Social Media Communication in Organizations The Challenges of Balancing Openness Strategy and Management

International Journal of Strategic Communication
ISSN: 1553-118X (Print) 1553-1198 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hstc20
Social Media Communication in Organizations: The

Challenges of Balancing Openness, Strategy, and
Management
Jim Macnamara & Ansgar Zerfass
To cite this article: Jim Macnamara & Ansgar Zerfass (2012) Social Media
Communication in Organizations: The Challenges of Balancing Openness, Strategy,
and Management, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6:4, 287-308, DOI:
10.1080/1553118X.2012.711402
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2012.711402
Published online: 20 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3366
View related articles
Citing articles: 22 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hstc20
Download by: [University of Victoria]
Date: 01 April 2016, At: 13:50
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6: 287308, 2012

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1553-118X print / 1553-1198 online
DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2012.711402
Social Media Communication in Organizations:

The Challenges of Balancing Openness, Strategy,
and Management
Jim Macnamara
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Ansgar Zerfass
University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Organizations from government departments and corporations to small businesses are increasingly
adopting social media for strategic corporate and organizational communication and public relations.
This is seen by many as a positive development because the openness of the Web 2.0 environment potentially democratizes voice and affords participation, dialogue, and community-building.
However, optimistic views of the benefits of organizational social media communication fail to adequately take account of potential conflict between the philosophy of openness that characterizes Web
2.0 and organizational strategy and management processes. Based on two international surveys from
Australasia and Europe, this paper shows how social media are being deployed by organizations in a
number of countries. These findings were further explored through depth interviews with a selection
of social media specialists to examine how the tensions between the open, uncontrolled practices of
social media and organizational strategy and management might be resolved or balanced, particularly
in relation to objectives, control, and governance. The findings identify future directions in strategic
communication that mediate the interests of organizations and online communities.
Social media are being widely cited as enabling of, if not transformative for, democratic societies.
They are seen as sites for expansion and invigoration of the public sphere conceptualized by
Habermas (1989, 2006) as a place where citizens come together and confer freely about matters of
general interest, which he described as part of the bedrock of liberal democracies (2006, p. 412).
The widely cited 2008 U.S. presidential election showed that social media are increasingly used to
engage youth and marginalized groups, with many Americans voting for the first time and 46% of
all Americans using the Web to access news about the campaign, share their views and mobilize
others (Smith & Rainie, 2008, p. i). In a special volume focused on youth titled Civic Life Online:
Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth, W. Lance Bennett (2008) concluded that digital
media provide . . . young people who have access to it an important set of tools to build social
Correspondence should be sent to Jim Macnamara, University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Arts & Social
Sciences, P. O. Box 123, Broadway, Sydney, 2007 Australia. E-mail: jim.macnamara@uts.edu.au
288
MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS
and personal identity and to create an on and offline environment (p. 8). Social media use is also
increasingly spread across demographics, according to other studies. Health researcher Joan Kiel
(2005) says the myth that the elderly shy away from innovations is just that, a myth and cites
benefits in slowing intellectual decline and in giving the elderly a sense of accomplishment and
self-esteem (p. 21).
Because of the widely perceived benefits, private and public sector organizations are increasingly using social media for corporate and organizational communication and public relations
(PR). McCorkindale (2009) found that 69% of Fortune 500 companies are using social networking sites. A Towers Watson (2010) study of 328 organizations representing 5,000,000 employees
worldwide found that 65% planned to increase their use of social media to engage and build
relationships with employees and other stakeholders. Similarly, in the European Communication
Monitor 2011, Zerfass, Verhoeven, Tench, et al. (2011) reported tremendous growth in the
perceived importance of online channels (p. 90).
Within PR and corporate communication (used here in the sense of corpora meaning bodies
or organizations, not only corporations), the use of social media is similarly hailed as transformative, as it enables two-way and more symmetrical interaction between organizations and
their publics which is identified as Best Practice in Excellence theory (L. Grunig, J. Grunig, &
Dozier, 2002). Social media are also seen as facilitating relational and dialogic models of communication (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Kent & Taylor, 2002; Ledingham, 2006). In New Media and
Public Relations edited by Duh (2008), one of the first academic texts focused on social media
in the field, Hazelton, Harrison-Rexrode, and Kennan (2008) for claimed that public relations is
undergoing a revolution (p. 91).
In the foreword to Breakenridges (2008) book on PR 2.0, social media advocate Brian
Solis effused: Welcome to what just may be the greatest evolution in the history of PR (Solis,
2008, p. xvii). He claimed that with the shift to social media monologue has given way to dialogue (p. xviii). In the title of another book, Solis and Breakenridge (2009) claim that Web
2.0 is putting the public back in public relations. Similarly, in the latest edition of Corporate
Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice, Cornelissen (2011) states that social media
create new ways of reaching and engaging with stakeholders. He adds that the development
of new media provides an organization with the opportunity to engage in conversations and
to tell and elaborate its story or key message to stakeholders or the general public in an interactive way which he claims is a real advance compared with traditional media relations
(p. 154).
However, some scholars are more cautious in their assessment of the impact of social media
and point to lack of research in this still-emerging field. For instance, in analyzing the use of blogs
in public relations, Kent (2008) noted that there is very little scholarly research in communication or public relations (p. 34). In his seminal chapter on social media in the Handbook of Public
Relations edited by Heath (2010), the same author criticized hype in relation to social media and
argued that we need more criticism and more theory (Kent, 2010, p. 653). A 2009 study by
Wright and Hinson in the United States and many other studies suggest that public relations is at
an early stage in adopting interactive Web 2.0-based media. Wright and Hinson concluded that
meaningful gaps exist when measuring differences between what is happening and what should
be happening in terms of . . . social media (p. 19).
In two of very few qualitative studies of social media use in public relations, Fitch interviewed
10 practitioners in Singapore and Malaysia in 2006 (Fitch, 2009a) and undertook a follow-up
SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS
289
study in 2009 based on interviews with three social media practitioners employed by multinational public relations consultancy firms in Singapore (Fitch, 2009b). In her first study, Fitch
reported one practitioner saying that the internet is the Wild West, right, anything goes. There
are no rules. Emphasizing the unregulated and largely unmanaged practices of social media use,
another said were really writing the rule book as it is. There are no rule books, no textbooks to
learn from (2009a, p. 5).
As recently as mid-2011, international consultancy firm KPMG drew a similar conclusion
from a study of social media use by business, saying the bottom line is that its just new for
everybody . . . there are no rules, theres a lot of trial and error, theres a lot of testing, a lot of
learning, and then applying it (KPMG, 2011, p. 4).
It is clear that significant gaps remain in knowledge of how organizations are using social
media and how these important new channels of communication can and should be utilized in
the context of public relations and corporate communication. This paper reports international
quantitative and qualitative research that examines the growing use of social media in and by
organizations to provide further insights into how organizations are using social media, opportunities that are being identified, as well as some significant gaps, risks and challenges that need to
be addressed. The findings inform future directions in organizational social media communication
in several ways.
This study was undertaken within and informed by two major theoretical frameworks: first,
the literature on strategic communication, communication management, and public relations,
