Discrepancy between expectations and perceptions

Stakeholders and managers were asked to respond to four prompts designed to answer four sub-questions derived from the study’s third research question: “is there any discrepancy between stakeholders’ expectations and their actual perceptions of the organisation’s listening competency?” Two prompts, questions four and five in stakeholder and manager interview protocols, compared stakeholder perceptions as to whether their listening expectations were met, with manager self-perceptions as to whether they met stakeholder listening expectations during the committee meeting (Appendix 3.5.). Case A1 answers to SQ3.1.and SQ3.2. follow.

SQ3.1. At the recent meeting, do you think that (name of organisation) met the level of stakeholder listening you were led to expect?

SQ3.2. At the recent meeting, do you think you met the level of stakeholder listening that stakeholders expected?

Question nine in both interview protocols asked participants to assess the listening effectiveness of staff involved in the committee meeting. Stakeholders and managers responded to a five point Likert-type scale (very effective; effective; average; ineffective; very ineffective). Respondents were asked to explain why they have given this rating (Appendix 3.5.). Case A1 stakeholders described managers as ‘very effective’ and ‘effective’ listeners (A1.11.). Case A1 managers self-rated lower than stakeholders perceived, describing themselves as ‘average’ and ‘effective’

listeners (Table A1.11.).

Case A1

Rating stakeholders managers very very effective

very effective 2 effective/v.effective

effective 1 1

average 2

ineffective no response

Table A1.11. “How do you rate managers as listeners?”

Question five in the stakeholder interview protocol asked “at the recent meeting do you think (name of organisation) met the level of listening that you were led to expect? (Appendix 3.5.).

Question five in the manager interview protocol prompted response to the question “at the recent meeting do you think you met the level of listening stakeholders were led to expect?”

(Appendix 3.5.). Case A1 responses indicated accuracy between stakeholder and manager perceptions. Stakeholder responses concurred with manager estimates that stakeholder expectations were met during the committee meeting (Table A1.12.).

Case A1

Expectations stakeholders managers

yes 3 3

no

no response

Table A1.12. “Were stakeholder expectations met?”

Two prompts, questions four and six in stakeholder and manager interview-protocols, compared the communication sources that stakeholders considered influenced their expectations, with the communication sources that managers thought formed the basis of stakeholder listening expectations (Appendix 3.5.). Case A1 answers to SQ3.3. and SQ3.4. follow.

SQ.3.3. What did you know about (name of organisation) prior to the consultation that influenced your expectation of them as effective listeners? How did you find these things out?

SQ.3.4. What information regarding (name of organisation) commitment and ability to listen to stakeholders did stakeholders have prior to the consultation? How do you think they would have found this out?

All case A1 stakeholders included newspaper articles, the annual company calendar (site-specific), and the structure/professionalism of meetings, as communication sources that influenced their expectations. Two of three stakeholders interviewed included the survey and interviews conducted during the communication audit to gauge community perceptions of the company; sponsorship, emails and the existence of committee meetings (Table A1.13.).

Case A1

Communication Source stakeholders managers

newspaper x x

survey & interviews during communication audit x x annual calendar (site specific) x

structure/professionalism of meeting x

relationship & sponsorship x x

emails x existence of committee meetings

past experience x

minutes of meeting with ‘actions taken’ section x

letters x

Table A1.13. Basis of stakeholder expectations

All case A1 managers included past experience with the company. Communication sources identified by two out of three managers include: the survey and interviews conducted during the community audit, minutes from previous meeting with status of actions taken, letters, newspaper articles, and the relationship built between stakeholders and staff (Table A1.13.).

Two of seven items most frequently reported by stakeholders were accurately identified by managers as communication sources that influenced stakeholder expectations. The two communication sources were newspaper articles and the survey and interviews conducted during the communication audit to gauge community perceptions of the company (Table A1.13.).

4.1.4. Participatory communication

Data from case A1 was re-examined within the framework of constructs from participatory communication literature. Jacobson’s (2007b) participatory communication model was used as a comparative base to explore stakeholder views on whether they were heard, with managers’ self-assessment on whether they listened to stakeholders, during the committee meeting (Table 2.6.2.).

