PAGE

PAGE

75

STAKEHOLDERINTELLIGENCEONSOCIALMEDIA

by

KasperBr?db?kChristensen

Advisor:LarsHaahr

Cand.IT

IT,KommunikationogOrganisation

AarhusSchoolofBusiness

01/08-2012

Attachedtothethesisisadataset,whichcanbedownloadedthroughthefollowinglink:

/files/3479799533/Data.zip

Tableofcontents

TOC\o"1-3"

0.Abstract

1

1.Introduction

2

1.1.ProblemStatement

5

2.ProblemArea

5

2.1.Discussion:CommunityorInfluence?

9

3.Moreideasleadtoabetterend-product:ACollectiveIntelligenceperspective

12

3.1.Discussion:Recapitulation

17

4.MethodandDiscussion

20

5.StakeholderEngagementasaCollectiveIntelligencesystem

22

6.TextMiningtoextractinformationfromsocialmedia

26

6.1.TextMiningBasics

28

6.2.PreparingdataforTextMining

31

6.3.Categorizationofdocuments

33

6.4.Clusteringofdocuments

34

6.5.TextMiningforstakeholderopinion

36

7.EnterTwitter,“Instantlyconnecttowhat’smostimportanttoyou.”

37

7.1.TwitterasaCollectiveIntelligenceSystem

38

8.StakeholderIntelligenceonTwitter

43

9.ThecaseofaCommunicationsManageratNovoNordisk

47

9.1.CSR-CommunicationonTwitter

49

9.2.Establishingabusinesscase(domain)

51

9.3.Selectionofstakeholders(balancediversityandexpertise)

52

9.4.Initialanalysisofinformationquality

54

10.Evaluationofresultsandmodel

63

11.Conclusion

70

12.Bibliography

71

12.1.Articles(OrderofAppearance)

71

12.2.Books(OrderofAppearance)

72

12.3.Links(OrderofAppearance)

73

12.4.ProgramsUsed(OrderofAppearance)

75

0.Abstract

Inthisthesiswehavethroughareviewoftheoreticalperspectivesanalyzedthepossibilitiesofamodelforstakeholderengagementonsocialmedia.Wetookouroutsetinstakeholdertheoryandbroughtintodiscussiontwologicsofengagement,thelogicofinfluenceandcommunityrespectively.Wefoundfurtherinspirationfortheproposedmodelincollectiveintelligence,businessintelligenceandtextminingtheory,whichwediscussedinrelationtothetwologicsofengagement.Ouranalysisresultedinamodel,wherestakeholderengagementsonsocialmediacouldbeconceptualizedastheestablishmentofacollectiveintelligence-system.Withthiswefoundsupportfortheargumentthatstakeholderengagement,asadisciplinewhichseekstolistentoandlearnfromstakeholders,canbetakentosocialmedia.Whentakingthisviewcommunicationsfromstakeholdersonsocialmediabecomesinformationthatmayaidacompanyindailydecision-makingprocesses.Inordertoobtainthisinformationwelooktothetextminingdisciplineandherewefound,giventhenatureoftextminingandsocialmediarespectively,thatitmaybenecessarytonarrowdownthepurposebeforeapplyingthemodel.WefindthatpropertiesofTwitterasasocialtechnologymaysupportsuchinformation-gatheringactivitiesespeciallywell.OurcaserelatestothepositionofaCommunicationsManageratNovoNordiskandthedatasetappliestohispositionalone.Uponapplyingthemodelonthecaseofhisworkandthedatawefoundacollectiveofstakeholderscommunicatinglargelyaboutthesameissues.However,wefoundonlyindicationsofsuchactivityandwerenotabletoderivefromourdatasetinformationofaqualitywithwhichwecouldqualifydecisions.Wesuggestthatthisisattributedtothenatureofthedatasetandthescopeofthetextminingcapabilityinthisthesismorethanafailureoftheproposedmodel.

