What Organisations Do vs. What Users Want:
Organisational Diversity Communication and User Responses
on Social Media
Sophia Oestreicher (11787775)
Master’s Thesis
M.Sc. Communication Science
Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: dr. A. C. Kroon
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to, on the one hand, assess how public and private organisations currently conduct diversity communication on social media and, on the other hand, investigate how social media users respond to the various diversity themes and frames by public as compared to private organisations. A content analysis (N = 72) of the Facebook pages of 36 German public and private organisations respectively was conducted, measuring the amount of diversity communication posted in the course of a year (21 September 2017 until 20
September 2018), as well as the themes that were discussed and the frames and rationales that were used. Furthermore, user responses – in the form of user engagement and valence of responses – were measured. Findings show that while public and private organisations conduct diversity communication differently, user responses do not differ for the two organisation types. However, users’ responses did differ between various diversity frames: Users respond least favourable to integrating diversity frames, which both organisation types apply most. Assimilating minorities frames, used more by public organisations, receive only slightly better responses, while leveraging variety frames, used more by private organisations, seem to fare best with social media users. A requisite variety rationale for diversity, found most often in posts by private organisations, does not influence user response, but a CSR rationale, used especially by public organisations, decreases positive user reactions. Based on the findings, this paper argues that both organisation types may not be using the most
appropriate diversity frames for their social media audience. However, it also recognises that more research is needed to properly establish the relationships between diversity frames and public response.
What Organisations Do vs. What Users Want:
Organisational Diversity Communication and User Responses on Social Media In the age of globalisation, societies are now more diverse than ever before (Sison, 2017). But beyond people’s national or ethnical background, there is great public awareness of differences between people – whether it is with regard to age, gender, sexuality, religion, wealth, or education – and how this affects their life and role in society. All these are
dimensions of diversity and as this issue is discussed by society, organisations need to address them as well. In recent years, diversity has also become a central issue for corporate
communication: Organisations want to express their perspective on diversity, and at the same time society expects them to address it (Hon & Brunner, 2000). At present, many companies have taken some kind of stance on diversity in their organisational and communication strategy and it is interesting to examine to what extent organisations participate in diversity communication, what themes are addressed and how diversity is framed.
Much of the literature about organisations and diversity takes a management or internal communications perspective (such as Jansen, Vos, Otten, Podsiadlowski & van der Zee, 2016; Podsiadlowski, Gröschke, Kogler, Springer, & van der Zee, 2013; Stevens, Plaut & Sanchez-Burks, 2008; Krell & Wächter, 2006; Swanson, 2002; Ely & Thomas, 2001), while (so far) much less research has addressed external diversity communication (such as Uysal, 2013; Austin, 2010; Point & Singh, 2003). However, organisations not only benefit from internal diversity communication – for instance through better group performance (Hofhuis, van der Rijt & Vlug-Mahabali, 2016; van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004) – but also from external diversity communication – for example by attracting qualified
employees, winning new customer groups, and overall enhancing the corporate image (Hunt, Layton & Prince, 2015). Examining how organisations communicate diversity externally and how publics respond to this, is a step toward a better understanding of how organisations can benefit from diversity communication.
Previous studies have looked at external diversity communication from a one-way perspective, for instance in organisational practice (Ravazzani, 2016) and on corporate websites (Uysal, 2013; Point & Singh, 2003). Many organisations nowadays use social networking sites, especially Facebook, to broadcast information about themselves, but also interact and maintain relationships with interested publics (Schlagwein & Hu, 2016; Ang, 2011). Yet, how organisations address diversity on social media has thus far not been investigated, even though organisational communication through these channels is so common today. By putting the focus on external diversity communication on social media, this study contributes to the described research gap.
Furthermore, due to the direct and visible interaction of the public with organisations on social media, studying diversity communication on such channels allows the inclusion of the addressees’ perspectives. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to diversity
communication research by extending the current scope with the dimension of public response, which has thus far not been considered. However, it is highly interesting to investigate how people react to organisational diversity communication, in order to find out which themes and frames resonate with the public and which do not, as this indicates whether the chosen strategies are effective.
Finally, there are only few previous studies that directly contrast communication practice (such as Heres & Lasthuizen, 2012; Liu, Horseley & Levenshus, 2010) and more specifically diversity communication (such as Haq, 2012) of public and private organisations. This study aims to address this research gap by comparing diversity communication by public and private organisations. While there are some fundamental differences between the two organisation types, they can learn useful lessons from each other (Boyne, 2002): Diversity is an issue that both organisations types need to address and due to different ownership,
purposes and modes of operation, it is likely that public and private organisations do this differently. Investigating differences between their diversity communication and putting them
into context of the public response can provide insights into which strategies are more effective and what the organisation types could learn from one another.
In sum, the purpose of this study is to examine organisational diversity communication on social media. Hereby, the research aim is two-fold: Using framing theory, the first
objective is to present an overview and comparison of how public and private organisations currently conduct diversity communication on social media; the second objective is to investigate how social media users respond to the various diversity themes and frames by public as compared to private organisations. To achieve this aim, I will first examine the relevant theoretical concepts that form the basis for hypotheses and more detail-oriented research questions. Following this, the research methods, explaining the design, sample, procedure, measures, analyses and results are presented. Finally, I will discuss the results of the study, touch upon their practical implications, but also address some of the limitations of this study and give ideas for further research.
Organisational Diversity Communication Diversity
Diversity refers to “any significant difference that distinguishes one individual from another” (Kreitz, 2008, p.102) and can focus on various “categories of people based on differences that cannot be altered, such as age, race, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, and physical abilities/qualities; and differences that can be altered, such as class, language, income, marital status, religion, geography, and military experience” (Sha & Ford, 2007, p. 386). Diversity affects both the relationships between individuals as well as within and between groups and the consequences of diversity, both within organisations and society as a whole, can be both “negative, leading to discrimination, equal employment disparities, stereotyping, and conflicts, but also positive, fostering creativity, innovation, and better problem solving” (Podsiadlowski, Gröschke, Kogler, Springer, & van der Zee, 2013). In other words, diversity can be both a challenge and an opportunity for the internal and external
relationships of organisations. Therefore, organisations have a vested interest but also a social and legal responsibility to manage diversity proactively (Hon & Brunner, 2002) and
communication plays a vital role in doing so.