which are overlapping and largely synonymous fields as discussed in the following and, second,
emerging understandings of social media (also referred to as new media, Web 2.0 and generally
understood as encompassing social networks).
UNDERSTANDING STRATEGIC ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Corporate communication and public relations are theorized and practiced predominantly within
a framework of strategic communication and communication management (Dozier & Broom,
2006; J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002).
In their third and seminal text on Excellence theory, identified as a dominant framework of
public relations worldwide by Pieczka (2006), LEtang (2008), and others, L. Grunig et al. (2002)
list the first of 17 characteristics of excellent public relations as being managed strategically
(p. 9). L. Grunig et al. (2002) also title their first chapter Excellence in public relations and
communication management (p. 1). The focus on strategy and management is more recently
emphasized in J. Grunig, L. Grunig, and Doziers (2006) updated summary of Excellence theory
in which they state that PR must be a strategic managerial function and that:
The senior public relations executive is involved with the strategic management processes of the
organization, and communication programs are developed for strategic publics identified as a part of
this strategic management process. (p. 38) [italics added for emphasis]
No fewer than three uses of the term strategic and two uses of management appear in this
32-word sentence. Hallahan et al. (2007) noted that strategic communication has been used
synonymously for public relations in much of the literature (p. 9). Similarly, the major edited
290
volume by Toth (2007) exploring the future of Excellence theory is titled The Future of Excellence
in Public Relations and Communication Management.
In Europe, where the practices referred to as public relations in Anglo-American terms are
widely used (Bentele, 2004), but rarely under that name (van Ruler & Vercic, 2004, p. 1), the
dominant models of public communication by organizations are directly referred to as strategic
communication (Aarts, 2009; Aarts & Van Woerkum, 2008), communication management (van
Ruler & Vercic, 2005), and corporate communication (Cornelissen, 2011; Van Riel, 1995; Van
Riel & Fombrun, 2007; Zerfass, 2008).
In a recent analysis, Torp (2011) concluded that within organizations we now have a situation
where everything is viewed as strategic communication (p. 1) and framed within a management
context.
However, PR and corporate communication encompass significantly differing understandings
of strategic communication and communication management. Drawing on Deetzs (1992) identification of the twin purposes of communicationparticipation and effectivenessTorp (2011)
noted a historical oscillation in the field between seeing communication as an interactive process of contributing to public opinion and engaging with others versus communication viewed
primarily as a means of achieving certain goals and exercising control (p. 1).
In their widely used PR text that outlined four models of practice and led to Excellence theory,
J. Grunig and Hunt (1984) explicitly stated that public relations is an organizational sub-system
operating within organizations understood as systems (pp. 89). To be fair, L. Grunig, Grunig,
and Dozier (2006) emphasized that the systems approach recognizes the . . . interdependence of
organizations with their environments (p. 33). J. Grunig and others have argued that, among five
types of sub-systems in organizations (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984, pp. 89; Broom, 2009, p. 173),
PR and corporate communication are part of the adaptive subsystem responsible for monitoring the environment and helping the organization adapt to its environment, as well as adapt the
environment to suit the needs of the organization. Similarly, Cornelissen (2011) has stated that
in corporate communication strategy is about the organization and its environment. He says
strategy involves:
balancing the mission and vision of the organizationwhat it is, what it wants to be, and what it
wants to dowith what the environment will allow or encourage it to do. Strategy is therefore often
adaptive. (p. 83)
Nevertheless, Murphy (2007) has argued that, even though PR Excellence theory has moved
beyond basic systems theory to incorporate elements of relational and dialogic theory and recognize complexity theory, the problematic concept of control remains central to all systems-based
theories. Like a number of others, Murphy (2011) notes that control has long been a troublesome
issue in strategic communication (p. 3).
Many scholars also point out that strategic is associated with power and decision making
(Mintzberg, 1979) and being goal or outcome focused (Lukaszewski, 2001). The questions
asked by critics are: Who has power? Who makes decisions? Whose goals and outcomes are
pursued? A decidedly skewed answer is provided in the definition of organizational strategic
communication as purposeful use of communication to fulfill its mission (Hallahan et al., 2007,
p. 3) [italics added]. Similarly, Perrow (1992) proposed that strategy is about organizational
survival and efficiency. In her postmodern analysis of public relations, Strh (2007) says that
291
Excellence theory most commonly reflects that strategic means that public relations messages
are aligned with organizational goals already decided by the dominant coalitions (p. 199).
Even though L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Ehling (1992) claim that strategy is about thinking ahead or planning rather than manipulation and control (p. 123), Hallahan et al. (2007)
point out that part of the problem with the term strategic is that it has been strongly associated
with a modernist approach to management. They summarize that critics of this approach argue
[that] strategic communication privileges a management discourse and emphasizes upper managements goals for the organization as given and legitimate (p. 11). As a result, Verhoeven,
Zerfass, and Tench (2011) observe that strategic communication by organizations has often been
criticized as manipulative to true participative debate. Some critics of strategic communication
go further and argue that it is, by nature, propagandistic (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).
However, in their landmark paper on strategic communication, Hallahan et al. pointed out
that alternative and more positive notions of strategy have . . . emerged that reject the use of
strategic only in an asymmetrical context (p. 13). They argued that in the context in which it is
used today in public relations strategic must not be defined narrowly. Instead, they proposed
that strategic is a rich, multidimensional concept that needs to be examined broadly (p. 27).
Specifically, Hallahan et al. pointed out that contemporary models of public relations are based
on two-way transactional rather one-way transmissional models of communication which recognize and engage audiences in an inclusive win-win process. In addition, they cite and support
Holtzhausens (2005) view that strategic communication management includes recognition that
organizational survival means that organizations must adhere to the dominant value systems of
the environments in which they operate. Strategic communication counsel can include urging
organizations to comply with social expectations and values, which is contrary to notions that
being strategic necessarily implies asymmetrical communication, according to Hallahan et al.
(2007, p. 14).
Third, the broad meanings of strategic as long-term and focused on the big picture suggest that being self-serving is not strategic. Long-term, the interests of key stakeholders as well
as the organization need to be served if the organization is to continue to operate successfully.
Furthermore, a core element of strategic communication is research which informs and influences an organization in relation to public expectations, concerns, interests, and needs (Broom &
Dozier, 1990; Dozier, 1990; L. Grunig et al., 2002; Macnamara, 2011; Watson & Noble, 2007).
Drawing on the work of Mintzberg (1988) on emergent business strategies, King (2010)
referred to this interactive construction of strategy as emergent communication strategies.
While acknowledging that communication strategy is often planned actions by organizations to
achieve desired results, she noted that strategies also emerge regardless of writer/speaker intent.
She defined emergent communication strategies as a communicative construct derived from
interaction between reader/hearer response, situated context, and discursive patterns (p. 20).
Alternative understandings of strategic communication as open and participatory were taken
up by a number of scholars in papers presented to the 2011 International Communication
Association (ICA) pre-conference on strategic communication. These, along with the writings
of Hallahan et al. and King, provide a useful body of work to inform thinking about social media
communication, as will become clear in the following discussion. For instance, Falkheimer and
Heide (2011) called on scholars and practitioners to break the dominant approach to strategic
communication, which has focused on control, persuasion and organizational effectiveness and
adopt a participatory approach (p. 14). Torp (2011) warned against reductionist understandings
292
of communication as either about participation or about effectivenessand particularly against

