CHAPTER 5

Argument and Stakeholder Influence

As noted in previous chapters, argument clarity and discernment are persuasive communicative interactions involving internal and external constituencies. Stakeholder opinion should significantly influence argument discernment, yielding contemporary implications for public deliberation in the marketplace. The escalation of an issue to an argument manifests itself in the increased ability of stakeholders to offer opinions and viewpoints through interactive communicative technologies. Heath (1998) contends that new and shifting communication technologies “democratize” issue discussion and lead to “public dialogue,” encouraging argument in the public sphere. He draws upon the work of Jacquie L’Etang to argue that a “rhetorical approach to public relations” is crucial (p. 275). Communication and meaning are co-constructed in a dynamic movement toward agreement over emergent problems/opportunities. Public deliberation allows for a democratic process of stakeholder communication and vocalization of identified arguments in a public forum. This chapter considers the relationship of such arguments between and among internal and external stakeholders in three key sections:

Stakeholder influence is dependent upon the co-construction of meaning between organizations and their constituencies as they attempt to persuade, motivate, and capitalize on opportunities for growth. Sellnow and Ulmer (1995) articulate that organizational survival is dependent upon “corporate rhetoric.” Organizations must satisfy all relevant stakeholders, and do so by arguing as a collective institution. The collective corporation enacts organizational mission, background, and narrative in an effort to align with stakeholder arguments and interests. Common ground is articulated and identified in a public manner in order to negotiate viewpoints and assertions. Organizational health and survival relies on recognition of various voices and stakeholder groups that influence organizational success.

Performative Content: Argument and Stakeholder Definition

The relationship between argument and stakeholder is that of an action orientation (Freeman 1984). Stakeholders have significant influence over an organization’s livelihood and purpose. This action orientation suggests that arguments and stakeholders exist in a continual conversation of renewed discourse over interests and issues that influence the organization in substantial and meaningful ways. Heath (1998) points us to Marshall McLuhan’s notion of a global village, arguing that one cannot construct an argument without context, audience, and transaction. New communication technologies permit public deliberation in novel and emerging cyberspaces. Heath contends that the force of new communication technologies allows organizations and stakeholders alike to track and respond to relevant arguments. Stakeholders influence public perceptions of arguments and affect the manner and timeliness in which an organization must act on problems/opportunities.

This section considers: (1) context, (2) audience, and (3) negotiation. These three metaphors interact to define and clarify argument and stakeholder relationships, demonstrating the unique relationship between stakeholders and organizations.

Argument and Stakeholder Clarity: Context

Clarifying a specific argument from internal and external stakeholders begins with the recognition that the context of an argument is particular, temporal, and influential in discerning potential responses. Attending to context is a performative recognition that stakeholders develop and define as they delineate specific interests and positions. The role of communication technologies tied to the relationship between argument and stakeholder elucidates the pivotal importance of context. An often-cited scholar on the importance of argumentation and context is Toulmin (1969), who argues that facts as well as arguments are entirely dependent upon the “nature of the case,” or the context in which an argument arises. Toulmin also considers the role of environment; he contends that argument clarity and discernment emerge as byproducts of cultural and historical conditions as they are recognized by various influencers and stakeholders.

Toulmin textures his discussion of context with field arguments: arguments are (1) field-invariant or (2) field-dependent. “Field-invariant” arguments are “modes,” or “standards,” that lead to relevant conclusions “regardless of field.” “Field-dependent” arguments are “modes,” or “standards,” that vacillate, ever dependent upon a particular field or context (see Figure 5.1). For Toulmin, evidence, rationality, and context determine argument success and relevancy. He suggests that even “the most general warrants” must attend to context and circumstance in order for their full comprehension to generate prompt action and response. Toulmin’s contextual emphasis acknowledges the locality of stakeholders and arguments. Audience is a central component of argument, in that one cannot clarify an argument without acknowledging the original intent for an original audience.

Figure 5.1 An Axolotl is an adult salamander that matures without ever going through a metamorphosis stage. It remains in the larval stage of life in various fields of transformation. It’s a different image that might help to depict what Toulmin is referring to!

