the dark side of sh com

147

The dark side of stakeholder communicationStakeholder perceptions of ineffective organisational listening

Judy Burnside-Lawry

IntroductionThis paper addresses stakeholders perceptions of environmental conditions and communication practices that impeded effective listening using data collected during organisation-stakeholder consultations between two organisations and their stakeholders. These negative perceptions of organisational listening are referred to as the dark side of stakeholder communication. Dark side behaviour is defined as motivated behaviour by an employee or group of employees that has negative consequences for an individual within the organization, another group of individuals within the organization, or the organization itself (Griffin & OLeary-Kelly, 2004, p. 4).

ABSTRACT: The organisational communication literature consistently states that healthy organisations are those that promote effective listening. Negative outcomes from ineffective organisational listening may result in financial costs, dysfunctional organisational communication, and organisations that dominate communities rather than work cooperatively with communities. This article examines the listening competency of two organisations during consultation with their respective stakeholders. Conditions that stakeholders believe impeded effective listening between the organisation and its stakeholders are discussed. Results indicate that ineffective organisational listening had negative consequences both for organisations and for the stakeholder groups involved. The studys findings contribute to organisation-stakeholder communication literature and have implications for the practice of organisation-stakeholder communication and management training.

Judy Burnside-Lawry, School of Media and Communication,RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

The dark side of stakeholder communication

148

Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011

Listening scholars note that there is no commonly accepted definition of listening as it operates in the workplace (Bentley, 2010; Flynn, Valikoski, & Grau, 2008). In this study, organisational listening is defined as not simply limited to the listening skills that employees do or do not possess, but includes the environment in which listening occurs that is shaped by the organization and is then one of the characteristics of the organizational image (Flynn et al., 2008, p. 143).

Freeman (1984) defines a stakeholder as a group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations objectives (p. 25). Participating stakeholders were members of the two organisations respective community consultation committees. Each stakeholder represented an external organisation that could affect or was affected by, the organisations objectives. External organisations represented in the stakeholder sample include community-based organisations, environmental action groups, resident action groups, and regulatory authorities (i.e., Environmental Protection Authority, Water Board, or Fire Brigade).

The paper commences with a description of the studys theoretical framework. An outline of the research questions and methodology follow. Next, it presents the findings from an analysis of the data gathered on stakeholders perceptions of ineffective organisational listening. The paper concludes with a discussion of the studys contributions to the area of organisational-stakeholder communication.

Theoretical framework Constructs from listening competency and participatory communication research were combined to present a unique qualitative approach to the study of organisation-stakeholder listening. A description of the theoretical framework commences with a discussion of organisational listening and listening competency.

Organisational listening A review of literature found that there have been over fifty definitions of listening since 1925 (Glenn, 1989), but the definition accepted by the International Listening Association is the process of receiving, constructing meaning from, and responding to spoken and/or nonverbal messages (ILA, 1996, p. 4). This definition is accepted for the study.

Meanings given to the term listening vary from the academic to the organisational environment; however, both business educators

149

and scholars agree that listening involves a series of behaviours that can be learned and improved, and therefore most corporate training is approached from a behavioural perspective (Brownell, 1990; 1994a; 1994b; 2006). Although listening scholars agree that listening behaviour is one of the important interactive skills for members of organisations (Fisher & Ertel, 1995; Hunt & Cusella, 1983; Penrose, Rasberry, & Myers, 2004), and both researchers and practitioners emphasise the importance of effective listening, there are differences in opinion on what constitutes effective listening in the organisation environment (Bentley, 2010; Brownell, 2003; Flynn et al., 2008; Lewis & Reinsch, 1988). Bentley (2010) suggests that listening behaviours that would produce greater listening effectiveness vary from business to business and therefore it is difficult for businesses to just adopt what someone else is doing (p. 191).

The absence of a widely accepted definition of organisational listening is suggested as one reason for the lack of empirical research in the area (Flynn et al., 2008, p. 148). In this study, organisational listening is defined as a combination of an employees listening skills and the environment in which listening occurs, which is shaped by the organization and is then one of the characteristics of the organizational image (Flynn et al., 2008, p. 143). This view is consistent with the argument posited by critical theorists that behaviours of an individual or individuals are inseparable from the organisation they represent; that organisational codependency reduces individuality, depending for its survival upon continual verbal and nonverbal re-enactment of the roles that each participant performs within the organisation (Crable, 1990; McMillan & Northern, 1995). Bentley (2010) contends that improving listening effectiveness in an organisational environment could have positive outcomes for customer satisfaction and profitability of the business. Conversely, negative outcomes from ineffective organisational listening may include financial costs, dysfunctional organisational communication, and organisations that dominate communities rather than work cooperatively with communities (Brownell, 2003; Heath, 2001; Hunt & Cusella, 1983).

A definition of organisational listening competency that combined concepts from listening researchers Cooper (1997) and Wolvin and Coakley (1994) was adopted for the study. When listening is viewed as a communication behaviour, rather than involving only cognition, social and interpersonal skills are included as necessary competencies for effective organisational listening (Cooper, 1997). Cooper developed a model of organisational listening competency


150


that assesses not only listening ability but also the effect of listening on the relationship between speaker and listener. Coopers two-factor model of organisational listening competency addresses accuracy, the perception that the listener has accurately received and understood the message sent and effectiveness, in terms of supportive behaviour demonstrated to enhance the relationship between speaker and listener. Wolvin and Coakley (1994) argue that a model of listening competency should incorporate affective, cognitive, and behavioural (verbal, nonverbal, interactive) dimensions. The authors state that competent listening requires a willingness to engage as a communicating listener (affective), knowledge about listening (cognitive), and engagement in appropriate listening (behaviour) (Coakley, Halone, & Wolvin, 1996; Wolvin & Coakley, 1994). In this study, organisational listening competency was defined as the presence of affective, cognitive, and behavioural attributes that contribute to accuracy, the perceptions that the listener has accurately received and understood the message sent, and effectiveness, where the listener demonstrates supportive behaviour to enhance the relationship between speaker and listener. This paper aims to contribute to the study of organisational listening by presenting conditions and practices that stakeholders associate with ineffective organisational listening.

