Given that individuals are actually making the decisions, consideration of a personal frame of reference was crucial. That is to say, how did the individual in the DMU feel about sponsorship and CCI more generally? It was felt that this type of question would reveal more of a personal context for this subject, and a specific question near the end of the interview, was posed: “do you have a personal philosophy about the role of the company in society?” Interestingly, all respondents felt that the company had a role in contributing to society, and all linked sponsorship with this. There were however variations in how this was explained.
In responding to the specific question noted, seven out of 13 company case respondents expressed more of a philanthropic orientation, focusing on the need to engage in CCI and sponsorship as an obligation of the company in society. Four company individuals were more oriented towards commercial ends – noting the role of CCI and sponsorship as fulfilling ROI needs, and/or meeting a specific marketing objective such as changing perceptions of the market. While responses to this particular question resulted in a wide array of opinions, when other comments made by the respondents were considered, a more balanced view emerged. In other words, there was, overall, for individuals, an impression that both social and commercial goals existed, and could exist together.
Interview responses were then explored to see if there was a relationship between the individual frame and the decision-making process. Initially, it was thought that this individual frame would be linked with a company frame of reference: the “company‟s”
philosophy of giving. This appeared only true in some instances – particularly those in smaller privately owned companies.
112
Another finding noted previously was the difference in how CCE‟s expressed their views, compared with CSM/CMM‟s. CCE‟s were unanimous in expressing that companies have a role to play in contributing to society and part of this includes sponsorship. They spoke of an obligation to give back, as well as need to contribute to society. For example one CCE stated:
[when we make these decisions we ask] does it add value for New Zealand? for the country? … basically we think in terms of what is of value to the country. What‘s the value to the nation?
This philanthropic-oriented view however, co-existed with the need to achieve commercial goals. The same respondent noted:
[we also ask] what is the value that this sponsorship might give to us?
And that therefore relates to things like brand, fit and so on but what are we going to get out of it?
In contrast, and as related to the specific decision, most respondents in CSM/CMM positions spoke more frequently about the need for a market fit, the need for return on investment, and increased objectivity. Phrases such as “we have policy business rules”,
“a more objective … way of thinking”, and “we have to be really objective” were present for these respondents. Therefore, while these individuals appeared to share a
philanthropic view overall, when speaking of specific decisions their discussion shifted to a more commercial orientation.
While a difference in approach and philosophy was noted in the decision, the next analysis concerned the effect of philosophies on the process. Findings firstly suggested that the philosophy of the CSM/CMM was not seen to hold a great influence over the decisions. In all decisions this role had to take a more commercial perspective, looking for the benefits and being aware of potential risks – either during the evaluation or post-decision. It was evident that while individuals at this level may have had an orientation toward philanthropy, the business objectives came first.
113
A similar pattern was revealed for CCEs: while they may have expressed a personal philanthropic philosophy, they also expressed a role in ensuring business objectives came first. Particular attention was given in this analysis to six of the cases – all of which were characterised by relatively high CCE involvement. In most of these cases, it was found that it was not the CCE‟s personal philosophy of giving which played a part, but the individual‟s intuition, knowledge, judgement and position. Two CCEs noted that they simply knew it would work.
In two of the cases, although it was recommended to the CCE that the company not engage in the sponsorship, the CCE felt the link between the company and the arts initiative was strong, and essentially made a positive decision happen.
Discussion concerning the frame of the CCE in decisions was echoed in conversations with experts, most noting the need for someone in authority to understand the arts initiative and see the link with the strategy. Two expert respondents noted:
… [it is] always important to get to the key decision-maker. . . because they‘ve got to have vision.
… what it needs is someone in a position of authority in that company who really wants to do it.
The influence of the CCE suggested further analysis in terms of the DMU, which will be discussed in more depth in section 5.4.
Based on the consideration of the individual frame of reference, the analysis suggested that the personal frame of reference influenced the decision when it was that of a high-level individual, within the DMU, and that person felt strongly, based on their own experience, that the sponsorship would benefit the company. Analysis also suggested that the important frame is not so much how individuals felt about the role of the company in sponsoring the arts, but what they knew about the initiative and the ability for it to fit with the company needs.
114 5.2.4 Frame of Reference in Summary
In examining the frame of reference, and its influence on the decision-making process, three levels were evident: an external frame of reference, an internal frame of reference and a personal frame of reference. Externally, it appeared that the general perception of sponsorship and its association with uncertainty fed into the process, often necessitating the involvement of high levels of management. While industry characteristics were considered, these were influential mainly as they related to the identification of stakeholder groups to be targeted with sponsorship. Considering an internal frame of reference, all companies in all cases expressed a need to be a contributing part of society, but what shaped the frame more dramatically was the company‟s strategy, and the need for the company to achieve a fit between the sponsorship and their operations – be it their mission, values or more specifically a market and/or brand fit.
Findings from examination of the personal frame of reference revealed an orientation both to philanthropic motives for CCI and sponsorship, along with the need to make commercially based decisions. The personal views concerning CCI did not seem to enter into the decision-making, except for the case of the high-level managers. For high-level managers, it appeared that rather than their philosophy, what was important was their knowledge and skill, allowing them a level of intuition about whether this investment would “work” for the company. In this way, these individuals did influence the decisions.
5.3 Extent of Formalisation of Policy
The formalisation of policy concerns the policies and procedures associated with the sponsorship. For example, did the company have a formal policy and formal procedures?
Were the procedures followed? The formalisation of policy may give boundaries to alternatives considered, interpretation of the consequences, and rules with which to
Corporate Frame of Reference
Level of Policy Formalisation
Characteristics of the Decision-Making Unit Characteristics
of the Investment
The Decision-Making Process
115
evaluate the alternatives. It could also determine the individuals in the decision-making unit and therefore determine roles and potential conflict. The formalisation of policy was regarded as influencing the decision process, firstly in the formal articulation of policy and procedure, but secondly, in the extent to which these formal rules are followed.
The extent of a formalised policy was ascertained in most instances via information on company websites. A direct question was also asked if the respondent had not already covered this in the course of the interview. Once the information was coded, nodes were reviewed, suggesting clear categories in terms of policy related to the objectives
companies seek to fulfil in selecting sponsorship. Respondents also spoke of policy related to the procedures which requests are subjected to. In terms of the overall picture of the influence of a formal policy, three key questions were posed of the data:
1. To what extent did formal policies and procedures exist?
2. What was the relationship between the formal policy and the decision process?
and
3. What seemed to affect the extent of formalisation?