nel singer 2008 cultural fluidity weekly newspaper editors aejmc

8/9/2019 NEL Singer 2008 Cultural Fluidity Weekly Newspaper Editors AEJMC

1/37

Managing Change: 1

Cultural Fluidity:

Weekly Newspaper Editors Strategies

for Building Knowledge and Managing Change

Presented to:

Media Management and Economics Division

Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication

Chicago, August 2008

Franois P. NelUniversity of Central Lancashire

Jane B. Singer

University of Central Lancashire / University of Iowa

Lead author contact information:

[email protected](44) 1772 894 758 (UK office) / (44) 7951 521 636 (UK mobile)

(27) 21 434 9421 (South Africa office) / (27) 84 494 3411 (South Africa mobile)

GR237 GreenbankDepartment of Journalism

University of Central LancashirePreston PR1 2HE

United Kingdom

Second author contact information:[email protected]


2/37

Managing Change: 2

Cultural Fluidity:Weekly Newspaper Editors Strategies for Building Knowledge and Managing Change

ABSTRACT:

This study examines how British weekly newspaper editors, an understudied group with long-

standing ties to hyperlocal communities, regard the challenges of building, transforming, andmanaging knowledge in the midst of sweeping media change. Drawing on literature from media

sociology and knowledge management, it suggests that these veteran editors are profoundlyuncertain about how to translate what they believe about journalism, and know about creating it,

into successful delivery of new products to new audiences.


3/37

Managing Change: 3

Cultural Fluidity:

Weekly Newspaper Editors Strategies

for Building Knowledge and Managing Change

It has never been easy to run a newsroom, but it may never have been harder than it is

today. Technological changes and challenges that have been rocking the newspaper industry and

reshaping its culture on both sides of the north Atlantic for a decade and more have combined

with increasingly dire financial prognoses. In the United States, the industrys health continued

to worsen in 2007, with circulation, advertising revenues, and profit margins all falling and, in

a spreading number of markets, taking staff size down with them (Project for Excellence, 2008a).

A majority of American journalists say financial issues are the biggest problem in journalism,

overtaking concerns about news quality and credibility (Pew Research Center, 2008). In Britain,

the picture is not quite so dark, but circulation and earnings statements show trends also pointing

in a downward direction (MediaGuardian.co.uk, 2008).

Amid this escalating crisis, however, smaller newspapers continue to do relatively well.

In the United States, many small papers are weathering the decline, and some are even gaining

readers (Ahrens, 2007); in Britain, more than 80% of adults still say they read a regional paper

(Newspaper Society, 2006). The other industry bright or at least not quite so dim spot glows

from the computer screen. Online audiences and revenues are up substantially in both the United

States and United Kingdom, and newspaper websites have dramatically improved their design

and multimedia offerings (Project for Excellence, 2008a). That said, the industry is not

noticeably closer to turning the internet into a successful advertising medium; on the contrary,

the trend seems to be a decoupling of news and advertising, which is not migrating to online

newspapers along with readers (Project for Excellence, 2008b).


4/37

Managing Change: 4

A rich body of literature has examined the medias role in producing public knowledge,

yet how news organizations translate their own knowledge into business performance is only

beginning to be explored (Nel, 2006). This paper examines how veteran newsroom managers in a

relatively buffered corner of the industry the British weekly regional press conceptualize and

cope with the challenge of building, transforming, and managing knowledge in the midst of

sweeping change. How do they translate experience and know-how that has long guided

production of a once-a-week printed publication into management strategies for producing a 24/7

website -- and do it in an industry with contracting rather than expanding resources to draw on?

In addressing this question, the present study relies on two related strands of scholarship

concerning knowledge, its transfer, and its application. One comes from the sociology of news

literature and relates to newsroom socialization, or the way that journalists come to know how

they are to do their jobs. The other comes from the fields of knowledge management and

organizational communication, focusing in particular on how tacit knowledge, based largely on

experiential learning, is created, shared, and enacted within the workplace.

Although it incorporates and seeks to extend understanding of the ongoing newsroom

transition to a digital environment, this work situates that transition within a broadly fluid news

culture, one undergoing transformations that affect the smallest papers at least as dramatically as

the more frequently studied largest. In focusing on editors of weekly papers, it offers insights

into an understudied population of newsroom managers, particularly within the UK, where most

scholarly attention has been devoted to the national press. Moreover, despite their historic

stability, media outlets serving geographically small communities are of particular contemporary

interest in light of the growth of hyperlocal citizen journalism sites seeking to fill similar

community niches (Schaffer, 2007). We begin with a look at the UK industry context.


5/37


6/37

Managing Change: 6

campaigns (Hadwin, 2006). However, observers inside and outside the industry say investigative

or critical local journalism is becoming harder to find or to finance as new owners bring renewed

attention to cost controls in an increasingly difficult UK media environment (Franklin, 2006).

Adding to the pressure on weeklies has been their transition from publishing once in

seven days to publishing all day every day and adding audio and video storytelling that, while

still largely rudimentary (Bradshaw, 2008), now regularly appears on local newspaper websites.

Over the past year, regional UK papers have rapidly accelerated their digital activities, and traffic

has grown substantially. Resulting revenue has not been enough to offset print losses, but the

losses would be deeper without website gains such as the 24% increase reported in mid-2007 by

Trinity Mirror, the circulation leader among Britains regional publishers (Press Gazette, 2007b).

One observer said recent financial reports would be a suicide note for the regional UK press

were it not for the fact that the web is strengthening their community role (Wainwright, 2008).

The newspapers whose editors participated in the current study all are part of Johnston

Press plc, which owns more titles than any other UK publisher and is the third-largest publisher

by circulation of local and regional papers in Britain. Johnston Press (JP) was founded in 1767 as

a family business; in recent years, it has been a leader in the acquisition strategy described above.

JP publishes 309 local and regional papers, 291 of them weeklies, in the UK and Ireland

(Johnston Press, 2008a; 2008b). These range in size from theNorthallerton, Thirsk and Bedale

Times, circulation 511, to theEdinburgh Herald andPostat nearly 134,000 (ABC, 2008). Print

and online properties have a combined audience of roughly 16 million (Johnston Press, 2008c).

Like most newspaper companies, JP has had a difficult year (Press Gazette, 2007a).

Although overall revenues were up slightly, both earnings and pre-tax profits declined more than

6% in 2007, mostly because of what its chairman calls reduced advertising demand (Johnston


7/37

Managing Change: 7

Press, 2008c, p. 2), and its stock price has plummeted (McNally, 2008). Its websites, however,

have been a positive development. Industry observers have praised the company for its skill in

integrating web and print operations for local markets (Stafford, 2008) and for adapting with

more enthusiasm than most to prospects of a digital future (Greenslade, 2008). JP says its

digital revenue was up 34% in 2007, while online user numbers were up 24% and page

impressions 54% over 2006. Its stated strategy includes restructuring the organization to ensure

that it is equipped to deliver on our digital aspirations (Johnston Press, 2008c, p. 5).

LITERATURE: NEWSROOM SOCIALIZATION and CHANGE

In this uncertain industry climate, an understanding of how journalists deal with both

stability and change is important. Socialization into both the newsroom and the broader

profession plays a central role. Socialization into any occupation is understood to involve several

stages. These include vocational socialization, influenced by education, the media, and personal

acquaintances; anticipatory socialization, or development of impressions of future work

environments through communication with current employees; initiation into the work group;

and finally, adjustment to group norms, values, and practices (Kramer & Miller, 1999).

The newsroom has long been recognized as a powerful socializing force (Breed, 1955).

Journalistic norms and values tend to be broadly shared (McLeod & Hawley, 1964), and

organizational cultures create patterns of meaning that define appropriate behavior (Bantz, 1985).