tactical use of participation put into the service of [organizational] effectiveness (p. 16). In a
pragmatic compromise, he called for what he termed the strategic turn to incorporate the duality
that Deetz (1992) identifiedopenness to participation, while at the same time not abandoning
the organizational imperative to represent and advocate its interests and seek to persuade. Murphy
(2011) proposed that a network view of strategic communication provides a holistic view of the
opinion arena in which [public] communication takes place and recognizes the interconnected,
fluid, volatile and participatory nature of this environment. She concluded: In this environment,
management means finding a way for strategic communicators to play a continuing rolenot
control, but a rolein shaping their messages, so they can at least participate in issue arenas
that determine public opinion (p. 14). This perspective is particularly relevant in examining
organizational use of social media.
Similarly, beyond the dominant paradigm of communication management in U.S.-developed
Excellence theory, which calls for senior corporate communicators to be part of or have influence in the dominant coalition (senior management team) and for a participative rather than
authoritarian culture at organization level (see Grunig et al., 2002), European understandings are
relevant and informative in examining social media. In addition to managerial and operational
roles similar to those conceived in U.S. PR theories and models, European conceptualizations of
communication management incorporate a reflective role (van Ruler, Vercic, Btschi, & Flodin,
2000, 2001; van Ruler & Vercic, 2004, 2005; Vercic, van Ruler, Btschi, & Flodin, 2001) and an
educational role (Vercic et al., 2001).
The reflective role relates to analyzing changing standards and values in society and discussing
these with organization management in order to adjust the standards and values of the organization to ensure social responsibility and maintain legitimacy. Verhoeven, Zerfass, and Tench
(2011) note that preserving societal legitimacy of an organization is the primary task of communication management (p. 96). The educational role involves helping members of the organization
become sensitive to social demands and expectations and communicatively competent to respond
appropriately to those social demands (Vercic et al., 2001). The relevance and importance of
these theoretical frameworks and concepts become clear as we look at social media.
UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL MEDIA

Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) define social media as internet-based applications built on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0. To understand the characteristics of Web
2.0 in a way that avoids technological determinism and focuses on the communication practices
and affordances that it enables and fosters, it is useful to consider the views of the pioneers and
architects of this interactive communication and media environment as well as scholarly studies.
The term Web 2.0 is widely attributed to Tim OReilly who used it as the theme of a conference in 2004 referring to a second generation of Web-based services that feature openness
for participation, collaboration and interactivity (Boler, 2008, p. 39; OReilly, 2005).1 In his
1 First use of the term Web 2.0 dates back to a 1999 article in Print magazine by Darcy DiNucci (1999, p. 32).
However, DiNucci used the term mainly in relation to design and aesthetics in her article targeted at Web designers. The
more common broad use of Web 2.0 is attributed to Tim OReilly (2005).
293
description, OReilly emphasized a new way of thinking behind Web 2.0 more than particular
technologies. In a much-quoted essay titled What is Web 2.0, OReilly said a central principle
of Web 2.0 is harnessing collective intelligence, a concept discussed extensively by sociologist
Pierre Lvy (1997). OReilly summarized: you can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and
practices (2005, para. 7) [italics added].
Another Web 2.0 pioneer Peter Merholz refers to a philosophy behind the practices of Web
2.0 [italics added]. In his blog Peterme.com under a salutary heading Web 2.0its not about
the technology, Merholz (2005) states: Web 2.0 is primarily interesting from a philosophical
standpoint. Its about relinquishing control, its about openness, trust and authenticity (para. 5).
Publisher of ReadWriteWeb which is one of the worlds top 20 blogs specializing in analysis of
Web products and trends, New Zealander Richard MacManus (2005) presents a number of definitions of Web 2.0 including describing it as a platform, but also as an attitude not a technology
and specifically as the underlying philosophy of relinquishing control (paragraphs 2, 3, 5).
In Convergence Culture, Henry Jenkins (2006, p. 243) also emphasizes that convergence
of communication and content on the latest iteration of the Web is about culture more than
technology and, in particular, participatory culture.
In scholarly texts, Bucy (2004) similarly emphasizes interactivity as a defining element of Web
communication, particularly Web 2.0albeit interactivity is interpreted in multiple ways and
needs clarification to fully appreciate Web 2.0-based social media. Three levels of interactivity are
discussed by Carpentier (2007), McMillan (2002, pp. 166172) and Szuprowicz (1995) in relation to computer mediated communication. The latter defines these as user-to-system interactivity,
user-to-documents interactivity, and user-to-user interactivity. User-to-system interactivity such
as clicking a mouse and accessing menus (what Carpentier calls person-to-machine interaction),
while significant in Human Computer Interface terms, is a basic and largely perfunctory interaction in terms of human communication. It is user-to-user interactivity that is most significant in
Web 2.0, as well as open user-to-documents access to edit and create content rather than simply
consume content. Boler (2008) notes that the Web has always been about voice and conversation and cites Web founder Tim Berners-Lee, who said the Web was never intended to be about
delivering content to passive audiences, but to be about shared creativity (p. 39).
From definitions offered by the founders and architects of Web 2.0 as well as from scholarly literature, the defining characteristics of this emergent communication environment can be
summarized as openness for participation and interactivity involving dialogue, conversation,
collaboration, and co-creativity harnessing collective intelligence. Explicit in definitions and
descriptions of this environment is relinquishing control that characterizes one-way, top-down
information distribution models, as well as a requirement for authenticity instead of pre-packaged
content (Boler, 2008; Bucy, 2004; Jenkins, 2006; Macnamara, 2010, pp. 3839).
Research Questions
Within these understandings, this study set out to investigate the following four research
questions:
RQ1: What forms of social media are mostly used by organizations?
RQ2: What levels of knowledge and understanding of social media do PR and corporate
communication practitioners claim to have?
294
RQ3: How are organizational objectives, strategy, and management operationalized in social
media, particularly in relation to control and interests (organizational, stakeholders,
societal, or a combination)?
RQ4: Can organizational objectives, strategy and management be operationalized in social
media in a way that is compatible with the philosophy, principles, and practices of
social media and, if so, how?
METHODOLOGY
The studies were undertaken between May and August 2011 in two stages using a mixed method
approach. The first stage involved online surveys conducted in three European countries (Austria,
Germany and Switzerland) and three Australasian countries and one territory2 (Australia, New
Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong), designed to provide comparable international data. These
countries and one territory were selected as major developed markets able to be directly compared when studied using the same methodology, as well as being broadly comparable with the
United States where some previous studies have been undertaken, as cited in the literature. The
purpose of undertaking studies in a number of countries in both Europe and Australasia was to
identify international patterns and trends and explore whether findings are peculiar to particular
societies and cultures, or generalizable about organizational communication in multiple countries
and regions.
Sample
The sampling frame for the online surveys was professional corporate communication and public
relations practitioners. This occupational group was selected for studying organizational social
media communication based on the finding of Fink and Zerfass (2010) and Zerfass et al. (2010)
that PR/communication departments and units claim to be primarily responsible for social media
in organizations.
Practitioners in this category in Australasia were identified as accredited members of the following organizations which supported the survey by providing access to their membership lists:
the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA); the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand
(PRINZ); the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore (IPRS); the Hong Kong PR Professionals
Association (HKPRPA); and the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC)
in Australia. Practitioners in Europe were identified and accessed through the mailing list
of pressesprecher magazine and the Bundesverband deutscher Pressesprecher (BdP) [German
Association of Press Officers], the leading German language publication and the largest professional organization in the field.
Recruitment of participants was undertaken using an e-mail invitation containing a link to the
online survey questionnaire sent to all names in the databases of the above organizations which
contain registered members prequalified by occupation and role. This provided a reasonable level
of control over the sample and validity in the study.
2 Hong
Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China.
295
Methods
The survey used a structured online questionnaire with 22 closed-end questions in Europe
and 25 closed-end questions in Australasia, up to seven of which had an option for open-end
comments, as well as one fully open-end question.
The survey yielded 596 completed questionnaires in Europe, sufficient for strong statistical
reliability, and 221 responses in Australasia. The latter was a response rate of just five per cent
and yielded an insufficient number of responses for high statistical reliability. This was somewhat disappointing, but as many practitioners are not yet actively involved in or competent
with social media as demonstrated in this and other research, this response rate is perhaps
not surprising. While not having high statistical reliability in Australasia, the surveys nonetheless provide useful insights into the views and practices of PR practitioners in Australasia and
Europe.
In its second stage, this study sought to test the claims of PR and corporate communication practitioners obtained as self-reporting in the surveys and further explore the key issues
of strategy, objectives, management, control, and organizational interests versus openeness and
others interests through depth interviews with a selection of leaders and experts in social
media. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 14 social media specialists in
Australia (9), Singapore (1), and Hong Kong (2). Qualitative interviews were not conducted
in Europe and may be a further useful stage of research. However, a number of the social
media leaders and experts interviewed work with multinational companies and had international experience which they could report. For instance, while confidentiality was offered to
interviewees, it can be revealed that interviewees included the heads of digital media for Deloitte
Digital and two leading international PR consultancies. For the purposes of this study, social
media specialists were defined as practitioners employed specifically in senior social/digital
media management roles within organizations and specialist consultants in social/digital
media.
Limitations
Although use of identical survey instruments internationally was considered ideal from a statistical analysis perspective, regional differences in terminology, stage of social media uptake and
sociocultural factors necessitated some adaptation of the survey instrument across regions. For
instance, the notion of control is understood quite differently in Germany where communication
control and the role of communication controllers are seen as equivalents of financial control
and financial controllers, focused on tracking, measurement and process, and performance management, compared with Australasian countries, where control is perceived as wielding power,
restraint and domination. Also, the concept of governance in relation to social media that emerged
as a key issue in previous European research (Zerfass et al., 2010; Zerfass, Fink, & Linke, 2011)
is not well understood in some Australasian countries. Also, varying samples sizes and response
rates meant that advanced statistical analysis could not be conducted. However, the purpose of
the research was exploratory rather than definitive and broadly similar survey questionnaires were
used in the first stage of the study with a number of common questions, which allowed descriptive
statistical analysis and comparison of key findings.
296
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis of survey data was undertaken to produce data tables and charts
reporting and comparing responses using SPSS and Microsoft Excel. Advanced statistical analysis was not undertaken of the total data pool because of variances in sample size and some
variations in the survey instruments, as discussed previously. However, statistical significance and
dependencies were tested within each study using variance analysis and correlation coefficients
(Pearsons or Spearmans Rho, depending on data volume).
Interview transcripts were produced from digital recordings and analyzed using two levels
of coding. First, in vivo coding was undertaken to identify main themes and topics. Second,
pattern or axial coding was used to identify predominant views within each category (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967; Punch, 1998, p. 205). The predominant views of specialists were compared
with the generalized views of practitioners as part of validating findings and used to gain deeper
insights into current methods of social media use and management.
KEY FINDINGS
A number of findings with important implications for senior management as well as PR and
corporate communication practitioners emerged from this study. Key findings of quantitative
and qualitative analysis are reported together and integrated, as they complement to provide an
understanding of how social media are used and managed in organizations.
Main Types of Social Media Used by Organizations
The surveys found that the main types of social media used by organizations in Australasia
and Europe are public social networks such as Facebook, video sharing sites such as YouTube,
microblogs such as Twitter, blogs, and photo-sharing sites (see Table 1). To a lesser extent,
wikis, podcasting, and private social networks such as Yammer are used for communication by
organizations. Only a small proportion of organizations use vodcasting and virtual worlds such
as Second Life.
Some regional differences are evident, with video sharing sites almost as popular as social
networks in Europe, yet microblogging is more popular in Australasia than in Europe where
blogs continue to be used more than short-format microblogs.
TABLE 1
Types of Social Media Most Used by Organizations (Australasia: n = 221;
Europe: n = 596)
Social media used
Social networks (e.g. Facebook)
Microblogging (e.g., Twitter)
Video sharing (e.g., YouTube)
Blogs
Photo sharing (e.g., Flickr)
Australasia
Europe
73%
55%
51%
48%
24%
56%
50%
52%
29%
19%
Note. Percentages do not total 100% as respondents could select more than one type.
297
Although direct comparison with other studies is not the purpose or appropriate here due
to different methodologies and research instruments, it is significant that the findings are
broadly consistent with those of previous U.S. and European studies as reported by Wright and
Hinson (2009) and Zerfass et al. (2010), which also reported social networks, video sharing,
microblogging, and blogging to be the most used social media. Also, a wider pan-European study
of 43 countries reported in the European Communication Monitor 2011 (Zerfass, Verhoeven,
Tench, et al., 2011) confirms these to be the social media most used by organizations.
Social Media Knowledge and Understanding in Organizations