Stakeholder The notion that stakeholder management contributes to successful economic performance is accepted by scholars and practitioners (Boutilier, 2009; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Goyder, 1999; Halal, 2000; 2001). A prevalent view expressed in stakeholder literature is that there is a need to understand the power and influence of different stakeholders, as well as their interest in a particular issue (Crane & Livesey, 2003; Frooman, 1999; Hill & Jones, 1992). More complex conceptualisations have emerged to address our understanding of the dynamics involved in stakeholder interdependence (Boutilier, 2009; Crane, 1998; Rowley, 1997). In Rowleys network model, stakeholders have a relationship not only with the organisation but also with each other, either by communication, exchange, or some other form of interaction. The network model is further advanced in Boutiliers (2009) typology of stakeholder networks, described as bonding, bridging, and linking social networks. Goyder (1999) concludes that a business which better understands the needs of those with whom it has a relationship, and which better understands what they regard as value will survive in a turbulent world (p. 218). Organisations are required to address a set of stakeholder expectations by engaging with stakeholders (Boutilier, 2009; Bronn & Bronn, 2003; Donaldson

151

& Preston, 1995; Foster & Jonker, 2005; McVea & Freeman, 2005; Rowley, 1997). Based on Freemans (1984) definition, a stakeholder can be external or internal to the organisation. Internal stakeholder groups that may affect or be affected by the organisations objectives could include employees, union representatives, or management, while external stakeholder groups that have a stake in the focal organisation may include, among others, suppliers, customers or NGOs (non-government organisations). External stakeholders, who were members of the two organisations respective consultation committees, were participants in this study.

Building positive organisation-stakeholder relationships requires effective organisation-stakeholder communication. Communication skills necessary for effective organisation-stakeholder communication have their foundation in dialogue (Bronn & Bronn, 2003; Waddock & Smith, 2000).

DialogueThe link between organisation-stakeholder relationships and dialogue was of particular interest in this study, as an important component of dialogue is listening. More than mere discussion, genuine dialogue is a process that leads to mutual understanding by focusing on deep listening with empathy, uncovering hidden assumptions, and focusing on common interests (Halal, 2000). A dialogic approach to public relations assumes that stakeholders are willing and able to articulate their demands and that the organisation is willing to consult and therefore listen to its stakeholders in matters that affect both parties (Bowen & Heath, 2005; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Grunig, 2001). Dialogic public relations requires organisations to have processes in place that actively solicit information from key stakeholders and methods to listen and respond to those messages (Kent & Taylor, 2002). But what are the processes involved in gaining an accurate perception of stakeholders interests (i.e., listening), and in creating an environment conducive to organisation-stakeholder dialogue? Meisenbach and Feldner (2009, p. 3) note that, although public relations scholars acknowledge the importance of a dialogic perspective, little research has been conducted to examine what this dialogue may look like in practice.

Kersten (2000) believes that dialogue requires a critical and reflective understanding of ones own world, an empathic grasping of the world of other participants, and the shared building of a joint world, based upon social consensus. Meisenbach and Feldner (2009) concur


152


with Kersten (2000) that Habermass communicative action theory provides a perspective that can guide organisations in their practice of dialogic public relations. According to communicative action theory, every speech act can function in communication by virtue of unconscious presumptions (validity claims) made by speaker and listener. The validity claims are comprehensibility, asserting a knowledge proposition truthfully, appropriateness, and sincerity (Deetz, 2001). Habermas (1984) contends that these validity claims may not be met in every instance of discourse, in which case the truth, appropriateness, comprehensibility, or sincerity of a statement may be challenged. In such situations, dialogue is necessary for the achievement of mutual understanding between parties.

Researchers have cautioned that dialogue involves more than providing forums (places to talk), and voice (an ability to speak for ourselves) (Deetz, 1992; Kersten, 2000). Habermass (1984) theory of communicative action provides a basis for distinguishing three different kinds of communication: communicative action (mutual understanding) and two kinds of distortions of the communication processopen strategic action and concealed strategic action (Figure 1). Concealed strategic action is described as communication oriented to achieve success involving conscious deception (manipulation), or unconscious deception to achieve aims (Habermas, as cited in Deetz, 2001; Jacobson, 2007a; 2007b; Jacobson & Storey, 2004). Consistent with Habermass (1984) descriptions of communicative action and concealed strategic action, investigation by Gao and Zhang (2001) led to their belief that genuine dialogue is geared towards listening to explore shared interests, joint problem-solving, and relationship-building, whereas monologic dialogue is centred on communicating self-interest and aligning the others interest to ones own.

Figure 1. Habermass communication action types

Social action

Strategic action

Openly strategic actionConcealed strategic action

Conscious deceptionmanipulation

Unconscious deceptionsystematically distortedcommunication

Communicative action

Source: Habermas (1983) Figure 18, p. 333.

153

Both organisational and development participatory communication

literature acknowledge that more work is required to develop methods

of evaluating effective two-way, participatory communication based

on genuine two-way dialogue (Cheney, 1995; Deetz, 2001; Jacobson,

2007a; 2007b; Jacobson & Storey, 2004; Servaes, 1996; Servaes &

Malikhao, 2005). Participation necessitates listening and trust to help

reduce the social distance between communicators and receivers

(Servaes, 1996; Servaes & Malikhao, 2005). In an effort to answer the

question, how can organisations differentiate communication events

that are participatory from those that are not?, Jacobson (2007a;

2007b), developed a participatory communication model, derived

from Habermass (1984) theory of communicative action. The model

examines whether communication between an organisation and

its stakeholders is aimed at increasing participatory communication

rather than increasing organisational influence and control. Jacobsons

(2007a; 2007b) assessment tool was of particular interest to this study,

as, according to Jacobson, the questionnaire items are intended to

provide assessment of participants views on whether they were heard

during a specific communicative event. The models concepts of

validity claims and ideal speech conditions, derived from Habermass

(1984) theory of communicative action, provided a method of data

analysis to examine whether stakeholders believed genuine dialogue

was practised during each organisation-stakeholder event and whether

stakeholders believed the organisation listened to them (Table 1).