Articulating norms such as a commitment to objective reporting serves both as a form of ritual

solidarity and as a way of socializing practitioners to how things are or should be done

(Schudson, 2001). Deuze (2005) suggests the result is the creation of an ideology of journalism,

one that emphasizes a particular set of values, such as immediacy and objectivity, and ultimately

is used by practitioners to legitimize their own position in society.


8/37

Managing Change: 8

Although the socializing role of newsroom culture provides journalists with defenses to

withstand pressure for change (Fee, 2002) and the inevitable loss of routines, relationships, and

traditions that it brings (Giles, 2005), ongoing technological shifts are disrupting newsroom

organization and communication patterns, as well as creating new pressures for a coherent notion

of who we are (de Bruin, 2000; Pavlik, 2000). Studies of converged newsrooms suggest print

journalists may be undergoing a process of resocialization (Singer, 2004) as existing values and

beliefs about the role of journalists and what they do are challenged. Studies conducted in other

organizational contexts have suggested that the resocialization process plays an important role

during periods of change (Hart, Miller, & Johnson, 2003). Experts stress that planned change

must be understood as encompassing new roles, values, rewards, and ways of doing work, not

merely new procedures (Lewis, 1999). Similarly, communication about the vision and purpose

behind organizational change has been identified as a key theme in both the popular and

scholarly literature (Lewis et al., 2006); communication about vision helps in reducing

uncertainty about change and creating new organizational social structures (Fairhurst, 1993).

Philosophers say that change is a constant. It certainly has been for journalists working in

a contemporary newspaper environment that is both unsettled and unsettling (Gade & Perry,

2003), presenting newsroom managers with the task of creating balance in chaos (Killebrew,

2005, p. 184). The task is far from an easy one. Gade (2004) found that even editors trained in

change management had trouble; managers believed they had sought employee input and

effectively communicated about vision and outcomes, but their staffs saw editors as authoritarian

and felt left out and confused. A study by Daniels and Hollifield (2002) of change at CNN

Headline News suggested staff reacted especially negatively to changes that they felt threatened

the intrinsic professional rewards they derived from their work, notably their ability to respond


9/37

Managing Change: 9

effectively to breaking news; this finding is in line with earlier work that has suggested higher

job satisfaction is tied to the pursuit of journalistic, rather than business, goals (see Pollard, 1995).

McLellan and Porter begin their 2007 exploration of newsroom change by declaring:

The reinvention of newspapers in the digital age requires the reinvention ofnewsroom leadership. Editors are discovering that the traditional, top-down

I-paid-my-dues-and-now-its-your-turn style of management fails to foster thenimble thinking, collaboration and risk-taking newspapers need to overcome the

changes in economics, demographics and technology that are transforming the newsindustry. They are discovering they need to change (p. 1).

In other words, editors need to think about what they know and how to communicate it, as well

as what they dont know and how to learn it. The next section of this paper considers the role of

two kinds of knowledge in management style and structure.

LITERATURE: TACIT and EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE

The growth of knowledge has been central to human history, yet social scientists,

cognitive psychologists, and even philosophers have struggled to understand how people learn

and communicate the results of that learning. Little consensus has emerged (Moykr, 2002).

However, management scholars in post-industrial society generally agree that the

knowledge within a company is the primary source of competitive advantage (Prahalad & Hamel,

1990; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Jasimuddin, Klein, & Connell, 2005). In a

knowledge economy (Drucker, 1969; Toffler, 1990), the ability to manage human intellect and

convert it into useful products and services is seen as central to success (Smith, 2001; Goffee &

Jones, 2006). Drucker (1993) argued that traditional primary resources of production land,

labor, and capital are secondary to knowledge for growing knowledge-based economies.

Echoing this perspective, Nonaka (1994) contends that knowledge is the single most important

production factor in terms of an organizations capacity to survive and then successfully compete.


10/37

Managing Change: 10

There thus is a growing interest in understanding key aspects of managing knowledge.

These include knowledge creation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), transfer (Smith & McKeen,

2003), and storage (Huber, 1991; Walsh & Ungson, 1991), as well as its social aspects (Brown &

Duguid, 1991). Categorization of knowledge as tacit or explicit is part of this enterprise (Polanyi,

1967; Nonaka, 1994; Jasimuddin, 2004; Jasimuddin, Klein, & Connell, 2005).

Knowledge can be seen as existing on a spectrum. At one extreme, it is almost wholly

tacit the semiconscious and subconscious knowledge held in our heads and bodies. Some forms

of tacit knowledge rest in cognitive skills learned through experience, then internalized; such

knowledge is hard to formalize or communicate, and a person may be unable to fully articulate

what he or she knows. Polanyi famously proposed four decades ago that we can know more

than we can tell (1967: 4). At the other end of the spectrum is knowledge that is almost wholly

explicit; it is codified, structured, and accessible to those who did not originate it. Most of what

we know lies between the extremes (Leonard & Sensiper, 2000), though the relationship between

tacit and explicit knowledge is widely debated (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Hall & Andriani, 2003;

Jasimuddin, Klein, & Connell, 2005). The current work draws on Polanyi and, more directly, on

Nonakas extension of his ideas. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) hold that it is individuals who

create and maintain what an organization collectively knows:

Knowledge is created only by individuals. An organization cannot create knowledgeon its own without individuals. Organizational knowledge creation should be

understood as a process that organizationally amplifies the knowledge created byindividuals and crystallizes it at the group level through dialogue, experience sharing

or observation (p. 239).

Nonaka and his colleagues (2001) identify different levels of social interaction at which

individually created knowledge is transformed and legitimized: informal and formal, within the

organization and intra-organizational. These epistemological and ontological dimensions of


11/37

Managing Change: 11

knowledge creation are then brought together in a spiral model that involves four modes of

knowledge conversion. The first of these is from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge that is,

socialization. Successive modes are from tacit to explicit knowledge, called externalization;

explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge, which occurs in the combinations of bodies of explicit

knowledge through social processes such as meetings, which foster new knowledge; and finally,

from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, called internalization. The latter is similar to the

traditional notion of learning (pp. 494-497). The model is commonly referred to as the SECI

model, an acronym of the labels for each of the four modes.

Organizational knowledge creation, as distinct from individual knowledge creation,

occurs when dynamic interactions between all four modes are managed so that a continuous

cycle is formed, driven by triggers facilitated by the organization (Nonaka, Toyama, &

Byosire, 2001). The first mode, socialization, typically starts through building a team or

interaction space where participants can share experiences and perspectives. The externalization

mode is triggered by successive rounds of dialogue, which enable participants to articulate ideas

and experiences, revealing the tacit knowledge that otherwise can be difficult to communicate.

Next, concepts formed by teams can be combined with existing data and external knowledge,

producing greater clarity. An iterative process of trial and error then helps participants develop

and articulate concepts that can be internalized through experimentation or learning by doing. In

due course, participants in a team, or what Nonaka calls a field of action (1991, p. 14), who

share explicit knowledge and participate in a process of trial and error, are able to translate the

explicit knowledge into various forms of tacit knowledge (Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosire, 2001).


12/37

Managing Change: 12

While not without its critics (see Gourlay, 2006), this SECI model applicable at both

the individual and organizational levels -- has been widely cited and captures the idea that tacit

and explicit knowledge are complementary and can grow over time through interaction.

