Suchergebnisse

Stakeholder engagement competence is here framed as an ongoing matter of communication design -- that is, professionals and organizations of all sorts are challenged to invent forms of engagement with organizational stakeholders making communication possible that may otherwise be difficult, impossible, or unimagined. An original framework for articulating logics of communication design that addresses extant shortcomings in understanding stakeholder engagement competence is introduced. The framework draws into relief how communication for stakeholder engagement is conceptualized and valued by professionals and organizations. The communication design practice framework provides a path for opening up the black box of stakeholder engagement to advance communication competence in professional practice and organizational communication. The framework is illustrated by reconstructing, from current corporate social responsibility practice, two competing communication design logics for constructing dialogue and stakeholder engagement. One logic, grounded in the shared value framework, reprises a common theme about business that points to constructing communication to maintain the primacy of shareholders in stakeholder networks and to seek profitability in social, environmental, and economic problems. The other logic introduces an alternative communication design logic grounded in commitments to collaborative governance and open innovation. This logic is for stakeholder networks to generate and manage multiple values that address matters of social, cultural, environmental, and economic concerns. We then consider some key implications for engagement practice and competency for inventing forms of dialogue and stakeholder engagement to create value in the new globalized, mediated context. Communication design practice opens new ways of thinking about stakeholder engagement that has implications for cultivating professional practice and improving organizational decision-making about investing in communication resources and infrastructure. [Copyright John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.]

AbstractThis study identifies three models of rationality that mediators employ in interpreting conflict situations and formulating the most sensible and appropriate way to proceed. These models, critical discussion, bargaining, and therapy articulate what mediators presume about the nature of conflict and the framework of activity required to manage the conflict. The models were developed through a close analysis of a corpus of forty‐one mediation sessions. The analysis shows that the substance, direction, and outcome of mediation is shaped by the framework of activity implemented by the mediator. This can be seen by the way in which arguments are deflected and discouraged in bargaining and therapy models. These models suggest that mediation competence can be understood in terms of two issues: which model to implement when and how best to implement any model in a stream of discourse.

Differences arise in macro-activities, such as the production of energy, food, and healthcare, where the management of these differences happens in polylogues as many actors pursue scores of positions on a variety of issues in numerous venues. Polylogues are essential to the large-scale practices that organize macro-activities but present significant challenges for argumentation theory and research. Key to the challenge is conceptualizing the variety of argumentative roles that go beyond the classic normative definition of protagonist and antagonist. A macroscope is devised for identifying argumentative roles in the communicative work of organizations, and the communicative work of the network of organizations, related to the production of gas from shale in the Marcellus region of the Northeastern United States. The macroscope scaffolds a design thinking inquiry into the variety of argumentative roles in the communicative work of organizations in a polylogue and finds: (1) innovation and entrepreneurialism in the design of organizations as devices for managing disagreement; (2) argumentative roles as services specializing in particular aspects of argument; and (3) networks of organizations with prominent types of specialized roles that give shape to the disagreement space around a large, complex practice. It is proposed that the varieties of argumentative roles in polylogue are not random or arbitrary but derive from more general pragmatic principles about how disagreement is organized and how methods of disagreement management emerge within communication relative to a macro-activity.