University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Staying ahead of the digital tsunami: strategy, innovation and change in public media organizations

(USC Thesis Other)

Staying ahead of the digital tsunami: strategy, innovation and change in public media organizations

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

STAYING AHEAD OF THE DIGITAL TSUNAMI:
STRATEGY, INNOVATION AND CHANGE IN PUBLIC MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS

by

Sandra K. Evans

___________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(COMMUNICATION)

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Sandra K. Evans
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation was made possible by support from the Annenberg School for
Communication & Journalism, and the many wonderful faculty and staff members with whom I
have worked during my time as a graduate student.
First, I would like to thank my advisor Patti Riley, who has been an inspiring guide and
mentor to me throughout graduate school. Her enthusiasm for research has helped shape this
dissertation as well as my outlook on academia. I would also like to thank my dissertation
committee members, Janet Fulk and Nandini Rajagopalan, for answering my myriad of questions
and being supportive of my research over the years. The many classes I have taken with Patti,
Janet, and Nandini have been valuable learning experiences for me in the context of both
research and teaching.
My dissertation also stems from my experiences in classes at Annenberg and my
qualifying exam process. Thus, I would like to thank Peter Monge and Manuel Castells for their
insight and guidance in their courses and in their roles as members of my qualifying exam
committee.
I would also like to thank all the individuals who participated in this project from the
public media and journalism arena. Discussions with Annenberg faculty members, such as
Michael Parks and Geoffrey Cowan, were invaluable for getting this project started. I am
tremendously grateful to all interviewees for their participation in this project. It was a privilege
to speak with so many fascinating and generous individuals in various parts of the public media
industry during the course of this project.
Thank you to my family, especially my husband Zach for always supporting me and my
career goals; to my daughter, Vera, who is too young to care about my dissertation and thus has
iii
been a source of endless joy and valuable perspective; and to my in-laws, mother and daycare
providers (thanks, Ms. Mary!) who have helped me be the strongest academic/wife/mother
possible.
Finally, thank you to my friends and colleagues have been invaluable sources of
commiseration and confidence, including my brilliant 2009-2014(+) Ph.D. cohort, my wonderful
Annenberg Alumni friends who have given me advice on this project, and my supportive
colleagues in the Marshall School of Business Experiential Learning Center.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………….….….……..

ii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………...….….…….

vi
List of Figures………………………………………………………………….….….……..

vii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………...….….…….. vii

Chapter 1: Introduction
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………. 1
Research Context: U.S. Public Radio……………………………………………… 5
Chapter Summaries………………………………………………………………... 7

Chapter 2: Defining Distinctiveness: The Connections Between Organizational Identity
Discourse and Strategy in Public Radio Organizations
Introduction………………………………………………………………………... 10
Literature Review……………………………………………….………………… 11
Methods………………………………………………………………….………… 16
Results………………………………………………………………...…………… 22
Discussion ……………………………………………….………………………... 29
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….……… 33

Chapter 3: Staying Ahead of the Digital Tsunami: The Strategic Use of Sensegiving and Identity
to Manage Organizational Change
Introduction………………………………………………………………………... 35
Literature Review……………………………………………….………………… 36
Methods………………………………………………………………….………… 38
Results………………………………………………………………...…………… 42
Discussion ……………………………………………….………………………... 46
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….……… 48

Chapter 4: Process, Product, and Storytelling Innovation
Introduction………………………………………………………………………... 50
Literature Review……………………………………………….………………… 51
Method.………………………………………………………………….………… 57
Results………………………………………………………………...…………… 60
Discussion……………………………………………….………………………..... 70
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 73

Chapter 5: Evaluating Social Structures of Innovation and Creativity
Introduction………………………………………………………………………... 76
Literature Review……………………………………………….………………… 76
Methods………………………………………………………………….………… 81
v
Results………………………………………………………………...…………… 90
Discussion & Conclusion……………………………….………………………..... 96

Chapter 6: Thinking Short and Long: Future-Oriented Discourse and Digital Media Strategy
Introduction………………………………………………………………………... 99
Literature Review……………………………………………….………………… 100
Method.………………………………………………………………….………… 109
Results………………………………………………………………...…………… 113
Discussion & Conclusion……………………………….………………………..... 126

Chapter 7: Conclusion
Summary of Project Goals………………………………………………………… 132
Emergent Themes……………………………………………….…………………. 133
Limitations and Future Research………………………………………………….. 136

References……………………………………………………………………………........... 139

Appendices
Appendix A: Participating Organizations ………………………………………… 156
Appendix B: List of Interviewees…………………………………………………. 157
Appendix C: Interview Question Guide…………………………………………… 160
Appendix D: Figures for Chapter 2 and 5……………………………...………….. 161
Appendix E: Survey Items…………………………………………….…………... 167
Appendix F: About the Organizations…………………………………………….. 172
Appendix G: Clusters Based on Future-Orientation….…….…….…….…….…… 181
vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Typology for Organization Selection…………………..……………..…………... 17

Table 2. Competitor Types Sorted By the Number of People Who Stated Each Entity…… 21

Table 3. Density of Ties Between People with Similar Roles in Different Organizations.… 29

Table 4. Codes and Descriptions of Interview Results……………………………………... 41

Table 5. Codebook for Interview Analysis…………………………………………………. 59

Table 6. Comparison of Surveyed Organizations…………………………………………... 82

Table 7. About the Survey Respondents……………………………………………………. 85

Table 8. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables for Entire
Sample……………………………………………………………………………………… 90

Table 9. Hypothesized ERGMs and Results………………………………………………... 93

Table 10. Models of Best Fit Per Organization ……………………………………………. 95

Table 11. Coding Scheme for Interview Data.……………………………………………... 112

Table 12. Clusters of Future-orientation……………………………………………………. 181

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Two Components of the Two-mode Network……………………………………. 161

Figure 2. Large Component of the Two-mode Network ………...………………………… 162

Figure 3. Word Cloud of Terms Used by Interviewees to Describe Innovation…………… 70