Communication by Public vs. Private Organisations
As the present study compares diversity communication of two types of organisations – public as compared to private ones – it is necessary to consider what differentiates the two types, especially with regard to their communicative behaviour but also with overall stances on diversity. One key difference between the two types of organisations is that public
organisations generally do not operate for profit (Meyer & Leixnering, 2015), whereas private organisations do. Communication is an important tool to build a (favourable) reputation and consequently increase profitability, perhaps even more so for private organisations as they, unlike public organisations, are subject to market competition (Boyne, 2002). This means that private organisations have an interest in conducting diversity communication in such a way that it works toward this goal. Public organisations communicate differently because they are dependent on the current political landscape (Liu, Horsley & Levenshus, 2010; Boyne, 2002). Furthermore, public organisations usually have multiple responsibilities, which can lead to inconsistencies in (communicated) values (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). There are also stricter regulations and reporting requirements for public organisations (Haq, 2012) and a higher public pressure for information (Liu, Horseley & Levenshus, 2010), which will affect how these organisations manage and communicate about diversity. As there could be valuable learnings for either of the two organisation types, the first aim of this study is to investigate how public and private organisations frame diversity:
RQ1. How do organisations frame diversity communication on social media and what are the differences between public and private organisations?
To answer this question, this study will examine how much organisations discuss diversity in comparison to other issues and to which themes they relate diversity.
Furthermore, two key aspects of diversity framing – approaches and rationales – will be investigated.
Salience of Diversity Communication
The salience of diversity in organisational communication in relation to other issues can be used as an indicator for the relative importance that the organisation in question ascribes to diversity management and communication. Especially for public organisations, there are legal and ethical requirements (for instance enforcing equality legislation) for diversity issues and a higher pressure for information from the public and media overall (Liu, Horseley & Levenshus, 2010), which are likely to influence the salience diversity will have in communication by that organisation type. A study of public and private organisations by Haq (2012), for example, found that public organisations conducted and reported more diversity initiatives than private organisations. The same is expected to hold true for diversity
communication by public and private organisations on social media:
H1.1. Diversity communication is more salient on the Facebook pages of public organisations than on those of private organisations.
Diversity Communication Themes
Diversity is always connected to certain characteristics, upon which people differ. Which themes are discussed gives an indication about the issues and values organisations find relevant and how organisations position themselves toward them. Often, qualitative and quantitative studies have focussed on just one or two themes in diversity management and communication: Thomas and Ely, for instance, only considered the dimension race / ethnicity in the studies toward their typology of diversity approaches (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Thomas & Ely, 1996), Haq (2012) investigated the dimension social status and Singh and Point (2006) focussed on gender and ethnicity. However, it is also interesting to investigate which themes are discussed in diversity communication in general to see whether there are preferences (on the side of the organisations as well as the public). Some studies have done this in various
contexts: In Austin’s (2010) study the most commonly found diversity themes in public relations industry publications were gender and race / ethnicity; Ravazzani’s (2016) study of diversity practices in Italy found that the central themes were gender, parenthood and
competencies; a study of corporate websites by Point and Singh (2003) found that in Europe, the diversity types gender / sex, culture, race / ethnicity, age, nationality / country of origin and disability are predominantly mentioned, which corresponds with the usual research focus. A similar pattern of themes is expected to be prominent in diversity communication on social media; however, there is too much variation in these results to make any sure predictions, and no basis for specific expectations with regard to differences between organisation types. Therefore, this is addressed with an open research question:
R1.2. Which themes do the different organisation types address in their diversity communication?
Framing
Framing theory serves as the basis for the theoretical framework in this study. Any issue and its implications can be considered from different perspectives and framing is the process of developing a “particular conceptualization of an issue” (Chong & Druckmann, 2007). According to Entman, “to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). By including and / or excluding as well as emphasising certain aspects of an issue (Hallahan, 1999), framing is used by organisations to define problems, diagnose their causes, make moral judgements and suggest solutions (Entman, 1993). This study will focus on issue-specific framing, namely the framing of diversity on social media. How an organisation frames an issue, such as diversity, gives an indication of how the organisation “thinks” about and how it would like the public to “see” this issue.
Framing of Diversity
Diversity Communication Approaches. When dealing with and communicating about diversity, organisations take a variety of approaches. As these approaches emphasize certain aspects of the issue diversity and prescribe ways to deal with them (Entmann, 1993), they are here considered to be frames. A common distinction is made between colour-blind approaches, which focus only on equality, and multicultural approaches, where differences between people are recognized and supported (Jansen et al, 2016; Stevens, Plaut & Sanchez-Burks, 2008). Typologies of diversity approaches usually extend this and consist of three perspectives on organisational diversity (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Thomas & Ely, 1996): In the “discrimination and fairness” perspective, the focus lies on providing equal opportunities for disadvantaged groups, and diversity communication just serves to showcase compliance with legal requirements and the just treatment of all. In the “access and legitimacy” perspective, organisations recognize that diversity is a social reality, and they believe that embracing and promoting it through diversity communication is beneficial for business performance. Finally, in the “integration and learning” perspective, organisations go further and diversity is seen as a resource. Different experiences, perspectives, skills and knowledge are seen to give the organisation a competitive advantage due to the opportunity to grow through integration and learning. This three-part framework has been widely accepted and was further adapted for research into diversity management and communication from an internal as well as external perspective (Ravazzani, 2016; Uysal, 2013; Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2012 and 2008). In this study the revised framework by Ravazzani (2016) with the frames assimilating minorities (based on the “discrimination and fairness” perspective), integrating diversity (based on the “access and legitimacy” perspective) and leveraging variety (based on the “integration and
learning” perspective) is used. This framework extends the typology of approaches by Thomas and Ely (1996; Ely & Thomas, 2001) with practice-driven indicators.1
Previous studies have investigated which approaches organisations use internally (Ravazzani, 2016) but also how they are communicated externally (Uysal, 2013). Both studies found that organisations predominantly use the “integrating diversity” approach. It is expected that the same applies for diversity communication on Facebook, and both types of
organisations will use the “integrating diversity” approaches significantly more than the other two approaches. However, organisation types are expected to differ with regard to their use of the other approaches. Public organisations, especially governmental institutions, have the mandate to implement governmental policies as well as established legislation. A study of public and private organisations in India found that especially public organisations focussed on strategies to assimilate minorities due to governmental policies and reporting requirements (Haq, 2012). As the promotion of equality is a key topic in the current political climate as well as existing legislation in Germany,2 it is likely that diversity communication by public organisations will also often take the “discrimination and fairness” perspective and employ the assimilating minorities frame in their diversity communication. Private organisations, on the other hand, are growth-oriented and driven by performance goals (and responsibilities) as well as the need to innovate in order to stay competitive (Boyne, 2002). Therefore, it makes more sense for private organisations to take the “integration and learning” perspective and use the leveraging variety frame (Ravazzani, 2016). To sum up, it is expected that public
organisations will use the “assimilating minorities” approach more, while private organisation will use the “leveraging variety” approach more.