Interview transcripts were analysed to determine whether, during the committee meeting, organisation A’s actions or speech acts were perceived to indicate:

• knowledge of opportunities, threats, or local issues;

• appropriateness given the organisation’s legal mandate and responsibilities ;

• sincerity in attempts to address stakeholder concerns;

• comprehensible language used to inform participants.

One or more validity claim may occur during a communication exchange. However, the second component required if a given communication exchange can be termed participatory communication, is for individuals to perceive they were free to engage in any form of speech condition with the aim of challenging validity claims (Jacobson, 2007a, 2007b). Interview transcripts were examined to identify whether, during the committee meeting, stakeholders perceived, or managers self–reported, instances that indicate the presence of the following speech conditions:

• symmetrical opportunities for all participants to contribute to discussion or raise questions;

• freedom for all participants to raise any proposition and introduce any assertion;

• all propositions treated equally, and dealt with fully to the satisfaction of those who advanced them. adapted from Jacobson, 2007b, p. 17.

Interview transcripts were re-read, line by line to explore similarities and variations between stakeholder perceptions and manager self-perceptions as regards the extent the organisation listened and stakeholder views were represented, during the committee meeting.

4.1.4.1. Knowledge

Case A1 participants (stakeholders and managers) provided a total of twenty-three statements that indicated the organisation was ‘knowledgeable’ of, or interested in, stakeholder issues (S=8;

M=15) (Table A1.14.). Stakeholder examples included perceptions that managers made an effort to provide direct answers to questions “no…. dodging topics, not saying too busy, frank honest answers, no hesitation or looking for the right words” (A1.S3). Managers indicated they made an effort to be knowledgeable about stakeholder issues, “we have regular contact with the community every 6 months, we ask them about what’s troubling them, there’s no secrets” (A1.M1). Managers described the process undertaken to conduct the community audit and report results back to the committee, as an example of organisation A’s efforts to gain knowledge of stakeholder issues “going through the process in the first place of broadly engaging the community, gaining their views and then repeating their views back to them is a good step in establishing that you are in fact wanting to listen” (A1.M1). Managers placed results from the community audit on organisation A’s website to disseminate results as widely as possible amongst the local community, “they are public documents, that’s fine, we present to [committee]

so why not present to community” (A1.M2).

Challenge to knowledge

There were no statements recorded by case A1 stakeholders or managers that indicated either party challenged the organisation’s knowledge of, or interest in, stakeholder issues. There were no statements to suggest stakeholders perceived managers to make statements they did not believe themselves, simply to convince stakeholders (Table A.14).

Case A1 stakeholders managers Case A1 stakeholders managers knowledge 8 15 challenge to knowledge 0 0 appropriate 30 32 challenge to appropriate 2 2 sincerity 14 13 challenge to sincerity 0 1 comprehension 21 30 challenge to

comprehension 0 6

TOTAL 73 90 TOTAL 2 9

Table A1.14. Case A1: Validity claims met Challenge to validity claims

4.1.4.2. Appropriate

There were indications of congruency between stakeholder and manager perceptions that the organisation behaved appropriately, given its legal mandate and responsibilities. Both cohorts provided a similar number of examples of appropriate behaviour and practices perceived during the committee meeting (S=30; M=32) (TableA1.14.).

Two stakeholders believed the organisation’s method of greeting committee members was appropriate and indicative organisation A valued stakeholder input “someone waiting to meet you at the door, showed that yes, this was important” (A1.S2); “we were greeted by [name]… and, [name]…, and [name] …, took us down, sat us down then one would go back and wait for the others so no-one had to wander around wondering where to go” (A1.S1). Two stakeholders described the committee meeting as appropriately organised “meeting was organised in a logical way, it wasn’t a chat fest” (A1.S3); “they seemed genuinely pleased we had turned up” (A1.S2). Consistent with stakeholder statements, two managers described procedures involved in greeting stakeholders and arranging seating for the meeting as examples of appropriate behaviour “we were at the door, 3 of us greeted them then took them in the room”

(A1.M3); “staff know to sit amongst the group” (A1.M1); “I think they got the impression that they were fairly important to the organisation” (A1.M.3).