Figure 4. KUSC Project Network ……..…………………………………………………… 163

Figure 5. OPB Project Network ……………………………...…………………………….. 163

Figure 6. KUHF Project Network ………………………………………………….………. 164

Figure 7. KUSC Advice Network………………………………………...………………… 165

Figure 8. OPB Advice Network………………………………………………….…………. 165

Figure 9. KUHF Advice Network…………………………………………………………... 166

Figure 10. Screenshot of KPBS Google Map of Brush Fires, 2007………………………... 175

Figure 11. Word Cloud Created by Leaders at KPBS ……………………………………... 176

viii
ABSTRACT
Changes in digital media products and services have impacted how people consume news
and information. Subsequently, the business models of many types of media institutions have
been disrupted. This dissertation examines digital transformations taking place in U.S. public
media organizations. Although public media institutions are not commercial entities, the
repercussions of digital media disruption threaten their economic viability. At the same time,
digital technologies provide tremendous opportunity for reaching audiences in new ways.
Using interview data with 75 public media professionals and survey data from employees
at three public radio stations, I examine how people make sense of, and influence, strategic
change within their organizations. Across five interconnected studies, I apply the theoretical
perspectives of sensemaking, organizational identity, strategic management and innovation,
social networks, and foresight capacity. In the first and second study, I demonstrate that the way
individuals perceive competitors encapsulates the connection between organizational identity
and strategy. I also show how identity frameworks are used to make sense of strategic
organizational change, and how the language of identity fosters sensegiving as form of internal
strategic communication to further organizational change goals. In the third and fourth study, I
examine how individuals make sense of process versus product innovation and how social
networks inform project performance and communication structures in organizations undergoing
change. In the fifth study, I address how managers view the temporal side of strategy through the
analysis of views about the near- and long-term trajectories of their stations. Together, these
studies address how organizations can build a stronger capacity for managing change.
This dissertation provides insight into how a critical segment of the U.S. media industry
is facing challenges and opportunities stemming from digital media disruption. Results from this
ix
project show that capacity is more than just financial and human resources; it also encompasses
communication competencies, sensemaking, and foresight. I argue that building capacity for
change means making diverse discoursive and cognitive frames more visible. This can aid in
organizational change efforts and in developing new frames for building future-oriented
sensemaking and foresight. This project has implications for the public broadcasting industry as
well as other industries including commercial radio and television, higher education, publishing,
and retail.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
You pulled up to your driveway after a long commute in rush hour traffic. You were
listening to a story on your local public radio station – an interview with a film director, a first
person narrative about a poignant family situation, or maybe a comedic news quiz show. You
remained seated, keeping the car running in the driveway just a little longer more while you
listened to the last few minutes of the radio program. This was known as an “NPR driveway
moment,” or a “compulsion to finish listening to something on the radio before leaving one's
car” (“Driveway moment,” 2013).
Now, upon arriving at home you get out of your car while continuing to listen to your
favorite podcast from that New York radio station you used to love, a satellite radio program, or
your custom iHeartRadio station through your smartphone. In the U.S., radio is a legacy,
broadcast medium in a world of multidimensional, multiplatform content, yet it is still a medium
that provides a level of intimacy and accessibility that continues to draw millions listeners each
week. Audio content also affords mobility and multitasking in ways that visual media cannot.
This dissertation examines the challenges and opportunities that stem from the ways the
changing digital media landscape impacts audio content “in a visual world” (Oliver & Zaltzman,
n.d.).
Changes in digital media products and services have impacted how people consume news
and information. Subsequently, the business models of many types media institutions have been
disrupted, such as newspapers and book publishers. This dissertation examines digital
2
transformations taking place in U.S. public media organizations
1
. Although public media
institutions are not commercial entities, the repercussions of digital media disruption threaten
their economic viability (Waldman, 2011). At the same time, digital technologies provide
tremendous opportunity for reaching audiences in new ways (Waldman, 2011). This research
examines how personnel within a sample of public radio stations are making sense of strategic
changes centered on information and communications technologies (ICTs), particularly in the
context of engaging with audiences via the distribution of content across different media
platforms. The goals of this project are to examine how public media organizations are adapting
to a rapidly changing digital media environment, how the communication networks of people
within media organizations impact innovation, and how organizations can develop a greater
capacity for managing organizational change.
Some of the biggest challenges stemming from digital media include the introduction of
new competitors, media disaggregation, and brand confusion. First, there has been a rapid
increase in competition from other sources of news and entertainment, such as news websites,
podcasts, jukebox services like Pandora and Spotify, satellite radio, and the fact that many new
cars now feature an array of entertainment options, impinging on broadcast radio’s former
dominance on the road. As one interviewee put it, the radio world is changing to the point where
“we obviously don’t need radio stations,” but audio remains an important component of a rich
media landscape (M. Skoler, PRI).