Argument and Stakeholder Clarity: Audience

The particularities of a given argument—the context, historical moment, and background—uncover and attend to leading stakeholder apprehensions. The role of the audience, the intended recipient of an argument, is to interpret corporate rhetoric, responding to constructed arguments with discernment tied to interests. Audience interpretation, guided by particular interests, can escalate responses through their inflammatory, unapologetic, and contextually disengaged responses void of reasoned evidence. Organizations, of course, can display such contextual disregard as well. Arguments gather stakeholders both within and outside an organization, and those stakeholders are capable of transforming problems and opportunities into either success or missed opportunities, or worse.

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) contend that argumentation highlights the role of audience. Arguments must be organic, emergent in corporate life, forceful in nature, and simultaneously “compulsive.” The force of persuasive appeal propels conviction and response, and hopefully inspires action toward a desired end. These kinds of effective arguments should be “capable of overcoming both the unavoidable apathy and the forces acting in a direction divergent from that which is desired,” an effect made possible because such arguments acknowledge particularity of context and audience (p. 47). Stakeholders argue in order to seek clarity on problems/opportunities that require ongoing negotiation.

Argument and Stakeholder Clarity: Negotiation

Here, context and audience unite, illustrating that argumentation in corporate communication practices relies upon negotiation that is mutually beneficial to multiple stakeholders. Inherently, context and audience in argumentation rely upon negotiation of message interpretation. Interpretive and communicative practices elucidate arguments that matter to various internal and external stakeholders. Clarifying and defining arguments between and among stakeholders permits meaning to emerge in the process of interpretive negotiation.

Freeman (1984) uses the term “transaction” to refer to the level of interaction between organizations and stakeholders. For Freeman, an organization exists in order to “serve some need in [its] external environment” (p. 69). A corporation must oblige stakeholders for the sake of organizational survival. By disregarding the argument of a particular group, an organization becomes “irrelevant” to that group and opens up opportunities for other organizations to extend claims over its stakeholders. Freeman, however, does not disregard the needs and actions of the organization (see Figure 5.2). He argues that “strategic decisions are intentional actions which are designed to exert some measure of control over the future (and the present) state of the corporation” (p. 86). These actions include strategic communication, and its arguments, which mediate between an organization and its groups of stakeholders. Argument and interpretation negotiated between an organization and its stakeholders defines and clarifies organizational direction.

Figure 5.2 Organizations and stakeholders exert mutual influence upon one another

Summary

Context, audience, and negotiation are communicative terms that point to the role of interaction between stakeholders and organizations in argument. Toulmin (1969) suggests that arguments are “justifiable” in that one puts forth evidence and logic to “make good” a particular “claim.” This requires the recognition of context and audience and rests upon the ability of interactants to negotiate a meaning that is influential and impactful for both the organization and stakeholders. The following three key points elucidate argument and stakeholder definition:

Argument between and among internal and external stakeholders constructs and responds to past actions and future decisions by stakeholders. Discerning the significance of a message entails identifying which particular stakeholder groups advocate a given argument. Stakeholder groups embrace arguments that announce their interests, perspectives, and standpoint.

Theory and Strategy: Argument and Stakeholder Discernment

Arguments emerge within stakeholder relationships and are discerned through the interplay of communicative and theoretical strategies, which influence perceptions of organizational attitudes. Heath (1998) argues that “no entity should dominate” arguments occurring between organizations and stakeholders in a presumptuous attempt to prevent escalation of a problem or, in some cases, to determine future courses of action. Rather, each party must communicate and negotiate meaning together, attempting to identify solutions together, lest arguments escalate. Palenchar and Heath (2007) argue that transparency, which is the “degree to which organizational actions and decisions are ascertainable and comprehensible,” acts as a communicative link in moments of contentious argument and risk (p. 124). Stakeholders play an important role in the identification of salient issues and arguments in the public sphere—issues that impact organizational success.

This section elucidates argument through three key considerations: (1) restoration, (2) apology, and (3) renewal. Together, these metaphors articulate arguments that identify the relevant issues of different stakeholder groups that influence organizational health.