Weendthethesiswithadiscussionoftheinherentchallengesrelatedtosocialmediaandthereforealsothemodel.Wefindthatwhenengaginginsocialmediatofindinformationtherearechallengesrelatingtothenatureofonlineidentities,aswellastheinformationdisseminatedbythoseonlineidentities.Furthermore,wediscusstheconsequencesofgatheringinformationinsuchawayinrelationtostakeholderengagement.Weendbyconcludingthattherearechallengeslefttoovercomebutthatthemodelmayyetbeapplicable.

1.Introduction

In1979MichaelE.Porterpresentedaframeworkforanalysisoffactorsaffectingthecapabilitiesofacompany’sstrategicdevelopment.Porter’sFiveForceshavebecomeamainstayofbusinesstheory,andarethoughtbyPortertoarisefromtheinherentcompetitivenessinacompany’sindustrialenvironment.(Porter,1979)Therelevanceofsuchananalysisofforcesimpactingacompanyanditsstrategicdevelopmentpersiststothisday,andisperhapsmoresalientthaneveraswehaveunequivocallyenteredintothemillenniumofglobalization.WhetherPorterhadenvisionedtheintenselycompetitivenatureofthetwenty-firstcenturyisdifficulttoassessbutwhiletheconceptofanalyzingtheforcesofyourenvironmentremainsrelevanttoday,thequestionisifindustrycompetitioncanstillsufficetodescribewhataffectscompanies.

Thethreatofexternalforcesimpactingonacompany’sactivitiesisnowmorethaneverareality.Globalizationhasbroughtwithitanintensifiedthreatofnewentrantsandsubstituteproducts(Porter,p.141,1979),butperhapsthemostsignificantchangetotheexternalinfluenceshascomeaboutwiththeincreasedfocusontheethicalandmoralresponsibilitiesofcompanies.CorporateSocialResponsibility,whilenotexactlyanewconcept,surelywithinrecentyearshasseenanincreasedfocusinboththemindsofpoliticalleadersandcommonpeople.

R.EdwardFreeman(1984),theFatherofstakeholdertheory,includedtheconceptasawaytodescribethatcompaniescarryresponsibilitiesbeyondthatofaccountabilitytoshareholders.(Freeman,p.38-40,1984)Asmentioned,todaythereisamuch-increasedfocusontheresponsibilitiesofcompaniesandassuchespeciallyPorters“BargainingPowerofCustomers”hasincreaseddramatically.Perhapsonemightrightlysuggestthattodayamorefittingdescriptionofthisforcewouldbethe“bargainingpowerofstakeholders”,encompassinganyandallwhoareaffectedbyortakeinterestintheactivitiesofagivencompany.

“Corporatesocialresponsibilityisoftenlookedatasan"addon"to"businessasusual,"andthephraseoftenheardfromexecutivesis"corporatesocialresponsibilityisfine,ifyoucanaffordit…Giventheturbulencethatbusinessorganizationsarecurrentlyfacingandtheverynatureoftheexternalenvironment,asconsistingofeconomicandsocio-politicalforces,thereisaneedforconceptualschematawhichanalyzetheseforcesinanintegrativefashion."(Freeman,p.40,1984)