1
In this dissertation I use public media and public broadcasting interchangeably. Public media
has become an increasingly popular term in light of convergence across broadcast and digital
media. Some stations like HPM have changed their name from “broadcasting” to “media,” but
others like OPB and KPCC (which also is called Southern California Public Radio) have stuck
with broadcasting monikers for brand consistency, for now.
3
While many public media entities are taking steps to compete in digital media arenas, the
public media industry has been held back by legacy culture and infrastructure. According to
Goodman (2009), the U.S. public media system has struggled in the digital age because it is
outdated; most stations broadcast “nationally aggregated program packages” and produce little or
no content of their own. Additionally, much of the funding for public media is used to support
physical broadcast infrastructure (Goodman, 2009). Interviewee J. Davidow stated that media
organizations everywhere must question their role in the larger disaggregated media ecosystem:
[There are] a million daily news sites. Why should they keep on coming to WBUR? I
mean they can get the same AP headlines on any public radio station, on the New York
Times, on the Boston Globe. What is it that makes your voice distinct, there are thousands
and thousands and thousands news sources online and ways to get it, so what
distinguishes yours from someone else’s? (J. Davidow, WBUR)
Second, the media ecosystem is increasingly disaggregated. For example, most stations
receive a majority of their programming from content providers like NPR (National Public
Radio), Public Radio International (PRI), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and
others. Much of this content has become more accessible through avenues such as downloadable
podcasts and mobile applications. In addition to official NPR and station-based podcasts and
applications, fan-created applications support demand for disaggregated mobile content. For
example, the free mobile app, NPR Addict, provides a library of over 13 years of NPR content
split into story-length chunks from programs like All Things Considered, Morning Edition or
Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me (Perry, 2009). While disaggregation serves consumer needs, many in
public radio fear that as audiences listen to on-demand content rather than broadcasts from their
regional radio station, there is less incentive for individuals to donate to their local radio station
4
(a critical sources of funding) as compared to donating to specific programs or other entities. For
example, the radio program This American Life has been broadcasting weekly on over 500 radio
stations around the country; it is possible to download this program as a free podcast and to
donate to this program directly, bypassing stations entirely (“About Us,” n.d.).
Because of the ongoing and rapid pace of these digital and mobile developments,
organizational change in legacy media institutions cannot be viewed in the context of a
punctuated equilibrium model (such as the introduction of VHS tapes). Instead, organizations are
living with continuous disruption. Today, public media entities are at an inflection point: they
face a tension between inertia in the form of a strong identity and culture built on traditional
radio broadcasting, and a need for change in response to seemingly continuous technological
change. In order to succeed, many organizations are trying to embrace digital technologies, while
maintaining a strong radio broadcast presence. For many, transforming from a broadcast to a
multiplatform organization requires a transformation in organizational strategy as well as in
practice.
Third, public media stations face an ongoing dilemma around brand confusion. Because
many public radio stations are part of the NPR network and many public television networks are
part of PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), audiences hear and see branding that pertains to NPR
and PBS in addition to stations. Thus, it is common for even avid fans to state that they listen to
NPR radio rather than their local radio station. This matters because the funding model of
stations depends so heavily on individual donations from people in the community. Station brand
recognition is critical to fostering audience loyalty and contributions. This is not a new problem,
however, this issue is now compounded by changes in accessibility of content through a range of
platforms and forums (podcasts, mobile applications that aggregate content and related services
5
like SoundCloud, expanded in-car entertainment options, etc.). With regard to the question of
which organization (for example, NPR or PRX) should distribute and help fund the popular radio
program, This American Life, radio host Ira Glass stated, “It’s all the same to listeners,” many of
whom “think we’re all part of something called NPR anyway” (Jensen, 2014; para. 7). This
sentiment was echoed by interviewees such as B. Theriault (CPB) who stated that the public
mistakenly sees all public media stations as either PBS or NPR.
Research Context: U.S. Public Radio
In the 1930s, a portion of the radio spectrum was set aside for public broadcasters
(Waldman, 2011). Congress formalized the contemporary system of public radio and TV stations
in 1967 with the Public Broadcasting Act. This law created the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB), a non-partisan organization to assist with the dispersion of funding to radio
and television stations. The U.S. public media system is unique compared to the public media
systems of other countries in that most funding does not stem from the federal government, but
rather from a range of private sources such as grants, colleges and universities, support from
individual donors, and foundations (Waldman, 2011). The U.S. government supplies about 25%
of funding for public radio, with the rest stemming from private sources (public television
receive about 50% of its funding from government sources; “Corporation for Public
Broadcasting 2011 Annual Report: Financials,” 2012). For public radio, revenues from
individual donors makes up the largest proportion of funding at 39% in 2010, though this
proportion varies greatly by station (“Public radio finances,” 2013).
This study focuses on public radio stations because more change and innovation is
occurring in this segment of the industry at the station-level versus in public television.
Interviewee V. Curren (CPB) stated that two reasons for increased experimentation in public
6
radio include the relatively low cost of radio production as compared to television production,
and the fact that stations own more of their content outright than public television and can
therefore do more with it. For better or worse, radio stations also tend to have smaller staffs and
budgets than television stations.
At a macro level, the public radio landscape is built on a network of organizations that
create and distribute content. This public media system is divided into vendor, client, funder, and
broker organizations. Vendors include content creators such as NPR, American Public Media
(APM), Public Radio International (PRI), and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
These organizations create and sell content to radio stations for distribution. Some relatively new
public media entities fulfill multiple roles, for example, Public Radio Exchange (PRX) serves as
a content creator, distributor, and investor in media ventures (“What Is PRX?,” 2012). Some
broker organizations help build relationships between organizations, such as Public Media
Company’s (PMC) role in assisting with radio station acquisition and investment deals (“Public
Media Company: What We Do,” n.d.).
Within the public media system, NPR is the dominant organization that provides content
to affiliated stations. Stations can voluntarily become NPR members by paying dues to support
NPR in exchange for content. Member-station heads also compose the board of NPR and have
voting rights. Not all public radio stations are NPR members. For example, there are smaller
public radio networks such as Pacifica Radio Network, as well as independent radio stations. The
relationships between these organizations at the industry-level impact how radio stations can
innovate and change. For example, an ongoing concern among many NPR affiliate stations is
that NPR will become less dependent on member stations by pursuing other sources of funding
and by providing their content directly to consumers online, bypassing stations.
7
At the organization level, the general structure of most public broadcasting organizations
can be described according to the following levels: organizational boards, management and top
management teams, program-based or role-based departments (e.g. those who work on a specific
radio program, or those on the Interactive/Web team), and personnel (administrators, etc.). The
size of public radio stations varies. Large market, urban areas tend to support the largest stations.
For example, Minnesota Public Radio is an unusually large public radio hub composed of 41
regional radio stations, it employs approximately 90 people, and produces more than 21 hours of
news per week (Marcotte, 2012; Waldman, 2011). Stations in small and medium-sized markets
tend to produce little news and programming; only 25% of stations maintain at least one full-
time producer, which means that many stations only air content from other distributors like NPR
(Waldman, 2011).
Chapter Summaries
This project is divided into five empirical studies. Each study provides insight into the
challenges facing public media. The studies pull from a multimethod dataset and analyze
different parts of the qualitative and quantitative data. Most chapters are structured like research
articles and subsequently include some thematic overlap in the introduction and methods sections
(though without using the same language). Together, these studies provide a picture of how
public radio stations are adapting to technological disruption.
Chapters 2 and 3 are complimentary studies using interview data. Both chapters address
organizational identity, strategy and communication in different ways. Chapter 2 (Defining
Distinctiveness: The Connections Between Organizational Identity Discourse and Strategy in
Public Radio Organizations) addresses how views about competitors feed into organizational
identity, particularly with regard to what makes an organization distinct. This chapter also
8
examines how perceptions of competitors differ among individuals in similar roles across
organizations.
Chapter 3 (Staying Ahead of the Digital Tsunami: The Strategic Use of Sensegiving and
Identity to Manage Organizational Change) examines how people in public radio stations make
sense of strategic changes designed to address digital transformation. This study combines theory
on organizational identity, sensemaking and sensegiving, and strategic groups to evaluate the
ways in which organizational identity frameworks are used to foster organizational change.
Chapters 4 and 5 are also studies that are thematically related. Chapter 4 (Process,
Product, and Storytelling Innovation) addresses the meaning and interpretation of innovation in a
public media context. Analysis of interview data demonstrates how people make sense of
innovation in this unique organizational context through process and storytelling frames.
Chapter 5 (Evaluating Social Structures of Innovation and Creativity) analyzes survey
results from three public radio organizations. This study examines capacity for innovation via the
analysis of how communication networks inform project creativity, and the structural signatures
that underlie communication networks within a subsample of organizations undergoing change.
Chapter 6 (Thinking Short and Long: Future-Oriented Discourse and Digital Media
Strategy) addresses how managers view the temporal side of strategy. Through the analysis of
interview data assessing views about near-term and long-term strategic thinking, this study
contributes to our understanding of managerial cognition, time and strategy, and foresight.
Chapter 7 concludes this dissertation. In this chapter, I address emergent themes that cut
across the five studies and demonstrate how findings can be used to develop a greater capacity
for organizational change. This chapter also summarizes limitations and future research ideas.
9
In addition to an overview of the data used in this study in the appendices, Appendix F
(About the Organizations) provides more detail about recent major changes that have occurred in
the organizations studied in this project.
10

