Regulators Boards of Trustees
Introduction
A discourse community is composed of a group or individuals within a body of collective interest in which communication routinely occurs. One might consider a discourse community as the world in which an organization lives comprised of vital and non-vital messages. My research indicates that the Internet has increased the size, activity, distances and the influence of stakeholders.
As the illustration above shows, a discourse community has many
conversations taking place sequentially, concurrently and continually. Conversations between individuals flow internal to internal, internal to external, external to external, external to internal and external to external—all related to the organization in some way or form. Stockholders The media Advocacy Groups Similar Organizations Consumers Trade Groups Organization
Is there any involvement in this discourse community that might give inkling as to potential hotspots causing a crisis event? Discussion of this is partly the subject matter of this chapter, however; in short there are systematic and strategic methods for approaching the needs of the organization involving communication.
A person or group may be supportive or antagonistic in a discourse
community. A garden club might be an advocacy group and a part of the discourse community of the Sierra Club. A “Friends of the Environment” advocacy group is a part of the discourse community of a nuclear power plant, though the relationship would probably be antagonistic in nature.
The identification of individual stakeholders and stakeholder groups is an important part of an organizational analysis. However; in general, stakeholders are a very dynamic group of people and groups. In examining this issue, van der Merwe, Pitt, & Abratt concluded, “The Internet has the potential to express the positions not only of organizations, but those of different stakeholders in the communication process (Berthon, Pitt and Watson, 1996; Coombs, 1998; Heath, 1998; and Naude, Froneman and Atwood, 2004). The strength of these stakeholders has varied in the past, with government and regulators exercising considerable power, investors and some suppliers notable power, and the power of customers and intermediaries ranging from substantial in some cases, to inconsequential in a majority of other. However; the Internet is permitting all stakeholders of an organization to exercise significant strength, and in many cases this can have substantial consequences. It is fair to say that a majority of organizations probably do not have considered strategies in place to deal with the strength the new media affords stakeholders. From a PR perspective the
effects of Internet induced stakeholder strength can be extensive” (39). Herein, van der Merwe, Pitt, & Abratt are stating not only that stakeholders represent a key element of an organization’s management strategy, but also that the Internet is a major factor in their individual and collective influence.
On the issue of stakeholder relationships, Mau & Dennis characterized antagonistic stakeholders as “shadow constituencies.” “These are individuals and groups outside traditional corporate spheres of influence whose opinions may not affect the bottom line immediately, but can affect the public’s perception of a
company. And since public perception often becomes reality, shadow constituencies may well affect an organization’s operations and its profitability” (10). van der Merwe, Pitt, and Abratt & Perry, Doerful, and Taylor suggest that these and other stakeholders are empowered by the Internet’s ease of use and its heightened level of visibility.
A person or group does not have to be logistically nearby to be part of a discourse community. For example a writing composition professor at the University of Washington is very much a part of the discourse community of other composition professors at Boston College and the University of Miami. That they give papers and presentations to each other at various conferences is important to the discourse
community. However; the vitality of the relationship is more than that. In the case of writing composition professors or chemistry fellows or eminent scholars in physics, there is a kinship of intellectual and perhaps philosophical affiliation between the members. They examine similar discussions; they consider related and disparate topics; they argue among themselves in person or in their papers on topics ranging
from the mundane to the significant. This type of kinship may be attributed to many types of relationships within a given discourse community.
A discourse community may be dynamic (fluid), and alignment with other groups or individuals is sometimes dynamic. People or groups associated with an organization may be a discourse community one day, and the next day completely disassociated. For example, in the 2005 tragedy incident involving Terry Shiavo, a young woman on life support whose parents lost numerous court cases to maintain that life support, there were a number of temporary discourse communities affixed to the parents. The political community, which arguably used the parents and the young woman as a pawn for their own reasons would likely never again be involved with the Shiavo’s, yet they were surely part of a temporary discourse community. The
attorneys representing the family were also part of the temporary discourse community. The advocacy groups such as the spokespersons from the right-wing group Operation Rescue became a discourse community and then abruptly departed— probably never to be seen again by the parents. The hospitals, doctors, nurses and support personnel of the facilities in which Mrs. Shiavo was resident were at once part of the discourse community, and when she died, the link ceased to exist. The Shiavo case is a simplistic example of a temporary discourse community related to a family and not an organization. However; it is a reasonable comparison to an
organization which faces temporary and perhaps one-time issues only for a discourse community formed as a result of that issue to evaporate.