Challenge to appropriate

Case A1 participants perceived four instances of inappropriate behaviour by the organisation, given its legal mandate and responsibilities (S=2; M=2) (Table A.14.). One stakeholder suggested a staff member participating in the meeting was not an appropriate choice “not the right person to be speaking to us on the night” (A1.S2). The manager concerned was conscious he behaved inappropriately at times during the meeting “when I was talking to the person next to me, I was listening

to them but not listening to the presentation or whatever was going on” (A1.M3). Both cohorts gave one example of inappropriate organisation procedures during the meeting. One stakeholder believed organisation A could make more effort to ensure members of the committee were familiar with each other’s names and the organisation they represented “I thought you should introduce people and give their roles. Wasn’t on my name tag” (A1.S2). One manager criticised the venue and set-up for the meeting “[there was a] lot of chairs so it [the room] could have been a bit wider” (A1.M2) (Table A1.14.).

4.1.4.3. Sincerity

There was congruency between case A1 stakeholder and manager perceptions that the organisation was sincere in its attempts to address stakeholder concerns (S=14; M=13) (Table A1.14.). Stakeholder statements included “I think they are genuine about making an effort to reach out to the groups” (A1.S2); “ if you know they are being honest, then it’s a matter of trust”(A1.S1). All three stakeholders perceived organisation A was genuine in efforts to communicate with the community over issues “an organisation that shows professional integrity by approaching us” (A1.S2); “I think they take talking to the community a high priority, take it very seriously” (A1.S2). Manager statements concurred with stakeholder perceptions “the community, they will ultimately decide whether we survive…

they need to understand what we do” (A1.M1); “articles in the [local newspaper] try to address issues passed through to us by [stakeholders] (A1.M3). Both cohorts referred to a long relationship established between organisation A and the community. Stakeholders and managers perceived friendliness and trust existed between stakeholders and the organisation during the committee meeting (Table A.14.).

Challenge to sincerity

Consistent with high numbers of accounts of sincerity during the meeting, there were no indications case A1 stakeholders challenged the sincerity of organisation A during the committee meeting (S=0; M=1) (Table A1.14.). One manager observed a lack of trust in organisation A by some community members, based on historical events. The manager noted continued honesty by the organisation was necessary, if mistrust was to be overcome (Table A.14.).

4.1.4.4. Comprehension

Both stakeholders and managers recorded many statements to indicate they ‘understood’ the other parties’ position and that statements made during the committee meeting were mutually intelligible to both cohorts (S=21; M=30) (Table A.14.). A site tour was included in case A1’s committee meeting. Two stakeholders described the site tour as an opportunity to increase understanding of organisation A’s operations. Consistent with stakeholder views, managers described the site tour as a method to increase stakeholder understanding “tour last night, have given them some more information on how we work …. by doing that it starts to engage a process of them thinking

through what are the really specific questions I want to ask?”(A1.M1). Stakeholders indicated managers delivered information in a manner that was comprehensible to stakeholders “I said now start again and tell me what the two things you use are, and he said oh good, and explained again” (A1.S1); “the questions were simplistic as it’s a very very complicated business, but they explained it in layman’s terms”(A1.S1).

Managers referred to the community audit as an effective strategy that increased organisation A’s understanding of stakeholder issues “we had 300 phone interviews about how well do they know [organisation], how well do they know what we do,…what information would they like etc” “at the first meeting we actually replayed back that information we had gathered, these are the key themes that came up” (A1.M2).

Statements in interview transcripts indicated a level of agreement, understanding and congruency between case A1 stakeholders and managers on issues raised. “They [stakeholders] are people who understand people like us create jobs, they don’t come along and say well you’re just bad because you belong to a big company. They say well there’s a standard that we want you to operate to and we’re going to hold you accountable to that standard” (A1.M1). During the committee meeting, organisation A delivered a report on the site’s environmental violations in the previous year. One stakeholder voiced dissatisfaction with the amount of environmental breaches. During his interview, one manager described the communication exchange that occurred, stating he recognised the validity of stakeholder concerns, self-reporting “we agreed with her” (A1.M3).