Individuals can accrue tacit knowledge without language, such as apprentices who learn

craftsmanship from mentors by observation, imitation, and practice. This is similar to what

sociologists see as the socialization process outlined briefly above. Although relatively few

media scholars have directly applied a knowledge management framework to explore what

journalists know, a number have referenced it, and it is implicit in much of the newsroom

socialization literature. In advocating a cultural approach to studying journalism, Zelizer points

out that while journalists employ collective and often tacit knowledge to initiate and maintain

group membership, what is explicitly articulated as that knowledge does not reflect the whole

picture of what journalism is and tries to be (2004, p. 176). Sveiby (1996) suggests that

newsrooms are open spaces because the arrangement facilitates the rapid transfer of tacit

knowledge of all you need to know to function as a journalist. He describes this work space

arrangement as the office version of the cave in that it mimics the energy-efficient way human

knowledge has long been passed from generation to generation, neither consciously nor

deliberately (p. 382). Quinn (2002) urges managers of digital newsrooms to create rules and

guidelines for specific editorial processes, such as a central database for commonly used contacts,

so that staffers come to expect that tacit knowledge will be recorded (p. 182).

For knowledge management scholars, employees in middle management such as the

editors who are the subject of the present study play a key role in the creation of organizational

knowledge. They argue that traditional top-down or bottom-up management models are not

appropriate in companies where information is an outcome of productivity and not simply a tool


13/37

Managing Change: 13

for generating such productivity (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosire, 2001). Instead,

they suggest that a new middle-up-down model of management is most appropriate for such

organizations. Unlike the traditional models, this one views all members of the organization as

important actors who should work together both horizontally and vertically (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995). The success of the process hinges on middle managers:

Whereas top management articulate the dreams of the firm, frontline employees andlow-level middle managers look at its reality. The gap between these two perspectives

is narrowed by and through middle managers. In other words, top managements roleis to create a grand theory, whereas middle management, as knowledge producers,

create a mid-range theory that can be empirically tested within the company with thehelp of frontline employees. Knowledge is created through such interactions, and then

disseminated throughout the company (Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosire, 2001, p. 505).

Before turning to the current study, it is worth quickly noting that considerable recent

work in the area of knowledge management has focused on adaptations to communication

technologies and their effects on organizational culture. McDermott (2000) points out that

although companies imagine a new world of leveraged knowledge facilitated by technology, the

tools generally reinforce existing norms about documenting, sharing, and utilizing information

rather than creating new cultural realities. Roberts (2000) says the limitations of communication

technology are particularly acute in the case of tacit knowledge transfer, which often requires

co-location and co-presence the transfer of know-how requires a process of show-how (p.

439). In general, radical changes are too often initiated without sufficient attention to the need to

change organizational culture, including its tacit knowledge, to accommodate them; new

techniques, processes, or ideas are simply overlaid on an existing belief structure without

adequate mechanisms for facilitating their absorption (Hale & Whitlam, 1997; Sviokla, 2000).

This study draws on ideas about both socialization and knowledge management processes

to examine a group of editors, at middle management levels within their umbrella organization,


14/37

Managing Change: 14

facing just such a radical and inherently cultural shift. The associated changes are both external,

such as those related to news audiences, and internal, such as those related to news products and

production practices, as outlined at the start of this paper. To explore how they think about

managing their newsrooms in this environment, it addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: How does the tacit knowledge of weekly newspaper editors, particularlyregarding their audiences and news products, affect their perceptions about managing

change in local newsrooms?

RQ2: What existing aspects of socialization or of cultural practice are potentialbarriers to the success of these editors in managing change in local newsrooms?

METHOD

A total of 57 weekly newspaper editors, all from different Johnston Press papers in the

United Kingdom (England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but not Wales) and the Republic of

Ireland were given an online questionnaire1

in advance of weeklong newsroom management

training sessions provided at the authors university between May and November 2007. This

data collection followed a pre-test in November 2006 on a comparable group of incoming

trainees and subsequent questionnaire modification.

The questionnaire, which was informed by a survey that one of the authors completed as

part of a Poynter Institute (2006) seminar, included both open- and closed-ended questions.

Valid responses to all of the questions were obtained from 47 respondents; another eight

answered all or most of the closed-ended questions but did not respond to one or more of the

open-ended ones. Confidentiality was promised to the respondents, in line with the universitys

human subjects research policies, and no names or other identifying information is used here.

1The questionnaire included questions posed to participants in a Poynter Institute Leadership

for Online News Managers seminar in May 2006. Results are not publicly available.


15/37

Managing Change: 15

The closed-ended questions were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics; as the

respondent pool was small and the sample was not random, more sophisticated statistical

measurements were not viable here. In addition to calculating overall percentages, responses

from editors with smaller and larger staffs 15 journalists or fewer, and 16 or more, respectively

-- were calculated separately in order to highlight the perceptions of managers tasked with

supervising change in the very smallest news organizations.

Textual analysis was used to analyze responses to the open-ended questions; one of the

researchers and a research assistant carefully reviewed the responses and identified key themes

relevant to the literature and research questions. Individual responses can and frequently did

reference multiple themes; the findings indicate the number of times a particular theme was cited

as a means of suggesting its relative importance to respondents, but a more formal quantitative

assessment would be inappropriate. Therefore, percentages are provided with numbers of

respondents but not with themes identified in their responses.

Typographical errors in editors responses have been corrected in order to make them

easier to read. British colloquialisms, as well as British spellings, have been retained.

FINDINGS

The respondents: Almost all who indicated their job title (49 of 55, or 89.1%) were

editors of individual weekly newspapers; the other six were group editors, overseeing several

papers in a geographical area. Respondents staffs were generally small; only two editors (both

group editors) indicated staff sizes of more than 30 people, and most editors (37, or 68.5% of the

54 who answered the question) oversaw 15 people or fewer.


16/37

Managing Change: 16

Nearly half of the 55 editors answering the question (27, or 49.1%) had been in their jobs

between one and five years; 11 (20%) had been the editor for more than 10 years; seven (12.7%)

for six to 10 years, and 10 (18.2%) for less than a year. However, most (32 of 55, or 58.2%) had

worked for JP for more than 10 years, 12 of those (21.8% of the total) for more than a quarter-

century. Almost all (50 of 55, or 90.9%) had been journalists for at least a decade and thus had

entered the profession before the internet became a widespread platform for weekly newspapers

in the UK. Indeed, nearly two-thirds (35, or 63.6%) had been journalists since at least the 1980s.

As is true for many long-time journalists in the UK, only a minority 16 of 55 who

answered the question, or 29.1% -- had higher education degrees. Most (42 of 55, or 76.4%) had

some sort of formal certification in journalism, but only four (7.3%) had formal management

training; another 16 had been through in-house management courses of one sort or another.

Perceived Strengths: Before seeing questions related directly to managing change,

editors were asked to identify what their own organization currently does best, a question

intended to draw primarily on tacit knowledge of what they are all about. The 55 editors who

answered this question highlighted a total of 70 things (not including the one who wrote allows

five weeks a year holiday); some touched on two or more themes in their responses.

Twenty-two editors (40%) identified providing information as a key strength, including

four who specifically cited their local reporting. Eleven (20%) said that producing a newspaper

was what they did best; another four broadened that to include the website or generic news

products. Ten (18.2%) cited business practices, such as the editor who wrote that the

organization was good at assessing costs to ensure it gets the best possible financial return from

its newspapers. Other themes included serving the local community (six editors), working as a

team (four), and optimizing limited resources (three). Six editors explicitly mentioned innovation,


17/37

Managing Change: 17

including the one who said the organization was good at constantly rethinking what we do and

trying to bring the best local coverage in whatever format is available to us.

Editors subsequently were asked what they thought journalism as an enterprise was doing

especially well in the current changing media environment. Among the 47 who responded to this

question, many highlighted strong and ongoing community public service, such as the editors

who cited fighting for the communities they serve or giving a voice to the concerns of

communities who often feel that their opinions count for nothing.