H1.3a. The “integrating diversity” approach is the most used frame for both public and private organisations.
1
These indicators are discussed in the method section of this paper, as well as the codebook (Appendix B).
2
Examples are legislation for marriage equality and the introduction of a third gender option, but also women’s quotas.
H1.3b. The “assimilating minorities” approach is used more by public organisations than private organisations.
H1.3c. The “leveraging variety” approach is used more by private organisations than public organisations.
Rationales for Diversity Communication. Organisations also use different rationales when framing their diversity management and communication. According to Uysal (2013), the two dominant rationales in diversity communication are requisite variety and corporate social responsibility (CSR). According to requisite variety theory (Weick, 1979), the diversity within an organisation must match the diversity of the society within which it operates (Uysal, 2013) and doing so will make the organisation more effective, for instance with regard to adaptability and profitability (Sha & Ford, 2007; Thomas & Ely, 1996; Weick, 1979). Thus, organisations are framing diversity with a requisite variety rationale when they discuss diversity as being necessary and beneficial, specifically for the organisation itself. The
umbrella concept of CSR combines the economic, legal, ethical, philanthropic (Carroll, 1991) and political responsibilities (Seele & Lock, 2015) that society expects an organisation to fulfil. From a CSR perspective, organisations have the responsibility to represent the publics’ interests, also with regard to diversity management and communication (Uysal, 2013; Hon & Brunner, 2000). Therefore, organisations are framing diversity with a CSR rationale when they discuss their diversity efforts as being taken out of responsibility toward society, and thus for the benefit of society.
Uysal (2013) found that requisite variety was the dominantly used rationale for diversity management and communication on corporate websites. However, due to their different goals and functions, differences are expected between the two organisation types with regard to the framing of rationale for diversity communication. Any public
organisation’s reason for existence is to provide services for the society within which it operates and it does not primarily seek to generate profit, so it can be argued that most of
what this organisation does is driven by social motives. Private organisations, on the other hand, mainly exist to generate profit so they are generally driven by performance goals. This is in line with a study of ethical leadership in public and private organisations by Heres and Lasthuizen (2012), which found that communication from public organisations focussed on “the common good” while communication from private organisations was more oriented toward business performance. Hence, it is expected that public organisations will use the CSR rationale more, while private organisation will use the requisite variety rationale more when discussing diversity on social media.
H1.4a. The CSR rationale is used more by public organisations than private organisations. H1.4b. The requisite variety rationale is used more by private organisations than public organisations.
Response to Diversity Communication
Apart from revealing an organisation’s perspective on an issue, frames in
communication – here specifically how diversity is framed – also affect the attitudes of the public that is exposed to them (Chong & Druckmann, 2007). Therefore, exploring the relationship between the framing of diversity and public response is the second aim of this study:
RQ2. How do users respond to organisational diversity communication on social media? Are there differences between organisation types?
As mentioned before, many of the referenced studies of organisational diversity management and communication take an internal approach, so it has often been investigated how organisations address diversity internally (Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2008; Mazzei &
Ravazzani, 2012; Ravazzani, 2016) and how employees respond to this (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Jansen et al, 2016; Swanson, 2002). Some studies have also examined how diversity matters are communicated externally (Uysal, 2013; Point & Singh, 2003; Singh & Point, 2006), but the public response toward this has so far not been taken into account.Yet, how the public
responds to organisational communication is a crucial factor. When organisations engage in any kind of external communication, they do so in order to influence the public’s attitude and behaviour toward them. The aim of diversity communication is often to better communicate with diverse audiences or enhance the organisational image (Hon & Brunner, 2002); on social media, the public response indicates whether they are succeeding (Rim & Song, 2016).
On social media, users can respond to organisational communication directly and publicy express and exchange opinions with both the organisation and other users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). In the context of Facebook, two dimensions of user response toward content by organisations are of particular interest – user engagement and valence of responses. User engagement on social media can be conceptualised as the behavioural manifestations toward an organisation (Jiang, Luo & Kulemeka, 2016). It comprises consumption of and
participation with the content; especially the aspect of participation, which on Facebook manifests itself “through actions such as liking, commenting, and sharing” (Khan, 2017), is important here, because it not only indicates how relevant the content is for the users but it is also measurable in objective numbers. However, mere engagement does not give the full picture since responses can express a variety of different sentiments. Thus, another important dimension is the valence of the responses because whether users respond to organisational communication on social media positively or negatively indicates their level of agreement with the content. In addition to that, since user responses are visible to everyone, the valence of these responses, especially of negative ones, affects how other users evaluate the
information (Rim & Song, 2016; Hennig-Thurau, Wiertz & Feldhaus, 2015).
As no previous empirical research that factored in public responses toward diversity communication could be found, the second reseach aim will be addressed with a number of open sub-questions that shed light on how much users engage with the different ways of framing diversity and whether some frames receive more positive or negative responses:
R2.1. How do users respond to diversity communication from public organisations as compared to private organisations in general?
R2.2. How do users respond to different diversity communication themes by different organisation types?
R2.3. How do users respond to different diversity communication approaches by different organisation types?
R2.4. How do users respond to different diversity communication rationales by different organisation types?
Method Design
To answer the research questions, a quantitative content analysis of Facebook postings by public and private organisations was found to be the most appropriate method, as a content analysis allows the unbiased, systematic and objective investigation (Riffe, Lacy & Fico, 2005; Berelson, 1952) of mediated communication and will thus reveal how organisations communicate their stance on diversity on social media and how the public responds to this. The following sections describe the sample, data gathering and coding procedure,
operationalisation and measurements that were taken, as well as analyses that were conducted in order to investigate the posed research questions.
