Discrepancies between expectations and perceptions

Discrepancies were evident between manager self-perceptions and stakeholder observations of managers’ listening behaviour. Case B3 stakeholders described managers as ‘average-’ and

‘effective’ listeners. Case B3 managers rated themselves higher, describing their own listening effectiveness as ‘effective’ and ‘very effective’ (Table B3.11.).

Case B3

Rating stakeholders managers very very effective

very effective 1 effective/v.effective

effective 2 2

average 1

ineffective no response

Table B3.11. Case B3: “How do you rate managers as listeners?”

Managers accurately estimated stakeholder expectations were met during the committee meeting (Table B3.12.).

Case B3

Expectations stakeholders managers

yes 3 3

no

no response

Table B3.12. Case B3: “Were stakeholder expectations met?”

All case B3 stakeholders interviewed for the study identified past experience with organisation B as a communication source that may have influenced their expectations.

Two stakeholders identified the existence of the committee as an influence on their expectations of organisation B’s listening effectiveness (B3.13.). All managers stated they did not have an accurate understanding of communication sources that may have influenced stakeholder expectations.

When prompted further, all three managers accurately identified past experience with organisation B as a communication source that may have influenced stakeholder expectations (Table B3.13.).

Case B3

Communication Source stakeholders managers past experience x x existence of committee x

did not know x

advertisements x

previous experience with another organisation x Table B3.13. Case B3: Basis of stakeholder expectations

5.3.5. Participatory communication

Data from case B3 was re-examined within the framework of constructs from participatory communication literature.

5.3.5.1. Knowledge

Managers provided more examples than stakeholders to indicate organisation B had knowledge about, or was interested in, stakeholder issues during the committee meeting (S=3; M=6) (Table B3.14.) “he had someone in place to talk about these issues so therefore showing yes, I understand what your issue is. I'll make sure there is somebody to address it and you have the opportunity to ask questions and raise any issues directly as you want” (B3.M1); “it's a body that is well-known and understood by the senior management inside the company as an important group to give feedback from consumers” (B3M.3). One stakeholder suggested managers were receptive to stakeholder views“ just the fact that they were happy to go back over information that they had already given or said, we might be able to do something with that or speak to you after or whatever, yeah” (B3.S2).

Challenge to knowledge

Case B3 managers provided more statements than stakeholders to indicate a challenge to organisation’s knowledge about, or interest in, stakeholder issues’ (S= 3; M=18) (Table B3.14.).

Managers recognised their lack of knowledge as regards stakeholder groups represented, or their concerns. One manager reported he did not receive a list of stakeholder committee members or any background information about the organisations represented on the committee. Another manager believed guest speakers would benefit from more background briefing information about the committee “yeah ideally 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” (B3.M3). Managers acknowledged they lacked background briefing to assist them prepare for questions. One manager admitted he did not read previous meeting minutes to familiarise himself with past questions regarding his topic. No manager indicated any knowledge of the ‘Committee Agreement’ or ‘Consumer Relations-Tips for Presenters’ documents. Consistent with manager

results, stakeholders perceived managers to lack adequate knowledge of specific stakeholder concerns (Table B3.14.) “I don't think they have a lot of prior knowledge about that or empathy with us about the sorts of things or even necessarily concern about it with maybe some rare exceptions”; “they really don't know anything about consumers, any of them. They're only concerned with the company's bottom line profit” (B3.S3).

Stakeholders believed managers were professional and knowledgeable about their individual areas of responsibility, but did not prepare adequately for the committee meeting. One stakeholder expressed disappointment that a manager was not sufficiently prepared to answer a question-on-notice provided in advance by the stakeholder group, suggesting internal organisational communication procedures could be improved “we were asked to present our issues beforehand to the caucus which I did two weeks ago or whatever it was. It came up yesterday and they didn't have the information.”(B3.S2). Statements from the manager involved concurred with stakeholder perceptions, noting in his interview that relevant information had not been passed on to him to ensure he was adequately prepared.

Case B3 stakeholders managers Case B3 stakeholders managers knowledge 3 6 challenge to knowledge 3 18 appropriate 42 38 challenge to appropriate 37 6 sincerity 13 6 challenge to sincerity 12 0 comprehension 10 12 challenge to

comprehension 6 3

TOTAL 68 62 TOTAL 58 27

Table B3.14. Case B3: Validity claims met Challenge to validity claims

5.3.5.2. Appropriate

There were high levels of congruency between stakeholders and managers that managers displayed instances of behaving appropriately, given organisation B’s legal mandate and responsibilities (S=42; M=38) (Table B3.14.). Stakeholder statements primarily described appropriate procedures used by the organisation in the set-up and coordination of the committee.