But more than half the editors 25 of those answering this question cited some aspect

of coping with change as a strength. Oddly enough, at my level it's doing well at adapting to the

digital challenges. Websites have brought a refreshing new dimension to my news organisation,

an editor wrote. Another said: I think in terms of quality, the industry is in rude health. The flip

side of increased audience choice has forced organisations to raise the bar. If you put a lazy

paper/website together, people just won't bother looking at it. Still, many felt journalisms

strengths lay in doing what it had always done: providing quality local stories, highlighting

important issues and campaigning for their readers rights, as one editor wrote.

Perceived Weaknesses: Asked what they perceived to be the most important problem

facing journalism today, the open-ended responses of 47 editors fell into four broad categories.

Three related to declines in quality, audiences, and resources; the fourth involved change itself,

particularly change created by the shift to digital information delivery. Again, many provided

multi-faceted answers that touched on two or more issues. In terms of knowledge management,

this question sought to probe for the potential shortcomings that editors saw in applying the

industrys overall collective knowledge and standard practices to a fluid media environment.


18/37

Managing Change: 18

Although a majority of respondents saw coping with change as an industry strength, as

described above, 17 editors (36.2%) cited change in general or the shift to a digital environment

in particular as journalisms biggest problem. They worried about a potential decline in quality,

such as the editor who wrote of maintaining a high-quality print product while developing

digital and the associated danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Additional

concerns about change were addressed through other questions and are summarized below.

Other quality issues were linked to a changing audience, one largely interested in

dumbed down content. Genocide in Darfur or a sexual encounter on `Big Brother? Which

would sell more, get more hits, produce more spin-offs? Which should people be more aware of?

one editor wrote. Editors also connected concerns about quality to resource issues involving time

and/or money, such as the one who highlighted maintaining the quality of products, be it digital

or print, in the face of ever-tightening budgets. Several had grave misgivings about their own

staffs, suggesting industry newcomers did not possess an appropriate base of knowledge or skills.

Not enough people who call themselves journalists are really interested in finding out stuff and

passing it on to other people, whatever obstacles are put in their way, one editor wrote, adding

that too many young journalists today are more information packagers.

Such problems pose leadership issues for newsroom managers, and another open-ended

question asked editors to identify key challenges and the obstacles to overcoming them. Perhaps

because this question explicitly referenced their leadership role, many responses highlighted staff

motivation. Twenty-five editors, more than half of the 47 who responded to this question, cited

motivational issues, such as the editor who identified getting staff excited and involved while at

the same time more work and pressure is being put on them, as a key challenge. Some

characterized staffers as too negative and set in their ways, but others said that while the staff


19/37

Managing Change: 19

spirit was willing, the flesh was sometimes too tired to follow through. Enthusiasm only lasts so

long, then exhaustion sets in, one editor wrote.

As with the other open-ended questions, many editors cited multiple themes, including

challenges related to inadequate resources (19 responses), revenue and/or circulation declines (10

responses), and inroads on quality (nine responses). For example, one editor wrote about the

challenge of motivating staff when they have the perception that the workload has increased

without any related reward. I want to drive up editorial standards, but production pressures on a

small team make it difficult to move beyond the weekly damage limitation exercise.

Nine respondents cited managing change as a challenge in and of itself, and another six

explicitly cited technology hassles. While four editors complained about interference from others

Im the editor, I have brilliant, enthusiastic staff bursting with new ideas, yet Im hamstrung

by people who think they know better than me, wrote one two admitted doubt about their own

tacit and explicit knowledge and thus their ability to lead in a changing media environment. The

best way to take people along the road with you is to have the personal knowledge (to) speak

from a position of strength, said one editor. I don't have that hands-on knowledge.

Coping With Change: The questionnaire listed 20 potential concerns and asked editors

to indicate how worried they were about each (see Table 1a). Only two items were a big or very

big concern to a majority of respondents. Forty of the 54 editors who responded (74.1%) were

worried about their ability to cope with a 24/7 world given their resource limits, a finding

supported by their emphasis on resources outlined above and under Time Constraints below.

Thirty-five editors (64.8%) worried that they did not know enough about the online audience to

create a product that users would want. Among lesser but still substantive concerns, as indicated

by more than a third of the respondents, were the adequacy of available technologies to support


20/37

Managing Change: 20

innovation (24 editors, 44.4%), their own ability to successfully manage ongoing waves of

change (22 editors, 40.7%), fears about sacrificing the core print product to bolster the shakier

online one (22 editors again), and the extent to which they were taking the audience into account

when making news decisions (19 editors, 35.2%).

A larger number of items worried respondents only minimally or not at all. Two-thirds of

the editors were relatively unconcerned about making ethical decisions when public service and

commercial goals collide (38 editors, 70.4%), being unable to lead their team when things do not

go as planned (37 editors, 68.5%), or leading their staff in the desired direction (37 editors again).

These findings suggest they were relatively confident of their tacit knowledge about their general

leadership capabilities. A majority of respondents also were unconcerned or only minimally

concerned about negative effects of competition and conflict on their newsroom (35 editors,

64.8%), loss of the basic journalistic mission along the path to change (30 editors, 55.6%), or

an inability to effectively communicate (29 editors, 53.7%). Another six statements were

similarly dismissed by at least a third of the editors. Eight statements were of medium concern

to a third of the editors or more.

However, there were differences between editors with relatively large staffs (16 or more,

18 editors) and those with smaller staffs (15 or fewer, 36 editors on this question). Although the

nature of the data prevents calculations of statistical significance, Table 1b offers preliminary

insights into concerns of the smallest news organizations. By far the greatest of these was that

their newsroom would be unable to handle demands of a 24/7 media environment, given our

resource limits. Thirty of the 36 editors with smaller staffs (83.3%) indicated this was a big or

very big concern, compared with just over half of the 18 editors with larger staffs. A similar


21/37

Managing Change: 21

concern, the ability to manage and successfully integrate ongoing waves of innovation, was cited

by half of the editors with smaller staffs but only four (22.2%) of those in larger organizations.

Those with larger staffs highlighted lack of understanding of their online audience as

their greatest concern (13 of 18 editors, or 72.2%), followed by concerns about inadequate

technology (11 editors, 61.1%); editors in smaller newsrooms ranked audience understanding as

their second-biggest concern, with technological issues further down their list. Two items that

not a single editors of a larger organization indicated were big or very big concerns fears about

loss of the basic journalistic mission and uncertainty about how to lead into uncharted territory

were cited by nine (25%) and eight (22.2%) of the editors with smaller staffs, respectively.

Nearly half of the editors in smaller newsrooms also worried about sacrificing the core print

product to bolster the shakier one, a concern for only about a quarter of those with larger staffs.

Conversely, nearly half of those with more people reporting to them worried about future

revenue opportunities, compared with about a quarter of their counterparts in smaller newsrooms.

Editors also were asked what they would change in relation to digital media if they ran

the company. Although two of the 47 editors who answered this open-ended question indicated

concerns about an over-emphasis on digital products at the potential expense of the printed paper

or the overall mission to investigate and to report the truth, most indicated their concerns were

with the execution of the digital strategy rather than the strategy itself. A majority of the answers

indicated a perceived need for enhanced support in the form of human and/or technical resources.

Sixteen editors (34%) said they would provide dedicated digital journalists to support the

affiliated websites, people who think digital 24 hours a day and do not have the worry of

simultaneously producing a newspaper, as one editor wrote. Another called for employing

skilled digital staff to work alongside traditional print journalists. At the moment, the print side


22/37

Managing Change: 22

is suffering, and digital is not being done as well as it might. Another 15 editors (31.9%) said

they would invest more in human resources: providing more training, supporting journalists

strengths and/or increasing staff sizes. As one editor wrote, I would seek to put investment into

people, rather than solely in technology. In general, all these responses suggest a sentiment that

the existing knowledge base within their organization was not an optimum fit for demands of a

changing media environment. However, eight editors (17%) singled out investment in

technology as key; if they ran the company, they would improve both the tools and the technical

staff to support them, ensuring technology is more reliable and efficient, as one editor wrote.