Sample
The sample was a stratified, purposive sample of 72 organisations in total, 36 public ones and 36 private ones. To ensure comparability of the data, all selected organisations (public and private) are based in the same country, Germany. For public organisations, governmental organisations from national, regional as well as local level were selected, including 10 federal ministries, 13 state governments and 13 city governments. For private organisations, 36 of the largest (by revenue) private listed companies (Forbes, 2018) were selected. The key selection criterion in the sampling process was having a verified Facebook
page; organisations that do not use Facebook or merely have a page covering parts of the company (for instance a subsidy or single brand) or a specific topic (such as career opportunities) were excluded. Many private organisations operate internationally and thus have country-specific Facebook pages. For these organisations, the German
Facebook page was used to ensure comparability of the target audience. Table B1 of the codebook (Appendix B) lists all sampled organisations, including their Facebook handle.
Facebook posts are the chosen sampling units for this content analysis and, as this study aims to investigate the current state of diversity communication on social media, posts within the frame of one year (21 September 2017 until 20 September 2018) were used. Facebook was chosen as a source due to a number of reasons. For many public and private organisations, Facebook is a key channel for their corporate communication (Ang, 2011; Schlagwein & Hu, 2016). The content of their posts therefore provides a good overview of the communication strategies and messages, which is why corporate Facebook profiles are also useful to examine organisational diversity communication. Another factor is comparability: Organisations communicate their brand over a multitude of channels and in widely differing ways, which complicates quantitative comparison of their communication strategies. However, due to the framework of the platform, content on Facebook follows the same format, which makes it suitable for comparison between different profiles. Another factor is external validity: What companies post on their social media gives a valid image of organisations’ ideas and communication of diversity, as this is voluntary communication, not filtered or affected by third parties such as journalists or media institutions. Ideally, social media posts also show users’ “real” reactions without the risk of research bias. Lastly, using social media content is also practical as it is publically available and does not require active participation or consent.
Procedure
After the sample of Facebook pages had been compiled, their content needed to be scraped in order to analyse the posts. The application Netvizz v1.6, which is able to collect and analyse pages, page networks and user activity on Facebook (Rieder, 2013), was used to individually scrape the page of every sampled organisation for the selected time frame. The output of the Netvizz app includes a full list of all posts by the organisation and the posts’ statistics (i.e. date, likes and “reactions”, comments, shares), as well as a complete overview of all comments for each of the posts. The advantage of collecting the data automatically is that it eliminates the possibility of human error and captures all posts, except for those that were deleted prior to collection (Behar Villegas, 2016). All data is available, if requested.
Following this, two separate rounds of manual coding, which allows a more in-depth analysis (as compared to automatic coding), were conducted. A preliminary round of coding established the parameters of the Facebook presences (total number of posts, average number of reactions, shares, comments) for each of the sampled organisations and identified those posts containing diversity communication, which were relevant for the main round of coding. For each organisation, the relevant posts were identified by a key word search and then it was evaluated, whether they actually contained diversity communication. A detailed instruction for this evaluation can be found in the codebook (Appendix B, Part I, B03). In the second and main round of coding the main variables were measured. All coding took place between 11 and 14 of January. A total of 276 research units were coded, in addition to a randomly selected ten percent overlap (N = 27) that was double-coded (in order to calculate intra-coder reliability). Qualtrics was used to capture the data digitally and once all units had been coded the statistical data was downloaded in SPSS-format.
Measures
Organisation type. This variable refers to the type of organisation that is conducting diversity communication and it was measured by coding the brand’s name (V02) with its
corresponding code number ranging from 1 to 72 (Appendix B, Table B1). Organisations 1 to 36 are public organisations and 37 to 72 are private organisations. For better analysis this variable was recoded into a new variable (OrganisationType) that only indicated whether the unit was from a public (0) or private (1) organisation.
Salience. This variable refers to the extent to which diversity as a topic is present on the organisation’s social media profile in general, which gives an indication of how important diversity (communication) is to the organisation. This variable was measured in the first round of coding; for each profile both the total number of Facebook posts as well as the number of diversity communication posts were coded and the percentage was computed.
Diversity communication themes. This categorical variable assessed which themes are discussed in the diversity communication posts. Based on the themes discussed in the literature (Point & Singh, 2003; Ravazzani, 2016) and samples of the data, a list of twelve topics was compiled – age, gender, sexual orientation, race / ethnicity, nationality / country of origin, physical abilities / qualities, religion, income, education / training, experience
(personal / professional), social class / status, family status – and for each of them it was coded, whether this topic was discussed (1) or not (0).
Diversity communication approach. To assess the approach that organisations took in their diversity communication posts, on the basis of Ely and Thomas’ (2001) framework and Ravazzani’s (2016) operationalisation thereof, three categories were developed. In the assimilating minorities approach (1), the focus lies on providing equal opportunities for disadvantaged groups, for instance by introducing quota systems, and diversity
communication merely serves to show just and equal treatment of employees and society. In the integrating diversity approach (2) organisations recognize that diversity is a social reality and embracing and promoting it is thus beneficial for business performance. An organisation practicing this diversity approach puts greater emphasis on flexible work arrangements, an expansion of the recruitment pool, training and partnerships with dedicated organisations as
well as communication. Finally, in the leveraging variety approach (3), organisations go further and diversity is seen as a competitive advantage due to the opportunity to grow through integration and learning. In practice, organisations using this approach emphasise heterogeneous teams and employee networks, and concentrate their diversity efforts on innovation-related functions in the background (instead of merely the “visible” functions). From this categorical variable, three dummies (one for each approach) were created.
Diversity communication rationale. Organisations’ reasoning for their diversity management and communication was assessed with two binary subvariables, which were adapted from Uysal (2013).
Requisite variety. The rationale for engaging in diversity management and
communication in the requisite variety perspective is the organisation’s profit from doing so – for instance financially, but also with regard to growth, learning and reputation (Uysal, 2013). To measure this, it was coded whether (1) or not (0) the organisation discusses performance benefits (of the organisation itself) due to diversity.
Corporate social responsibility. The rationale for engaging in diversity management and communication from a CSR perspective is that it benefits society as a whole. To measure this, it was coded whether (1) or not (0) the organisation discusses its own moral or societal responsibilities for diversity or mentions the benefits of diversity for society.