Argument and Stakeholder Discernment: Restoration

Constructing and discerning an argument is a communicative interaction that requires the mutual participation of both organization and stakeholders. Organizations must defend or explicate their corporate mission and reputation through arguments attentive to problems/opportunities identified by relevant stakeholders. Restoration is a communicative action that acknowledges the gravity of an argument. Restoration repairs organizational image, defines relationships with partners, and persuasively directs future directions. Restoration is the first step in responding to arguments that threaten organizational health and success.

Benoit (1995)¹ conceptualized “Image Repair Theory” (IRT) as a restorative communicative practice in corporate communication. IRT assumes that organizational image suffers when under attack. Benoit argues that organizations are accountable for understanding and, when necessary, practicing the restorative communicative strategies of “denial,” “accountability,” “offensiveness reduction,” “action correction,” and “mortification.”

IRT aligns arguments and stakeholders, acknowledging the role of perception in argument escalation. Denial, accountability, offensiveness reduction, action correction, and mortification constitute Benoit’s depiction of potential perceptions the audience might have of the rhetor. Creative work has to commence when there is a misalignment of organizational perception and that of stakeholders. Putting forward arguments demands a conscientious and thoughtful engagement with audiences, acknowledging the importance of audience interpretation, if the restoration of trust is to be a legitimate hope. The misalignment of perceptions often necessitates apology as a central argumentative strategy to minimize negative communicative consequences.

Argument and Stakeholder Discernment: Apology

Aligned with restoration, apology seeks to de-escalate emerging destructive responses. Heath (2006) argues that best practices in corporate communication include “honesty, candor, and openness”; arguments tied to facts and public evidence can restore while also negotiating meaning between organizations and stakeholders. Acknowledging arguments with openness lessens blame and accentuates responsibility.

Hearit (2006)² conceptualized the notion of “Corporate Apologia” in corporate communication. Hearit argues that much of the literature examines “triggering events” that can “plunge” an organization into crisis. Instead of recognizing that it is impossible to prepare for all triggering points of crisis, any good organization can and must utilize corporate apologia, the “speech of defense,” if organizational integrity is to be both honored and renewed. Hearit states that argument remains “inherent” in apologist rhetoric. Corporate apologia, or “corporate advocacy,” advances an argument coupled with acknowledged culpability. Apologia is not to be confused with a direct form of apology in that it is an argumentative defense that includes public evidence and opinions. Strategy inclusive of apologia navigates contentious issues and arguments between and among stakeholders. After identifying these argumentative commonplaces, renewal via discernment is possible.

Argument and Stakeholder Discernment: Renewal

Restoration and apology form a communicative bridge of renewal, centered upon discourse and deliberation that include argumentative strategies responsive to all relevant stakeholders. Constituencies must identify and judge an organization’s responsiveness, ethical standpoint, and effectiveness if they are to maintain relationships with the organization. Renewal functions as the defining moment in discerning argument and stakeholder role, response, and viewpoint. Renewal suggests an opportunity for growth and change grounded in a learning stance of openness to future possibilities. Such discourse promotes stakeholder relationships, permitting argument to function as a communicative tool of adherence to organizational mission, values, and ideas.

“Discourse of Renewal” is a theoretical concept from Robert Ulmer,³ Sellnow, and Matthew Seeger.⁴ Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger (2015) argue that this “process approach” involves altering perceptions about crisis through communicative actions that invite learning, which reflects the “ethical character and communication practices” that sustain everyday organizational life. Such an orientation turns organizations into learning environments capable of reflecting thoughtfully upon experienced past trouble and, as a result, enacting necessary change. Extending beyond IRT and corporate apologia, Ulmer, Seeger, and Sellnow contend that arguments are not objective truth but manifestations of opinions and bias that call for attention. Each argument requires that organizations practice a discourse of renewal, which displays a fundamental public commitment to learning, growth, and transformation. Discourse of renewal functions as precrisis preparation for renewed communication and strengthened relationships between organizations and stakeholders.