Table 1. Illustrative question types (adapted from Jacobson, 2007a, 2007b)

Validity/speech criteria Illustrative questions

Knowledge/truth Do you feel the organisation was knowledgeable about the opportunities or threats and/or local conditions?

Appropriateness Do you feel the organisation behaved in a manner that is appropriate given its legal mandate and responsibilities?

Sincerity Do you feel the organisation was sincere in its attempts to address stakeholder concerns and/or solve local problems?


154


Comprehension Do you feel stakeholders understood the organi-sations position and the issues involved?

Do you feel you understood stakeholders posi-tions and the issues involved?

Do you feel stakeholders understood what you were trying to tell them?

Do you feel you understood what stakeholders were trying to tell you?

Symmetric opportunities Did you feel you, or others like you, were given equal opportunities to challenge organisational policy?

Free to raise any proposition Did you, or others like you, feel that you were free to raise any proposal or idea you wished for discussion?

Equal treatment of propositions Do you feel the organisation treated your posi-tion and/or viewpoints fully and to your satisfac-tion?

Research QuestionsThe study explored the following research questions:

RQ.1. Does the organisation have an accurate understanding of what stakeholders expect from an effective listening organisation?

RQ.2. How do stakeholders assess organisational listening competency?

RQ.3. Is there any discrepancy between stakeholder expectations and their actual perceptions of the organisations listening competency?

RQ.4. What factors enhance or impede competent listening between an organisation and its stakeholders?

MethodThe study took a critical-constructive approach to investigate what stakeholders meant when they described an organisation as one that listened effectively to its stakeholders and, conversely, what is meant when an organisation is described as not listening effectively to its stakeholders. An exploratory approach using a case study research methodology was selected to understand the case in depth, and in its natural setting, recognizing its complexity and context (Purdy, 2004, p. 150). During interviews, stakeholders were asked to describe the listening attributes (attitudes, skills, and behaviours) and qualities they expected from an organisation during organisation-stakeholder

155

consultations. Stakeholders were also asked to reflect upon their experience during the recent consultation and to describe manager attributes and/or conditions they perceived as indicators of effective or ineffective organisational listening.

During their interviews, organisation representatives (i.e., managers) were asked to describe listening attributes and qualities they believed stakeholders expected from the organisation during consultations. Managers were then asked to reflect upon the recent consultation and to describe the attributes they exhibited and/or conditions they perceived as indicators of effective or ineffective organisational listening.

SampleA theoretical sampling strategy was employed to select participants (Mason, 1996, pp. 93-4). Two global organisations with established community-consultation committees were identified as potential participants. Both organisations are large, engineering-based corporations within Australia, with international operations. Each organisation identified a range of issues that had potential to be resolved to the satisfaction of external stakeholders and the organisation. Both organisations community-consultation committees involved face-to-face communication with opportunities for simultaneous communication exchanges between stakeholders and managers. A total of six separate organisation-stakeholder consultation events, three from each organisation, were identified as suitable case studies. To maximise descriptive validity a minimum of six participants, three stakeholders and three managers, were selected from each consultation. Prior to each consultation, the investigator randomly selected the participants from a list provided by the respective organisations Community Relations Manager (CRM).

Data collection techniquesData were collected using semi-structured interviews, observation, and textual analysis of documents and archival records. The primary data source was semi-structured interviews. The majority of interviews were held at the conclusion of the consultation (committee meeting), or the conclusion of the interviewees participation in the committee meeting. All interviews were completed no later than one week after the respective committee meeting. Twenty stakeholders, nineteen managers, and two Community Relations Managers (CRM) were interviewed (N=41).


156


Coopers (1997) method of administering two separate interview instruments to compare perceptions with self-perceptions was incorporated in the interview design. Two interview protocols were developed. The first, a stakeholder interview protocol, was designed to elicit stakeholders expectations of the organisations listening competence and their perceptions of listening competence during a committee meeting. The second, a manager interview protocol, was designed to explore managers understanding of stakeholders expectations and self-perceptions of their listening behaviour during the committee meeting. Incorporation of Coopers (1997) method of administering two separate interview instruments, to compare observations of stakeholders with self-reports of managers, provided an additional method to manage threats to validity.

This paper examines stakeholder responses to questions that elicited their perceptions of ineffective organisational listening during committee meetings. Stakeholders were asked to provide examples that indicated that managers were not listening effectively during the committee meeting and give reasons for this assessment. In addition, stakeholders were asked to describe any conditions they perceived that detracted from the organisations ability to listen effectively during the committee meeting.

During interviews, each informant described the committee meeting in their own language and from their own unique perspective (Maxwell, 2002). The terms competent and listening competency were not used in interviews. The more common vernacular descriptions of effective and not effective were used to elicit perceptions of the quality of organisational listening that participants experienced during their respective committee meetings (Maxwell, 2002). Interviews were approximately 45 minutes to one hour in duration. To address descriptive validity, all interviews were recorded and transcribed word-by-word. Field notes were taken during each interview to supplement interviews. Notes were compiled at each meeting based on observations of the venue, the room selected, meeting set-up, furnishings, and catering arrangements.