This question elicited an especially wide range of other responses. For instance, two

editors essentially said company executives should walk the talk, follow up the fine words with

action. Three cited a need to get the advertising department on board, three wanted procedures

for maintaining quality standards and three actually said they had no complaints! Four editors

said they didnt feel they knew enough about digital media to be able to answer the question.

Time Constraints: Editors were presented with a set of 10 tasks and asked to estimate the

percentage of a typical day they spent on each, an attempt to assess existing work practices in

the context of a changing environment. Their responses were aggregated and averages calculated.

As a group, these editors reported that they spent a majority of their time developing and editing

content (see Table 2). The second most time-consuming task was handling staff issues, though it

was far behind content production at less than 10% of their time; wrestling with technology took

about 6% of their time, while managing up was a relatively minor task, taking less than 3% of

their time. In the aggregate, the editors estimated that less than 6% of their time was spent on

planning, while barely 2% went to generating new knowledge: learning new skills or training.

Meetings, both inside and outside the company, accounted for most of the rest of their time.


23/37

Managing Change: 23

Here, too, there were variations by staff size. Again, statistical significance cannot be

calculated, so the percentages must be taken as only preliminary information subject to further

data collection and testing. That said, they suggest that editors in smaller newsrooms spent a

greater proportion of their time handling content and had less to spare for planning or personnel

issues. They seemed, however, to be somewhat closer to their communities, indicated by a

slightly greater percentage of time spent interacting with audience members. As a group, they

reported more time lost to wrestling with technology than did their counterparts with larger staffs.

An open-ended question asked the editors to describe what, if anything, could be changed

to enable them to make better use of their time. Forty-eight editors responded with one or more

suggestions, some of them facetious (an extra day could be added to the week) but most

serious; some had multiple suggestions. A majority of the editors cited a need for more staff or

for additional resources in general; a total of 34 comments highlighted resource issues. Ten

editors (20.8%) specifically mentioned a desire to be freed from some of their day-to-day editing

and content production duties in order to think more broadly or strategically. As a manager, I

would appreciate less pressure on my time to edit content in order to provide more time to

develop staff, improve the product and research new technology/ideas, said one.

Eleven editors (22.9%) expressed frustration with the amount of time they spent trying to

get technology, including digital production tools, to work properly; at the time of the study, JPs

technical staff was still working out bugs and struggling to meet the deadline-driven demands of

hundreds of papers from one central office. Other suggestions indicated more endemic issues.

Seven comments related to excessive bureaucracy and/or inadequate administrative support;

with no secretary, PA or even assistant editor, much of the time I spend on form-filling could be

better spent in other areas, one editor wrote. Three highlighted a need for better communication,


24/37

Managing Change: 24

and two for training so they could effectively use what one editor described as 35,000 worth of

hi-tech paper weight (a digi[tal] newsroom suite) sitting in my office.

Communication Channels: Finally, editors were asked what communication channels

they used to interact with various people, from individual staff members to corporate executives

(see Table 3), an issue of central importance in the context of sharing both tacit and explicit

knowledge. Responses were non-exclusive: Multiple channels could be indicated for each

contact category. For communicating with others in their own company both inside and outside

the newsroom face-to-face communication was the most heavily used; well over 90% of the

editors indicated they talked with colleagues in person. E-mail was the most widely used channel

for communicating with JP employees in different locations, as well as the second most widely

used for communication within the news outlet itself. Telephone communication also was

popular, particularly for communicating with people in other departments and other parts of the

organization. None of the respondents used videoconferencing or instant messaging at all, and

only one editor communicated via a newsroom blog.

Again acknowledging that comparisons can only be preliminary given the nature of the

data, editors with relatively larger staffs appear to use more communication channels favorable

to sharing explicit knowledge, including e-mail, print newsletters and bulletin boards. Those in

larger organizations also had more face-to-face contact with people in other parts of the company,

including executives, and they communicated more at events.


25/37

Managing Change: 25

CONCLUSIONS and DISCUSSION

The first research question asked how tacit knowledge, particularly regarding audiences

and news products, affects editors perceptions about their own abilities to lead local newsrooms

in transition. The findings indicate that they realized there was a lot they did not know, most

notably about new audiences, resulting in considerable uncertainty about the best way to manage

change. These veteran journalists had enormous individual and collective storehouses of tacit

knowledge about what a community newspaper is and how to produce a good one for a particular

kind of reader knowledge that their responses suggest they were largely trying to apply more or

less directly to a new media, social, and economic environment. But most also recognized that,

in large measure, that strategy was not getting them where they or their company needed to go.

How to constructively manage change is the crux of the problem they confront. Many

thought an optimal approach would be simply to hire new staffers with different sorts of tacit

knowledge to compensate for their own shortcomings; a wish for dedicated digital journalists to

handle website content product clearly reflects this idea. However, they did not see such people

as necessarily affecting newsroom socialization, as might occur if the different forms of tacit

knowledge were actually shared (Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosire, 2001); rather, they seemed to

see them as providing a complementary but distinct set of skills. In general, most editors did not

envision the sort of resocialization that researchers have suggested can facilitate organizational

change (Hart, Miller & Johnson, 2003). They were more likely to say they wanted more of the

same kinds of resources they currently had more people and more money, as well as more time

to do the things they had long ago been socialized to see as journalistically important.

The second research question asked about potential barriers to editors success in leading

local newsrooms in transition. The findings again suggest these editors are strongly socialized to


26/37

Managing Change: 26

perceive their products, audiences, and social roles in traditional terms. They are focused on

producing better journalism, defined as putting out a good news product that is, a newspaper,

which is what virtually all of their tacit knowledge enables them to do successfully. For the most

part, they were cognitively willing to accept that the newspaper can be digital instead of

printed on wood pulp. But they had not yet substantively begun the process of modifying their

knowledge base to adapt to the change, at least as of the time of this study, which was conducted

in advance of an intensive training workshop designed to help them do just that. As other

scholars have suggested is commonly the case, cultural change had not accompanied the

introduction of radical innovation (Hale & Whitlam, 1997; McDermott, 2000; Sviokla, 2000).

Moreover, the findings suggest that, particularly in the smaller newsrooms, breaking out

of the current strictures created by their own traditionally oriented tacit knowledge is going to

require concerted effort. Most of their time goes into doing what they already know how to do,

with little left over for building new knowledge -- and, in the open newsroom environments in

which they work (Sveiby, 1996), passing what they know along to junior colleagues. Nor was

there much evidence here that editors were enacting the middle-up-down model of management

that researchers suggest is most appropriate for organizations in the business of producing

information (Nonaka, 1988; 1990; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995); for instance, very little of their

time was spent on managing up.

Respondents reliance on face-to-face communication channels also suggests that tasks

requiring new kinds of explicit knowledge, such as new technical know-how, may be difficult to

integrate. Again, however, training such as the program on which respondents subsequently

embarked are intended largely to enable them to create new know-how that can be translated into

show-how (Roberts, 2000) in their own small organizations. Drawing on the SECI model


27/37

Managing Change: 27

described above, the sessions included discussion (the externalization mode of knowledge

conversion, from tacit to explicit), presentation (explicit to explicit, the combination mode

facilitated by such meetings) and hands-on training (explicit to tacit, the internalization mode;

see Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosire, 2001). Follow-up work is needed to investigate how these

newsroom managers views changed subsequent to the workshops and their return to their

newsrooms to try to enact what they had learned.