Itshouldbenosurprisethatacompany’sactivitygenerallytendstoleantowardsmakingaprofit,andbythatlogicitseemssomewhatrationaltonarrowourattentionone.g.opinionsofshareholders.Thisconceptofbroadeningthespectrumofacompany’sresponsibilitiesgobackdecadesbuttodaytheattentionandperceivedimportanceofsuchdealingshavenodoubtincreaseddramatically.Sowhatchanged?Thecontentionofmanyauthors(Li&Bernoff,2008;Benett,2003;Castellóetal.,Forthcoming;Scherer&Palazzo,2011)isthatthemoderneraofdigitalizationhasbroughtaboutchangesinthepowerrelationsbetweenstakeholdersandcompanies.TheproliferationofdigitalcommunicationandinformationenabledespeciallybythecomingofWeb2.0technologieshasbeenseenasathreattocompaniesacrosstheglobe.Thisisnotthepredictionofsomefortunecookie;itistherealitythatsurroundsus.Stakeholderstodayareabletogatherinformation,analyzeit,formanopinion(sometimeswell-founded,sometimesnot)anddisseminateitinadigitalspace,wherepotentiallymillionsofstakeholderssitinwaittoconsumeit.Somepresentsuchopinionsintheformofanopinionatedblog,someasastatusupdateoneitherTwitterorFacebookandsomeasaninformativevideo.Facebooknowhasover900millionusers,Twitterover500millionusersandthisisexactlywhathaschanged,theproliferationofsocialmediause.In2012communicationaboutanythingandeverythingisrunningrampant,andwherecompaniesinthepastmayhavehadasayinwhatthenewspaperprinted,managementofsuchcontentistodayatbestanillusoryconcept.

Perhapsthisservesasanexplanationofwhycompaniesslowlybutsurelyhaveadoptedtheuseofsocialmedia.InNovember2011theMcKinseyGlobalInstitutecarriedoutasurveyasking4.261globalexecutivesabouttheiradoptionofsocialtechnologiesandtheperceivedbenefitsgainedfromtheadoption.Theyshowedthatofthecorporationsinvolved72%haveadoptedatleastonesocialtechnologyintotheirefforts.However,only1.949oftherespondentsreportedatleastonemeasurablebenefit,whichmayspeaktothefactthatobtainingbenefitsfromeffortsonsocialmediaisadifficulttask.(Bughin,Byers&Chui,2011)

Themotivesforcompaniesengaginginsocialmediaarenodoubtmany.Somemightbeengagingtomanagethethreatofhavingnopresence,andtherebynochanceofexertinganycontrolwhatsoever,whileothersmaybeengagingtoexploittheopportunitiespresentedbythetechnology.Inthisthesiswetreatthedevelopmentswithinthelasttenyearspartiallyasathreatandpartiallyasanopportunity.Partthreatbecausethebrandnatureofcompaniesissensitivetoinformationthatgivethemabadnameandaswehaveoutlinedthisisnowdifficulttocontrol.Partopportunitybecausewebelievethatthecorrectapproachtoengaginginsocialmediaprovidesunprecedentedpotentialforconnectingwithstakeholdersinawaythatmaystrengthenrelationships.Thisisthecruxofthediscussionsandperspectivespresentedinthisthesis.Engaginginsocialmediawiththeexpresspurposeofconnectingwithwhatstakeholders,listeningtowhattheyhavetosay,andfromthatderivewhichareasacompanymayfocusontoincreasevalue.

Wetakeourstartingpointincontemporarydiscussionswithinthefieldofstakeholderengagement,highlightingtwocompetinglogics,thelogicofinfluenceandthelogicofcommunity.Fromthiswederivetheconceptswebelievemayfitwhentheprospectistotakestakeholderengagementtosocialmedia.Weanalyzethepracticalapplicabilityoftheseperspectivesandfindthatsocialmediaisofsuchnaturethatanothersupportingperspectiveisneeded.Thistakesusintothefieldoftheoryrelatedtocollectiveintelligence,whichmightaidusinderivingvaluefromsocialmediabyconceptualizingitasaplacewhereideasandsolutionsaregeneratedeachandeveryday.Wecoupletheseperspectiveswiththoseofstakeholdertheoryinordertofindsupportforamodelthatinpracticemayleveragetheuseofsocialmediaasasourceforinformation.Toharvestsuchinformationweincludemethodologyfromtheincreasinglyrecognizedareaoftextmining.Inordertomakeanattemptatapplyingthemodelwederivewefocusinonasinglesocialtechnology,namelyTwitter,andcasematerialprovidedtousbyaCommunicationsManageratthedepartmentforCorporateSustainabilityatNovoNordisk.Inthecaseweanalyzethecapabilityofourmodelinrelationtothepositionofthismanagerbyapplyingtextminingmethodson7763tweetsfrom58accountsonTwitter.Weconcludethethesisbyevaluationofourresultsandourmodelinordertoassesswhethertheunifiedperspectivesfromtheorymaybebroughtintobusinesspractice.Wesummarizetheprojectinourthesisinthefollowingstatement.