Response to diversity communication. This was operationalized with two sub-variables, user engagement, which indicates how relevant users found the content, and valence of responses, which reveals the sentiments users had toward it.
User engagement. The degree of engagement is measured with the number of
“reactions” (like, love, haha, wow, sad, angry), comments and shares posts received (adapted from “participation” by Khan, 2017). The figures had to be standardised in order to be able to compare how much attention diversity posts from different organisations get from the social media using public. To do this, the number of reactions / comments / shares of the research
unit was divided by the average amount of reactions / comments / shares received by the corresponding organisation– as established in the first round of coding. Therefore, this variable indicates a post’s user engagement in proportion of the average user engagement of the source organisation.
Valence of responses. This variable measures the degree of positive and negative response to diversity communication posts. On Facebook the sentiments expressed by users in response to diversity communication can objectively and thus reliably be measured with the “reactions”. Positive responses were calculated from the standardised amount of the reactions “like” and “love”, while negative responses were calculated from the standardised amount of the reactions “sad” and “angry”. As with engagement, the variable shows the proportion of positive / negative reactions (of the average positive / negative reactions of posts by the respective organisation). The reactions “wow” and “haha” were excluded because they can be positive and negative, depending on the context.
Intra-coder Reliability
The author double-coded a randomly selected ten percent of the sample (N = 27) which is adequate to test reliability (Riffe, Lacy & Fico, 2005). The intra-coder reliability was tested using the ReCal tool by Freelon (2010), to calculate Krippendorff’s alpha for each variable measured (see Table A1 in Appendix A for a full list of results). 18 of the 20 variables are reliable: 14 of them have a Krippendorff’s 𝛼 > .80, which is the threshold for adequate reliability (Krippendorff, 2004); for the other four of them, alpha could not be calculated, because there was no variation in the variables. However, this is not a threat to the reliability of those variables, because there was 100% agreement between the two rounds of coding for all four variables. Only two variables just missed the threshold with 𝛼 = .76 (V06, measuring the approach) and 𝛼 = .78 (V07, measuring requisite variety). However, this does not mean these variables need to be discarded right away, as variables with Alphas as low as .667 can be used to “draw tentative conclusions” (Krippendorff, 2004). For the requisite
variety variable there was only disagreement in one out of 27 cases (96.3% agreement), so the variable was deemed reliable enough to be used in the analysis. For the approach variable, there was disagreement between rounds in four out of 27 cases (85.2% agreement), so the respective research units were consulted with the codebook once more. It turned out that in three out of the four disagreements, the first code (which would be the one used in the analysis) was in line with the coding instructions. Due to this, the variable is used in the analysis nonetheless, but it is necessary to note that this may limit the reliability and validity of the results related to this variable.
Analysis
In the first part of the analysis, organisation type is the independent variable. As the dependent variable for H1.1, salience, is continuous, an independent samples t-test was used to test the hypothesis. Sub-question R1.2, with the dichotomous diversity themes as
dependent variables, was addressed with a series of χ2-tests. Both H1.3 and H1.4 have
dichotomous dependent variables, approaches and rationales, so these hypotheses were tested using logistic regressions. The questions in the second part of the analysis all revolve around three continuous dependent variables: user engagement, positive reactions and negative reactions. To investigate R2.1, with organisation type as the independent variable, another independent samples t-test was conducted. Questions R2.2, R2.3 and R2.4 – with the dichotomous independent variables organisation type, themes, approaches and rationales – were all addressed with linear regression analyses.
Results How Organisations Communicate Diversity
Salience. The first hypothesis (H1.1) stated that diversity communication is more salient on the Facebook pages of public organisations than on those of private organisations. An independent samples t-test found a significant medium difference, which supports these expectations: Public organisations post more diversity communication (M = 1.28, SD = 1.63,
n = 36), than private organisations (M = .6, SD = .95, n = 36), t (56.38) = 2.16, p = .035, d =
.51, 95% CI [.05, 1.32]. Thus, H1.1 is supported. However, these results also show that overall diversity communication is not very salient on organisations’ Facebook pages as only a small fraction of posts – 1.28% of all posts by public organisations and 0.6% of all posts by private organisations – deal with diversity.
Themes. A sub-question (R1.2) aimed to find out whether the different organisation types addressed different themes in their diversity communication. Public organisations discussed nationality / country of origin (n = 64, 29.6%), physical abilities (n = 47, 21.8%) and gender (n = 47, 21.8%) most, while private organisations discussed gender (n = 18, 30%), nationality (n = 17, 28.3%), sexual orientation (n = 11, 18.3%) and social status (n = 11, 18.3%) most. To investigate whether there were statistically significant differences, a series of χ2
-tests was conducted with organisation type as the independent variable and the various diversity themes as the dependent variable respectively. A relationship was found between physical abilities and organisation type, χ2
(1) = 10.92, p =.001. Public organisations (n = 47) discussed physical abilities more than private organisations (n = 2) and the prediction of the use of the disability theme is improved by 4% when the organisation type is taken into account. Two more χ2
-tests indicated relationships between diversity communication themes and organisation type, namely age and religion; however, in both cases the assumption for χ2
, that no cells contain 0, was violated. Find a full list of results in the Appendix A, Table A2.
Approaches. Another hypothesis (H1.3) posited that (a) the integrating diversity approach would be the most used frame for both organisation types, and that (b) the
assimilating minorities approach would be used more in posts by public organisations, while (c) the leveraging variety approach is used more in posts by private organisations. The
integrating diversity frame was indeed used most by both public (n = 133, 61.3%) and private organisations (n = 36, 60%) rather than assimilating minorities or leveraging variety. To further investigate this, a series of logistic regression analyses was conducted. In the first one,
predicting the use of integrating diversity using organization type as the independent variable, organisation type was not a significant predictor for the integrating diversity approach, (b = -.07, p = .825, 95% CI for Exp (B) [.52, 1.68]). In other words, there was no significant difference in the use of integrating diversity between organisation types, so H1.3a is
supported. Another logistic regression analysis predicting the use of assimilating minorities was conducted using organization type as the independent variable. Here organisation type was a significant predictor, (b = -.89, p = .029, 95% CI for Exp (B) [.18, .91]). Private organisations were 11% less likely to use the assimilating minorities approach than public organisations; thus, H1.3b is supported. A third logistic regression analysis predicting the use of leveraging variety was conducted using organization type as the independent variable. Here organisation type was also a significant predictor, (b = 1.51, p = .000, 95% CI for Exp (B) [2.11, 9.78]). Private organisations were 51% more likely to use the leveraging variety approach than public organisations; therefore, H1.3c is also supported.
