CHAPTER 8

Conflict and Stakeholder Influence

Conflict clarity and discernment are central corporate communication practices that should be influenced by stakeholder opinions, viewpoints, and perspectives. Internal and external stakeholders respond to, dispute over, and challenge organizational decisions that yield significant consequences for corporate reputation and identity. Conflict engages internal and external stakeholder perspectives, but escalates rapidly when constituencies’ concerns go ignored. Waymer¹ and Heath (2007) suggest that conflict escalates when stakeholders perceive that they are “harmed by organizations’ (in)actions” (p. 88). Crises often emerge from “predictable yet untimely events” that trigger genuine concerns expressed by internal and external stakeholders. Waymer and Heath contend that responsiveness to affected stakeholder constituencies before, during, and after a crisis either enhances or diminishes the quality of stakeholder relationships. Conflict clarity and discernment influence whether or not an organization can prevent a concern from careening into the final stage of crisis. This chapter illustrates the role of contentious constituency problems/opportunities through three major sections:

Internal and external stakeholders respond to, interpret, and disseminate information and messages that influence whether or not conflict continues into escalation. The interpretation of information by a multiplicity of constituencies uncovers conflicting perspectives that, when ignored, can spiral out of control. Anthony, Sellnow, and Millner (2013) suggest that communication in the midst of the uncertainty of conflict escalation requires clarity, effectiveness, and targeted precision. Drawing from Heath’s body of research noted in previous chapters, the authors contend that conflict tasks stakeholders with interpreting “multiple messages from distinct sources to find meaning and react” to unexpected and emerging circumstances (p. 347). Anthony, Sellnow, and Millner draw upon the insights of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) to suggest that message convergence—merging competing viewpoints into a single cohesive argument—is crucial in interpreting stakeholder influence on a given conflict. Multiple messages and conflicting perspectives influence meaning in the midst of uncertainty, requiring acknowledgment, understanding, and creative engagement with contrary perspectives.

Performative Content: Conflict and Stakeholder Definition

Defining, clarifying, and discerning conflict constitute performative responsiveness and attentiveness to competing stakeholder voices. Performative responsiveness to conflict necessitates conflict clarity, discernment, and flexibility in engagement. Heath (2006, p. 246) contends that organizations “must demonstrate respect, concern, commitment” to and for concerned public interests during a conflict. Responding to and concurring with the work of Seeger, Heath articulates that conflicts give voice to a multitude of constituencies. Organizations must be aware of the increased visibility of stakeholders; stakeholder concerns can dramatically influence organizational direction and reputation.

This section elucidates the critical role that stakeholder influence plays in conflict escalation through three key considerations: (1) media, (2) content, and (3) responsibility. These concepts necessitate active communicative responsiveness to external environments shaped by stakeholder interests.

Conflict and Stakeholder Clarity: Media

Corporate communication practices must respond to the increasing influence stakeholder groups can exert over an organization. Coombs (1998) argues that the influence of stakeholders has been with us “since the inception of organizations”; the crucial difference is the emerging communicative technologies. Contentious communication occurs via numerous channels, lending voice to increasing numbers of diverse stakeholders. Corporate communication—through the offices of the chief communication officer (CCO)—must respond to the reality of increasing stakeholder access to diverse channels capable of registering public complaint and initiating conflict. Coombs stresses the reality of this historical moment—the Internet is now the most powerful resource for stakeholder concerns and disputes.