Summary

The unification of restoration, apology, and renewal suggests that argument is a basic form of human communication, central to constructive response to stakeholder interests. This section has been elucidated through three main contentions:

Organizational and corporate rhetoric attend and respond to salient stakeholder issues and arguments. Stakeholder groups, however, must also respond and attend to organizational arguments that reflect stakeholder interests and perspectives. Leadership is the communicative fulcrum upon which argument discernment can pivot.

Leadership: Argument and Stakeholder Responsiveness

Leadership must contend with emerging communicative technologies that permit internal and external stakeholders to raise significant arguments capable of impacting organizational health and success. Heath, Bradshaw, and Lee (2002) contend that risk communication, in the contemporary marketplace, should emphasize dialogue between and among all vested parties and constituencies. The authors suggest that, during the 1980s, public forums for dialogue tended to “facilitate understanding and agreement” over issues of risk. They examined the public dialogue in “high-risk chemical” industries. These public forums allowed affected stakeholders to voice arguments that could be heard by organizational leadership. Heath, Bradshaw, and Lee suggest that in the pursuit of community relationship building, attending to, and responding to, relevant stakeholders is an “effective vehicle” for direct interaction between and among internal and external stakeholders. New technologies permit two-way communication in multiple public spaces, allowing stakeholders to identify, argue over, and address issues that carry organizational consequences.

This section considers the role of leaders in framing arguments with stakeholders, a role that consists of three major considerations: (1) particularity, (2) strategic communication, and (3) media. These three sections illuminate the importance of leadership responsiveness to emerging arguments and the necessity of framing those arguments for and with internal and external stakeholders.

Leadership and Stakeholder Responsiveness: Particularity

Framing opportunities emerge through stakeholder reaction and response, enabling arguments to be nuanced by context, audience, and meaning negotiation. Responding to stakeholder arguments is a leadership practice that attends to particularity of situations, relationships, and issues. Scholars such as Stanley Deetz⁵ and Gail Fairhurst argue that communication is not merely a transaction but is rather an act of “construction and negotiating of meaning” that challenges organizational leaders to “cocreate” meaning with internal and external stakeholders (Fairhurst 2009). Fairhurst contends that leadership cannot control events or context but can initiate conversation about them with appropriate stakeholders.

Audiences negotiate meaning in particular historical contexts, bringing to the surface arguments to which organizations must dialogically respond in order to avoid argument escalation. Fairhurst conceptualizes discourse as language and “social interaction,” while she conceptualizes Discourse, or “systems of thought,” as multilayered and “dynamic” contextual approaches to surface arguments between and among constituencies. She points to leadership as a communicative activity of the public sphere. Restoration, apology, and renewal are communicative strategies between and among internal and external stakeholders that mirror Fairhurst’s conception of organizational discourses responsive to context, audience, and negotiated meaning.

Leadership and Stakeholder Responsiveness: Strategic Communication

Emerging communication technologies permit arguments between organizations and stakeholders to manifest in ever-broadening public arenas. Coombs (2007) says that, today, “angry stakeholders are more likely to generate crises” (p. 8). He argues that, due to communicative technologies such as the Internet, when angry stakeholders advance arguments that resonate with others, arguments can evolve into crises through “legitimate criticism.” Organizations are “negligent” when they fail to take immediate or appropriate “reasonable” action to “eliminate” risks and arguments. The capacity of organizations to jettison risk corresponds to their competence in strategic communicative measures such as restoration, apology, and renewal.

Coombs articulates that crisis managers must utilize these three communicative strategies in the “precrisis” phase of crisis prevention. He argues that stakeholders possess “power,” or the ability to argue persuasively for organizations to engage in behaviors that are out of the ordinary. Because stakeholders possess such power, organizations must be willing to engage in the communicative behaviors of restoration, apology, and renewal, thus enacting preventative measures against crisis escalation. Leadership is action oriented, responsive to stakeholder arguments. Preventative maintenance in precrisis contexts demonstrates that arguments require a search for mutual solutions and a responsiveness that is evidence based.