CHAPTER 2
Defining Distinctiveness: The Connections Between
Organizational Identity Discourse and Strategy in Public Radio Organizations
Rapidly evolving digital media products and services have impacted how individuals
seek and consume information. This has disrupted the business models of media institutions in
industries including print journalism, book publishing, and music distribution. Like other media
organizations, public radio stations are facing pressures from technological disruption, changing
consumer habits, and new threats to their business models. Many radio stations are addressing
these challenges by enacting strategic changes within their organizations to deal with the
changing mediascape. Public radio and television play important public service roles in the U.S.
because their mission is to serve the public interest by providing content that is under-produced
in commercial media, such as educational programming and local news (Waldman, 2011). Many
public media organizations have been developing new strategic plans and redefining the
structures and cultures of their organizations in order to keep up with challenges and
opportunities that come with an increase in communication channels for distribution and
audience engagement.
This chapter addresses a gap in literature on organizational identity and strategy (Anand,
Joshi, & O’Leary-Kelly, 2013; D. Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton, & Corley, 2013; Tripsas, 2009),
through the lens of organizational identity discourse, particularly with regard to how notions of
competition are embedded within culture, and structure the way people communicate about their
own organizations (Riley & Howard, 1999). This study draws from literature on organizational
identity, communication networks and strategic groups to explain how organizations develop
cognitive associations with other organizations in their industry. Through the analysis of a large
11
body of interview data, I show how views about competitors inform organizational identity
discourse and also produce tensions with regard to strategy that if ignored, can potentially
hamper innovation and change.
Literature Review
This review of literature draws connections between organizational identity and a
strategy by addressing how organizational actions stem from cognition and discourse. Previous
research (Porac, Thomas, & Baden-Fuller, 1989; Porac, Thomas, & Baden-Fuller, 2011) has
portrayed this relationship as an enactment cycle in which belief systems and cognitive frames
about an organization feed into strategic decision-making. The following section provides an
overview of the intersection of theories on organizational identity, cognitive competition and
networks.
Organizational Identity
Identity at the organizational level is useful for examining how people make sense of
their organization. It reflects responses to the question, “Who are we as an organization?”
(Whetten, 2006, p. 220). Gioia et al. (2013) build upon Albert and Whetten’s (1985) classic
definition of organizational identity in that it is composed of:
Those features of an organization that in the eyes of its members are central to the
organization's character or "self-image," make the organization distinctive from other
similar organizations, and are viewed as having continuity over time is the shared beliefs
of members about an organization’s central, enduring and distinctive characteristics. (p.
125)
This study focuses on identity as a function, in which identity reflects the attributes that allow an
organization be distinguished from others (Whetten, 2006). This perspective situates identity in
12
the context of how people within organizations make sense of, and enact, organizational identity
through communication. This differs from external identity in which outside audiences, such as
customers, view an organization.
A major gap in literature lies in the relationship between strategy and identity (Tripsas,
2009). An organization’s identity can be “expressed through elements of strategy” but it is
unclear how changes in strategy influence or are influenced by changes in identity (Tripsas,
2009, p. 456). Strategy can be defined as the “frameworks, techniques, and plans” used “to
eliminate competitive threats to organization survival, and to exploit opportunities for increasing
organization wealth and security” (Rabin, Miller, & Hildreth, 2000, p. xv). While public and
private sector organizations may adopt different strategic routes, overarching goals are shared: to
“marshal vision, fight for survival, and exploit opportunity” (Rabin, Miller, & Hildreth, 2000, p.
xvi). A key element of strategy lies in decision-making focusing on competitive dynamics and
organizational positioning -- the way organizations view themselves in relation to other entities
feeds into organizational identity and decision-making.
Discourse About Distinctiveness
The “distinctiveness” component of Albert and Whetten’s (1985) definition denotes the
significance of the ways in which people perceive their organization as distinct from other
organizations or entities (Gioia et al., 2013). Whetten’s (2006) view of the functional aspect of
organizational identity similarly positions identity in relation to views about other entities. Gioia
et al. (2013) studied organizational identity formation and argued that this “involved an intense
phase of articulating both similarities and differences between an organization and its peer
organizations” (p. 163). Optimal distinctiveness was used to describe how organizations attempt
to view themselves as similar, yet simultaneously distinctive, to certain types of organizations
13
within an industry (Gioia et al., 2013). Porac, Thomas, and Baden-Fuller’s (1989; 2011) work on
the Scottish knitwear industry similarly portrays how identity helped inform strategy, by
reinforcing myopia and a lack of innovation in organizations with long histories.
In addition to the organizational communication perspective on identity, strategic
management literature on strategic groups addresses how perceptions about other organizations
inform organizational and industry-level identities. Strategic group identity connects
organizational and interorganizational levels of identity; it is defined as “a set of mutual
understandings, among members of a cognitive intraindustry group, regarding the central,
enduring and distinctive characteristics of the group” (Peteraf & Shanley, 1997, p. 166).
Livengood and Reger (2010) similarly combined organizational identity and competitive
dynamics frameworks to discuss the role of identity domains, top manager’s most salient