1.1.ProblemStatement

Thisthesisshouldbeseenasanattempttounifytheoreticalaspirationsandcapabilitiesofstakeholdertheoryandcollectiveintelligencerespectivelyinordertoconceptualizeamodelforbringingstakeholderengagementtosocialmedia.

2.ProblemArea

Whilewetouchonandallowinspirationtoflowfrommanyfieldsofstudythroughoutthethesis(e.g.collectiveintelligence,socialmedia,businessintelligence,textminingandstakeholdertheory),relationsbetweenpeopleandcorporationsseeminseparablefromthefieldofstakeholderengagement.Assuchmovingtowardthebettermentofcorporateeffortswithinthisbusinessdisciplinebecomesourprimaryfocusandthelocusofouranalysis.

Therisingattendanceonsocialmediaseemsaself-perpetuatingeffectaspeopletelltheirfriends,theytelltheirfriendsandsoon.Asdemonstratedinafive-wavestudypublishedin2011thelastwavewhere37.600peoplegloballywerepolledshowedconsiderableattendanceonsocialmedia.61%answeredthatwithinsixmonthstheymanagedaprofileonasocialmediasite,while64%readblogsandperhapsjustasexciting75%answeredthattheyvisitedcompany/brandwebsites.Insharpcontrasttothis,thefirstwaveofthestudyfouryearsearlieronly27%ofrespondentshadcreatedaprofileonasocialmediasite.(Hutton&Fosdick,2011)Thisisinterestingbecauseprovidessomeproofoftheproliferationofsocialmediauseamongstakeholders,whileatthesametimeestablishingthatcompaniesarewithintherealmofstakeholderinterestsonline.

Assuchitmightevenseemanaturaldevelopmentthatstakeholderengagementismovingtowardinitiativesonsocialmedia.However,aswithanyinitiativetheroadtowardimplementationispavedwithchallenges.AspresentedbyCastelló,EtterandMorsing(Forthcoming)inastudyofacompany’sassessmentofthepossibilitiesoftakingstakeholderengagementtosocialmedia,twocompetinglogicsofengagementarehighlighted.Inthistheyfocusheavilyonthemanagerialandinstitutionalchallengesofcommunicationonsocialmediaasapartofstakeholderengagement.(Castellóetal.,p.1,Fortcoming)Inthecontextofthisthesiswederivefromthisarticleperspectivesinthesetwologicsandtreatthemasafoundationforanalysisanddiscussions,whichmayaidusinhighlightingthedifficultyaswellastheperceivedvalueinmovingfromatraditionalviewofengagementstoonewhereengagementshappenonsocialmedia.Thiswillhelpusassesswhatthechallengesarefromacorporateperspective,andthediscussionhasservedasgreatinspirationforourperspective.Thefollowingdescriptionsofthelogicsastheypresentthemareaderivationoftheirstudyofasinglecompanyandwewillseektofurtherqualifythatthesefitthecontemporaryperceptionswithinthefield.

Thelogicofinfluence(Castellóetal.,p.15-17,Forthcoming)

Influence:Thecompanyseekstoinfluencestakeholderopinionthroughtheirengagementswiththepurposeofpreventingconflict,reducingrisksandgainingknowledgefromkeystakeholders.E.g.acompanywantingtoerectawindturbinetodecreasetheirenergyconsumptioncostsmaymeetresistancefromlocalsintheareawheretheturbineistobe.Theymaythenattemptatengagingindialoguewiththelocalswiththepurposeofreachingacompromiseorsolutionagreeabletobothparties.

