One of the biggest concepts that stuck out to me this term was the idea that companies should consider the needs and perspectives of others in the decisions they make. In fact, I don’t think a company can survive without maintaining this perspective. There are a few reasons why I think this is the case. They include the fact that companies are considered members of the community in which they operate, the fact that a company’s reputation depends on them maintaining this perspective, and the fact that new technologies have significantly changed the control that corporations have over their messages (Argenti, Paul A., 2006, p. 357-362; Boyd, J., 2000, 341-352; Cornelissen, 2017, p. 122-124, 252-254, 261-267).
First of all, companies are considered to be members of the community in which they operate. As such, they have a direct responsibility to be good “corporate citizens,” and respect the needs of both community members and the public at large (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 252-254, 261-263). This can be accomplished as corporations consider the social, economic, and environmental factors of where they operate and use this information to “improve the quality of life” for others (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 255). For example, one way that Cadbury demonstrated its willingness to be a good citizen was by creating parks and recreational areas for the local community, building houses for its workers, and providing educational facilities for each employee. This effort to consider other people’s needs and perspectives helped Cadbury to maintain positive community relations in the area where they operated for over 100 years (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 265-267).
The second reason corporations must learn to understand the perspectives of others is that their legitimacy and reputation with stakeholders depends on it (Boyd, J., 2000, p. 341-352; Cornelissen, 2017, p. 62, 122-124). This is important for organizations to remember because–as I stated in a previous post–stakeholders can have many different levels of influence on a company (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 61-83). For example, in 2007 Starbucks angered close to 70,000 people when they attempted to block Ethiopia from trademarking a few different types of coffee beans (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 79-80). This action put Starbucks’ reputation at risk because it made them look like a bully to “one of the world’s poorest countries” (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 80).
Third, corporations must consider the needs of others because they no longer have complete control over how stakeholders interpret and perceive their messages. This loss of control is largely due to the fact that new internet technologies–such as blogs, email, and social media–have made information “more readily available” and have given people more freedom to express themselves (Argenti, Paul A., 2006, p. 357-362; Cornelissen, J. P., 2017, p. 36-53). Because of these factors, it has become much easier for people to scrutinize an organization when something goes wrong (Dijkmans, C., 2015, p. 634-635). As a result, companies must utilize new internet technologies to continually build relationships with stakeholders if they want to maintain their credibility and control their messages as much as possible (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 36-41).
One example of this point took place in 2009 when a man named Dave Carroll created a music video called United Breaks Guitars and posted it to YouTube. This video was created to express Carroll’s frustration that United Airlines broke his $3,500 guitar on one of their flights. Within a day after it was posted to YouTube, United Breaks Guitars “amassed 150,000 views.” This video quickly proved to be a major embarrassment for United Airlines because it sent the message that they didn’t care about their customers’ needs (Brahma, M., 2018, p. 2-4; Cornelissen, J. P., 2017, p. 46).
In conclusion, my biggest takeaway from class this term is that companies should be willing to consider the needs and perspective of others in the choices they make. This is important for corporations to remember if they want to be a good ‘corporate citizen,’ if they want to retain their legitimacy and reputation with stakeholders, and if they want to maintain as much control as possible over their credibility and messages (Boyd, J., 2000, p. 341-352; Cornelissen, 2017, p. 36-41, 252-254, 261-263). Finally, I believe that the more a company takes proper steps to consider the needs of others, the easier it will be for them to stay on good terms with each of their stakeholders.
References:
Argenti, Paul A. “How Technology Has Influenced the Field of Corporate Communication.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 20, no. 3, 3 July 2006, pp. 357–370., doi:10.1177/1050651906287260.
Boyd, J. (2000). Actional Legitimation: No Crisis Necessary. Journal of Public Relations Research,12(4), 341-353. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1204_3.
Brahma, M. (2018). TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGIN’ IN CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS AND PR. Global Media Journal: Indian Edition, 9(1), 1-6.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice. London, GB: SAGE Publications.
Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., Buyukcan-Tetik, A., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2015). Online Conversation and Corporate Reputation: A Two-Wave Longitudinal Study on the Effects of Exposure to the Social Media Activities of a Highly Interactive Company.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(6), 632-648. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=37&sid=9dab8e5e-3ed1-4706-97e8-4c3ee63bf77d@sdc-v-sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=111378581&db=ufh.