This study took an emic perspective, to comprehend phenomena not on the basis of the researchers perspective, but from those of the participants (Maxwell, 2002). To reduce the influence of the researchers subjective perspective when interpreting data, the researcher was not in the room for each committee meeting, but was present at each venue for the duration of committee meetings. In

157

addition to interviews and observation, various documents including meeting minutes, e-mails, position descriptions, agendas, letters, and annual reports were collected to supplement observations and interviews. Both organisations allowed the researcher access to written guidelines and protocols developed for staff involved in stakeholder engagement. In addition, committee charters, developed for the respective committees, were collected for examination.

Data analysisThe analytic strategy was to allow theoretical orientations to guide development of a case study protocol, indicating what data was to be collected, and the method of data analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2009). Results from previous listening studies, including Halone et al.s (1997) Qualities of an Effective Listener (QEL taxonomy) and Coopers (1997) model of listening competency, assisted in developing a framework for analysis of data. Jacobsons (2007a; 2007b) model of participatory communication provided an additional framework for data analysis.

A computer software program, NVivo, was used as a tool to assist in managing data collected. During the study design phase, an a priori coding scheme was developed, derived from listening competency and participatory communication literature. A priori coding nodes, based on information to look for in the transcripts that would answer, or be relevant to the first three research questions, were developed. Miles and Huberman (1994) describe this process as developing a set of provisional codes based on the conceptual framework, research questions, and key variables that the researcher brings to the study (p. 58). It was anticipated that the coding structure would be refined continuously as data from each of the six cases was interpreted (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Interview transcripts were read line by line and sections of the document, or individual words, were highlighted and coded into the corresponding NVivo category. In addition to a priori coding, an inductive coding approach was taken to allow categories to emerge from the interview transcripts. Inductive coding is associated with the grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, as cited in Yin, 2009, p. 129). This study did not take a grounded theory approach; however, the inductive approach of post-defined coding, described as a posteriori coding, was undertaken (Schwandt, 1997). A posteriori coding allows a posteriori context-sensitive categories to emerge from the transcripts (Schwandt, 1997). Interview transcripts were re-read


158


line by line, and recurring themes, statements, or observations were grouped into newly created categories. As a result of findings during the data analysis, theoretical orientations were revised. For example, the a priori coding scheme developed for listening competency initially incorporated qualities associated with the effective listener based on the conceptual framework of the QEL taxonomy (Halone et al., 1997). New qualities, not included in the QEL taxonomy, evolved as data interpretation progressed.

This paper draws upon stakeholder responses that described their perceptions of ineffective organisational listening during committee meetings. Results from the six stakeholder cohorts were collated and examined within the framework of constructs from listening competency literature and re-examined within the framework of constructs from participatory communication literature.

ResultsConditions that stakeholders perceived as an indication that an organisation did not listen effectively are grouped into the following themes:

Not appropriate organisation behaviour Corporate culturePower imbalanceNot sincere

Not comprehensibleNot knowledgeableNot ideal speech conditions

A description of each theme follows. Themes are not mutually exclusive. For example, a lack of background briefing documents circulated to participants before a meeting is described by stakeholders as not appropriate organisation behaviour; however, this practice also contributed to stakeholder perceptions that issues under discussion were not comprehensible. Stakeholder responses are represented by S and manager responses by M.

Not appropriate organisation behaviourExamples of not appropriate organisation behaviour include stakeholder observations of inappropriate organisation procedures associated with the planning and facilitation of organisation-stakeholder events, and inappropriate interaction-based behaviours exhibited by managers during committee meetings. Stakeholders perceived that managers demonstrate defensiveness and arrogance during committee meetings: often they are very defensive and the response of the committee is

159

quite aggressive, and that can be a very interesting process(S7); I think they feel that theyre too senior to spend their time talking to [name of committee] (S6).

Managers who frequently responded with the corporate line or maintained a rigid position on an issue without acknowledging the validity of stakeholder opinions were perceived as ineffective organisation listeners: they speak the corporate line but the reality is different (S1); they all give the corporate line except for [Community Relations Manager] (S4). Managers unapproachable during informal breaks were perceived as ineffective organisation listeners: [manager] checked her emails and did all of those sorts of things, so she wasnt terribly available in informal or unstructured parts of the day, so at any given opportunity she was on her laptop checking her emails. So thats about being fully present (S3).

Stakeholders referred to a lack of background briefing material, or information disseminated too late for stakeholders to read prior to meetings, believing this made it difficult for stakeholders to gain a comprehensive understanding of issues prior to discussion: theres the ones that came out this week, to read them you just cant do it in that particular time, I got all this last Thursday with a meeting on Tuesday that was a bit late I think (S13). Managers suggested that background briefing documents were not provided prior to the meeting because of commercial in confidence issues: no, because of confidentiality (M1).

When stakeholders received meeting minutes months after a meeting was held, or minutes did not accurately reflect issues discussed, a perception was formed that the organisation did not listen effectively: there was a report provided in-between meetings but it didnt cover all issues, and it was asked for in March but it still wasnt brought on today (S7); the notes dont always reflect whats been said anyway (S10).

Stakeholders believed that the organisation could make more effort to ensure that members of the committee were familiar with each others names and the organisation they represented: I thought you should introduce people and give their roles. Wasnt on my name tag (S11). Manager comments concurred with stakeholder views: it would have been good to have been introduced to the people or at least a name and what organisation they were part of or why they were sitting in the room (M18).


160


Stakeholders considered lavish social events and/or catering less important than the presence of appropriate written procedures or a well-resourced stakeholder-liaison team: I would rather they spent less on that [catering] and gave us a little sandwich box and an apple but actually acted on the sort of things we were talking about and really listened to us (S10) (Table 2).