Manager statements concurred with stakeholder perceptions that appropriate organisation procedures, primarily in the venue selection, catering and general set-up of the meeting, were evident.

Challenge to appropriate

Stakeholders provided significantly more statements than managers to indicate the organisation behaved inappropriately during the committee meeting (S=37; M=6) (Table B3.14.). Stakeholders believed organisation B took little or no action to address stakeholder issues between committee meetings. Stakeholders expressed frustration that they received little or no feedback to explain the lack of action, or conversely, to report on any actions that had been taken by organisation B

to address stakeholder issues. Stakeholders suggested feedback could be given in-between committee meetings or at the next meeting “acting upon and feedback. Like this couldn't happen because of this reason rather than just hearing nothing and that's a worry when you hear nothing…It's the feedback on actual stakeholders' issues, any action. I don't think there's any interim reporting if you like along the way” (B3.S2).

Stakeholders perceived a power imbalance between stakeholders and senior managers who attended as guest speakers. All stakeholders made statements in regards to this issue “when a senior [organisation] person was meant to speak, and there were a few of them, … PA would come in first and knock on the door. So it was a bit of an entrance for some of those people…it registered (B3.S1). Another stakeholder described the entrance of senior managers as “a bit like God arriving and leaving”

(B3.S3). Stakeholders did not perceive senior managers to be interested in two-way dialogue during their presentations “the expectation was we listen” (B3.S2).

Six statements from case B3 managers indicated they self-perceived exhibiting inappropriate actions during the committee meeting, given their legal mandate and responsibilities. Statements were primarily criticisms of organisation procedures associated with the committee. One manager would prefer stakeholders be introduced by name, at the beginning of his presentation, with a brief explanation of the organisation they represent. One manager stated name-tags would assist managers to address individual stakeholders by name. Statements criticised the committee meeting running over-time. Managers suggested the venue selected was an inappropriate choice for the committee meeting.

5.3.5.3. Sincerity

Nineteen items from case B3 participants suggested the organisation was sincere in attempts to address stakeholder concerns (S=13; M=6) (Table B3.14.). Stakeholders considered the funding for stakeholders to attend meetings was indicative of organisation B’s sincerity I think they put quite a level of importance on the stakeholders actually. That's always been my feeling, that they're happy to pay and they value you being there basically” (B3.S2). Stakeholders interpreted actions taken in response to stakeholder views to indicate sincerity “we certainly have had some actions taken as a result of those motions, and then from discussions I've definitely seen some changes take place, which means they must be listening and taking on board what we're saying”(B3.S2). Stakeholders referred to the way some managers answered questions during the committee meeting as an indication of their sincerity in attempts to address stakeholder concerns “I think the answering questions was probably -there were a few moments when the staff were answering questions and I thought they were really listening to the question and trying to answer it seriously”(B3.S1). All case B3 managers considered organisation B’s financial support for the committee was an indication of the organisation’s sincerity.

Challenge to sincerity

There were no statements from case B3 managers to indicate any challenges to the sincerity of organisation B in attempts to address stakeholder concerns (S=12; M=0) (B3.14.). Stakeholders perceived the organisation’s lack of actions taken to address stakeholder concerns, as a challenge to organisation B’s sincerity “we're providing you this information, we need some feedback to come back.

And I don't think it's a matter of just writing papers and that sort of thing. I'm talking about real issues by stakeholders. To be valued, you need some action” (B3.S2); “in the past and certainly today, I'm very sceptical about what comes out of all of these meetings, because don't think a lot comes out of it. There's a lot of talk, a lot of hot wind, but not much action at the end of the day, some, but not much” (B3.S3).

Stakeholders perceived recent management changes within organisation B to have impacted negatively on the organisation’s ability to listen to stakeholders “also the staff cuts …it's effectively just [CRM] running the entire show. You cannot do an effective job like that so the feedback and so on, although they're both very good people and very empathic at the time, their ability to do anything is terribly hamstrung at the moment. So yeah, things are not followed up, and why? Because you've only got one person, they're so poorly resourced, a huge problem” (B3.S3).