Also missing from the portrait presented here is information about staff perceptions of the

ongoing changes. Other research has suggested that an emphasis on core journalistic concepts,

such as the ones these editors expressed, may in fact be the best way to generate buy-in to

change (Pollard, 1995; Daniels & Hollifield, 2002) and to avoid staff resentment (Gade, 2004) --

particularly as staffers typically are socialized to see their tasks and roles within a shared

newsroom culture in the same way as their managers do (Breed, 1955). Further exploration is

needed to broaden the perspectives highlighted here, which not only focus solely on editors but

also are based on a small and non-random sample from within a single media company, with all

the inherent shortcomings such research entails.

In the meantime, we can say with certainty that change and the uncertainty it brings --

is indeed a constant. The weekly editors studied here have conflicted views about the changes

sweeping their industry, seeing them correctly as both an enormous opportunity and perhaps

their biggest challenge. They know what they know -- and they know it is not enough to

guarantee either their newsroom, where most of their attention is focused, or their company, of

whose fortunes they were keenly aware, safe passage through the ongoing cultural upheavals and

economic downturns. But that recognition is itself a vital step toward a future that is certain to

look very different from the present.


28/37

Managing Change: 28

REFERENCES

ABC. (2008). Newspaper data. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from:http://www.abc.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5?runprog=nav/abc&noc=y

Ahrens, F. (2007, 8 March). Big profits in small packages.W

ashingtonP

ost, p. D1. Retrieved 28March 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702408.html

Bantz, C. R. (1985). News organizations: Conflict as a crafted cultural norm. Communication 8

(2): 225-244.

Bradshaw, P. (2008, 13 February). Local online news is changing, but not fast enough. OnlineJournalism News (journalism.co.uk). Retrieved 12 March 2008 from:

http://www.journalism.co.uk/6/articles/531022.php

Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces 33(December): 326-335.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organisational learning communities of practice: Towards a

unified view of working, learning and organisation. Organisational Science2 (1): 40-57.

Daniels, G. L., & Hollifield, C. A. (2002). Times of turmoil: Short and long-term effects oforganizational change on newsroom employees.Journalism & Mass Communication

Quarterly 79 (3): 661-680.

de Bruin, M. (2000). Gender, organizational and professional identities in journalism.Journalism1 (2): 217-238.

Deuze, Mark. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists

reconsidered.Journalism 6(4): 442-464.

Drucker, P. (1969). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines for our changing society. New York:Harpers & Row.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks Total

Quality.Management Communication Quarterly 6(4): 331-371.

Fee, F. Jr. (2002, August). New(s) player and new(s) values? A test of convergence in thenewsroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Miami Beach.

Franklin, B. (2006). Attacking the devil? Local journalists and local newspapers in the UK. In

Local journalism and local media: Making the local news (B. Franklin, ed.), pp. 3-15.London: Routledge.


29/37

Managing Change: 29

Gade, P. J. (2004). Newspapers and organizational development: Management and journalist

perceptions of newsroom cultural change.Journalism & Communication Monographs 6(1): 3-55.

Gade, P. J., & Perry, E. L. (2003). Changing the newsroom culture: A four-year case study oforganizational development at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.Journalism & MassCommunication Quarterly 80 (2): 327-347.

Giles, R. (1995).Newsroom management: A guide to theory and practice. Detroit, MI: Media

Management Books.

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Why should anyone be led by you? What it takes to be anauthentic leader. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonakas theory.Journal

of Management Studies 43 (7): 1415-1436.

Greenslade, R. (2008, 6 March). Learning the Johnston Press lessons. Guardian. Retrieved12 March 2008 from: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2008/03/

learning_the_johnston_press_le.html

Hadwin, S. (2006). Real readers, real news: The work of a local newspaper editor. InLocal journalism and local media: Making the local news (B. Franklin, ed.), pp. 140-161.

London: Routledge.

Hall, R., & Andriani, P. (2003). Managing knowledge associated with innovation.JournalofBusiness Research 56(2): 145-152

Hale, R., & Whitlam, P. (1997). Towards the virtual organization. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hart, Z. P., Miller, V. D., & Johnson, J. R. (2003). Socialization, resocialization and

communication relationships in the context of an organizational change. CommunicationStudies 54 (winter): 483-495.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature.

Organizational Science 2 (1): 88-115.

Jasimuddin, S. M. (2004). Critical assessments of emerging theories of organizational knowledge.Paper presented at the 64th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans.

Jasimuddin, S. M., Klein, J. H., & Connell, C. (2005). The paradox of using tacit and

explicit knowledge: Strategies to face dilemmas.Management Decision 43 (1): 102-112.

Johnston Press. (2008a). History. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from:http://www.johnstonpress.co.uk/jpplc/aboutus/history/


30/37

Managing Change: 30

Johnston Press. (2008b). Our business. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from:

http://www.johnstonpress.co.uk/jpplc/ourbusiness/

Johnston Press. (2008c, 5 March). Results for the year ended 31 December 2007. Retrieved 12

March 2008 from: http://www.johnstonpress.co.uk/jpplc/uploads/pressreleases/files/JP-Annual2007Final.pdf

Killebrew, K. C. (2005).Managing media convergence: Pathways to journalistic cooperation.Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing Professional.

Kiss, J. (2008a, 28 February). Morning regionals all see sales fall. guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 12

March 2008 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/28/abcs.pressandpublishing

Kiss, J. (2008b, 28 February). More ABC gloom outside England. guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 12

March 2008 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/28/abcs.pressandpublishing2

Kiss, J. (2007, 30 August). Local newspaper ABCs: Guess the trend guardian.co.uk.

Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/08/local_newspaper_abcs_guess_the.html

Kramer, M. W., & Miller, V. D. (1999). A response to criticisms of organizational socialization

research: In support of contemporary conceptualization of organization assimilation.Communication Monographs 66(December): 358-367.

Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (2000). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. In

Knowledge, groupware and the Internet(D. E. Smith, ed.), pp. 281-301. Woburn, MA:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned

organizational change: Implementers targets, sources, and channels for communicating.Management Communication Quarterly 13 (1): 43-75.

Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A. M., Stephens, K. K., & Weir, K. E. (2006). Advice on

communicating during organizational change: The content of popular press books.Journal of Business Communication 43 (2): 113-137.

McDermott, R. (2000). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge

management. InKnowledge and communities (E. Lester, M. A. Fontaine, & J. A. Slusher,eds.): pp 21-35. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

McLellan, M., & Porter, T. (2007).News, improved: How Americas newsrooms are learning to

change. Washington: CQ Press.


31/37

Managing Change: 31

McLeod, J. M., & Hawley, S. E. Jr. (1964). Professionalization among newsmen.JournalismQuarterly 41 (winter): 529-538.

McNally, P. (2008, 5 March). Profit dip for regional press giant Johnston. pressgazette.co.uk.

Retrieved 23 March 2008 from: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/

story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=40487

MediaGuardian.co.uk. (2008, 7 March). ABCs at a glance. Retrieved 28 March 2008 from:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/table/0,,2263387,00.html

Mokyr, J. (2002). The gifts of Athena: Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Murphy, A. (1846). The works of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. New York: Alexander V. Blake.

Nel, F. (2006, 27 October). Dive into digital exposes need for modern skills. Press Gazette

Training Supplement, pp. 12-14.

Newspaper Society. (2008, 1 January). Top 20 regional press publishers (circulation). Retrieved12 March 2008 from: http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=14

Newspaper Society. (2007, 1 October). Breakdown: Titles by type. Retrieved 12 March 2008

from: http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=1920

Newspaper Society. (2006). Readership & Coverage. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from:http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=897

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company.Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96-104.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

Organizational Science 5: 14-37.

Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosire, P. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation:

Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. InHandbook oforganizational learning and knowledge (M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka,

eds.): pp. 491-517. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pavlik. J. (2000). The impact of technology on journalism.Journalism Studies 1 (2): 229-237.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2008, March 17). Financial woes nowovershadow all other concerns for journalists. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=403


32/37

Managing Change: 32

Pollard, G. (1995). Job satisfaction among newsworkers: The influence of professionalism,perceptions of organizational structure, and social attributes.Journalism & Mass

Communication Quarterly 72 (3): 682-697.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company.