Table 2. Stakeholder perceptions of not appropriate organisation behaviour

Not appropriate organisation behaviour

Inappropriate interaction-based behaviour

VerbalManagers:

Answered questions in defensive or offensive manner Gave corporate line rather than addressing stakeholder issues

Closed-off discussion on individual topics

Expressed amusement when presentations elicited heated response from stakeholders

Non-verbalManagers:

Maintained a rigid position on an issue without acknowledging validity of stake-holder views

Lacked open-mindedness

Were unwilling to listen

Were not approachable during informal breaks

Inappropriate organisation procedures

Written procedures

Lack of background briefing material

Briefing material distributed too late for comprehensive reading prior to meeting

Delay in circulation of meeting minutes

Inaccurate meeting minutes

Generic agenda, never any new issues

Guest speakers did not take notes during presentations

Social procedures Lack of relationship-building opportunities between managers and stakeholders

No name tags

Stakeholders not introduced to guest speakers

Guest speakers left meeting immediately after their presentation

One-off guest speakers

Lavish social events/catering but inappro-priate written procedures

Poor choice of venuetoo small, too hot/cold, isolated location, poor acoustics

161

Corporate cultureStakeholders associated a corporate culture that did not regard

stakeholder engagement as a priority, did not exhibit a willingness to

change, and did not encourage the participation of stakeholders in

decision-making with an organisation that did not listen effectively to

its stakeholders. Corporate policy emerged as a condition stakeholders

perceived to impact on an organisations ability to listen effectively: its

not the individual in most cases, you know Mostly the individuals

want to do the right thing but its the corporate policy (S5). Manager

comments were consistent with the argument that behaviours of an

individual are inseparable from the organisation they represent (Crable,

1990; McMillan & Northern, 1995): I was there representing [name

of organisation] to the best of my ability (M6); I was representing the

company as a managing director, and I think theres a certain uniform

that one wears in doing that and that was the one I put on (M6).

Stakeholders suggested that change within the organisation prevented

managers allocating sufficient time and resources to the committee: so

I think for organisational reasons theyre not particularly listening much

to us at the moment, and, I think they compensate for that by taking

on the attributes of listeners without actually doing the listening (S2).

Stakeholders perceived a culture of arrogance: there is a culture of

doing what they want to do (S7); the only time they listen is when

they can find an advantage from a marketing point of view (S6)

(Table 3).

Table 3. Stakeholder perceptions of corporate culture

Corporate culture

Not a management priority Issues not passed on to relevant department within organisation

No action/response by organisation in response to stakeholder feedback on issues

Organisational change impacts negatively on stakeholder engagement activities

Downsizing of stakeholder team

Changes to committee reporting structure within organisation


162


Not willing to change Manager attitude: we do what we want, the organisation is always right

Managers only concerned with bottom line

Rejection of ideas not aligned with corporate policy

Not participatory decision-making Bureaucratic, top-heavy organisations

Hierarchical chain-of-command

Issues lost as they made their way up the chain-of-command

Organisation requested stakeholder feedback too late to impact decision-making

Product or policy presented to stake-holders as a fait accompli

Power imbalanceStakeholders described examples of covert and overt sources of power imbalances during decision-making as indications that an organisation was not listening effectively. Stakeholders expressed frustration at the constant reference to commercial in confidence by managers, a rule that prevented stakeholders from discussing information provided with their respective community groups. Findings were consistent with Morgans (2006) contention that structural factors that define the stage of action can be used as covert sources of power: they use commercial in confidence a lot so we cannot mention what we are being told to anyone so how are we to be community representatives? (S4); dont even know why they presented us with that information because they werent interested in our feedback, and we certainly werent allowed to talk to anybody about it was made very clear this is commercial in confidence (S3). Stakeholders suggested that managers came to present information rather than to listen: the tendency has always been a concern that its just an information dump (S7). Consistent with stakeholder opinions, one manager stated: so the question of listening per se, its not really what I was living for (M5).

Examples of symbolic acts used as overt sources of power included the arrival of guest speakers with an entourage of subservient staff : the PA would come in first and knock on the door. So it was a bit of an entrance for some of those people (S8). One stakeholder described the entrance and exit of senior managers as a bit like God arriving and leaving (S10).

Stakeholders provided examples of managers behaving in a manner

163

that suggested that stakeholders should accept subordination as the norm. In the views of stakeholders, managers expected stakeholders to behave deferentially toward guest speakers, and to consider themselves privileged to listen to such important members of the organisation: [they] act as if we are privileged to be given this information (S2) (Table 4).

Table 4. Stakeholder perceptions of power imbalance

Power imbalance

Covert or overt sources of power Manager arrogance toward stakeholders and committee

Managers used commercial in confi-dence and commercial reasons to justify and legitimise actions

Committee meetings structured in favour of organisation-oriented issues

More than 50% of agenda devoted to organisation-led topics

Stakeholder-led topics given minimum amount of time or worst time-slots

Managers left meeting before stake-holder-led topics presented

Ideology and hegemony Managers used seniority within organisa-tion to intimidate stakeholders and other organisation representatives

Managers expected committee members to act deferentially toward guest speakers

Stakeholders privileged to be addressed by important organisation representa-tives

Stakeholders were the listeners, not the organisation representatives

Not sincere Stakeholders associated an organisations lack of sincerity with perceptions of ineffective organisation listening. Recent management changes within one organisation were perceived to impact negatively on the organisations sincerity in its attempts to listen to stakeholders: also the staff cuts its effectively just [CRM] running the entire show so yeah, things are not followed up, and why? Because youve only got one person, theyre so poorly resourced, a huge problem (S10).

If stakeholders did not receive feedback on issues discussed during meetings, the organisation was not considered to have listened effectively and the follow-up type thing like [name of issue] is not carried out (S10). Stakeholders referred to managers lack of action on


164


issues raised as an indication that the organisation was not sincere: to be valued, you need some action (S9); there was quite a long list of things I saw that had never been actioned or had never been heard of again (S1) (Table 5).