cognitive impressions of the competitive marketplace. Anand et al. (2013) apply social identity
theory at the strategic group level in the context of organizational competition by linking
competitive/strategic groups in the context of social identity by focusing on perceptions of
strategic groups, arguing that strategic group configurations (SGCs) are the “psychological
connections (such as identification) that firms (through their managers) develop with different
strategic groups in their competitive space” (p. 571).
As organizational identity literature indicates, the way people make sense of their
organizations and environments impacts decision-making. Riley and Howard (1999) argued that
competition can be viewed as a cultural metaphor. This perspective builds off Giddens’ (1984)
structuration theory to argue that the way people think and talk about competition structures
social relations and organizing processes (Riley & Howard, 1999). For example, the notion of
competition can be used as an excuse for action to engage in organizational or strategic changes.
14
This can lead to the danger of using competition for misguided action, including the institution of
poor management practices. This metaphorical way of thinking about competition also touches
upon the dialectical tension between cooperation and competition. Whereas these ideas are often
positioned as two extreme poles along a continuum, this oversimplifies how organizations
operate within interorganizational networks, for example through alliances and partnerships.
Thus, competition not just about the entities participating in a given market, but rather, the
cultural metaphor of competition can act as a means for strategic action (guided or misguided)
and as a way of categorizing interorganizational relationships.
Communication Networks and Strategic Groups. Past research on networks (Monge
& Contractor, 2003) has provided insight into the link between communication and network
theory. Such networks are patterns of communication, in which communication can be thought
of not only as messaging but also as flows of data, knowledge, images or other symbols “that can
move from one point in a network to another or can be co-created by network members” (Monge
& Contractor, 2003, p. 3). Previous social network research (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2005; Johnson,
1994; Krackhardt, 1987) also points to the value of analyzing cognitive networks. Krackhardt’s
(1987) work on cognitive social structures compared how people envision their social networks
in relation to social networks based on observable interactions. Balkundi and Kilduff (2005)
argue that cognitive network theory can show how networks emerge based on the way people
think about their relationships with others. By examining how people view their organization in
relation to other competing entities, this networks perspective allows for a better understanding
of how individuals make sense of their organization’s role in the context of the broader industry
in which their organization participates.
15
From a strategy perspective, Zaheer, Gulati and Nohria (2000) also advocated for a
networks perspective with regard to strategic groups and the relationships between organizations.
They (Zaheer et al., 2000) defined five different approaches for network-based scholarship that
could be used for the analysis of strategic groups: 1) the structure of industries; 2) positioning
within industries for example through the analysis of strategic groups, 3) the links among
resources and capabilities, 4) coordination costs, and 5) the path dependence of costs and
benefits. These network approaches can apply to strategic groups, for example, to assess the
similarity between organizations within groups, or for identifying cliques in an
interorganizational network. Positioning within industry is a topic of relevance to this study.
Together, these bodies of literature highlight the intersection of identity and strategy
through a cognitive sensemaking perspective. This study uses this starting point to contribute to
business communication research by further analyzing the implicit role that communication
plays as the operational link between cognition and organizational action. This study applies
these concepts to analyze the research questions:
RQ1: How do employees’ views about competing entities inform organizational identity
discourse?
RQ2: How do cognitive competitor networks differ among people in similar roles across
different organizations?
Research Question 1 focuses on how individuals discuss organizations or entities with which
their own organization competes. This question specifically focuses on perceptions about
organizational positioning within the media industry, and how these cognitive connections
inform organizational identity. Research Question 2 builds off question 1 by comparing views
about competition among people across organizations and across roles.
16
Methods
Context: U.S. Public Radio Organizations
The contemporary U.S. public media system was formalized by the Congressional Public
Broadcasting Act of 1967. The act created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a non-
partisan funding source for public radio and television and established the mission for public
media: to provide content that is under-produced in commercial media, such as educational
content and local news. As of 2011, there were over 900 public radio FM stations and 365 public
television stations (Waldman, 2011; p. 152). Compared to public media systems in countries like
Canada or the UK, U.S. public media relies primarily on funds stemming from individuals who
donate to stations, as well as grants and foundation support, and corporate underwriting
(“Corporation for Public Broadcasting 2011 Annual Report: Financials,” 2012).
Public Radio Organizations
While public radio stations share similar missions they operate independently, therefore, I
conducted interviews with individuals at a purposive sample of organizations. The organizations
selected share an underlying commonality: stations undergoing strategic change with regard to
the production and distribution of content across digital media platforms. Organizations were
selected based on interviews with industry experts and consultants, and through observations at
forums about the future of public media. Some stations were included to assess differences
within this population as well, such as the inclusion of two music format stations (as compared to
the more predominant news format), two non-NPR stations, and the inclusion of a small market
station (See Table 1 for the typology for selecting the organizations; see Appendix A for list of
organizations selected).