Three-quarters of PR and corporate communication practitioners in Australasia and almost 70%
of European practitioners claim to have advanced or intermediate knowledge of social media.
In contrast, less than a third of European practitioners and just a quarter of Australasian practitioners describe themselves as a novice, beginner or not knowing anything about using social
media (see Table 2).
However, other findings of these surveys suggest that a number of these claims are over-stated.
For instance, a lack of policies and guidelines on social media use by employees, a lack of monitoring of social media content, a lack of training and support provided to staff engaged in social
media in most organizations (see Table 3), and a lack of social media strategies in organizations
TABLE 2
Knowledge About Social Media Among PR and Corporate Communication
Practitioners (Australasia: n = 221; Europe: n = 596)
Social Media Knowledge
Advanced/high
Intermediate/medium
Low/novice/or leave it to others
TOTAL
Australasia
Europe
33%
42%
25%
100%
23%
45%
32%
100%
TABLE 3
Social Media Governance in Organizations (Australasia: n = 221; Europe: n = 596)
Activity
Broad social media strategy/policy
Specific social media guidelines
Monitoring of social media
Training of staff in social media
Measures social media KPIs
Australasia
Europe
20%
35%
20%a
33%
15%b
23%
31%
29%
27%
14%
Note. Percentages do not total 100% as respondents could select more than one type.
a. Tools or services capable of monitoring all social media mentions of the organization.
Some organizations monitor specific social media or monitor in an ad hoc way.
b. Qualitative and specific Key Performance Indicator (KPI) evaluation only. Some
additional organizations collect quantitative metrics such as the number of views, visitors and
downloads.
298
were found, as discussed in the following, which are inconsistent with the knowledge levels and
role claims of PR and corporate communication practitioners. Also, all social media specialists
interviewed rated the knowledge of PR and corporate communication practitioners as low to
moderate in relation to social media.
Managing Social Media in Organizations