Table 5. Stakeholder perceptions that the organisation was not sincere

Not sincere

Lack of resources Insufficient staff or resources for stake-holder engagement activities

Repeated downsizing of stakeholder liai-son team

Repeated downgrading of venue for committee meetings

Removal of administrative support for stakeholder liaison team

Lack of action Lack of action taken on issues raised by stakeholders

Lack of feedback to stakeholders on issues raised at meeting

Not comprehensibleResults from stakeholder interviews revealed the importance of guidelines and protocols that were understood by all people associated with organisation-stakeholder committees. Stakeholders and managers expressed conflicting opinions as to the purpose of the committee. One manager suggested that the committee structure was a problem: the way its been structured, and the fact that theres been no sort of coalescing of their needs Oh, I think the scope of the [committee] is so wide and the interests so varied and the subjects are so eclectic, that its very, very hard for people to sort of think to the level of depth required (M5). Empirical evidence supports the view that the interests of any one stakeholder group may not, in fact, be identical or the group of stakeholders be homogenous (Boutilier, 2009; Crane, 1998; Rowley, 1997). As one manager stated: I come back to that point about competition. I think theyre all there for different agendas, different reasons, different outcomes for their people, their constituents (M6). Guest speakers, committee members, or individual stakeholders who showed a lack understanding as regards the purpose of the committee, either by the content of their presentations or their presentation style, were perceived as ineffective organisation listeners (Table 6).

165

Table 6. Stakeholder perceptions of a lack of comprehension

Lack of comprehension

Inappropriate material or issues presented at meeting

Committee members demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding committee guidelines and protocols

Committee members or guest speakers showed lack of understanding of the purpose of the committee

Material presented too technical for stakeholders to understand

Lack of open, transparent information led to lack of mutual understanding between stakeholders and the organisation

Lack of knowledge Stakeholders perceived an organisation that allocated third-line, or lower, managers to attend committee meetings as an organisation that lacked commitment to effective organisation listening. One stakeholder expressed disappointment that a manager was not sufficiently prepared to answer a question-on-notice provided in advance by the stakeholder group: we were asked to present our issues beforehand which I did two weeks ago it came up yesterday and they didnt have the information (S7). Stakeholders suggested that this indicated a lack of appropriate organisation procedures. Statements from the manager involved concurred with stakeholder perceptions, noting in his interview that relevant information had not been passed on to him by the CRM (Table 7).

Table 7. Stakeholder perceptions that the organisation was not knowl-edgeable

Not knowledgeable

Lower-level managers attended committee meetings

Managers who attended did not have necessary expert knowledge to explain organisations policies or actions

Guest speakers lacked knowledge of stakeholder issues

Guest speakers and/or managers did not know stakeholder groups represented on committee

Guest speakers could not answer questions on notice sent to organisation prior to committee meeting

Managers/stakeholders/guest speakers lacked knowledge of purpose of committee

Not ideal speech conditions Communication aimed at creating mutual understanding between parties requires the creation of a public space where participants can freely challenge organisational policies, statements, or actions


166


(Jacobson, 2007b; Jacobson & Storey, 2004). Stakeholders referred to instances when issues were not treated to the satisfaction of all participants, expressing frustration that one organisation repeatedly presented policies to the committee as a fait accompli, instead of allowing the committee to participate in feedback, negotiation, and dialogue during the decision-making process: quite often we dont actually get to hear about [policies, issues] from [name of organisation] until they are absolutely imminent, and by that I mean hours away from being implemented(S2); I dont think they want information from us on theiron upcoming decisions because most things are presented to us after the fact (S3). Results are consistent with descriptions of conscious deception, a form of concealed strategic action where the organisation intentionally misleads stakeholders into believing that they could influence the decision-making process, while simultaneously using efforts to persuade participants to accept a decision already made by the organisation (Habermas, as cited in Deetz, 1992) (Figure 1).

Stakeholders provided examples of asymmetrical communication when describing examples of ineffective organisation listening perceived during committee meetings. According to one stakeholder, managers were very deft at avoiding questions (S1). Stakeholders described feeling intimidated by senior managers: [name of manager] arrived on the minute and he left exactly when he should have left you know totally intimidated about ever asking anything, and his personal assistant is sitting there with a little pad, quivering with fear, the most extraordinary sight. So how is anyone meant to communicate, you know, in that sort of context?(S10). Stakeholders believed that managers frequently used their status within the organisation to prevent two-way dialogue on issues raised: so maybe the reticence to challenge [name of manager], although people were muttering quite a lot under their breath, but maybe the reticence to challenge her is around seniority as well (S3). These results parallel Finets (2001, as cited in Zoller, 2004) description of strategic collective advocacy. Similar to conscious deception, strategic collective advocacy is a term used to describe organisations that adopt the language of the symmetrical model of public relations as a technique for gaining legitimacy with their stakeholders, while in practice acting in an asymmetrical communicative manner, in order to represent their own socio-political interests (Finet, as cited in Zoller, 2004, p. 209).

Stakeholders described one organisations committee meeting agenda as a barrier to symmetrical communication and an indication of

167

ineffective organisation listening: the agenda tends to get packed a bit more with [organisation] spokespeople, so Id say that the way it works in practice is about two-thirds information to us about [organisation], and about one-third finding out from us what the communitys view is (S6). Review of the agenda revealed that stakeholder issues was a single item allocated 45 minutes of a seven-hour meeting, and listed as the last item before the lunch break (Table 8).

