The dark side of stakeholder

communication
Stakeholder perceptions of ineffective
organisational listening
Judy Burnside-Lawry
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 organisationstakeholder communication literature and have implications for the practice of
organisation-stakeholder communication and management training.

Introduction

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

This 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).
The dark side of stakeholder communication
147

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
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
148

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
The dark side of stakeholder communication
149

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
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
150

& 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).

Dialogue
The 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
The dark side of stakeholder communication
151

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 relationshipbuilding, 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

Communicative action

Strategic action

Concealed strategic action

Unconscious deception
systematically distorted
communication

Openly strategic action

Conscious deception
manipulation

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

Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011

152

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?

The dark side of stakeholder communication

153

Comprehension

Do you feel stakeholders understood the organisations position and the issues involved?
Do you feel you understood stakeholders positions 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 position and/or viewpoints fully and to your satisfaction?

Research Questions
The 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
competency?

assess

organisational

listening

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?

Method
The 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
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
154

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.

Sample
A 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 techniques

Data 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).
The dark side of stakeholder communication
155

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
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
156

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 analysis
The 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
The dark side of stakeholder communication
157

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.

Results
Conditions that stakeholders perceived as an indication that an
organisation did not listen effectively are grouped into the following
themes:
Not appropriate organisation Not comprehensible
behaviour
Not knowledgeable
Corporate culture
Not ideal speech conditions
Power imbalance
Not sincere
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 behaviour

Examples 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
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
158

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).
The dark side of stakeholder communication
159

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
Managers:
Verbal

Answered questions in defensive or

offensive manner Gave corporate line
rather than addressing stakeholder issues
Closed-off discussion on individual topics

Inappropriate
interaction-based
behaviour

Expressed amusement when presentations

elicited heated response from stakeholders
Managers:
Non-verbal

Maintained a rigid position on an issue

without acknowledging validity of stakeholder views
Lacked open-mindedness
Were unwilling to listen
Were not approachable during informal
breaks

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

Inappropriate
organisation
procedures

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

Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011

160

Corporate culture
Stakeholders 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

The dark side of stakeholder communication

161

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 decisionmaking
Product or policy presented to stakeholders as a fait accompli

Power imbalance
Stakeholders 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
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
162

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 confidence 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 stakeholder-led topics presented

Ideology and hegemony

Managers used seniority within organisation 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 representatives
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
The dark side of stakeholder communication
163

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 stakeholder engagement activities

Repeated downsizing of stakeholder liaison 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 comprehensible
Results 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).
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
164

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 knowledgeable
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
The dark side of stakeholder communication
165

(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
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
166

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

Unconscious
deception

Guest speakers presented a barrage of information, allowed little time for questions, left
immediately after their presentation
Managers arrived late and repeatedly referred
to their busy schedule
Stakeholders told they were privileged to have
senior managers attend
Guest speakers arrived with entourage
Chairperson restricted or prevented stakeholder questions
Commercial in confidence justification for a
lack of transparency
Neither party prepared to acknowledge legitimacy of opposing viewpoints

Conscious
deception

Policy or product presented to committee as a

fait accompli
Organisation requested stakeholder feedback
too late to impact decision-making process
More than 50% of agenda devoted to organisation-led topics
Agenda structured to ensure stakeholder-led
topics had minimum time
Managers gave corporate line rather than
addressing stakeholder issues
Managers avoided answering questions
No satisfactory response to questions raised
meeting after meeting

Concealed
strategic
action

Discussion
Results 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.
The dark side of stakeholder communication
167

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
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
168

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.

Conclusion
This 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 organisationstakeholder 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.
The dark side of stakeholder communication
169

References
Andriof, 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.
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
170

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.
The dark side of stakeholder communication
171

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.
Australian Journal of Communication Vol 38 (1) 2011
172

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.

The dark side of stakeholder communication

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.