Firmcentered:Thecompanydecideswhatisandwhatisnotagoodtopicforengagement,andtheselectionofwhotoinclude.Notthatstakeholdershavenosayinthisbutdifferenttopicsareanalyzedandprioritizedinaccordancewithinternalperceptionsofimportance.

Contractbased:Theengagementsareorganizedaroundhierarchicalprocessesandrules.Whatthismeansisthattheengagementsaresubjecttointernalregulationofemployees,andwhilethisissomewhatofabroaddescription,itstandstoreasonthatsomecompaniesregulateatleastpartofwhattheiremployeescanandcannotdiscussinpublic.

Face-to-face:Theidealandlargelypreferredmethodforengagementisdescribedasface-to-face.ThereasoningbehindthisisnotexplicitlydefinedbutareasonablesuggestionseemstobeasIkujiroNonakadescribesit,thattacitknowledgemayonlybemadeexplicitthroughaprocessofexternalization.Inhisarticle,”OrganizationalKnowledgeCreation”of1997theprocessofexternalizationisasdescribedbyNonakatheprocessbywhichonepersontransfershertacitknowledgetoanotherperson.Hestressesdialoguethroughface-to-faceinteractionasameanstothisend.

WeincludeintoourconsiderationsthebestpracticedescriptionsdeliveredbytheorganizationAccountAbility,“Since1995,AccountAbilityhasbeenfocusedon“mainstreaming”sustainabilityintobusinessthinkingandpractice.Ourwidely-usedAA1000standards,leading-edgeresearch,andstrategicadvisoryserviceshelporganisationsbecomemoreaccountable,responsible,andsustainable.”Takenfrom

www.AccountA

,theofficialwebsiteoftheorganisation.

.Whatisinterestingaboutthesestandardsisthatmanyofthedescriptionscorrelatedirectlytotheconceptsofthelogicofinfluence,whileatthesametimepresentingdescriptionsthatseemtosupportargumentsforthelogicofcommunity.(AccountAbility,2011)WestartbycorrelatingAccountAbilitystandardstothelogicofinfluenceandthendothesamewhenwehavepresentedtheconceptsofthelogicofcommunity.

“Stakeholderengagementthenistheprocessusedbyanorganisationtoengagerelevantstakeholdersforaclearpurposetoachieveacceptedoutcomes.”(AccountAbility,p.6,2011)

Theabovecitationalonemayleadonetothinkthattheyargueforthelogicofinfluence.Itisaboutincludingrelevantstakeholderswithaclearpurposeinmindtoachieveonlyacceptedoutcomes.Itseemsplausibletosuggestthatthisreiteratesthestatementthatengagementsarefirm-centeredaswellascontract-based.Whileitisstressedthattheownersoftheengagementmustincludestakeholdersinthedefinitionofthepurposetheygoontodescribetheimportanceofcarefullyconsideringwhoneedstobeinvolved.(AccountAbility,p.22-24,2011)Describingthisasaparadoxmaybeoverthetopbutitseemseasilyimaginablethatifthecompanydecidesonwhomtoinclude,theyareatleastinpartalsoincontrolofthepurposeandtheoutcome.

Theprobleminrelationtointegratingsocialmediaintotheengagementsmay,withthesedescriptionsinmind,beasDellacoras(2003)describesitthatthevolatilityandunpredictabilityofthecommunicationmakesitverydifficulttoassesstheoutcomeoftheengagement.Thisseemsagivenduetothesheervolumeofcommunicationhappeningdaily.Acompanymightthenhaveaveryclearpurposewhenengagingonsocialmediabuthowwouldonepredicttheoutcomewhenanyonecanjointheconversation?Wereturntothisdiscussioninsection2.1.