Table 8. Stakeholder perceptions of not ideal speech conditions

Not ideal speech conditions

Concealed strategic action

Unconscious deception

Guest speakers presented a barrage of infor-mation, allowed little time for questions, left immediately after their presentationManagers arrived late and repeatedly referred to their busy scheduleStakeholders told they were privileged to have senior managers attendGuest speakers arrived with entourageChairperson restricted or prevented stake-holder questionsCommercial in confidence justification for a lack of transparencyNeither party prepared to acknowledge legiti-macy of opposing viewpoints

Conscious deception

Policy or product presented to committee as a fait accompliOrganisation requested stakeholder feedback too late to impact decision-making processMore than 50% of agenda devoted to organi-sation-led topicsAgenda structured to ensure stakeholder-led topics had minimum timeManagers gave corporate line rather than addressing stakeholder issuesManagers avoided answering questionsNo satisfactory response to questions raised meeting after meeting

DiscussionResults revealed that stakeholders evaluated organisational listening competency by the presence or absence of appropriate interpersonal behaviours and organisational procedures that provided support for the organisation-stakeholder relationship. Stakeholders evaluated the level of financial and human resources allocated to stakeholder engagement by an organisation, and an organisations past record in taking action on issues raised, when assessing an organisations sincerity in attempts to listen to its stakeholders.


168


Results concurred with public relations, organisational communication, and stakeholder engagement literature that emphasises the importance of building, maintaining, and negotiating mutually beneficial organisation-stakeholder relationships (Argenti, 1998; Botan, 1997; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Goodman, 2000; Heath, 2001; Hummels, 1998). Stakeholders perceived an organisations efforts to build relationships with committee members as an indicator of the organisations sincerity in attempts to listen to its stakeholders. During stakeholder engagement events, stakeholders expected organisation representatives to create an atmosphere of mutual equality, inclusion, and trust conducive to open, symmetrical, two-way dialogue between the organisation and stakeholders.

In this study, stakeholder perceptions aboutwhether or not genuine dialogue or ideal speech conditions were met during their respective committee meetings confirmed Johnson-Cramer et al.s (2003) assertion that dialogue involves shared understanding between a company and its stakeholders, and interactive behaviours, including listening, that acknowledge one anothers position.

Specific communication strategies and organisation procedures that stakeholders perceived as barriers to genuine organisation-stakeholder dialogue were identified. Stakeholders described situations when symmetrical opportunities to contribute to the discussion were not provided and examples when participants did not feel free to question any proposal during committee meetings. Stakeholder descriptions of asymmetrical communicative exchanges included examples of an organisation practising conscious deception (manipulation) and unconscious deception (systematically distorted communication) during organisation-stakeholder engagement events (Deetz, 2001; Jacobson, 2007a; 2007b).

Findings indicate that this research has implications for the practice of organisation-stakeholder communication and management training. Results support Botans (1997) contention that ethical strategic business communication is evaluated not so much in terms of its content as its processthe relationship developed between participants and the attitudes and values this reflects. Dialogic public relations requires organisations to have processes in place that actively solicit information from key stakeholders and methods to listen and respond to those messages (Kent & Taylor, 2002). In this study, stakeholders evaluated an organisations listening effectiveness by their perceptions about

169

whether the procedures and processes undertaken by an organisation contributed to the creation and maintenance of long-term relationships with stakeholders. Findings concur with Halals (2001) contention that a new breed of manager is required to manage stakeholder relationships with an organisation. Empirical evidence confirms that corporate communicators involved in stakeholder communication work as communication facilitators require skills in dialogue, negotiation, and interpersonal communication including listening and understanding (Boutilier, 2009; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000; Grunig, 2001; Kent & Taylor, 2002; Ledingham, 2003). Results highlight the importance of providing interpersonal skills training for managers involved at the organisation-stakeholder interface whose core work practices are primarily concerned with facts, data, and outcomes. Empirical evidence indicates that managers require skills in verbal, non-verbal, and interaction-based behaviours in order to build and maintain positive organisation-stakeholder relationships.

ConclusionThis paper has presented the analysis of one section of the data produced by a study that examined the listening competency of two organisations during consultations with their respective stakeholders (Burnside-Lawry, 2010). The findings suggest that when stakeholders judged the listening behaviours of an organisations employees to be inappropriate or that the consultation conditions created barriers to effective listening, then there is an erosion of the organisation-stakeholder relationship. This has the potential to harm the organisation. The findings suggest that, to avoid the possibility of such a dark side emerging from consultation processes designed to strengthen organisation-stakeholder relations, organisations need to know when stakeholders judge that they are not being listened to, or feel there is not a genuine interest in making use of their feedback. The qualitative research approach used in this study makes a significant contribution in this regard by modelling the use of an effective means for revealing these judgements and barriers. Once judgements and barriers are known, then organisations have a basis for selecting and training consultancy personnel and confronting structural and procedural barriers. Thus, both in terms of its findings and its method, this paper makes a useful contribution to the eradication of the undesirable effects of poor organisation-stakeholder consultancy processes.


170


ReferencesAndriof, J., & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Sheffield:

Greenfield.pp.145-161.

Argenti, P. A. (1998). Corporate communication strategy: Applying theory to practice at Dow Corning. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(3), 234-250.

Bentley, S. (2010). Listening practices: Are we getting any better? In A. Wolvin (Ed.), Listening and human communication in the 21st century (pp. 181-192). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Botan, Carl (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public relations. The Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 188-202.

Boutilier, R. (2009). Stakeholder politics: Social capital, sustainable development, and the corporation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bowen, S. A., & Heath, R. L. (2005). Issues management, systems, and rhetoric: Exploring the distinction between ethical and legal guidelines at Enron. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 84-99.

Bronn, P. S., & Bronn, C. (2003). A reflective stakeholder approach: Co-orientation as a basis for communication and learning. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 291-303.

Brownell, J. (1990). Perceptions of effective listeners: A management study. The Journal of Business Communication, 27(4), 401-415.

Brownell, J. (1994a). Teaching listening: Some thoughts on behavioural approaches. Business Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 19-24.

Brownell, J. (1994b). Creating strong listening environments: A key hospitality management task. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(3), 3-10.