Leadership and Stakeholder Responsiveness: Media

Stakeholder perception is pervasive and is thus an influential factor in argument discernment, situating audience responsiveness as a crucial communicative element in an environment perched on the precipice of argument escalation. Leadership is an active role that must attend and respond to stakeholder arguments as opportunities for growth and change in the organizational environment. In an article on Hurricane Katrina and crisis leadership, Littlefield⁶ and Quenette⁷ (2007) argue that the media is often responsible for the perceived success of leadership actions as they respond to publicly manifest arguments. They contend that, when an argument is identified, the “public” writ large is reliant upon “media” for publicly agreed upon evidence and data. Thus, in framing stakeholder relationships, leaders must actively attend to various communicative technologies that impact stakeholder perception.

Littlefield and Quenette argue that leadership and authority figures are tasked with “re-establish[ing] order and confidence” in the midst of troubling events, a task that uses communicative strategies like restoration, apology, and renewal in order to attend to context, audience, and negotiated meaning. According to them, the media both objectively describe events and subjectively evaluate the leaders who ultimately shape stakeholder perceptions of arguments. Publicly vetted evidence responsive to particular situations frames the reality of stakeholder arguments. Littlefield and Quenette theorize media as a third-party influencer⁸ that plays a central role in argument escalation.

Summary

Stakeholder perception and discernment is a critical element in clarifying and identifying arguments that emerge in the public sphere. This section illustrates stakeholder responsiveness through active leadership:

Chapter Summary

Stakeholder interests and opinions are key components to discerning relevant arguments manifesting in the public sphere. Internal and external stakeholders communicate prevalent issues and arguments with far-reaching consequences for organizations. Leadership must actively respond to stakeholders to engage arguments as opportunities for growth and change. Ulmer and Sellnow (2000) contend that when an organization finds itself in the midst of a problematic escalation of arguments, “available evidence is likely to be scrutinized by all affected parties” (p. 147). Stakeholders respond to public evidence, engaging organizational arguments over prevalent issues. In the next chapter, this work returns to the case study of BP to demonstrate the interplay of argument clarity, stakeholder discernment, and publically vetted evidence to further address the escalation of problems/opportunities into eventual crisis.

Chapter 5, “Argument and Stakeholder Influence,” examined the interplay between argument and stakeholder clarity of argument between and among stakeholders. Argument necessitates examination of context, audience, and ongoing negotiation. Discernment about the importance and significance of a given argument necessitates restoration of an image and trust with renewal dependent upon apology, situated in ongoing active responsibility. Leadership and argument requires attention to particularity, strategic communication, and the increasing influence of various forms of media. Leaders must engage the world responsibly, nimbly, and quickly.

¹ William L. Benoit developed Image Repair Theory in 1995. He has authored/coauthored over 10 books and over 15 articles and 15 book chapters.

² Keith Michael Hearit is most known for his work in Corporate Apologia, which he developed in his 2006 work, Crisis Management by Apology: Corporate Responses to Allegations of Wrongdoing. He has published over 20 articles and book chapters.

³ Robert R. Ulmer is an internationally recognized scholar in crisis communication, organizational communication, and community development. He has coauthored six books and authored/coauthored numerous articles in journals such as Management Communication Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, Public Relations Review, and Journal of Applied Communication Studies.

⁴ Matthew Seeger is an active expert in the fields of crisis communication and crisis response, specializing in media. He has coauthored six books and authored/coauthored over 100 journal articles.

⁵ For example, Stanley, D. 1992. Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. New York: State University of New York Press.

⁶ Robert S. Littlefield is an active scholar in the field of risk and crisis communication. He has coauthored six books and monographs, and authored/coauthored over 30 scholarly articles.

⁷ Andrea M. Quenette is assistant professor at University of Kansas. Her current research involves political communication, media, and persuasion.

⁸ For more on third-party indorsement see Stacks, D.W., and D. Michaelson. 2009. “Exploring the Comparative Communications Effectiveness of Advertising and Public Relations: A Replication and Extension of Prior Experiments.” Public Relations Journal 3, pp. 1–22; Stacks, D.W., and D. Michaelson. 2017. A Professional and Practitioner’s Guide to Public Relations Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. 2nd ed. New York: Business Expert Press; and Stacks, D.W. 2017. Primer of Public Relations Research. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press.