Discussion Questions Read attached pdf and article link Answer both discussion Questions Discussion Question 1- Forecast the future direction of Str -

Discussion Questions
Read attached pdf and article link
Answer both discussion Questions

Discussion Question 1- Forecast the future direction of Strategic Communication based on current research and trends. What specific research and trends make you think Strategic Communication will be changed in the ways you believe it will in the future?

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Assignment on

Discussion Questions Read attached pdf and article link Answer both discussion Questions Discussion Question 1- Forecast the future direction of Str

From as Little as $13/Page

Discussion Question 2- Choose two different theories of Strategic Communication and explain how they differ from each other. Which theory resonates the best with you? Explain why.

Use references from Articles provided to answer questions
need references included at the bottom of each answer in proper format.

https://journals-sagepub-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/2329488414560281

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 UniversityPurdue 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: [emailprotected]

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 19: 301313 (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
constituentspublicsin an organizations 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 stakeholdersfellow 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 publicor 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-
zations 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 sectors

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 networks 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 formatsmakes 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 SINs 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 SINthat 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 notedface-to-face contact, tele-
phone contact, email contact, and social media con-
tactand 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:

Wed like to know about your communication with
the members of your program. Well ask about each
member organization. Were 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
organizations 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 Freemans (1979) centralization index is
given as follows:

Ca
g

i 1
Ca n* Ca ni = max

i 1
Ca n* Ca ni

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

i 1
Ca n* Ca ni 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 1
Ca n* Ca ni

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 networkall 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
Freemans (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 1traditional
forms of communication.

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

307Stakeholder communication in SINs

centralized through the coordinating organization.
Again, centralization was calculated using Freemans
(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:

i 1

j1
xij

!
= g g 1

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

i1
g

j1xij 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 dont 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 co

Related Questions:

Related questions