Rationales. The final hypothesis (H1.4) predicted that (a) the CSR rationale would be used more in posts by public organisations, while (b) the requisite variety rationale is used more in posts by private organisations. To test this, a logistic regression analysis predicting the use of CSR was conducted using organization type as the independent variable. Here organisation type was a significant predictor, (b = -.61, p = .041, 95% CI for Exp (B) [.31, .97]). Private organisations were 39% less likely to use the CSR rationale than public organisations; thus, H1.4a is supported. A second logistic regression analysis, predicting the use of requisite variety, was conducted using organization type as the independent variable. Here organisation type was also a significant predictor, (b = 2.81, p = .000, 95% CI for Exp (B) [6.9, 43.29]). Private organisations were 185% more likely to use the requisite variety rationale than public organisations; therefore, H1.4b is also supported.
How the Public Responds to Diversity Framing
Overall. Sub-question R2a aimed to find out how users respond to diversity
communication from public organisations as compared to private organisations overall; user response was operationalised with user engagement as well as positive and negative reactions. The results of an independent samples t-test (Table 1) show no significant differences
between the responses toward diversity communication by public and private organisations. Furthermore, the results show that user responses to diversity communication posts were below the organisation average of all posts: Diversity communication by public organisations received only 88% of the average user engagement and 89% of the average positive reactions, but also only 69% of the average amount of negative reactions. Similarly, posts by private organisations received 91% of the average user engagement and 97% of the average positive reactions, but also only 57% of the average amount of negative reactions. To sum up, users do not seem to respond differently to diversity communication by public as compared to private organisations.
Table 1
Results of t-test for Responses to Diversity Communication by Organisation Type
Organisation Type
Public Private
M SD n M SD n 95% CI
for Mean Difference t df User Engagement .88 1.52 216 .91 1.16 60 -.45 .39 -.15 274 Positive Reactions .89 1.29 216 .97 1.26 60 -.45 .29 -.44 274 Negative Reactions .69 3.46 216 .57 2.9 60 -.84 1.08 .24 274
Notes. N = 276 (posts), p > .05 for all dependent variables
Response to themes. A second sub-question (R2b) aimed to find out how users respond to different diversity communication themes by different organisation types. To do
this, three regression analyses were conducted. A regression model with user engagement as dependent variable and organisation type, age, gender, sexual orientation, race / ethnicity, nationality, physical abilities, religion, income, education, experience, social status and family status as independent variables is not significant, F(13, 275) = .17, p = 1. A second regression model with positive reactions as dependent variable and organisation type and the diversity themes as independent variables is also not significant, F(13, 275) = .5, p = .922. Finally, the third regression model with negative reactions as dependent variable and organisation type and the diversity themes as independent variables is also not significant, F(13, 275) = 1.56, p = .096. To sum up, no differences could be found in how users respond to various diversity communication themes by the different organisations types.
Response to approaches and rationales. The third sub-question (R2c) aimed to find out how users respond to different diversity communication approaches by different
organisation types and the fourth sub-question (R2d) aimed to find out how users respond to different rationales by different organisation types. To investigate this, three linear regression models (Table 2) were tested, with user engagement, positive and negative reactions as dependent variables, respectively, and the approaches and rationales as predictors. Table 2
Regression models to predict Response to Diversity Communication
User Engagement B Positive Reactions B Negative Reactions B Constant 3.18*** 2.29*** 9.41*** Organisation Type .05 .02 .15 Integrating Diversity -2.35*** -1.38** -9.23*** Assimilating Minorities -1.78*** -.96* -8.74*** Leveraging Variety -1.83** -1.02 -10.08*** Requisite Variety .01 .16 .95 CSR -.35 -.33* .09 R2 .11 .07 .22 F 5.61*** 3.36** 12.43*** Note. N = 276, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
For all three dependent variables, the regression models with the approaches and rationales as independent variables are significant, so there is a relationship with user engagement and positive as well as negative reactions; however, the explained variance is relatively low. While organisation type does not have an effect on user response in either of the three tested models (which replicates the results from the t-test discussed above), the analyses do show effects of the approaches and rationales. User engagement decreases when any of the diversity approach was present, especially when integrating diversity is used. Furthermore, the use of assimilating minorities and even more so integrating diversity decreases positive reactions. However, negative reactions also decrease for all three approaches, particularly when
leveraging variety is used. User engagement and negative reactions are affected by neither the requisite variety nor the CSR rationale; positive reactions are only (negatively) affected by the use of the CSR rationale.
Discussion
As previously stated, the research aim of this study was two-fold: The analysis aimed to first establish how public and private organisations actually communicate about diversity on social media and then investigate how users respond to diversity framing by different organisation types because this will give an idea of the appropriateness and effectivity of the chosen themes and frames. The findings show that the two organisation types indeed differ with respect to the amount of diversity communication they conduct and the frames they choose to discuss diversity. While user responses were not different between public and private organisations, they did differ between the various frames. The specific results, possible explanations and implications, grouped by the relevant concept, are discussed in the following.
Public organisations in fact discuss diversity twice as much as private organisations, yet for both organisation types diversity communication only constitutes a very small proportion of organisations’ social media communication. Overall, diversity communication
posts reached engagement levels and positive reactions that were just below the respective organisation’s average. Thus, diversity communication does not seem to be an “audience magnet”, but also not a repellent. Based on this, it is not so surprising, that diversity
communication only makes up a very small proportion of organisation’s social media content. Negative reactions to diversity communication were, however, well below the organisation average, so diversity seems to be a relatively “safe” topic for organisations to discuss.
With regard to the themes discussed in connection to diversity, both organisation types often related diversity to gender and nationality, which is in line with previous research (Point & Singh, 2003). Another common theme for both organisation types was sexual orientation; however, in light of recent social movements and legislative changes3 in connection to LGBT* rights, it is no surprise that organisations addressed this theme. The organisation types only differed significantly when it came to addressing disabilities, which is done more by public organisations. The various diversity themes seem to be equally relevant to users and do not influence the valence of responses.