Coombs explicates the reality of an era of increasingly contrasting and demanding voices; organizations cannot be held responsible for resolving and responding to the “demands of all of its stakeholders all of the time” (p. 292). In addition, he recognizes that the success of an organization is in discerning what conflicts it must address quickly. Just as the Internet permits stakeholder questioning, it is also an essential communicative tool for response and engagement as an organization meets a conflict directly and on its own terms (p. 299) through digital engagement systems (DES) (Arthur W. Page Society 2016). Coombs contends that the Internet is a mobilizing medium that is cost-effective and that demands quickness in response. The introduction of new communication technologies enables the dissemination of a wide range of messages, bypasses traditional media outlets, and pressures organizational rejoinders. Media are communicative linkages between and among internal and external stakeholders, permitting rapid conflict escalation and prompt retort. However, as Coombs reminds us, “no communication channel is perfect” (p. 300). Ultimately, it is communication savvy that focuses attentiveness to the conflict, understanding stakeholder interests, and responding rapidly with all available tools of persuasion. Internal and external stakeholders utilize traditional and emerging new media, and organizations must respond with accurate information and relevant solutions for emerging public concerns.

Conflict and Stakeholder Clarity: Content

Conflict clarity constructively merges clashing viewpoints with a careful focus on the content of information. Media access not only demands quickness of response but also accuracy of content. Conflict escalation is inevitable when accurate content is not present. Holladay (2009) argues that there is one corporate communication truism: “exigencies” created by conflict escalation find their origin in lack of “rapid and accurate information.” Stakeholders consume, interpret, and respond to public evidence and information, a situation that demands content that clarifies, defines, and constructively reacts to emerging concerns.

Holladay contends that both traditional and emerging media function as essential sources of information acquisition, available to an increasing number of stakeholders. Organizational reputations suffer when organizations permit a single media source to control content release. She argues that corporate communication must be on alert for “media seek[ing] to fill the information vacuum presented by” a public dispute, which requires an organizational responsiveness that is media conversant and media diverse (p. 209). Holladay argues that at each stage of crisis and risk communication, there are three primary corporate-owned media forms of content:

Instructing information is content generated by an organization in the hope of instructing publics on the why and the how of attentiveness to a given set of conflict interests. Adjusting information provides content for stakeholders as the organization meets uncertainty and has to make sense of an expanding set of divergent viewpoints. Internalizing information is dependent ultimately upon the audience accepting a particular direction an organization is taking. Reputation management is intimately connected to the hope and possibility of internalized information. Each form of content depends upon responsiveness to identified stakeholder concerns, questions, and sources of conflict. Organizations are responsible for engaging dissonant stakeholder positions through owned, placed, and paid media.

Conflict and Stakeholder Clarity: Responsibility

Organizations are fundamentally responsible to stakeholders who are the primary influencers of potential conflict escalation. Internal and external constituencies utilize a multitude of communication technologies as they raise disputes that obligate organizations to answer public concerns or risk damage to their organizational health. Seeger and Ulmer (2003) argue that responsibility is the “fundamental concept” in corporate communication, through which leaders should seek to clarify, discern, and respond to problems/opportunities. Organizations engage social standards that should drive their public behavior and communication, requiring an organization to align word and deed. When word and deed are misaligned, stakeholder disputes are inevitable in response to organization irresponsibility.

Seeger and Ulmer contend that “responsibility implies that organizations, as parts of society, have obligations to support the general health and well-being of society” (p. 61). Organizations are obligated to and responsible for the general condition of trust within their public sphere; responsibility begins with attentiveness to stakeholder concerns, problems, and disputes. Seeger and Ulmer contend that uniting excellence of communication and effective decision making in the public sphere begins with the responsibility to clarify, discern, understand, and respond to conflict. Trust within the public sphere requires responsibility and consistency; constructive and dependable corporate behavior generates confidence in the decision-making process, even in the midst of serious public disputes.

Summary

Conflict clarity emerges through attentiveness to stakeholder influence, points of dispute, and communication artifacts. This section demonstrated the importance of stakeholder influence through three key considerations:

Responsiveness to stakeholder disputes is a crucial consideration in defining, clarifying, and discerning conflict before it slides into the final stage of crisis. New communication technologies amplify voices in a multitude of spaces within the public sphere. Emerging communication technologies can escalate conflict and shape the “how” of corporate communication practices in both constructive and destructive directions. Theory unites the “how” of practices and the “why” of conflict escalation; together, they strategically influence stakeholder decision making.