Poynter Institute. (2006, 16-19 May).Leadership for Online News Managers. St. Petersburg, FL:Poynter Institute.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation.

Harvard Business Review 68 (3): 79-91.

Press Gazette. (2007a, 18 May). Hiding the heartbreak behind the regional revenue decline.Retrieved 20 March from: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/


P

ress Gazette. (2007b, 10 September). Online growth fails to offset print fall. Retrieved 12March 2008 from: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/


Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2008a). Newspapers: Intro. TheState of the News Media2008. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/

narrative_newspapers_intro.php?media=4

Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2008b). Overview: Intro. TheState of the News Media2008. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/

narrative_overview_intro.php?media=1

Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic

Management 12 (4): 429-443.

Quinn. S. (2002).Knowledge management in the digital newsroom. Oxford: Focal Press.

Schaffer, J. (2007). Citizen media: Fad or the future of news? College Park, MD: J-Lab: TheInstitute for Interactive Journalism.

Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism.Journalism 2 (2): 149-170.

Singer, J. B. (2004). More than ink-stained wretches: The resocialization of print journalists in

converged newsrooms.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81 (4): 838-856.

Smith, E. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace.Journal ofKnowledge Management 5 (4): 311-321.

Smith, H., & McKeen, J. D. (2003). Knowledge transfer: Can KM make it happen? WR 03-05,


33/37

Managing Change: 33

Queens Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises. Retrieved 24 March 2008 from:http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson_old/docs/working/working_03-05.pdf

Smith, P. (2008, 28 February). Regional ABCs: Marginal 1.6 per cent drop in paid-for weekly

sales. pressgazette.co.uk. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=40457&c=1

Stafford, P. (2008, 6 March). Johnston Press blames adverts decline on economic adversity.

Financial Times. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0b1d29c-eb1f-11dc-a5f4-0000779fd2ac.html

Sveiby, K-E. (1996). Transfer of knowledge and the information processing professions.

European Management Journal 14 (4): 379-388.

Sviokla, J. J. (2000). Knowledge workers and radically new technology. InKnowledge,groupware and the Internet(D. E. Smith, ed.), pp. 89-117. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift: Knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge of the 21st

century.New York: Bantam Books.

Wainwright, M. (2008, 3 March). Local heroes. Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/03/pressandpublishing.abcs

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory.Academy of Management Review16(1): 57-91.

Williams, A., & Franklin, B. (2007). Turning Around the Tanker: Implementing Trinity Mirrors

Online Strategy. Cardiff: Cardiff University. Retrieved 21 July 2008 from:http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2007/03/13/Cardiff.Trinity.pdf

Williams, G. (2006). Profits before product? Ownership and economics of the local press. In

Local journalism and local media: Making the local news (B. Franklin, ed.), pp. 83-92.London: Routledge.

Zelizer, B. (2004). Taking journalism seriously: News and the academy. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.


34/37

Managing Change: 34

Table 1a: Whats Keeping You Up at Night?Editors were asked to indicate what worried them about working in a changing media

environment. A total of 54 editors responded to this question. The n for each item and itspercentage of the total for this question are indicated below.

Issue Not aconcern

Smallconcern

Mediumconcern

Bigconcern

Very bigconcern

N/A

Digital Immigrant: How do I learn to think outsidethe box, and help my staff to do so, when everythingis so new to most of us?

12(22.2%)

7(13%)

19(35.2%)

10(18.5%)

5(9.3%)

1(1.9%)

Future Shock: Will I be able to manage and

successful integrate the next wave of innovation, andthe next, and the next

6

(11.1%)

9

(16.7%)

16

(29.6%)

18

(33.3%)

4

(7.4%)

1

(1.9%)

Change Mania: Im not certain where were going, sohow can I lead others there?

15(27.8%)

12(22.2%)

18(33.3%)

5(9.3%)

3(5.6%)

1(1.9%)

Fear of Failing: Winning is great, but how can I leada team when things dont go to plan?

14(25.9%)

23(42.6%)

13(24.1%)

2(3.7%)

1(1.9%)

1(1.9%)

Life in the Fast Lane: Can we realistically handle the24/7 world, given our resource limits?

1(1.9%)

4(7.4%)

7(13%)

20(37%)

20(37%)

2(3.7%)

Training Wheels: How can I help myself and mystaff acquire the skills we need?

4(7.4%)

12(22.2%)

21(38.9%)

12(22.2%)

5(9.3%)

0

Herding Cats: Journalists tend to want to go theirown way. How can I lead them in the direction wewant to go?

13(24.1%)

24(44.4%)

13(24.1%)

1(1.9%)

3(5.6%)

0

Saying the Right Thing: Were professionalcommunicators, so how come were so lousy atcommunicating with one another?

12(22.2%)

17(31.5%)

15(27.8%)

6(11.1%)

3(5.6%)

1(1.9%)

Playing Nicely: How can I help prevent our newsroomfrom being harmed by competition and conflict?

11(20.4%)

24(44.4%)

11(20.4%)

4(7.4%)

4(7.4%)

0

Credibility Crunch: How do we make ethical

decisions when public service and commercial goalscollide?

18

(33.3%)

20

(37%)

11

(20.4%)

4

(7.4%)

1

(1.9%)

0

Managing Innovation: How do we successfullyimplement creative ideas?

9(16.7%)

10(18.5%)

27(50%)

7(13%)

1(1.9%)

0

Telling the Story: Has the basic journalistic missiongotten lost along the path to change?

13(24.1%)

17(31.5%)

15(27.8%)

5(9.3%)

4(7.4%)

0

Thinking Like a User: Are we adequately taking theaudience into account when making news decisions?

1(1.9%)

10(18.5%)

23(42.6%)

12(22.2%)

7(13%)

1(1.9%)

Minding the Market: Do I know enough about myonline audience to create a product theyll want?

0 3(5.6%)

15(27.8%)

21(38.9%)

14(25.9%)

1(1.9%)

One Size Fits All: How can I best serve my uniquemarket within our large and diverse company?

4(7.4%)

10(18.5%)

27(50%)

8(14.8%)

5(9.3%)

0

Technical Twists: Will our tools and technology beable to support our innovative ideas?

2(3.7%)

7(13%)

18(33.3%)

11(20.4%)

13(24.1%)

3(5.6%)

Killing the Golden Goose: Are we sacrificing ourcore print product to bolster the shakier one?

6(11.1%)

11(20.4%)

15(27.8%)

16(29.6%)

6(11.1%)

0

Show Me More Money: What are the future revenueopportunities and how long do we have to realisethem?

4(7.4%)

14(25.9%)

18(33.3%)

12(22.2%)

6(11.1%)

0

Talk Is Cheap: how committed is the company to realchange, even if it hurts the bottom line along the way?

4(7.4%)

18(33.3%)

14(25.9%)

8(14.8%)

10(18.5%)

0

Strategic Thinking: Do we, as a company, reallyknow where we are headed and how to get there?

5(9.3%)

17(31.5%)

17(31.5%)

10(18.5%)

4(7.4%)

1(1.9%)


35/37

Managing Change: 35

Table 1b: Whats Keeping You Up at Night?

Big concerns by staff size

Big or very big concerns for editors with small staffs (under 15 reporting to the editor) and larger

staffs (16 or more reporting to the editor) are shown here.

Issue Big or very big concern15 or fewer staff

(total n = 36)

Big or very big concern16 or more staff

(total n = 18)Digital Immigrant: How do I learn to think outside thebox, and help my staff to do so, when everything is so newto most of us?