In line with the author’s expectations and previous research (Ravazzani, 2016; Uysal, 2013), both organisation types predominantly used the integrating diversity frame. This is not surprising as from an organisational perspective, this approach is the “middle way”, which supposedly fulfils social expectations (Ravazzani, 2016) and offers a competitive advantage, but does not require too much adjustment from the organisation and can be managed top-down (Uysal, 2013). As expected, public organisations used the assimilating minorities frame more, while private organisations used the leveraging variety frame more. With regard to how users respond to the three diversity approaches, the analyses did show some interesting
differences: The integrating diversity approach, while on the one hand decreasing negative responses, significantly lowered positive reactions and overall user engagement. The same holds true for the assimilating minorities approach, even though to a slightly lesser degree.
3
The leveraging variety approach, while also lowering overall engagement, did not impact positive reactions and decreased negative reactions the most.
From an internal perspective, the assimilating minorities approach can cause issues because it assumes that everyone is equal and ignores diverse perspectives and identities, which does not concur with people’s real work and life experiences (Thomas & Ely, 1996). Furthermore, the integrating diversity approach can be problematic because it is often used as an easy fix to demonstrate diversity externally and gain competitive advantages, but as a result often leads to minorities feeling exploited (Ely & Thomas, 2001). This may also explain why neither the assimilating minorities frame nor the integrating diversity frame stimulated user engagement and positive responses: Users may find that the assimilating minorities frame oversimplifies diversity while the integrating diversity frame is more talk than action. In light of the measured user responses, the most widely used integrating diversity frame may not be such a good choice for organisations after all. Especially public organisations, which also often choose the assimilating minorities frame, should reconsider their diversity framing choices. Overall, it seems that using the leveraging variety frame, which focuses on learning and innovation through diversity, will obtain the best user response outcomes for an
organisation, even though they are also not ideal. Therefore, the relationship between diversity approaches and user response needs to be investigated further, to identify which exact frames and aspects of those frames receive the most favourable user responses and possibly come up with new diversity communication strategies to address to this in practice.
With regard to the reasoning that organisations gave for conducting diversity management and communication, private organisations were much more likely to use the requisite variety rationale, emphasising how the organisation benefits from diversity, which corresponds with the author’s expectations as well as Uysal’s (2013) findings. Public
organisations, on the other hand, were more likely to use the CSR rationale, highlighting the societal benefits of diversity management and communication. Interestingly, however, the
difference between organisation types was not quite as substantial for the CSR rationale as it was for requisite variety, which can be explained with private organisations’ increasing participation in CSR communication in recent years (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010).
Analyses of the public response to these diversity rationales revealed differences between the two: The requisite variety rationale did not affect user engagement or the valence of responses. While also not affecting overall engagement or negative reactions, the CSR rationale, however, did decrease positive reactions by users. This is likely connected to people’s general scepticism of CSR practices, as they expect an organisation to have ulterior motives (Rim & Song, 2016; Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). As the analysis has shown, especially public organisations are using the CSR rationale, but private organisations are also increasingly conducting CSR communication, hoping to improve their reputation and
performance (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2007; Porter & Kramer, 2006). Yet, the user response outcomes in this study suggest that using the CSR rationale might not fare so well with the public and should thus be treated with caution. Furthermore, as both rationales do not seem to improve the public response to diversity communication, it might be time that organisations come up with a “better” rationale. Also, further research should investigate under which circumstances and why the CSR rationale can be detrimental to user response.
To sum up, public and private organisations conduct and frame their diversity communication on social media in similar ways as previous studies with different perspectives and sources established (Ravazzani, 2016; Uysal, 2013). The differences between organisation types seem to correspond with their different goals and self-image. There were no differences in user response between the two organisation types; however, juxtaposing the used frames and rationales with actual responses from the public indicates that the diversity communication choices by public and private organisations may not be the most effective.
Limitations and Future Research
The results of this study are also subject to some limitations. One key issue of studying public response on social media through content analysis is that this only captures the responses of active participants. Research shows, however, that a greater share of social media users actually just passively consumes the content (Khan, 2017) without ever contributing (in the form of likes, comments and shares or original
content). Such “lurkers” (Khan, 2017, p. 237) also form opinions on the content they see and are influenced by the opinions of others, even though they do not express it. With a content analysis their response is thus not measurable. Based on this study alone, we therefore do not know how the majority of social media users and much less the general public responds to different types of diversity communication.
Another limitation posed by analysing diversity communication and responses on Facebook is that the content can be edited prior to data collection: Both organisations as well as users can (and do) remove or edit postings and comments that they no longer want seen by others. As a full year’s worth of Facebook data was gathered
retrospectively, there is a risk of “missing posts” (Behar Villegas, 2016), which means that the gathered data may not reflect the full picture of both the organisations’ postings as well as user’s responses.
Connected to this, the operationalisation of valence of user response also constitutes a problem: The negative reactions were used much less frequently than the positive ones, which might be related to their visibility and consequent social pressures. Opinions posted on social media, even when just in the form of a single Facebook reaction, are visible to anyone and can often lead to verbal attacks toward the
respondent, if the opinion is not in line with the majority. Therefore, the valence of user response on social media is vulnerable to social desirability bias. To get a more detailed overview of the valence of responses, it may be helpful to analyse the valence of
comments as well (which unfortunately was not feasible within the scope of this study) – even though this also would not solve the issue of bias.
To tackle both the issue of passive users as well as distortion due to social desirability, it would make sense to further test responses to diversity communication themes and frames, for instance with an experimental research design with a random sample of participants who can respond anonymously, in order to validly establish what preferences and opinions exist. This would also allow controlling for external
influences, which cannot be achieved with a content analysis, in order to rule out other factors that possibly influence relationships between diversity frames and user
responses.
Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insights into how
organisations conduct and frame diversity communication and gives a first impression into how this relates to user responses. Even though this study showed that diversity communication only makes up a small part of organisational social media activity and is rather met with disinterest on the part of the users, the conclusion should not be to conduct even less diversity communication on social media. In publicly communicating about diversity, organisations commit themselves to being more diverse and inclusive in practice, which has been shown to benefit organisations and society in numerous ways in the long term. In the mean time, organisations and further research can develop new diversity communication strategies that also stimulate more immediate positive
References
Ang, L. (2011). Community relationship management and social media. Journal of Database
Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 18(1), 31-38.
Austin, L. L. (2010). Framing diversity: A qualitative content analysis of public relations industry publications. Public Relations Review, 2010(36), 298-301.