In typical organizational dynamics, productivity is tied to effective and
services, media delivery or any one of several types of management, an excellent communication flow is necessary for efficiency. Many researchers, some already noted in this dissertation, have examined the relationship between the health of the discourse community and productivity. Conrad and Poole directly tie organizational conflict to communication issues, “We will define conflict more broadly as
communication between people who depend on one another and who perceive that the others stand between them and the realization of their goals, aims or values…This definition encompasses… everyday discussions or organizational policies and
projects, negotiations between employees or groups of employees and cooperative attempts to find mutually acceptable solutions to problems” (316).
Berdayes argued, “Language is thus the basic vehicle for constituting the somatic field of modern organizations” (39). In this statement, Berdayes is using the critical word somatic to denote structural foundation, or the intrinsic underpinning that not only holds the organization together, but also helps to define its character. He also postulated, echoing the works of Foucault, that there are three rules
establishing a schema essential to a discourse community, “Examination, hierarchical observation and normalizing judgment…these are tacitly accepted organizing
principles embedded in texts, artifacts and [organizational] practices” (40). Berdayes offered principles of organizational management, including, “1) The rationalization of work processes and organizational structure with an emphasis on elaborating a clear hierarchical division of labor; 2) forging the organization, whether by thoroughly formalizing the work process in its totality or by delineating clear lines of command into a conceptual and functional unity; 3) an emphasis on formal rationality,
expressed by explicitly championing “scientific” techniques or by reformulating human relations based on abstract principles believed to insure order and efficiency” (40).
Berdayes also reasoned that there are principles upon which organizations are structured and which are primarily centered and melded by language. He suggested that managers exercise examination, observation and judgment to understand and resolve discourse community issues. While these principles of management were offered in administering organizations exclusive of issues of health or crisis, the same functions are precisely those suggested by crisis management scholars as a means to predict and manage crises.
Conrad & Poole, Berdayes and others therefore assign the relationship between people, and specifically communication between people as key elements in the health of the discourse community and they equate low strength of the discourse community to conflict. With these assumptions as backdrop, we can examine the discourse community and its stakeholders and develop strategies and tactics for targeted messaging. The ultimate objective of this is to search for elements of communication that resonate with stakeholders and attempt to influence them to the benefit of the organization.
Part I: Messaging to, from, and within a Discourse Community
A political campaign is an outstanding communications laboratory, with many parallels for communication strategy within a discourse community. In a political campaign, the merchandise being sold is not a piece of equipment, or food, or clothes—each of which can be quantified with some degree of authenticity,
consistency and practical usage. The product for sale in a campaign is a person who possesses a certain set of characteristics that, if assessed from a distance might present many conflicting thoughts and views. In fact, one of the interesting (and perhaps worrisome) facets of a campaign is that while candidates possess stated objectives or perhaps idealistic leanings, most issues are up for grabs in an election within a set of philosophical boundaries. If a candidate begins the race fixated on a certain issue with a leaning this way or the other, and he finds that the electorate abhors that view, it is likely his view will shift toward public opinion. The winds of the public will are very persuasive, and a candidate is often very malleable.
For example, if casino gambling is an issue in a campaign, none but the most conservative candidate might state outright he is opposed to it; conversely, none but the most liberal candidate might state outright he is absolutely in favor of it. The majority of candidates from either major party will take a look at poll numbers, and settle in the mainstream area. If, for some reason, there is a pressing need to move away from a certain position, a candidate and his strategists will examine the public will very closely and move in that direction. Occasionally a candidate will stake out a strong position on an issue from the outset. In those cases, campaign strategists have