5.3.5.4. Comprehension

Stakeholders and managers recorded a similar number of statements to indicate they understood the other party’s position and the issues involved (S=10; M=12) (Table B3.14). “They were certainly able to clarify or reiterate any points they wanted to make sure they had a good understanding…I felt confident that they got the point of what we're talking about’’ (B3.S2); “but on this occasion they actually got a lot of time to talk to them and to actually discuss issues” (B3.S3). Managers self-reported asking questions and making an effort to understand stakeholder issues, concurring with stakeholder views “I got the impression that they you know had a high degree of knowledge (B3.M3); “I think that on the whole the audience was quite receptive to what he was talking about and had a pretty fair understanding of the topic as well” (B3.M1).

Challenge to comprehension

There was high congruency between stakeholder and manager statements in regards to the lack of background briefing material distributed to participants prior to committee meetings (S=6;

M=3) (Table B3.14.). Case B3 managers acknowledged stakeholders received very little background briefing material. Stakeholder statements concurred with manager perceptions, perceiving their ability to contribute at the meeting was limited as a result “people need to be geared up for the next meeting knowing, going into it knowing there has been no action on that, rather than getting there and finding there has been no action and thinking what do we do now? As stakeholders, I think we need to be thinking, giving some thought to the meeting and that is part of your preparation so you can be an effective listener

when you're at the meeting as well and you've given some thought to some issues and not always trying to think on your feet which I don't think is the most effective way”(B3.S.2); “the notes don't always reflect what's been said anyway and the follow-up type thing like [issue] is not carried out” (B3.S3).

Case B3 stakeholders were critical of organisation B’s written procedures, stating meeting minutes did not always provide an accurate record of issues raised. According to stakeholders, there was a long time-lag between committee meetings and the distribution of minutes, making it difficult for committee members to recall details when reviewing the minutes. Stakeholders indicated there was a lack of understanding as regards the purpose of the committee within their own group. One stakeholder suggested a manual be developed and distributed to all committee members, with the ‘Committee Agreement’, and other relevant documents pertaining to committee guidelines.

5.3.5.5. Symmetrical opportunities for communication

Case B3 stakeholders perceived almost twice as many examples of symmetrical opportunities for communication than managers self–perceived during the committee meeting (S=13; M=7) (Table B3.15.). Stakeholders primarily referred to perceived opportunities to question managers and engage in genuine dialogue during presentations “I felt they were really conscious of needing some feedback from members and they weren't intimidated by the questions. They were very open to them.” (B3.S2); “There was genuine discussion… I actually questioned him at length on a number of things” (B3.S3). Manager statements concurred with stakeholder perceptions that opportunities were given for stakeholders to ask questions and contribute to discussion “they asked very robust questions and if they think I'd given enough detail they were quite happy to come back and asked again and hence we had those good discussions on those issues” (B3.M3).

Symmetrical opportunities violated

Six statements indicated stakeholders perceived instances of asymmetrical communication during the committee meeting (S=6; M=0) (Table B3.15.). Stakeholders described feeling intimidated by senior managers, and, as a result, were reluctant to engage in two-way dialogue during presentations “[senior manager] arrived on the minute and he left exactly when he should have left you know and these people can't spend one minute…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? “(B3.S3); “the other one [name] actually the expectation was we listen” (B3.S2). Stakeholders perceived middle-managers to be intimidated by the presence of senior managers at the committee meeting. Statements from stakeholders and

managers conveyed the impression that the committee was privileged to have such important people attending the committee meeting.

Case B3 stakeholders managers Case B3 stakeholders managers Symmetrical

opportunities 13 7 Symmetrical opportunities

violated 6 0

Free to raise any

proposition 6 3 Free to raise any proposition

violated 0 0

Full and equal treatment of propositions raised

2 7 Full and equal treatment of

propositions raised violated 6 2

TOTAL 21 17 TOTAL 12 2

Table B3.15. Case B3: Speech conditions fulfilled Speech conditions violated

5.3.5.6. Free to raise any proposition

Organisation B’s CRM described the agenda-setting process as an opportunity to raise any issues or propose new agenda topics. Case B3 stakeholder and manager statements concurred with the CRM statement (S=6; M=3) (Table B3.15.) “an email came out saying what are your issues for the caucus meeting? …Put them forward” (B3.S2); “we certainly asked for our issues. At our consumer forum in the morning we were asked at our network to identify the problems and we had the opportunity to raise those issues at the end of the day” (B3.S3).

5.3.5.7. Full and equal treatment of propositions raised

Managers were more optimistic than stakeholders that propositions raised were ‘treated fully and to the satisfaction of participants (S=2; M=7) (Table B3.15.). Managers self-reported providing full answers to questions raised “[stakeholders] seemed happy enough with the answers to the questions”

(B3.M3); “I think they were satisfied by the content” (B3.M1).

