing they got was one page or one or 2 pages of the pricing construct. I would expect any normal person to blow over that as reading the pack and not understand it, given the way it was presented” (B2.M2). Two managers suggested the structure of the committee was problematic. One manager suggested the scope of the committee was so wide, interests of individual members so varied that it was difficult for the organisation to meet the committee’s needs “the way it's been structured, and the fact that there's been no sort of coalescing of their needs…..Oh, I think the scope of the [committee] is so wide and the interests so varied and the subjects are so eclectic, that it's very, very hard for people to sort of think to the level of depth required” (B2.M1). Another manager considered competition within the stakeholder group themselves was evident, as they endeavoured to represent their respective constituents in committee meetings.

In document Un análisis socio-relacional de la actividad comunicativa de las marcas de refrescos en (página 128-136)