Brownell, J. (2003). Applied research in managerial communication: The critical link between knowledge and practice. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(2) 39-49.

Brownell, J. (2006). Listening: Attitudes, principles, and skills (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95.

Burnside-Lawry, J. (2010). Participatory communication and listening: An exploratory study of organisational listening competency. Unpublished PhD thesis, available at http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/ RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

Cheney, G. (1995). Democracy in the workplace: Theory and practice from the perspective of communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23(3), 167-200.

Coakley, C. G., Halone, K., & Wolvin, A. D. (1996). Perceptions of listening ability across the life-span: Implications for understanding listening competence. International Journal of Listening, 10(1), 21-48.

Cooper, L. O. (1997). Listening competency in the workplace: A model for training. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(4), 75-85.

171

Crable, R. E. (1990) Organizational rhetoric as the fourth great system: Theoretical, critical, and pragmatic implications. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18(2), 115-128.

Crane, A. (1998). Culture clash and mediation: Exploring the cultural dynamics of business-NGO collaboration. Greener Management International, 24, 61-76.

Crane, A., & Livesey, S. (2003). Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance (pp. 39-52). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F.M. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Fisher, R., & Ertel, D. (1995). Getting ready to negotiate: The getting to yes workbook. New York: Penguin.

Flynn, J., Valikoski, T., & Grau, J. (2008). Listening in the business context: Reviewing the state of research. The International Journal of Listening, 22(2),141-151.

Foster, D., & Jonker, J. (2005). Stakeholder relationships: The dialogue of engagement. Corporate Governance, 5(5), 51-57.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191-205.

Gao, S. S., & Zhang, J. J. (2001). A comparative study of stakeholder engagement approaches in social auditing. In J. Andriof & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (pp. 239-255). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Glenn, E. (1989). A content analysis of fifty definitions of listening. Journal of the International Listening Association, 3(1), 21-31.

Goodman, M. B. (2000). Corporate communication: The American picture. Corporate Communications, 5(2), 69-74.

Goyder, M. (1999). Value and values: Lessons for tomorrows company. Long Range Planning, 32(2), 217-224.

Griffin, R. W., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (2004). An introduction to the dark side. In R. W. & A. M. OLeary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behaviour (pp.1-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


172


Habermas, J. (1983). The theory of communicative action: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.

Halal, W. E. (2000). Corporate community: A theory of the firm uniting profitability and responsibility. Strategy & Leadership, 28(2), 10-16.

Halal, W. E. (2001). The collaborative enterprise: A stakeholder model uniting profitability and responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(2), 27-42.

Halone, K., Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1997). Accounts of effective listening across the life-span: Expectations and experiences associated with competent listening practices. International Journal of Listening, 11(1), 15-38.

Heath, R. L. (2001). Learning best practices from experience and research. In R.L.Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131-154.

Hummels, H. (1998). Organizing ethics: A stakeholder debate. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(13), 1403-19.

Hunt, G. T., & Cusella, L. P. (1983). A field study of listening needs in organizations. Communication Education, 32, 393-401.

International Listening Association. (1996). Definition of listening. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://www.listening.org (p. 1).

Jacobson, T. L. (2007a). A Case for the quantitative assessment of participatory communication programs. Paper presented at the International Association of Media & Communication Research Conference, Paris, France.

Jacobson, T. L. (2007b). Indicating citizen voice: Communicative action measures for media development. Paper presented at Workshop on Measuring press freedom and democracy: Methodologies, uses, and impact. University of Pennsylvania.

Jacobson, T. L., & Storey, J. D. (2004). Development communication and participation: Applying Habermas to a case study of population programs in Nepal. Communication Theory, 14(2), 99-121.

Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Berman, S. L. & Post, J. E. (2003). Re-examining the concept of stakeholder management. In J. Andriof & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Perspectives on corporate citizenship (pp. 145-161). Sheffield: Greenfield.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21-37.

Kersten, A. (2000). Diversity management: Dialogue, dialectics, and diversion. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(3), 235-248.

Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181-198.

Lewis, M. H., & Reinsch N. L. Jr. (1988). Listening in organizational environments. The Journal of Business Communication, 25(3), 49-67.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (2002). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In A. M. Huberman & H. A. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researchers companion (pp. 37-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

173

McMillan, J. J., & Northern, N. A. (1995). Organizational co-dependency: The creation and maintenance of closed systems. Management Communication Quarterly, 9(6), 6-45.

McVea, J. F., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 57-69.

Meisenbach, R., & Feldner, S. B. (2009). Dialogue, discourse ethics, and Disney. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 253-271). NY: Routledge.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Penrose, J. M., Rasberry, R. W., & Myers, R. J. (2004). Business communication for managers: An advanced approach (5th ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Thomson South-Western.

Purdy, M. W. (2004). Qualitative research: Critical for understanding listening. Paper presented at the International Listening Association Conference, Ft Meyers, FL. USA.

Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910.

Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Servaes, J. (1996). Participatory communication (research) from a Freirean perspective. Africa Media Review, 10(1), 73-91.

Servaes, J., & Malikhao, P. (2005). Participatory communication: The new paradigm? In O. Hemer and T. Tufte (Eds.), Media and glocal change: Rethinking communication for development (pp. 91-103). Gteborg, Sweden: Nordicom/Clasco.

Waddock, S., & Smith, N. (2000). Relationships: The real challenge of corporate global citizenship. Business and Society Review, 104(1), 47-62.

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1994). Listening competency. Journal of the International Listening Association, 8(1), 148-160.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5) (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Zoller, H. M. (2004). Dialogue as global issue management: Legitimizing corporate influence in the Trans-Atlantic business dialogue. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(2), 204-240.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.

the dark side of sh com

Documents

stakeholder groups

listening competency

listening scholars

listening skills

impeded effective listening

stakeholder sample

external organisations

organisations objectives