10(27.8%)

5(27.8%)

Future Shock: Will I be able to manage and successfulintegrate the next wave of innovation, and the next, and thenext

18(50%)

4(22.2%)

Change Mania: Im not certain where were going, so howcan I lead others there?

8(22.2%)

0

Fear of Failing: Winning is great, but how can I lead a teamwhen things dont go to plan?

2(5.6%)

1(5.6%)

Life in the Fast Lane: Can we realistically handle the 24/7

world, given our resource limits?

30

(83.3%)

10

(55.6%)Training Wheels: How can I help myself and my staffacquire the skills we need?

11(30.6%)

6(33.3%)

Herding Cats: Journalists tend to want to go their own way.How can I lead them in the direction we want to go?

3(8.3%)

1(5.6%)

Saying the Right Thing: Were professionalcommunicators, so how come were so lousy atcommunicating with one another?

7(19.4%)

2(11.1%)

Playing Nicely: How can I help prevent our newsroom frombeing harmed by competition and conflict?

5(13.9%)

3(16.7%)

Credibility Crunch: How do we make ethical decisions

when public service and commercial goals collide?

3

(8.3%)

2

(11.1%)

Managing Innovation: How do we successfully implementcreative ideas?

6(16.7%)

2(11.1%)

Telling the Story: Has the basic journalistic mission gottenlost along the path to change?

9(25%)

0

Thinking Like a User: Are we adequately taking the

audience into account when making news decisions?

14

(38.9%)

5

(27.8%)

Minding the Market: Do I know enough about my onlineaudience to create a product theyll want?

22(61.1%)

13(72.2%)

One Size Fits All: How can I best serve my unique marketwithin our large and diverse company?

7(19.4%)

6(33.3%)

Technical Twists: Will our tools and technology be able to

support our innovative ideas?

13

(36.1%)11

(61.1%)

Killing the Golden Goose: Are we sacrificing our core printproduct to bolster the shakier one?

17(47.2%)

5(27.8%)

Show Me More Money: What are the future revenueopportunities and how long do we have to realise them?

10(27.8%)

8(44.4%)

Talk Is Cheap: How committed is the company to real

change, even if it hurts the bottom line along the way?

11

(30.6%)

7

(38.9%)Strategic Thinking: Do we, as a company, really knowwhere we are headed and how to get there?

9(25%)

5(27.8%)


36/37

Managing Change: 36

Table 2: Time spent in a typical day

A total of 52 editors responded to this question; all of them indicated the size of their newsroom

staffs. Responses were aggregated and then averaged to produce the following collective portrait.

The first column of percentages shows the overall average. The second column shows theaverage for editors with staffs of 15 journalists or fewer, and the third column shows the average

for editors with staffs of 16 or more journalists.

In a typical day, editors said they spend their time on Overall

(n = 52)

Smaller

staffs

(n = 37)

Larger

staffs

(n = 15)

Developing and editing content 52.7% 55% 47.1%

Dealing with staff and personnel issues 9.7% 7.4% 15.5%

Meeting or talking with people in other company departments 9% 9% 9%

Wrestling with technology 6.2% a 9.3% 5.1%

Planning for the future 5.6% 4.7% 7.8%

Meeting or talking with audience members (readers / users) 5.4% 5.8% 4.2%

Meeting or talking with people outside the company 2.9% 3.2% 2.4%

Managing up 2.6% 2.7% 2.2%

Meeting or talking with people in other parts of Johnston Press 1.9% 1.8% 2.1%

Learning new skills / training 2% 1.8% 2.5%

Other 2.2% b 2.1% 2.4%

Percentages add up to more than 100% due primarily to rounding. In addition, fivemath-challenged editors provided totals that added up to 95%, 98%, 105% or 110%;

their responses are simply included in the total.

aOne editor indicated, we hope jokingly, that 100% of his time was spent wrestlingwith technology. As he also provided estimates for the other options making his total

time spent 200% -- his technology response has been omitted here but his otherresponses retained.

bOther responses included resolving physical infrastructure issues, from toilets tolighting problems; filling in for absent co-workers; and coping with e-mail. One editor

allocated precisely 6% of his time to dealing with life in general.


37/37

Managing Change: 37

Table 3: Communication channels

Editors were asked to indicate how they communicated with other people within the companybut at varying physical or organizational distance. They could choose multiple channels for

each category of communication partners.

Fifty-one editors responded to this question; 37 had 15 or fewer journalists reporting to them and14 had 16 or more staffers. The top (non-italicized) line for each channel shows overall response;

the two italicized lines below it indicate responses by newsroom size. The n of respondents foreach item and its percentage of the total of respondents for that item are shown.

Channel Individual

staff

Your

team

Whole

newsroom

People in other

departments

of paper

People in other

parts

of company

Corporate

personnel,

including

executives

Face to face 50

(98%)

47

(92.2%)

49

(96.1%)

47

(92.2%)

21

(41.2%)

26

(51%)

Small staff 37 (100%) 34 (91.9%) 36 (97.3%) 33 (89.2%) 13 (35.1%) 17 (45.9%) Large staff 13 (92.9%) 13 (92.9%) 13 (92.9%) 14 (100%) 8 (57.1%) 9 (64.3%)

E-mail 40(78.4%)

37(72.5%)

39(76.5%)

44(86.3%)

51

(100%)47

(92.2%)Small staff 27 (73%) 25 (67.6%) 28 (75.7%) 32 (86.5%) 37 (100%) 35 (94.6%)

Large staff 13 (92.9%) 12 (85.7%) 11 (78.6%) 12 (85.7%) 14 (100%) 12 (85.7%)

Telephone /

teleconference

18

(35.3%)

10

(19.6%)

12

(23.5%)

27

(52.9%)

27

(52.9%)

19

(37.3%)Small staff 13 (35.1%) 8 (21.6%) 10 (27%) 20 (54%) 20 (54.1%) 15 (40.5%)

Large staff 5 (35.7%) 2 (14.3%) 2 (14.3%) 7 (50%) 7 (50%) 4 (28.6%)

Bulletin boards 7

(13.7%)

11

(21.6%)

13

(25.5%)

8

(15.7%)

5

(9.8%)

1

(2%)Small staff 3 (8.1%) 5 (13.5%) 5 (13.5) 1 (2.7%) 2 (5.4%) -

Large staff 4 (28.6%) 6 (42.9%) 8 (57.1%) 7 (50%) 3 (21.4%) 1 (7.1%)

Events 4(7.8%)

6(11.8%)

5(9.8%)

5(9.8%)

12(23.5%)

13(25.5%)

Small staff 3 (8.1%) 3 (8.1%) 3 (8.1%) 3 (8.1%) 7 (18.9%) 8 (21.6%)

Large staff 1 (7.1%) 3 (21.4%) 2 (14.3%) 2 (14.3%) 5 (35.7%) 5 (35.7%)

E-newsletter 5

(9.8%)

4

(7.8%)

5

(9.8%)

1

(2%)

1

(2%)

1

(2%)Small staff 2 (5.4%) 2 (5.4%) 3 (8.1%) - - 1 (2.7%)

Large staff 3 (21.4%) 2 (14.3%) 2 (14.3%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (7.1%) -

Print

newsletter

1(2%)

3(5.9%)

3(5.9%)

3(5.9%)

- -

Small staff - - - - - -

Large staff 1 (7.1%) 3 (21.4%) 3 (21.4%) 3 (21.4%) - -

Blog 1

(2%)

1

(2%)

1

(2%)

- - -

Small staff 1 (2.7%) 1 (2.7%) 1 (2.7%) - - -

Large staff - - - - - -

Internet / videoconference and instant messaging also were listed on the questionnaire ascommunication channel options. No editors indicated any use of these.

nel singer 2008 cultural fluidity weekly newspaper editors aejmc

Documents