Theory and Strategy: Conflict and Stakeholder Discernment

Conflict clarity emerges through attentiveness and responsiveness to stakeholder influence, perspectives, and interpretations. The theoretical underpinnings of conflict and stakeholder discernment unify the how and why of conflict; understanding these dimensions permits one to understand constructive and destructive consequences. Heath (2006, pp. 93–94) articulates that we must engage a “theory-based systematic way to understand, research, and critique the role of public relations in forming and responding to ideas—competing and convergent shared social realities that can broadly be interpreted as zones of meaning.” He continues with an emphasis on public relations attentive to the potential of conflict escalation undergirded by a theoretical depth of understanding the “how” and “why” of dispute. For him, the interplay of how and why within theory moves public relations from a deceptive practice into a search for temporal answers and solutions. Corporate communication practices unite how and why through theory that offers meaning with practical implications for decision making.

This section unites the how of conflict escalation with the why of stakeholder viewpoints and perspectives through three significant considerations: (1) sources, (2) culture, and (3) common center. These major concepts demonstrate the necessity of stakeholder consideration in conflict discernment by elucidating the embeddedness of stakeholder perspectives within organizational narratives and changing external environments.

Conflict and Stakeholder Discernment: Sources

Conflict emerges between and among internal and external stakeholders, defining and identifying sources of emerging issues, arguments, and problems that require thoughtful discernment. Arnett, McManus, and McKendree (2014, p. 81) argue that conflict emerges “when we erroneously presuppose agreement between persons on issues that matter to them.” They contend that conflict between constituencies announces stakeholder identity, bias, and perspective. Arnett, McManus, and McKendree acknowledge the “normative nature of difference,” which necessitates conflict discernment.

Taylor² (1989) underscores the role of “moral sources” that situate the self within a communicative environment. He contends that persons are formed from the ground up, from narrative sources that offer perspective, viewpoint, and, in difference, conflict. From the standpoint of corporate communication, internal and external stakeholders articulate positions and standpoints that announce the sources that shape their perspectives and “moral actions.” The narrative ground that nourishes them, by the same token, carries the potential ground for conflict in the clashing of viewpoints. Distinctions between and among perspectives announce that the sources of our identities and perspectives are often “culturally bound” and reveal origins within narratives of significance. Decision makers find identity through such sources and engage positions that reflect particularities of narrative practices, particularities that can, and often do, generate conflict and dispute.

Conflict and Stakeholder Discernment: Culture

Narratives guide stakeholder behaviors and actions; they reside within particular cultural norms and contexts. Arnett, McManus, and McKendree (2014, p. 90) describe culture as a guiding metaphor for discerning conflict in an age of difference and dispute—culture is a communicative force that “coordinates our everyday activities.” Such behaviors recognize that culture influences individual perceptions, reactions, and reflections. They cite Giri (2006), who contends that communication styles are rooted within cultural norms and expectations. He argues that “communication and culture reciprocally influence each other” (p. 124). Conflict discernment necessitates attention to culture and its differences.

Giri argues that “cultural values and norms influence the expectations” individuals have regarding the behaviors, communication practices, and perspectives of others within the public sphere (p. 129). He reiterates that culture dictates response to divergent perspectives that, when ignored, will inevitably give rise to unproductive conflict. (see Figure 8.1) Arnett, McManus, and McKendree (p. 90) concur with Giri’s contention, arguing, “culture provides insight into how to interpret the behaviors of others and how to monitor one’s own behavior in various social situations.” Cultures differ in communicative norms and contexts, which gives rise to difference and dispute and necessitates discernment that seeks to understand communal norms that undergird standards and behaviors.