Thelogicofcommunity

(Castellóetal.,p.17-18,Forthcoming)

Collectiveinterest:Thecompanyseekstoengageindialogueonsocialmedia,encouragingabroaderspectrumofstakeholderstoparticipateinconversationsandtherebyenhancinginclusivity.

Topiccentered:Asinclusivityanddialogueincreasesandmorestakeholdersjointheconversationcontrollingthetopicofeachengagementbecomesanarduoustask.Assuchthelogicofcommunityrepresentsanengagementlogic,whichallowsthetopicfordiscussiontobespawnedbystakeholderinterestandnotcompanyprioritization.

Participation:Notonlydoesitencourageincreasedparticipationamongstakeholdersbutalsoamongemployees.Theyarguethatmeansshouldbeestablishedforeachmemberofacompanytoparticipatetoincreasevisibility.

Network:Whenincludingmoreandmorestakeholdersintoengagementeffortsrecognizingthatthisenablesmultipleconversationsacrossspaceandtimeboundaries.

Mostinterestingtousherewillbethatitseemstheperceptionofanengagementnowfocusesonincludingasmanystakeholdersaspossible,andlettingthemdecidewhatisaninterestingtopicofdiscussion.LiandBernoff(2008)speaktothesameissuesandalthoughtheangleisdifferentthemessageisseeminglythesameandquiteclear:

“…Soworkonbothfrontsinyourcompany–musterupthehumilitytolistenandtapintotheskilltotakewhatyou’veheardandmakeimprovements.That’sembracingthegroundswell,anditpaysbyshorteningthedistancebetweenyouandyournextsuccessfulinnovation.”(Li&Bernoff,chap.10,2008,n.p.)

Toclarify,thegroundswellisabroaddefinitionencompassinganyandallmemberspresentonthesumtotalofallsocialtechnologiesontheweb.(Li&Bernoff,chap.1,2008,n.p.)Theycontinuouslystressthefactthatitisthestakeholdersinthegroundswell,andnotthecompanies,whoareincontrolandencouragecompaniestoalleviatethisthreatthroughe.g.actsoflisteninginonandtalkingtothegroundswell.(Li&Bernoff,chap.5-6,2008,n.p.)Theseconceptsarefairlyself-explanatoryandwedonotwishtodwellonthese.Butifthepurpose,asitseemstobe,istoseestakeholdersandcommunicationsonsocialmediaasvaluableresourcesthatdisseminateinformationusableinbothinnovationandrelationship-building(Li&Bernoff,chap.4,2008,n.p.),thentheviewseemstocorrelatestronglytothelogicofcommunity.Asmentionedtheangleisdifferent,theirfocusliesintheircontentionthatifyouhaveabrandthatyouwishtomaintainordevelop,you’reunderthreatfromthegroundswell.

“Ifyouhaveabrand,you’reunderthreat.Yourcustomershavealwayshadanideaaboutwhatyourbrandsignifies,anideathatmayvaryfromtheimageyouareprojecting.Nowthey’retalkingtoeachotheraboutthatidea.Theyareredefiningforthemselvesthebrandyouspentmillionsofdollars,orevenhundredsofmillionsofdollars,creating.”(Li&Bernoff,chap.1,2008,n.p.)

Ifthisisindeedthecase,whichamyriadofexamplesintheirbookdemonstrateandstakeholderengagementisatleastinpartaboutbuildingbrandtrustandvalue,thenitmaysuggestthatengagementsonsocialmediaintodaysworldareanabsolutenecessity.Inthesectiontocomewediscusstheelementsofthetwoperspectiveswiththepurposeofuncoveringwhy,inthecaseofengagementsonsocialmedia,thelogicofinfluenceisnotsuitableandwhatchallengesremaininregardstotheapplicationofthelogicofcommunityinthesamerespect.

2.1.Discussion:CommunityorInfluence?