17
Table 1
Typology for Organization Selection
Typology Rationale
Change Station in process of undergoing change,
particularly in the context of experimentation in the
digital media space.
Production of content at station-level Of the 900+ public radio stations in the U.S., a large
percentage do not produce content. Many stations
that produce some of their own content tend to be
more invested in moving into the digital space in
different ways. Most - but not all - such stations
tend to be located in larger media markets.
Regional representation (West Coast,
Pacific Northwest, Midwest, South, East
Coast)
The U.S. public media system is a national system
with a mission to serve local audiences.
NPR member stations Most cases selected were NPR stations in order to
maintain similarity among cases.
Contrasting organizations: KUSC, NCPR,
Folk Alley
Some cases were included to provide contrast.
KUSC is a non-NPR (music) public radio station,
NCPR is a small station in a rural market, and Folk
Alley is an online-only music station owned and
operated by an NPR station.

18
Interview Procedures
Participants. I conducted interviews with individuals from 14 organizations between
August 2012 and October 2013. Because I was asking questions about internal organizational
strategy regarding digital media, I tried to interview at least one manager and one
digital/interactive media staff member from each organization. By “digital/interactive media staff
member” I mean a person on the Web or Interactive teams within organizations who deals with
content in the online and/or mobile spaces. A total of 75 interviews were conducted (see
Appendix B for a list of interviewees). The average number of interviews conducted per station
was four. Each interviewee was asked about the level of confidentiality s/he preferred, for
example, if their names could be used or if they wished to remain anonymous. Nearly all allowed
for the full use of their names and organization names, thus, the names included in this project
are used with permission from the respondents.
Semi-structured Interviewing. I used semi-structured interviewing. The question guide
(see Appendix C) included questions on recent changes in the organization, digital media
strategy, views about innovation and innovation constraints, and views about the competitive
landscape. Interviews were conducted in person when possible, or over-the-phone, or via the
voice-over IP service Skype. Most interviews were recorded for transcription purposes.
Interview Analysis
Interview transcripts and notes were analyzed in the mixed methods program,
MAXQDA. Interview data were coded using first and second cycle coding methods (Saldaña,
2009). Theory informed the design of the codebook, and emergent codes and trends (such as the
prevalence of certain organizational identity frames) were permitted. First cycle coding
comprised the initial coding process, which included the use of Descriptive and In Vivo coding.
19
Descriptive coding involved coding based on topic, such as a phrase or topic-based story, for
example, descriptions of competitors. In Vivo coding allowed for codes to be based off of
phrases used by interviewees, such as “our culture.” Second cycle coding entailed a second
coding pass on the data to refine and explore patterns and emergent themes. In this process, some
codes were combined under thematic headings to better capture patterns in the data. During the
course of coding, I discussed results with people related to public radio institutions but who were
not directly affiliated with participating organizations, such as former public radio employees,
and employees at public radio stations that were not included in the project. These discussions
were used to help assess the validity of findings.
Codebook. A codebook was designed for the analysis of interview data. The codes used
in this paper include those addressing: identity, strategy, competition, as well as demographic
indicators including station and role (position within the organization).
Coding for identity focused on statements that exemplified professional identity (I
statements), organizational identity (we statements) and industry-level identity (e.g., the radio
broadcast industry), though individual- and industry-level statements were less prevalent. In vivo
statements addressing organizational culture were also coded as a subset of this category.
Strategy was coded based narratives told about past, present and future changes to
strategy dealing with digital media and technology. For example, several interviewees used
narratives about changes or events from the past to contextualize their organization’s current
strategic trajectory.
Coding for competition addressed the ways in which interviewees described competitors
of their organization, and ways of differentiating their organizations from other entities. A
typology of competitive entities (see Table 2) was derived from this coding process.
20
Comparison of Views about Competitors
Attribute data for respondents were coded. Attribute data included role (a person’s job in
their organization) and organization name. Roles were coded to be consistent across
organizations, for example, all people who were a President, CEO or General Manager fulfill
similar roles. To further assess how views about competitors differed among people in different
roles, I used a measure assessing the density of ties among dyadic groups. This descriptive
measure compares the number of shared views of competitors with the number of total possible
shared views
2
.
Network Visualizations Using of Qualitative Data
In addition to the qualitative coding of interview data, I transformed some interview data
into network data to visualize qualitative results. One interview question asked about the entities
viewed as competition for radio stations. Responses to this question were arranged into a
network in which each interviewee is connected to the entities she listed as competitors. In order
to create a network matrix for this analysis, the responses to this interview question on
competition were categorized (see Table 2). These categories were given an identification
number. The names of interviewees were also coded into numbers. A covariate matrix was
created showing the connections between interviewees and competitor entities.

2
Number of edges was calculated in Excel using the CountIf function (CountIf cell > 0) rather
than summed because it was possible for respondents to list multiple competitors and therefore
share more than one edge with another person. The purpose of this density measure is to
compare the ratio of existing to possible connections between people.
21

Table 2
Competitor Types Sorted By the Number of People Who Stated Each Entity
Category Example Count
Other NPR stations or
programs
Stations from other parts of the
US
12
Regional newspapers Houston Chronicle 11
Content streaming services Pandora, Spotify 10
Attention People’s time and attention 7
NPR NPR itself 7
None No competition 6
Local online news sources Local news and information sites 6
Online aggregators Yahoo, Google 5
Everything All media 5
Tech startups -- 3
Podcasts -- 3
National newspaper USA Today, New York Times 3
iTunes -- 2
Regional TV Stations -- 2
Mobile Apps -- 2
Nonprofit news websites ProPublica 1
Wire service Associated Press 1
PBS -- 1
22
Satellite radio Sirius XM Radio 1
Online news (commercial) LA Observed 1
Local live events Various political and cultural
public fora
1