Conflict and Stakeholder Discernment: Common Center

Understanding conflict requires engagement with difference, recognizing numerous perspectives while embracing contrasting standpoints. Arnett, McManus, and McKendree (2014, p. 88) frame community as that which “brings us together in a manner akin to a family, without totally ignoring the importance of distance.” Interspaces, the distance between persons and ideas, shapes communities that house potential sources of conflict and creative temporal answers.

Figure 8.1 The umbrella represents the guiding framework under which fall all perspectives and behaviors

Buber (1992) explicates community through the notion of common center, a collective commitment to a shared source of interest. A common center permits distance and interspaces to guide, permitting multiple persons and perspectives to work for the enhancement of a mutual objective. Friedman (1972) extends Buber’s work, articulating two versions of community: (1) community of affinity and (2) community of otherness (see also Arnett 1986). A community of affinity is composed of individuals without a common center of commitment; an affinity community bonds itself on relational liking alone. A community of otherness rejects liking as a foundation and seeks a common center that can unify a “diversity of difference” (Arnett, McManus, and McKendree 2014). Commitment to a common center nourishes a community of otherness, permitting growth and opportunity to emerge in the protection and promotion of common interests and concerns. Conflict discernment emerges in the interspaces between members of a community of otherness, ever attentive to cultural expectations and differences that drive distinctiveness of perspective.

Summary

Conflict discernment acknowledges the vitality of individual perspectives and the necessity of common interests tied to the heart of an organization. This section considered the theoretical underpinnings of stakeholder influence and stakeholder efforts of conflict discernment through three major notions:

Conflict discernment recognizes that culture, context, and stakeholder commitments to common organizational interests are the key to minimizing unduly destructive public disputes. Corporate communication practices attend to stakeholder interests, concerns, and viewpoints to protect and promote the goods and virtues of a collective common center. Stakeholders propelled by contrasting cultures and practices can learn from competing standpoints when a common center demands their pragmatic allegiance. Leadership must clarify and discern sources of conflict, responding and attending to stakeholder concerns while protecting and promoting the common center of organizational interests.

Leadership: Conflict and Stakeholder Responsiveness

Conflict, stakeholder clarity, and discernment emerge through recognition of and response to particular conflicts. Leadership counters stakeholder concerns disputed in the public sphere. Leadership is responsible for framing, interpreting, and attending to stakeholder problems/opportunities; such alertness can prevent conflict escalation. Shin, Heath, and Lee (2011, p. 170) consider leadership to be a fundamental communicative practice at all levels of stakeholder engagement; leadership serves “various goals, contingent on outcome, at the organizational level and interdependent with other organizations, markets, publics, and audiences.” Leadership must be responsible to internal and external stakeholder perspectives, ever attentive to emerging conflicts.

This section considers the relationship between internal and external stakeholders, conflict escalation, and leadership in action through three concepts: (1) management, (2) contingency, and (3) action. These leadership considerations are necessities in the meeting of conflict in the final stage prior to full-blown crisis communication.

Leadership and Stakeholder Responsiveness: Management

Leadership demonstrates stakeholder receptiveness through their management of emotion, dispute, and conflict between and among constituencies. For Grunig (1992), leadership identifies and develops organizations committed to excellence. Grunig asserts that leadership requires “networking and ‘management-by-walking-around,’” propelled by direct communication and “collaboration” (p. 233). Understanding clashing viewpoints is leadership’s first step in de-escalating conflict.

Grunig argues that leadership must be transformational, beginning with alertness to the uniqueness of given situations and circumstances. He asserts that leaders must merge democratic and autocratic characteristics in order to “mix” a creative combination of “direction and empowerment,” yielding a multiplicity of voices capable of orchestrating organizational excellence. Leaders discern the difference between the important and the otherwise as they engage stakeholder problems/opportunities.

