When an organisation miscommunicates with its stakeholders, they can spread their anger through social media, write Madeline Toubiana and Charlene Zietsm

Toubiana, Madeline

Zietsma, Charlene

LSE Research Online

Social	media	echo	chambers	create	serious	issuesfor	organisationsRecent	political	events	such	as	Brexit	and	the	election	of	Donald	Trump	have	taken	political	pundits	andobservers	by	surprise.	How	could	these	things	have	happened?	One	explanation	offered	is	that	we	areincreasingly	living	in	bubbles	of	like-minded	people	that	limit	our	ability	to	understand	other	points	of	view.	Thesebubbles	are	a	result	of	the	“micro-targeting”	of	news,	and	social	media	algorithms	that	deliver	only	content	that	wealready	agree	with	(Wilson,	2016).	Further,	the	virality	of	content	on	social	media	through	“friend”	networksmeans	that	this	content,	whether	fake	or	real,	tends	to	travel	quickly	and	“echo”	among	like-minded	people.We	set	out	to	research	social	media	“echo	chambers”,	and	found	they	are	not	confined	to	political	issues,	but	canalso	create	serious	issues	for	organisations	trying	to	communicate	with	their	stakeholders.	Further,	we	found	thatthe	bubble	effect	is	not	just	about	opinions:	it	is	also	about	emotions	and	the	emotional	language	that	people	useto	express	their	arguments	and	opinions.	When	an	organisation’s	communications	contradict	the	emotionallanguage	expected	by	its	stakeholders,	the	anger	and	betrayal	experienced	by	the	stakeholders	can	escalatethrough	social	media	echo	chambers	to	result	in	stakeholder	activism,	with	serious	material	consequences	for	theorganisation.But	before	we	elaborate,	let	us	back	up	and	explain	our	study	and,	in	doing,	illuminate	some	factors	that	couldhave	helped	the	organisation	avoid	the	frenzy	of	emotional	online	activity	and	the	offline	activism	it	triggered.The	organization	we	studied	was	a	non-profit	federation	created	with	a	dual	mission:	1)	to	promote	research	intothe	cure	for	a	degenerative	disease	and	2)	to	advocate	for	the	treatment	of	those	with	the	disease.	To	fulfill	theirresearch	aim,	they	relied	on	a	scientific	research	logic,	and	to	fulfill	their	treatment	aim,	they	relied	on	acompassionate	care	logic.	A	logic	is	like	a	“worldview”:	it	filters	what	you	see	and	affects	what	you	believe,	howyou	act	and	how	you	judge	yourself	and	others.	It	provides	guidelines	for	appropriate	forms	of	action	(Thornton,Ocasio,	&	Lounsbury,	2012).In	this	research,	we	found	that	a	logic	also	includes	norms	about	the	appropriate	experience	and	expression	ofemotions.	Specifically,	a	research	logic	is	associated	with	an	objective,	skeptical	and	dispassionate	approach	tonew	information,	regardless	of	its	impact	on	particular	humans,	and	uses	dispassionate	language.	The	care	logic,on	the	other	hand,	is	empathetic,	considering	the	human	experience	as	primary.	New	information	is	evaluatedwith	respect	to	its	effects	on	individuals	with	whom	the	evaluator	empathizes,	and	emotional	expression	focuseson	care	for	those	individuals.LSE Business Review: Social media echo chambers create serious issues for organisations Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-11-08Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/11/08/social-media-echo-chambers-create-serious-issues-for-organisations/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/Our	study	period	commenced	when	an	investigative	journalism	TV	show	reported	a	new	treatment	for	adegenerative	disease	with	crippling	consequences.	In	response,	members	of	the	federation	(a	key	stakeholdergroup	for	the	organization)	expressed	hope	and	excitement	on	the	organization’s	Facebook	page,	believing	thetreatment	would	improve	the	lives	of	people	suffering	from	the	disease	–	themselves	and	their	family	members.Their	language	was	full	of	hope	and	referenced	care	for	those	with	the	disease.However,	organization	leaders	interpreted	the	research	very	skeptically,	and	initially	dismissed	it	out-of-hand.They	used	rational,	dispassionate	and	science-based	language	and	discounted	the	treatment.This	organisational	response	triggered,	in	the	words	of	the	organisation,	an	“unprecedented”	“uprising	frommembers”	who	felt	betrayed.	Using	arguments	and	emotional	language	consistent	with	a	care	logic,	memberspleaded	with	the	organisation	to	consider	member	welfare	and	tried	to	shame	the	organisation	into	working	tomake	the	treatment	available.	As	these	sentiments	were	shared	on	Facebook,	members’	emotions	escalated	andamplified,	shifting	from	betrayal	to	anger.	In	response,	the	organisation	doubled	down	on	the	research	logic,avoiding	emotion	and	claiming	more	research	was	needed.What	we	saw	was	members	and	the	organisation	speaking	past	one	another.	Members	wanted	a	caringresponse,	and	yet	the	organisation	felt	a	dispassionate	research-based	response	was	more	appropriate.	As	aresult	of	this	disconnect,	the	more	unemotional	and	skeptical	the	organisation’s	response	was,	the	more	angrymembers	became.	Members	soon	began	to	shun	the	organisation,	asking	funders	to	stop	donating,	and	tellingthe	government	that	the	organisation	was	no	longer	the	legitimate	representative	of	people	with	the	disease.	