Communication networks were graphed in Ucinet Netdraw (Borgatti, Everett, &
Freeman, 2002). A matrix was created to designate connections between respondents and
competitors (Respondent 1 links to Competitor 4, Respondent 2 links to Competitor 1 and 4,
etc.).
This study does not compare cognitive competitor networks with representations of
physical networks (such as competing radio stations within a region or market). This type of
comparison does not make sense here because cognitive competitor networks reflect how
individuals make sense of their institutional environment and how this can impact or constrain
decision-making within organizations.
Results
Competition and Identity
Competition Informs Distinctiveness. The first research question asked how views
about competing entities informed organizational identity discourse. Discourse on perceived
competition – a means of comparison with external actors – is a way that respondents defined
organizational identity. By describing competitors, interviewees depicted a key component of
organizational identity: distinctiveness. In general, competitors often share similarities such as
same target audiences or the production of similar content, so distinguishing how your entity
differs from competitors is a means of defining organizational identity through language.
23
Discussion about competitors ranged from those who stated no competition to those who stated
everyone.
No Competition. A small number of individuals, primarily journalists and some general
managers, dismissed the notion of competition. Most responses centered on the idea that the
radio station was fulfilling a niche left open by other media:
I don’t feel we have competition. What we are offering in thoughtful, longer format news
about important issues is not being offered on other news sites. The print media and local
commercial TV and radio news have abandoned our format. So we are filling a void and
providing our audiences with news they are not getting from any other source. (T. Karlo,
KPBS)
Similarly, some interviewees stated that their organizations fill gaps left open by the decline of
newspapers – an unanticipated form of competitive advantage:
The Science and Environment Unit here at KQED is one of the largest reporting units in
California around this particular topic. Unfortunately, that’s due to the demise of the San
Francisco Chronicle and the LA Times losing a lot of reporters. (S.E. McCann, KQED)
A second theme from this category reflected the notion that because public radio is a different
type of media entity than commercial entities, there is no competition. This perspective denotes a
more insular view about public radio. V. Lawhorn at HPM stated, “We don’t have to compete.”
Because they were the only NPR-member station in the region, she did not see any other
competition. V. Lawhorn acknowledged that they compare themselves to other public radio
stations around the country but they have different audiences. E. Chen of WLRN denoted the
tension between viewing public radio as a unique organizational form versus viewing it as
without competition. When asked about competition she stated that at an industry-level:
24
There isn’t [competition]. That’s the thing that’s great for public radio stations and also
what probably makes them really lazy sometimes. (E. Chen, WLRN)
Similarly, B. Barnes of KUSC stated the station is benefiting from the decline of commercial
classical music radio – KUSC is the only FM classical radio station broadcasting in many parts
of California, but they nevertheless face competition from the other types of radio of stations,
from the possibility of car radio disappearing, and from newer competitors like Pandora.
A third manifestation of “no competition” stemmed from the non-profit cultures of these
organizations. There was a tension between views about competition and how competition is
discussed in the context of non-profit environment. For example, several people said they do not
face competition because they do not rely on ratings, the primary performance metric used by
commercial radio stations. In this context, non-profits “do not compete” in the way that
commercial organizations compete in order to gain profits. One digital employee stated, “The
bosses say no competition, we just serve the community.” He qualified this statement to say that
in his view “new hyperlocal competitors" were still important to watch. His statement
demonstrated the influence of non-profit culture on perceptions about industry and competition.
It also shows how this perspective can potentially suppress competing views on organizational
identity and distinctiveness within an organization.
S. Bass (OPB) describes how some in public media are not used to the concept of
competition:
I think that there's also a class of people that came to public media that were probably
kind of uncomfortable with that term [competition]… They were intentionally interested
on radio or they're intentionally in television…They confuse the protection and
25
enhancement of the underlying public service with the protection and enhancement of the
means of transmission. (S. Bass, OPB)
S. Bass points out that the focus on transmission (radio, television) obscure the way many people
think about public radio in relation to the broader mediascape.
Regional Competition. The most commonly cited competitors reflected regional media
entities including regional public and commercial radio stations, and newspapers. Responses
stating regional competitors were closely related to comments stating “none” in that several
interviewees emphasized that non-profit media institutions do not face the same battery of
performance measures as commercial radio and TV, such as ratings.
Some interviewees focused mainly on radio competition. For example, in a market with
two NPR stations, C. Kravetz (WBUR) stated that they acknowledge WGBH as a competitor. In
keeping with the theme of distinctiveness he described the way in which WBUR differs from
WGBH, citing the how WBUR was able to develop a mobile app before WGBH.
Some interviewees focused on the regional aspect of their audiences while recognizing a
range of media in terms of content and platform type. One interviewee stated that competition is:
Anybody who creates content in Southern California that people want to consume. Thatʼs
the broad answer. The LA Times, local television stations, local news website, local
mobile apps, local live events that involve community forums and discussions about civic
issues. I think we have over two hundred competitors in our area.
(R. Stanton, KPCC, Los Angeles)
This type of response touches upon the broad public service mission of service for local
audiences while acknowledging different media platforms within a regionally bounded space.
26
Attention and Time. Several interviewees stated that competition was not about a
particular medium or region, but people’s time and attention. According to B. Koon:
Competition is peopleʼs time…You canʼt look at competition the same way anymore
because [our audiences] donʼt look at one station or one brand versus the other. They are
looking for curation. (B. Koon, KQED)
T. Shepherd at WLRN also stated “people’s time.” He emphasized how WLRN was trying to
differentiate itself by covering a specific set of counties in the region and by providing a
“sideways take” or an angle different than other media sources. Notably, individuals in digital
media roles at peripheral organizations including NPR Digital, CPB and McClatchy mirrored
this perspective.
B. Theriault denoted the challenge that stations face in terms of brand confusion from
external audiences:
Sometimes [stations] see other public stations as their competitors and we’re trying to say
no! The public sees us as one thing. They all think we’re PBS or something!
(B. Theriault, CPB)
His point was not that other stations were not competitors, but that stations were not paying
enough attention to how audiences viewed them. This has ramifications for when stations must
ask audiences to donate funds to the stations themselves compared to donating to related entities
like NPR or individual programs like This American Life.
Coopetition. Some spoke of “coopetition” meaning the combination of competition and
cooperation. This discourse focused on complex competitor/partner relationships with other
institutions. This was emblematic of changing perspectives about the public media landscape.
For example, S. Bass (OPB) stated that in the past, media organizations like OPB would have
27
viewed newspapers and other local news sources as competition; sharing or providing content to
such entities was viewed as harming the marketshare and brand identity of the public media
station. Today, sharing content through partnerships with newspapers and other entities has
become an increasingly accepted option for public media in some locations (OPB, KQED,
WLRN, Cleveland). For many there is still tension inherent to these partnerships.
Disconnect Between Competition and Strategy. For some interviewees, there was a
tension between how they described strategic changes occurring within their organization, and
their own views about competition. For example J. Labonia at WLRN described the station’s
strategy:
The digital strategy is very important to us because thatʼs where young people for the
most part are getting all their information from…what we have learned is you canʼt talk
for the most part to people the same way you do in television and radio and Web
involved. You have to talk to them in the environment in which the consumer uses it.
(J. Labonia, WLRN)
When discussing competition he stated:
Obviously, some of the other radio outlets in the market that do news. Thatʼs really about
it. (J. Labonia, WLRN)
These quotes represent a discrepancy in terms of the emphasis on a digital media strategy and the
view that the organization competes in the regional broadcast space. Strategic change requires
the application of resources to support new endeavors. This type of misalignment in discourse
points to a tension between new strategic ideas and existing organizational priorities; for
example, if one is concerned primarily about broadcast radio competition, this could limit
motivation to put limited resources into digital endeavors.
28
Visualizations of Cognitive Competitor Networks
Research Question 2 asked: How do cognitive competitor networks differ among people
in similar roles across different organizations? To assess cognitive competitor networks, I used
data from interview questions about the entities viewed by respondents as competitors to their
own organization. The purpose of this analysis is to visualize connections between
conceptualizations of competition and organizational identity.
Connecting People and Competitors. A two-mode matrix was graphed by mapping ties
between interviewees and perceived competitors (see Figure 1). Graphing the competition
network revealed two components, one large and one small. The small component consisted of
individuals linking to “none.” Because these individuals said “none” they did not list any other
competitors. The “none” component was removed and the single large component was graphed
again to show it greater detail (see Figure 2). The most central (based on in-degree ties
3
)
competitors in this network include: NPR stations or programs, regional newspapers, content
streaming service, people’s attention/everything, and NPR itself.
Comparison Among Roles. Table 3 compares the similarity of opinions about
competitors among the interviewees based on role similarity. For example, general managers
from different organizations were compared with digital media personnel, and with people in
other roles to assess the degree to which views about competitor types were shared. These results
indicate that the leaders in these organizations tended to share views about competitors, for
example, the relationships between general managers and top managers rank highest in terms of
density. The least dense networks include those between digital employees and managers. These
results add to a pattern ascertained in interview data that shows a divide between the way many