Full and equal treatment of all propositions violated

All stakeholders interviewed provided examples to indicate some propositions were not treated to the satisfaction of stakeholders during the committee meeting (S=6; M=2) (Table B3.15.) “there were issues about [topic]. I forget what the actual issue was, but it hadn't been resolved from the minutes… We may not have resolved everything completely satisfactorily” (B3.S3); “were a couple of questions… in my opinion was more aimed at diffusing further discussion or diverting or trying to make it less of an issue” (B3.S1).

Stakeholders provided examples that indicated some managers discouraged two-way discourse on propositions raised “my guess would be that was the standard [organisation] line they were giving back and I thought that's not going to wash at this point in time” (B3.S2). One manager admitted he attempted to limit questions during his presentation “so, probably towards the end I was trying to close out the questions”

(B3.M2). A manager observed unresolved differences of opinion between the organisation and stakeholders on a specific issue “that was more just like ships passing in the night…. it was just a different

world view of what the regulation is there to do. …I explained and he said he understood the explanation but he thought it wasn't really a problem and I said you're entitled to that view, but it's not the way we see it”(B3.M3).

5.3.6. Listening effectiveness and Participatory communication

When case B3 data was studied through the prism of listening competency, there was indication of agreement between stakeholder and manager expectations of an effective listening organisation. Case B3 stakeholders and managers most frequently described their expectations in behavioural terms (Table B3.3.).

There was less agreement when stakeholder expectations of organisation B’s listening effectiveness during the meeting were compared with managers’ understanding of stakeholder expectations. Stakeholders primarily expected to see behavioural characteristics exhibited by the organisation during the committee meeting, whereas managers believed stakeholders primarily expected to see affective characteristics (Table B3.5.). Further comparison of case B3 stakeholder expectations and managers’ understanding of stakeholder expectations is presented in Table B3.6.

There was some congruency between managers’ understanding of stakeholder expectations and stakeholders’ expectations of organisation B during the meeting. Managers accurately identify willing to listen and understand/comprehend as qualities stakeholders primarily expected to see as indications organisation B was listening effectively during the committee meeting (Table B3.6.).

There was evidence of high levels of agreement between Case B3 stakeholder and manager reports of effective listening perceived during the committee meeting. Both cohorts primarily described attributes perceived in behavioural terms and both cohorts perceived a similar number of attributes associated with effective listening, during the committee meeting (Table B3.7.).

Stakeholders and managers most frequently identified the following qualities as indicating organisation B listened effectively during the meeting:

• appropriate organisation procedures;

• ask/answer questions.

There was a low level of agreement between case B3 managers and stakeholders when describing attributes associated with NON-effective organisation listening perceived during the committee meeting. Stakeholders perceived significantly more accounts than managers self-reported, of NON-effective organisation listening attributes during the meeting. Consistent with this lack of congruency, stakeholders primarily described attributes observed in behavioural terms; whereas managers primarily described NON-effective organisation listening attributes exhibited in cognitive terms (Table B3.9.).

Stakeholders and managers identified the following qualities as primarily indicating organisation B did NOT listen effectively during the meeting:

• NOT appropriate organisation procedures

Case B3 results suggested moderate congruency between manager self-perceptions of their listening effectiveness and stakeholder observations. Managers rated their own listening higher than stakeholders perceived (Table B3.11.). Case B3 managers accurately perceived stakeholder listening expectations were met during the committee meeting (Table B3.12.).

Case B3 managers demonstrated a low level of accuracy in their understanding of communication sources that may have raised or, conversely, lowered stakeholder expectations. Past experience with the organisation was the only one of three communication sources reported most frequently by stakeholders that was accurately identified by managers (Table B3.13.).

Case B3 data was re-examined within the framework of participatory communication, to evaluate the extent of case B3’s adherence to Habermas’s norms of communicative action (Jacobson, 2007a, 2007b). Stakeholders and managers provided a similar number of examples to indicate organisation B exhibited ‘appropriate’ behaviour, given its legal mandate and responsibilities, that organisation B understood what stakeholders were trying to tell them and that stakeholders

Case B3 data was re-examined within the framework of participatory communication, to evaluate the extent of case B3’s adherence to Habermas’s norms of communicative action (Jacobson, 2007a, 2007b). Stakeholders and managers provided a similar number of examples to indicate organisation B exhibited ‘appropriate’ behaviour, given its legal mandate and responsibilities, that organisation B understood what stakeholders were trying to tell them and that stakeholders