This study found that only 20% of Australasian organizations and 23% of European organizations
have an overarching social media strategy or policy outlining the objectives of social media use,
who can speak on behalf of the organization in social media and under what circumstances (see
Table 3).
This investigation and the literature suggest that the terms strategy, policy, and guidelines are used in varying ways in relation to social media. For instance, a study by Hrdinov,
Helbig, and Peters (2010) for the Center for Technology in Government at the University at
Albany, SUNY, differentiated between social media policies and guidelines, describing them as
follows:
In general, guidelines provide advice on how to best use social media tools to achieve a desired
result, such as eliciting citizen engagement or providing suggestions for creating interesting content. Policies, on the other hand, represent official positions that govern the use of social media by
employees in government agencies, such as detailing what constitutes acceptable use or outlining
official processes for gaining access to social media sites. (p. 3)
Hrdinov et al. found a mixture of policies and guidelines used by the 32 government
communication professionals who they interviewed. Of 26 documents reviewed, they reported
10 were official social media policies and 12 were social media guidelines, with four being
a mixture of both. They reported further in relation to social media policies for government
organizations:
Developing a social media policy can be an important first step for those government agencies considering using social media and can ultimately serve as a key enabler for responsibly and effectively
leveraging social media tools. Yet, many governments are struggling with what such a policy should
encompass and convey. Not surprisingly, given the emergent nature of social media, relatively few
U.S. governments actually have a formalised set of policies to guide their own efforts, as well as for
others to draw on or learn from. (p. 2)
Social media specialists interviewed in this study unanimously advocated that both public and
private sector organizations should have a social media strategy and argued that, while policies
and guidelines inform who is authorized to speak on what, when and how within organizations,
a strategy should include overall objectives, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), an outline of
measurement methods and explain how social media communication is integrated with other
corporate and organizational communication.
Examination of the types and forms of policies and guidelines informing social media use in
organizations revealed that only 31% of European organizations and slightly more than a third
(35%) of Australasian organizations have specific social media policies and/or guidelinesand
even fewer appear to have social media strategies. This means that around two-thirds of organizations do not have specific policies or guidelines in relation to social media. This accords with
299
recent pan-European research findingsfor example, Zerfass, Verhoeven, Tench, et al. (2011)
found that 40% of PR professionals cite the existence of social media policies and/or guidelines
in their organization (i.e., 60% do not have policies or guidelines).
Of particular concern, according to social media specialists interviewed, is that many organizations have no social media policy or guidelines for employees at all (e.g., 23% of Australasian
organizations). In Australasia, a further 19% rely on verbal instructions to staff or occasional
management memos and e-mails. Such an open, unmanaged, and unregulated approach is decidedly non-strategic and even foolhardy in the view of most social media specialists interviewed,
as it exposes organizations to substantial risks as will be discussed later.
Monitoring of social media content which could be considered an essential component of
environmental scanning, tracking, measurement, and reporting is also only patchily undertaken
by most organizations. As shown in Table 3, only 20% of Australasian organizations and 29%
of European organizations have tools or services to monitor all social media mentions of the
organization and its products or services. A number of others monitor selectively or in an ad
hoc way, but in Australasia, for instance, almost half of organizations either do not monitor
social media mentions at all or monitor sporadically. Again, this is broadly similar to the panEuropean finding of Zerfass, Verhoeven, Tench, et al. (2011) that only 33% or organizations
have tools for monitoring social media and indicates that many organizations are unaware of
what is being said about them and their products or services in social media by employees or
others.
It can be argued that, in addition to monitoring of social media, content analysis also should
be undertaken to identify the issues and topics being discussed, sources quoted, and the tone
of contentthat is, whether it is positive or negative for the organization. However, this study
found that 36% or Australasian organizations do not analyze social media content at all and a
further 22% conduct quantitative analysis only focused on volume of mentions, visits, views,
and other statistical metrics. Thus, almost 60% of organizations do not know whether negative
comments are being made about them or their activities online (breakdown not available for
European organizations).
Only 15% of Australasian organizations and 21% of European organizations engage in evaluation of social media coverage against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). This appears to
continue the trend of PR and corporate communication being underresearched, particularly at
an outcome evaluation level.
More than two-thirds (67%) of Australasian organizations and almost three-quarters (73%)
of European organizations do not provide any training for staff using social media. There is
also very limited support provided to employees engaging in social media communication. For
instance, in Australasian countries studied, only 23% or organizations provide technical support
and only 7% provide editing services (e.g., to help technical staff such as scientists and engineers
to write blogs).
This finding and evidence of lack of policies and guidelines are important given the democratized nature of social media. The open ready access to social media available either through
organization servers, personal internet connections or near ubiquitous 3G mobile networks and
their growing use mean that public communication in organizations is increasingly decentralized from PR and corporate communication departments to all employees, customers, and other
stakeholders. With social media, everyone is potentially a public communicatoras expressed in
the term prosumer (combined producer and consumer) coined by Alvin Toffler (1970, 1980) and
300
espoused in popular books such as Dan Gillmors We The Media (2006) and Clay Shirkys Here
Comes Everybody (2008).
Concern About Control

The potential for an organizations customers, members, shareholders, other stakeholders, and
publics such as voters, as well as its own employees, to comment online, post videos and photos
and engage in public discussion has triggered major concerns among PR and corporate communication practitioners about control. Loss of control over messages and image building was cited
as the major obstacle and risk in using social media in Australasia, nominated by 58% of practitioners, and as the second highest concern in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, nominated
by 55% of practitioners. The only concern rated higher in the European countries studied was
the amount of effort and time required to actively use social media at work (76% of European
practitioners express this concern).
Although noting differences in understandings of control, social media specialists interviewed
were unanimous in the view that social media could not be controlled. But rather than see
this as a peculiar challenge in using social media, most noted that corporate and organizational communication have never been controllable in the sense that the term is understood
in most English-speaking countries. The problematic nature of control is widely discussed in
PR and corporate communication literature. For instance, J. Grunig and L. Grunig (2010) as
well as Fawkes and Gregory (2000, p. 122) have critiqued the illusion of control that deludes
many PR practitioners as well as senior management and restricts open dialogic approaches and
engagement.
In social media, in particular, the philosophy of openness in terms of access, participation and
range of content that is foundational to Web 2.0 means that organizations need to tread sensitively
in managing employees use of social media as well as in moderating public comments on online
sites.
All social media specialists interviewed support an open rather than a restrictive approach to
employee use of social media. A number go beyond permitting employees to comment online
and call for organizations to proactively develop staff as ambassadors and even evangelists
for their organizations. They argue that the spontaneously expressed views of staff are usually far
more authentic and credible than organization communication distributed through centrally controlled departments such as PR and corporate communication. However, social media specialists
recommend such an open approach within a framework of clear policies and guidelines, thorough
training, sometimes editing services to guide and assist staff, and comprehensive monitoring of
social media content.
One senior social media specialist who agreed to be named, CEO of Deloitte Digital, Peter
Williams, reported that despite having lawyers on Deloittes Social Media Committee and a 30page global social media policy, the international consultancy firm advocated and practiced an
open approach to employees using social media. Williams said, it comes down to a simple
rule: dont embarrass us; dont embarrass yourself; we trust you (personal communication,
September 30, 2011). But, like other experienced social media specialists interviewed, Williams
simultaneously advocated a strong management and governance framework for social media use.
However, openness is counter-intuitive to many organizations, particularly those with hierarchal structures and reporting systems, those operating in highly regulated environments, and
301
those concerned about security, privacy, and reputation. There is also potential tension, if not
outright conflict, between organizational requirements for strategy and management and societal interestsparticularly when narrow notions of strategic communication and communication
management are applied. Findings of this study require some degree of reflection and discussion
to fully understand their implications and what future directions they suggest in social media
communication by organizations.
DISCUSSION
Blurring of the Private and Public