Takingintoconsiderationthedescriptionspresentedintheprevioussectionitshouldbeclearthattherearecontradictionsbetweenthetwologics.First,itseemsreasonabletosuggestthatthereisaconsiderableshiftinperspectivewhengoingfromonewherethepurposeoftheengagementistoinfluencestakeholderopinion,toonewheretheessentialquestionis:“Whatistheopinionofthestakeholder?”.Second,anotherconsiderableshiftoccurswhentheissuetobeaddressedbyanengagementremovesitselffromcompanycontrolandendsinstakeholdercontrol.Ifweprocesstheseshiftsinanidealizedwayonemightconcludethatacompanyuncriticallymustlistentoopinions,andmovetoengageitselfintheissuesexpressedbythoseopinionswithlittleregardforrelevance.Thisismostprobablyanexaggerationoftheintentionsbehindthisperspective.However,ifwetakeengagementstosocialmediaandencourageanyonetojoinandspeaktoissuesimportanttothem,allthewhileknowingthatthetechnologyismoldedinsuchawaythatwecannotassesswhotheyareandwhattheystandfor(Dellacoras,p.1410,2003),thendissectingvalueofopinionrelativetothecompanyseemsverydifficult.

Todayscompaniesarewithoutadoubthighlyprofessionalized,competitiondemandsit.Informationdrivesdecisions,andassuchgooddecisionsderivefromgoodsourcesofinformation.Thismaydemonstrate,asthelogicofinfluenceseemstoargue,thatcarefullyassessingwhichstakeholderstoincludeisarationalchoice.E.g.apatientsufferingfromhighbloodpressuremaybeofverylittlevalueinevaluatingtherelativeefficiencyofamedicineschemicalsynthesis,converselyshemaybeabletodelivervaluableinsightintotheeffectsthatsynthesishasonahumanbody.Assuchonemightrightlysuggestthatshewouldbeavaluableresourceinanengagementwherethetopicistheone,butnottheother.

ThisleavesusinsomewhatofadilemmaatleastiftheprojectofstakeholderengagementremainsasdescribedbyAccountAbility:

“Theythendiscoverthatit(stakeholderengagement)cancontributejustasmuchtostrategicastooperationalimprovement.Engagementcanbeatremendoussourceofinnovationandnewpartnerships.Leadingcompaniesarediscoveringthatagrowingpercentageofinnovationiscomingfromoutsidetheorganisationandnotfromwithin.Theyrealisethatstakeholdersarearesourceandnotsimplyanirritanttobe‘managed’.”(AccountAbility,p.8,2011)

Itmightseemnowthattheinfluencelogicprevailsinitsconsiderationsandassuchmightbethebestforsocialmediaaswell.However,socialmediadoesnotfacilitateface-to-faceinteractionanditseemshighlyunlikelythattheycouldeverbecontract-basedifwecannotpredictwhojoinsthediscussion.Wemighthaveastakeholderofmaliciousintentjoiningthediscussionandpurposefullyprovidingfalseormisleadinginformation,whichmayleadtoanunintendedoutcome.Itseemsthatfromthisdiscussionwemightrightlyaskthequestion:“Whatisthepurposeoftakingstakeholderengagementtosocialmedia?”

Ifitispurelysupposedtobeaboutcommunicatingwithmorestakeholders,andthisisseenasagoodinitself,thenitseemswemayallowourselvestobelesscriticalofwhojoinstheconversationandwhodoesnot.Butwhatsortofvaluedoesthisbringintothecompany?Howdoyoumeasuretheeffectsofaperceivedpositiveinteractiononsocialmedia?AsareportbyHypatiaResearch(2011)suggests,thesequestionsremainunderscrutinybyprofessionalswithinthecompanies.TheyreportthatchallengestoinvestinginsocialmediaamongothersarelackofstandardROI(returnoninvestment)metrics,whichisunderheavydebateDebate