Leadership and Stakeholder Responsiveness: Contingency

Leadership and organizational excellence emerges via responsiveness to stakeholder concerns guided by the interplay of both strategic and contingent communication plans. Grunig and Heath advanced the contingency theory of public relations to portray how leaders discern the “social, organizational, and individual” characteristics of contexts and circumstances (Shin, Heath, and Lee 2011). Shin, Heath, and Lee contend that excellent leadership “characteristics” begin with “quality” engaged relational responses grounded in “situationally contingent contexts.” Leadership actions approach excellence when their conflict discernment is contingent upon local social cues, contexts, and cultural norms.

Decision making, viewed through the lens of contingency theory, begins with particularity and locality. Shin, Heath, and Lee argue that “conflict, crisis, and risk situations challenge professionals to make contingent reactions to each case based on its distinct, yet transforming, nature” (p. 172). Leadership awareness of multiple voices, differing environments/contexts, and contrasting characteristics permit temporally specific organizational answers and directions. Culture, society, and normative organizational behaviors impact the manner, shape, and form through which conflict emerges. Leadership-contingent decision making uses all communication tools that attend to ongoing internal and external stakeholder concerns.

Leadership and Stakeholder Responsiveness: Action

Stakeholder responsiveness requires thoughtful and reflective communicative action that takes seriously external environments and internal management tactics. Fairhurst and Putnam (2004) presuppose that organizational actors are active shapers of “organizations as discursive constructions.” Their essay is considered one of the most important essays written for Communication Theory in the past 25 years. On top of that, Putnam and Fairhurst (2015) published “Revisiting ‘Organizations as Discursive Constructions’: 10 Years Later” in which they further underscore the nature of discursive understanding in the contemporary marketplace.

Organizations, according to Fairhurst and Putnam (2015, p. 375), are “verbs not nouns.” They suggest that the Alta Conference of 1983 repositioned organizational communication within an active and linguistic conceptual framework. Effective leadership understands and acts consistently with this discursive turn, which describes how organizations “emerge … from associations among actors and objects” in a variety of “discursive practices” including a large number of vested parties (p. 377). Leadership, within this model, is socially, contextually, and contingently dependent on leaders seeking to understand, dispel, and respond to stakeholder concerns and questions. Conflict discernment becomes a leadership practice that embraces active, responsive listening to discern the appropriate contingent response.

Summary

Conflict discernment is a leadership practice that is contextual, strategic, and responsive to stakeholder concerns, problems, and viewpoints. This section considered the importance of attending to particularities of concerns through the examination of three major considerations:

Chapter Summary

Conflict escalation occurs through lack of attentiveness to the influence of stakeholder voices in an increasingly complex and contentious public sphere. Crisis is the final stage of disruption, when vested parties deem the other side unduly unresponsive and perhaps even wicked. Veil et al. (2005) argue that organizations can succumb to conflict escalation quickly, even if organizations are financially sound. Crises arise whenever stakeholder expectations, desires, and needs for attention to issues, arguments, and conflicts go ignored. Conflict escalation is a direct result of a lack of communication ethics responsiveness in action. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster demonstrates the critical necessity of responsiveness to stakeholder voices to avoid the emergence of crisis.

Conflict between and among stakeholders is the last stage prior to public realization that points of dispute are no longer containable. At the point of conflict realization, leadership must quickly and thoughtfully respond to stakeholders. Problematic consequences, foreseen or otherwise, are inevitable. Chapter 9, “Communication Ethics in Action: BP and Conflict Thoughtlessness,” reveals the consistent and going thoughtlessness and inattentiveness to conflict displayed by British Petroleum executives. Their actions are short-term self-protective, leading to disastrous implications for BP and those dependent upon their leadership.

¹ Damion Waymer was appointed associate provost at the University of Cincinnati in 2015. He publishes in diversity in communication issues and social construction, with articles appearing in Management Communication Quarterly, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Public Relations Review, Public Relations Inquiry, Journal of Public Relations Research, Journal of Communication Inquiry, Communication Quarterly, and Qualitative Inquiry.

² Charles Taylor is a moral and political philosopher with over 10 authored or coauthored books.