One of the reasons for tensions and some confusion surrounding communication practices in
social media is that they are social spaces that traverse both the private sphere (Chartier, 1989;
Hansson, 2007; Papacharissi, 2010) and the public sphere (Habermas, 1989, 2006), which have
been viewed as fundamental divisions in Western social, political, and economic thinking (Gal,
2005). Increasingly scholars challenge the separation of a private sphere (individuality, personal
relations, and home life) and the public sphere of society (communities, politics, and work).
For instance, Goodman (1992) says that the public sphere articulated by Habermas is a
dimension of the private sphere delineated by Chartier and his collaborators and she concludes
that the false opposition between them can be collapsed (p. 2). Contemporary scholars further
argue that globalization, network society (Castells, 1996) and the open nature of and widespread
use of the internet have negated any sustainable separation between private and public spheres
although Livingstone (2005) notes that public and private mean different things in different
contexts and forms of privacy can exist on the internet. Nevertheless, in her 2011 analysis of
relationships and voice, Baxter proposes a reworking of the false binary of public/private
(2011, p. 8) and such a reworking aids understanding of social media communication, particularly employees use of social media and the complex and changing notions of privacy in an
online world. Today, organizations need to recognize and adjust to this blurring of what is public
and what is private.
A second reason for uncertainty and nascent strategies in relation to social media is the
widespread recognition of blogs, microblogging sites, social networks, and photo- and videosharing internet sites as new media (Flew, 2008; Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2005; Lister et al.,
2009). Although the concept of new media is questioned as a useful and durable description
by some (e.g., Macnamara, 2010), these media constitute relatively recent and quite substantial
changes in the mediaspace that governments and organizations are still adapting to and learning
to use, according to the literature and social media specialists interviewed. This relative newness, and a lack of research to inform planning and management, is evident in the following
discussion.
Governance
A number of the findings of this study can be grouped under the rubric of governance and this
affords a useful alternative to control as a management framework for organizational use of social
media. Drawing on social science literature on governance (e.g., Van Kersbergen & Van Waarden,
302
2004), Zerfass, Fink, and Linke (2011) have proposed social media governance as the formal
or informal frameworks which regulate the actions of the members of an organization within the
social web (p. 1033). More specifically, Fink and Zerfass (2010) and Zerfass, Verhoeven, Tench,
et al. (2011, pp. 9295) identified social media governance as comprising:
Social media guidelines for communicating in blogs, Twitter, etc.;