Challenge to comprehension

There were no suggestions stakeholders challenged the organisation’s understanding of stakeholder issues, or did not understand the organisation’s position (S=0; M=6) (Table A1.14.).

Case A1 managers were self-critical of their performance, stating the organisation’s website and brochures were outdated and did not assist stakeholders gain a better understanding of organisation A’s position and the issues involved “brochures out of date, being updated” (A1.M3), “they [stakeholders], would struggle to get to us via the website…we are going to put a link probably through the [name] icon” A1.M2).

4.1.4.5. Symmetrical opportunities for communication

Case A1 participants recorded twenty-five instances that indicated stakeholders and managers perceived equal opportunities to raise questions or challenge the organisation’s position on issues during the committee meeting (S=20; M=5)(Table A1.15.). “Anyone sitting quietly they drew them into the discussion…, they’d say so what do you think [name]?”(A1.S1); “encouraged questions” (A1.S2.); “more two- way conversation last night……wasn’t just them doing all the talking, [they] were very approachable”

(A1.S3). Manager examples included a description of an environmental group, with a long history of involvement with organisation A, as a group that now worked in alignment, rather than in a

confrontational manner, with the organisation “[name of group] people used to be quite negative, we’ve been talking to them for so long that it is now an Alliance, instead of watching us they are trying to work with us”

(A1.M3). Managers understood an important part of each stakeholder’s role on the committee was to provide organisation A with feedback “chance for them to provide feedback, on things people have said to them or what’s relevant or an issue for them (A1.M2).

Symmetrical opportunities for communication violated

There was no suggestion of a lack of symmetrical communication from case A1 participants, and no items in interview transcripts to suggest stakeholders felt unable to ask questions or challenge the organisation’s position (Table A1.15.).

Case A1 stakeholders managers Case A1 stakeholders managers symmetrical

any proposition violated 0 0 full and equal

Table A1.15. Case A1: Speech conditions fulfilled Speech conditions violated

4.1.4.6. Free to raise any proposition

Four items from interview transcripts indicated case A1 stakeholders felt ‘free to raise any proposal’ they wished for discussion (S=4; M=2) (Table A1.15.). “If we email and say we’ve heard a really bad thing about you they will immediately reply” (A1.S1); “quite willing to talk about any points brought up, gave direct answers” (A1.S1). Case A1 stakeholders perceived managers encouraged stakeholders to introduce new issues for discussion “offer was given over and over again to probe and ask questions”

(A1.S3). The procedure used by case A1 to compile agenda items was described “we have never had anyone contact us to include anything on the agenda prior to the meeting, “however matters are raised during the meeting either in specific sections or in the ‘Other Business’ section” (A1.M1).

Free to raise any proposition violated

No examples were given by case A1 stakeholders or managers to indicate participants felt a lack of freedom in raising any proposition at committee meetings (Table A1.15.).

4.1.4.7. Full and equal treatment of propositions raised

All case A1 stakeholders made statements that indicated ‘propositions were answered to the satisfaction of committee members (S=9; M=6) (Table A1.15.). “There was never any suggestion that something was left unanswered” (A1.S3); “most of us asked questions, and he always took the time to answer”

(A1.S2); “if you listen to people and then explain as carefully as you can well you can’t expect much more than that”(A1.S1). Manager comments were congruent with stakeholder perceptions “I didn’t get any sense they were frustrated” (A1.M1); “everyone was listened to when asking a question and we answered to the best of our ability with the information we had. It was a bit like sitting down with friends and saying this is what we are doing” (A1.M2).

Full and equal treatment of propositions raised violated

There were no statements by case A1 stakeholders or managers to suggest propositions were not resolved to the satisfaction of all committee members during the meeting (Table A1.15.).