Theorganisation	saw	a	drop	in	donations	and	membership,	and	the	media	depicted	it	negatively,	picking	up	onmember	sentiment.	The	escalating	mobilisation	on	Facebook	had	material,	negative	effects	on	the	organisation.After	almost	eighteen	months	of	only	unemotional,	scientific	language,	we	saw	a	shift	in	the	organisation’sresponse	as	these	negative	impacts	became	clear.	Managers	began	to	include	emotion	in	their	Facebook	postsand	combined	a	care	perspective	with	the	research	logic	they	had	used	all	along.	In	response,	the	conflict	de-escalated	and	members	returned	to	pre-conflict	topics	online.To	summarise,	our	findings	show	that	emotions	expressed	on	social	media	by	an	organisation’s	stakeholdersmay	spread	like	fire	and	have	material	consequences	if	fuel	is	thrown	on	them	(instead	of	water).	In	this	study,throwing	unemotional,	research-based	arguments	at	members’	stories	of	suffering	and	pleas	for	help	acted	asfire,	not	water,	escalating	their	emotions	which	amplified	on	Facebook.The	key	take–away	from	our	study	is	that	it	is	important	for	organisations	to	understand	their	stakeholders’concerns	and	emotional	norms	–	what	we	call	the	emotional	register	of	their	logic.	For	example,	if	stakeholdersare	using	a	research	logic,	dispassionate,	skeptical	language	is	appropriate.	If	stakeholders	are	using	a	carelogic,	however,	organisations	need	to	consider	their	concerns	and	express	their	arguments	using	language	andemotions	consistent	with	the	care	logic.	If	you	ignore	your	stakeholders’	emotional	language	you	may	just	befuelling	the	social	media	fire	–	amplifying	the	impact	of	emotions	shared	in	echo	chambers.So	what	can	you	do?Consider	the	worldview	of	your	stakeholder	and	the	type	of	emotional	experience	and	expression	it	values(even	if	you	disagree).Adapt	your	response	to	include	language	with	appropriate	emotionality,	and	use	it	–	alone	or	in	combinationwith	the	organisation’s	perspective.Make	sure	your	social	media	team	is	connected	to	your	stakeholders	and	understands	the	logics	thatgovern	their	respective	areas	of	interest	so	they	can	reflect	appropriate	emotional	meanings	and	language.Do	not	underestimate	the	power	of	a	few	betrayed	stakeholders:	emotions	amplify	and	escalate	online,	anda	few	can	become	many	very	quickly.♣♣♣Notes:This	blog	post	is	based	on	the	authors’	paper	The	Message	is	on	the	Wall?	Emotions,	Social	Media	and	theLSE Business Review: Social media echo chambers create serious issues for organisations Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-11-08Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/11/08/social-media-echo-chambers-create-serious-issues-for-organisations/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/Dynamics	of	Institutional	Complexity,	Academy	of	Management	Journal,	June	1,	2017	The	post	gives	the	views	of	the	authors,	not	the	position	of	LSE	Business	Review	or	the	London	School	ofEconomics.Featured	image	credit:	Photo	by	Aron	Van	de	Pol	on	UnsplashWhen	you	leave	a	comment,	you’re	agreeing	to	our	Comment	Policy.Madeline	Toubiana	is	an	Assistant	Professor	of	Strategic	Management	and	Organization	at	theAlberta	School	of	Business	at	the	University	of	Alberta.	Her	research	focuses	on	the	role	emotions,complexity	and	stigmatisation	play	in	processes	of	social	change.	To	understand	the	dynamics	ofsocial	change,	she	examines	the	intersection	and	interaction	between	individuals	and	institutionalsystems.	She	examines	these	questions	in	a	variety	of	contexts	including	the	non-profit	sector,	theCanadian	prison	system,	the	sex	trade,	social	entrepreneurship,	social	media	and	in	other	complexorganisations.Charlene	Zietsma	is	Associate	Professor,	Management	and	Organization	at	the	Smeal	College	ofBusiness,	Pennsylvania	State	University,	and	Professor,	Management	at	University	of	Technology,Sydney	(part-time).	She	earned	her	doctorate	at	the	University	of	British	Columbia,	Canada.Charlene	focuses	on	contexts	involving	significant,	large-scale	change.	She	studies	institutionalwork,	institutional	change	processes,	social	and	sustainable	entrepreneurship	and	social	emotionsusually	in	the	context	of	social	and	ecological	issues	and	social	movements.	Charlene	is	alsoleading	an	international	research	project	focusing	on	managing	entrepreneurial	firms	throughphases	of	rapid	growth.	In	2016,	she	was	awarded	the	ASQ	Scholarly	Contribution	Award	for	the	paper	publishedin	2010	that	has	had	the	most	significant	impact	on	the	field	of	organisation	studies.	She	is	a	Senior	Editor	forOrganization	Studies.		LSE Business Review: Social media echo chambers create serious issues for organisations Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-11-08Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/11/08/social-media-echo-chambers-create-serious-issues-for-organisations/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/

Social media echo chambers create serious issues for organisations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online