Tools for monitoring stakeholder communication on the social web;
Training programs for social media; and
Key performance indicators for measuring social web activities.
Social media governance is an important issue worthy of study, as lack of governance in relation
to employees use of social media exposes organizations to significant risks including:
Release of confidential information or trade secrets;
Public embarrassment through employees commenting inappropriately online or engaging with inappropriate content (e.g. flaming, denigrating others, racist or sexist language,
cyberbullying, pornography, etc);
Reputation damage through any of the above;
Legal actions for defamation or damages (Information Systems Audit and Control
Association, 2010, p. 7).
A very limited amount of research has been conducted into social media governance, largely
restricted to the work Fink and Zerfass (2010); Zerfass, Fink, and Linke (2011); Zerfass,
Verhoeven, Tench, et al. (2011); and Zerfass et al. (2010) in Europe and Hrdinov, Helbig, and
Peters (2010) in the United States, as cited in this analysis. Further examination of governance as
a concept in communication management, and social media governance in particular, is desirable
to address a significant gap and area of risk.
The Brand Science Institute in Germany reported in 2010 that only 11% of companies had
social media policies or guidelines in place. Furthermore, the institute reported that 76% did not
moderate social media projects accurately, if at all, and 86 per cent do not have a clue how to
handle a social media backlash such as that suffered by Nestl over its use of palm oil, which
resulted in a social media campaign that rebranded its Kit-Kat chocolate bars as Killer Kat
(Brand Science Institute, 2010).
A similar situation in relation to governance was found by Fink and Zerfass (2010) in their
survey of 1,007 companies, government institutions and nonprofit organizations in Germany.
They found that 90% or organizations had no explicit regulatory framework or governance in
place (p. 6). In their pan-European study involving almost 2,000 PR and corporate communication
practitioners, Zerfass, Tench, Verhoeven, et al. (2010) also pointed to social media governance as
an important emerging issue.
Zerfass, Verhoeven, Tench, et al. (2011) concluded that overall, governance structures for
social media are still underdeveloped and can be seen to be missing from most communication
departments across Europe (p. 91). The studies reported here also found this also to be the case
in Australasia and Europe.
Governance affords a framework for communication management that meets organizational
requirements for security, privacy when required on legal or ethical grounds, regulatory compliance, and reputation management without being overly restrictive or manipulative. Governance
provides responsible but minimal restrictions and regulatory processes and thus can be seen as a
303
necessary, but socially sensitive approach to managing PR and corporate communication, whereas
control in most cultures and contexts implies organization-centricity and domination.
Social media specialists interviewed in this study were unanimous in the view that control,
or even highly restrictive management, are anathematic to social media engagement. This view
is supported in a commercial report released during the period of this research by KPMG titled
Social Media: The Voyage of Discovery for Business. KPMG (2011) recommends that organisations should guide employee use, rather than developing extensive formal rules that restrict
it (p. 6). Respondents in the KPMG study stated that clamping down was likely to result in
more, rather than less, misuse of social media. In its key conclusions, the study stated: Very
few employees want to do the wrong thingif they do, there are probably deeper cultural issues
in play (p. 1).
Strategy
As discussed in the literature, organizational communication and PR are widely conceptualized
as strategic communication and this study confirmed that a strategic focus and integration of all
forms of corporate communication is advocated by social media specialists. While noting the
need for interactivity and openness in social media engagement, social media specialists interviewed pointed out that, if there is no strategic benefit to be gained from an organisation engaging
in social media, then there was no point in them doing so. Also, they argued strongly that social
media communication should be integrated and coordinated with other corporate and organizational communication to maintain a coherent brand and consistent messages. A strategic focus
is also strongly recommended in professional literature. For instance, a 2010 report on digital
leadership by one of the worlds leading executive search firms, Spencer Stuart, listed as the
first of its 10 suggestions for thriving in a digital world . . . building a comprehensive digital
strategy that is shared broadly and repeatedly across the organisation (Nadherny et al., 2010,
p. 1). Under such pressure, practitioners will increasingly look for ways to achieve strategic
communication through social media. The ongoing debate over strategic communication and the
different approaches advocated, as discussed in the literature, are therefore pertinent and highly
informative to this consideration.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of social media for organizational communication is shown to be mostly experimental and ad
hoc, rather than strategically planned in organizations across a number of countries. Specifically,
organizational social media communication is most often undertaken without clear objectives and
it is not integrated with other organizational communication, and not evaluated against objectives
and Key Performance Indicators. This is most likely a result of the relative newness of social
media, the democratization of media and voice that they enable, and the changing nature of public
and private spheres in a globalized, networked always on world.
As social media become deployed in the service of strategic communication in organizations, which inevitably must occur with institutionalization of communication management
(Verhoeven, Zerfass, & Tench, 2011) and the requirements of organizational planning and governance, it is important that they are not colonized for traditional organization-centric forms of
304
strategic communication. Such an approach is in direct conflict with the philosophies of openness, participation and democratization of Web 2.0. Broader participatory, networked approaches
to strategic communication as proposed by Hallahan et al. (2007) and taken up by others such
as Falkheimer and Heide (2011), King (2010), Murphy (2011), and Torp (2011) that reflect
stakeholders and societal interests as well as those of organizations, offer a framework that is
compatible with social media.
At a communication management level, governance offers a more compatible framework than
control which is problematic, particularly in relation to social media. While noting arguments
that control is not possible in any communicative interaction, and European concepts of communication controlling as synonymous with monitoring processes and evaluation akin to financial
control and accounting (Dhring & Linke, 2011), most expressions of control involve centralization and domination by the controlling entity. Such approaches are again in direct conflict with
the philosophies of Web 2.0 and the practices of social media.
It has to be recognized, however, that organizations cannot be expected to engage in social
media in a totally responsive, unmanaged wayand indeed it would be contrary to many regulations and the interests of many stakeholders if they did so. Governance offers a management
framework in which the mutual interests of organizations, their stakeholders and society at large
can be protected and advanced. Increased research and focus on the practices of governance in
social media communication by organizations is therefore strongly recommended.
In addition to seeking to exhibit the characteristics of contemporary strategic communication theory as discussed, management of organizational social media communication can benefit
from European conceptualizations of communication management which emphasize reflective
thinking as well as an educational role. Reflective thinking involves viewing an organisation
from the outside, or public view, according to van Ruler & Vercic (2005, p. 253), while the
educational aspects of communication management help all the members of the organisation
become sensitive to social demands and expectations and communicatively competent to respond
appropriately to those social demands (Macnamara, 2011, p. 246). These elements of European
models of communication management are particularly applicable to social media and could be
beneficially adopted internationally.
Overall, organizational social media communication requires balancebalancing the dual
purposes of communication identified by Deetz (1992): participation involving openness and
community on one hand and effectiveness in representing organizational interests and achieving
organizational objectives on the other. Although this symmetry has long been a stated goal of
public relations and corporate communication, interactive social media place additional demands
on organizations in relation to the number of voices that are allowed to speak for and about the
organization and require increased capacity for community engagement and listening.
Despite strong interest in social media and claims for intermediate to advanced knowledge
and skills among PR and corporate communication practitioners, the lack of strategy, policies,
guidelines for employees, training, monitoring, and evaluation in relation to social media shown
by this research suggests that their knowledge and skills are still low to intermediate. Thus, education of PR and corporate communication practitioners in social media practices, not simply the
technologies, is an important step towards achieving that balance in organizational social media
engagement.
Coping with the digital evolution and the social web is rated one of the most important
issues for communication management over the coming years (Zerfass et al., 2010, p. 90).
305
The international collaborative studies reported here highlight some of the gaps and risks to be
addressed, as well as approaches to communication strategy and communication management
that can balance the interests of organizations and the communities in which they operate.
REFERENCES
Aarts, N. (2009). Een gesprek zonder einde [A never end conversation]. Amsterdam: Vosspuspers.
Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2008). Strategische communicatie [Strategic communication]. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Baxter, L. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA, and London, UK: Sage.
Bennett, W. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In W. Lance Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online (pp. 124).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bentele, G. (2004). New perspectives of public relations in Europe. In B. van Ruler & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations
and communication management in Europe (pp. 485496). Berlin and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boler, M. (Ed.). (2008). Digital media and democracy: Tactics in hard times. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brand Science Institute (2010). Why social media project fail: A European perspective. Research report, 17 August.
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/Insidebsi/why-social-media-projects-fail-a-european-perspective?from=
ss_embed.
Breakenridge, D. (2008). PR 2.0: New media, new tools, new audiences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, Pearson
Education.
Broom, G. (2009). Cutlip & Centers effective public relations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Broom G., & Dozier, D. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bucy, E. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. Information Society, 20, 373383.
Carpentier, N. (2007). Participation, access and interaction: Changing perspectives. In V. Nightingale & T. Dwyer (Eds.),
New media worlds: Challenges for convergence (pp. 214230). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Chartier, R. (Ed.). (1989). A history of private life: Passions of the renaissance (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice (3rd ed.). London, UK and Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of
everyday life. New York, NY: State University of New York.
DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print, 53(4), 32, 38, 221222.
Dozier, D. (1990). The innovation of research in public relations practice: Review of program studies. In L. Grunig &
J. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dozier, D., & Broom, G. (2006). The centrality of practitioner roles to public relations theory. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton
(Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 137170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dhring, L., & Linke, A. (2011, September). Steering through turbulence: Developing a framework for managing social
media communication. Paper presented at the EUPRERA Annual Congress, Leeds, UK.
Duh, S. (Ed.). (2008). New media and public relations. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2011, May). Participatory strategic communication: From one- and two-way communication to participatory communication through social media. Paper presented at the International Communication
Association 2011 pre-conference, Strategic communication A concept at the center of applied communications,
Boston, MA.
Fawkes, J., & Gregory, A. (2000). Applying communication theories to the internet. Journal of Communication
Management, 5, 109124.
Fink, S., & Zerfass, A. (2010). Social media governance 2010: How companies, the public sector, and NGOs handle the challenge of transparent communication on the internet. Research report. Leipzig, Germany: University
of Leipzig and Fink & Fuchs PR. Retrieved from http://www.ffpr.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-Dokumente/
Social_Media_Governance_2010_-_Results-final.pdf.
Fink, S., Zerfass, A., & Linke, A. (2011). Social media governance 2011: Expertise levels, structures and strategies
of companies, governmental institutions and non-profit organizations communicating on the social web. Research
306
report. Leipzig, Germany: University of Leipzig and Fink & Fuchs PR. Retrieved from http://www.ffpr.de/index.
php?id=1035.