Behar Villegas, E. (2016). Facebook and its Disappearing Posts: Data Collection Approaches on Fan-Pages for Social Scientists. The Journal of Social Media in
Society, 5(1), 160-188.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York: Free Press. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and Private Management: What’s the Difference? Journal of
Management Studies, 39, 97-122.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Chong, D. & Druckmann, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 2007(10), 103-126.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 24, 224-241.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19.
Ely, R. & Thomas, D. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 23-47. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Forbes (2018). The World's Largest Public Companies. Retrieved from Forbes website https://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/2/#country:Germany
Freelon, D. (2010). ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a web service. International
Journal of Internet Science, 5(1), 20-33.
Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205-242.
Haq, R. (2012). The managing diversity mindset in public versus private organizations in India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(5), 892-914. Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C. & Feldhaus, F. (2015). Does Twitter matter? The impact of
microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 375-394.
Heres, L. & Lasthuizen, K. (2012). What's the Difference? Ethical Leadership in Public, Hybrid and Private Sector Organizations. Journal of Change Management, 12(4), 441-466.
Hofhuis, J., van der Rijt, P. G. A., & Vlug-Mahabali, M. (2016). Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication.
SpringerPlus, 5(714).
Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. (2000). Diversity issues and public relations. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 12, 309-340.
Hunt, V., Layton, D. & Prince, S. (2015). Diversity Matters. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company website: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20 functions/organization/our%20insights/why%20diversity%20matters/diversity%20mat ters.ashx
Jansen, W. S., Vos, M. W., Otten, S., Podsiadlowski, A. & van der Zee, K. I. (2016). Colorblind or colorful? How diversity approaches affect cultural majority and minority employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46, 81-93.
Jiang, H., Luo, Y. & Kulemeka, O. (2016). Social media engagement as an evaluation barometer: Insights from communication executives. Public Relations Review, 42, 679-691.
Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.
Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behaviour, 66, 236-247.
Kreitz, P. A. (2008). Best practices for managing organizational diversity. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 34, 101-120.
Krell, G., & Wächter, H. (2006). Diversity management - Impulse aus der Personalforschung. Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S. & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Government and Corporate Communication Practices: Do the Differences Matter? Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 38(2), 189-213.
Mazzei, A. & Ravazzani, S. (2008). Leveraging differences in a global competitive context: a qualitative analysis. Proceedings of the 7th International Marketing Trends
Conference, Venezia, 17-19 January.
Mazzei, A. & Ravazzani, S. (2012). Leveraging variety for creativity, dialogue and competition. Journal of Communication Management, 16(1), 59-76.
Meyer, R. E. & Leixnering, S. (2015). Public Sector Organizations. In Wright, J. D. (Ed.).
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2(19). Amsterdam:
Podsiadlowski, A., Gröschke, D., Kogler, M., Springer, C. & van der Zee, K. (2013). Managing a culturally diverse workforce: Diversity perspectives in organizations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 159-175.
Point, S. & Singh, V. (2003). Defining and Dimensionalising Diversity. Evidence from Corporate Websites across Europe. European Management Journal, 21(6), 750-761. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78-92. Ravazzani, S. (2016). Understanding approaches to managing diversity in the workplace. An
empirical investigation in Italy. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 35(2), 154-168.
Rieder, B. (2013). Studying Facebook via Data Extraction: The Netvizz Application.
Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference. New York, NY: ACM,
346-55.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S. & Fico, F. G. (2005). Analyzing Media Messages. Using Quantitative
Content Analysis in Research (2nd ed). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rim, H. & Song, D. (2016). How Negative Becomes Less Negative: Understanding the Effects of Comment Valence and Response Sidedness in Social Media. Journal of
Communication, 66, 475-495.
Schlagwein, D. & Hu, M. (2016). How and why organisations use social media: Five use types and their relation to absorptive capacity. Journal of Information Technology, 2016, 1-16.
Seele, P. & Lock, I. (2015). Instrumental and/or Deliberative? A Typology of CSR Communication Tools. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 401-414.
Sha, B-L. & Ford, R. (2007). Redefining “requisite variety”: The challenge of multiple diversities for the future of public relations excellence. In Toth, E. L. (Ed.). The future
of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 381-398.
Singh, V. & Point, S. (2006). (Re)Presentations of Gender and Ethnicity in Diversity
Statements on European Company Websites. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 363-379. Sison, M. D. (2017). Communicating across, within and between, cultures: Toward inclusion
and social change. Public Relations Review, 43, 130-132.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2018). Städte (Alle Gemeinden mit Stadtrecht) nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Bevölkerungsdichte am 31.12.2016. Retrieved from Statistisches Bundesamt website https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/LaenderRegionen/ Regionales/Gemeindeverzeichnis/Administrativ/Aktuell/05Staedte.html
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C. & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the Benefits of Diversity All-Inclusive Multiculturalism and Positive Organizational Change. The Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science, 44(1), 116-133.
Thomas, D. A. & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68, 107-16.
Uysal, N. (2013). Shifting the Paradigm: Diversity Communication on Corporate Web sites.
Public Relations Journal, 7(2), 8-36.
Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!” The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 273-283. Van Knippenberg, D., de Dreu, C. K. W. & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work Group Diversity and
Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(6), 1008-1022.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed). Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Wæraas, A. & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012): Public Sector Organizations and Reputation
Management: Five Problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186-206.
Appendix A Statistical Results
Table A1
Intra-coder reliability
Variable Krippendorff’s Alpha Percentage Agreement
V06. Approach 0.76 85.2% V07. Requisite variety 0.78 96.3% V08. CSR 0.87 96.3% V09.1 Age 1 100% V09.2 Gender 1 100% V09.3 Sexual orientation 1 100% V09.4 Race / ethnicity 1 100%
V09.5 Nationality / country of origin 0.93 96.3%
V09.6 Physical abilities / qualities 1 100%
V09.7 Religion 1 100%
V09.8 Income undefined* 100%
V09.9 Education undefined* 100%
V09.10 Experience undefined* 100%
V09.11 Social status 0.9 96,3%
V09.12 Family status undefined* 100%
V10.1 Reactions 1 100% V10.2 Comments 1 100% V10.3 Shares 1 100% V11.1 Positive reactions 1 100% V11.2 Negative reactions 1 100% Note. N = 54