Fitch, K. (2009a). Making friends in the wild west: Singaporean public relations practitioners perceptions of working in
social media. Prism, 6(2). Retrieved from http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/global_pr.html.
Fitch, K. (2009b). The new frontier: Singaporean and Malaysian public relations practitioners perceptions of new media.
Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 10, 1733.
Flew, T. (2008). New media: An introduction (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Gal, S. (2005). Language ideologies compared: Metaphors and circulations of public and private. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 15(1), 2337.
Gillmour, D. (2006). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Sebastapol, CA: OReilly Media.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Goodman, D. (1992). Public sphere and private life: Toward a synthesis of current historiographical approaches to the old
regime. History and Theory, 31(1), 120.
Grunig, J., & Grunig, L. (2010). Public relations excellence 2010. The Third Annual Grunig Lecture Series.
Public Relations Society of America [PRSA] Conference, Washington DC, October. Retrieved from http://www.
instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/Third_Grunig_Lecture_Transcript.pdf
Grunig, J., Grunig, L., & Dozier, D. (2006). The excellence theory. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations
theory II (pp. 2162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, J., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Grunig, L., Grunig J., & Dozier D. (2002). Excellent organizations and effective organizations: A study of communication
management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, L., Grunig, J., & Ehling, W. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public
relations and communication management (pp. 6590). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, UK: Polity. (Original work published
1962)
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The
impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411426.
Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication,
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 335.
Hansson, M. (2007).The private sphere: An emotional territory and its agent. New York, NY: Springer.
Hazelton, V., Harrison-Rexrode, J., & Keenan, W. (2008). New technologies in the formation of personal and public
relations; Social capital and social media. In S. Duhe (Ed.), New media and public relations (pp. 91105). New York,
NY: Peter Lang.
Heath, R. (Ed). (2010). The Sage handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York, NY:
Pantheon.
Holtzhauzen, D. (2005). Public relations practice and political change in South Africa. Public Relations Review, 31,
407416.
Hon, L., & Grunig, J. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations,
Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/measuring-relationships.
Hrdinov, J., Helbig, N., & Peters, C. (2010). Designing social media policy for government: Eight essential elements.
Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY), May.
Information Systems Audit and Control Association [ISACA]. (2010). Social media: Business benefits and security, governance and assurance perspectives. White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.isaca.org/Knowledge-Center/Research/
Pages/White-Papers.aspx.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Kaplan, R., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business
Horizons, 53(1), 5968.
Kent, M. (2008). Critical analysis of blogging in public relations. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 3240.
Kent, M. (2010). Directions in social media for professionals and scholars. In R. Heath (Ed.): The Sage handbook of
public relations (pp. 643655). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kent, M., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 2137.
307
Kiel, J. (2005). The digital divide: Internet and e-mail use by the elderly. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 30(1),
1923.
King, C. (2010). Emergent communication strategies. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4(1), 1938.
KPMG. (2011). Social media: The voyage of discovery for business. Research report, July. Sydney: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.kpmg.com/au/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/Pages/social-media-the-voyageof-discovery-for-business.aspx
Ledingham, J. (2006). Relationship management: A general theory of public relations. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.),
Public Relations Theory II (pp. 465483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
LEtang, J. (2008). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lvy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankinds emerging world of cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Lievrouw, L., & Livingstone, S. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of new media (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009). New media: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Abingdon,
Oxfordshire, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.
Livingstone, S. (2005). In defence of privacy: Mediating the public/private boundary at home. London: LSE Research
Online. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/505/1/ch7_Intellect05.pdf.
Lukaszewski, J. (2001). How to develop the mind of a strategist. Part 3. IABC Communication World, 18(3), 1315.
MacManus, R. (2005, September 7). ZDNet blog. What is Web 2.0? Retrieved from http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/
?p=5.
Macnamara, J. (2010). The 21st century media (r)evolution: Emergent communication practices. New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
Macnamara, J. (2011). Public relations theories, practices, critiques. Sydney: Pearson Australia.
McCorkindale, T. (2009, March). Can you see the writing on my wall? A content analysis of the Fortune 50s Facebook
social networking sites. Paper presented to the 12th Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Coral
Gables, Florida.
McMillan, S. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents and systems.
In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 163182). London, UK: Sage.
Merholz, P. (2005). Its not about the technology. Retrieved from http://www.peterme.com/archives/000560.html.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structure of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1988). Five Ps for strategy. In J. Quinn, H. Mintzberg, & R. James (Eds.), Readings in the strategy process
(pp. 1018). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Murphy, P. (2007). Coping with an uncertain world: The relationship between excellence and complexity theories. In
E. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next
generation (pp. 119136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Murphy, P. (2011, May). Contextual distortion: Strategic communication vs. the networked nature of everything. Paper
presented at the International Communication Association 2011 preconference, Strategic communication A
concept at the center of applied communications, Boston, MA.
OReilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of
software. OReilly blog. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web20.html.
Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Perrow, C. (1992). Organizational theorists in a society of organizations. International Sociology, 7, 371379.
Pieczka, M. (2006). Paradigms, systems theory and public relations. In J. LEtang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations:
Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 331358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London, UK: Sage.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organising without organisations. New York, NY: Penguin.
Smith, A., & Rainie, L. (2008). The internet and the 2008 election. Pew Internet & American Life Project report, 15 June.
Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/252/report_display.asp
Solis, B. (2008). Foreword. In D. Breakenridge, PR 2.0: New media, new tools, new audiences (pp. xviixx). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, Pearson Education.
Solis, B., & Breakenbridge, D. (2009). Putting the public back in public relations: How social media is reinventing the
aging business or PR. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press/Pearson Education.
Strh, U. (2007). An alternative postmodern approach to corporate communication strategy. In E. Toth (Ed.), The future of
excellence and communication management challenges for the next generation (pp. 199220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
308
Szuprowicz, B. (1995). Multimedia networking. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York, NY: Random House.
Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Torp, S. (2011, May). The strategic turn: On the history and broadening of the strategy concept in communication.
Paper presented at the International Communication Association 2011 pre-conference, Strategic communication A
concept at the Center of Applied Communications, Boston, MA.
Toth, E. (Ed.). (2007). The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the
next generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Towers Watson (2010). Capitalizing on effective communication: 2009/2010 Communication ROI study report. Retrieved
from http://www.towerswatson.com/research/670.
Van Kersbergen, K., & van Waarden, F. (2004). Governance as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration
regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of
Political Research, 43, 143171.
Van Riel, C. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. London, UK: Prentice Hall.
Van Riel, C., & Fombrun, C. (2007). Essentials of corporate communications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Van Ruler, B., & Vercic, D. (2004). Overview of public relations and communication management in Europe. In B. van
Ruler & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations and communication management in Europe (pp. 111). New York, NY:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Van Ruler, B., & Vercic, D. (2005). Reflective communication management, future ways for public relations research. In
P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 29 (pp. 238273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., Btschi, G., & Flodin, B. (2000). European body of knowledge on public
relations/communication management. Report of the Delphi project 2000, Gent, Ljubljana: EUPRERA.
Van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., Btschi, G., & Flodin, B. (2001). Public relations in Europe: A kaleidoscopic picture. Journal
of Communication Management, 6, 166175.
Vercic, D., van Ruler, B., Btschi, G., & Flodin, B. (2001). On the definition of public relations: A European view. Public
Relations Review, 27, 373387.
Verhoeven, P., Zerfass, A., & Tench, R. (2011). Strategic orientation of communication professionals in Europe.
International Journal Strategic Communication, 5, 96117.
Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2007). Evaluating public relations: A best practice guide to public relations planning, research
and evaluation (2nd ed.). London, UK, and Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.
Wright, D., & Hinson, M. (2009). Examining how public relations practitioners actually are using social media. Public
Relations Journal, 3(3), Summer. Public Relations Society of America. Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://www.
prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Summer_09/.
Zerfass, A. (2008). Corporate communication revisited: Integrating business strategies and strategic communication. In
A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research (pp. 6596). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fr
Sozialwissenschaften.
Zerfass, A., Fink, S., & Linke, A. (2011). Social media governance: Regulatory frameworks as drivers of success in
online communications. In L. Men & M. Dodd (Eds.), Pushing the envelope in public relations theory and research
and advancing practice, 14th International Public Relations Research Conference (pp. 10261047). Gainesville, FL:
Institute for Public Relations.
Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Verhoeven, P., Vercic, D., & Moreno, A. (2010). European Communication Monitor 2010:
Status quo and challenges for public relations in Europe. Results of an empirical survey in 46 countries. Brussels:
EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media.
Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Tench, R., Moreno, A., & Vercic, D. (2011). European Communication Monitor 2011:
Empirical insights into strategic communication in Europe. Results of a survey in 43 countries. Brussels:
EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media.

Social Media Communication in Organizations The Challenges of Balancing Openness Strategy and Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Media Communication in Organizations The Challenges of Balancing Openness Strategy and Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Strategic Communication

ISSN: 1553-118X (Print) 1553-1198 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hstc20

Social Media Communication in Organizations: The

Published online: 20 Sep 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3366

View related articles

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Date: 01 April 2016, At: 13:50

International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6: 287308, 2012

Social Media Communication in Organizations:

University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

UNDERSTANDING STRATEGIC ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

of communication as either about participation or about effectivenessand particularly against

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL MEDIA

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China.

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

Social Media Knowledge and Understanding in Organizations

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

Managing Social Media in Organizations

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

Concern About Control

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

Blurring of the Private and Public

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

Social media guidelines for communicating in blogs, Twitter, etc.;

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

MACNAMARA AND ZERFASS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 13:50 01 April 2016