3
The most central nodes based on in-degree ties are the entities that were named as competitors
by the greatest number of interviewees.
29
leaders view competitors and the ways in which digital employees, in particular, view
competitors.
Table 3
Density of Ties Between People with Similar Roles in Different Organizations
Roles of Interviewees Number of
Ties
Number of Ties
Possible
Density
Ratio
General Manager x Top Manager 20 61 0.33
Top Manager x Top Manager 29 91 0.32
Journalist x Top Manager 29 93 0.31
Digital x Journalist 18 71 0.25
Journalist x Journalist 22 91 0.24
Digital x Digital 15 72 0.21
General Manager x Journalist 11 53 0.21
General Manager x General
Manager
4 21 0.19
Digital x Top Manager 11 77 0.14
Digital x General Manager 3 33 0.09

Discussion
Competition and Distinctiveness
The theme of distinctiveness underlies findings about perceived competition and
organizational identity. Discourse on what makes an organization distinct was key to how
organizational identity was defined. Whetton’s (2006) concept of the function of organizational
30
identity highlights the importance of how an organization is distinguished from other entities.
Public broadcasters are facing new forms of competition yet there is resistance to the concept of
competition stemming from the nonprofit organizational cultures and the somewhat insular
nature of this unique media industry. As nonprofit public broadcasting organizations, these ways
of deliberately not thinking in terms used by commercial entities were used to help bound
organizational identity, yet as Picard (2010) argues, public broadcasters must now deal with
competition in ways that they may not have in the past:
Technological changes combined with an ideological shift about the role of the state in
markets have led regulators to dramatically increase competition in broadcasting
(Murdoch & Golding, 2001; losifidis, Steemers, & Wheeler, 2005 as cited in Picard,
2010) and shifted the focus of policy discussions to issues of consumption and individual
needs rather than collective concerns. Public service broadcasters no longer play the clear
and protected roles they did in the past and must compete with the new players. (p. 367)
This fits with findings from previous research (Porac et al., 2011) deemed myopic enactment in
which the institutionalization of legacy organizations led to boxed in ways of viewing a changing
industry and prevented innovation. Thus, the ways in which individuals think about competitors
and the notion of competition have implications for strategic decision-making.
Organizational identity is the mechanism through which managers imagine their
competitive space. Whereas Anand et al. (2013) asked what are the psychological mechanisms
for the connection between organizations and groups, this study examines what these
connections tell us about the organizations in question. There was unexpected variety in terms of
how interviewees discussed perceived competition. The descriptive network-oriented results
further show that people in similar roles tended to have more in common with regard to their
31
perceptions than through comparison among organizations. These results points to divergence in
views about strategic groups and networks that relate to the roles of individuals within
organizations, particularly with regard to the divide in views between digital media employees
and managers.
The extreme variety of views about competition points to tensions about organizational
identity and the influence of technology on identity and strategy. Those who stated regional
competition reflected a spectrum ranging from a narrow focus on similar radio stations to a more
expansive but geographically bounded view of multiplatform, regional competitors. While this
view may be partially attributable to the community-oriented mission of public radio stations, it
deemphasizes the impact of Web-based and mobile borderless media including content from
other public radio stations and NPR.
Those with the most expansive – and potentially overwhelming – views of competition
focused on people’s time and attention. This view expressly accounted for digital media
competitors as well as a wide range of commercial media entities. It was also notable that
interviewees in digital roles at peripheral organizations (non-station entities) like CPB and NPR
Digital also strongly supported this view. These cognitive perceptions further define how people
make sense of the distinctiveness and identity of organizations, and point to the connection
between organizational identity, strategic group identity, and strategic decision-making.
Practical Implications
These results point to practical implications for the managers and employees at public
radio stations as well as for personnel in industries facing similar changes. Some dialectical
tensions emerged from this study including: views about competition versus institutional cultures
32
that discourage discourse about competition, and industry-level managerial cognition versus
intraorganizational strategy.
Competition vs. Institutional Cultures. Firstly, when there was no recognition of
competition, this often indicated a potentially inward, broadcast-focused perspective. By
avoiding the notion of competition, there is the potential for ignoring organizations that present
similar, better, or complimentary products. Both the relative uniqueness of public radio and
nonprofit cultures contributed to this view. Yet, views about competition can be used to
reconsider and expand notions of threats to the public media audience, as well as for rethinking
ideas for partnerships that could help maximize resources while aiding the public service
mission. For example, WLRN’s content sharing partnership with the Miami Herald was touted
by several interviewees as an innovative but surprisingly rare relationship that capitalizes on the
size and resources of the newspaper devoted to breaking news, and the analytical broadcast skills
of the radio news department. In the recent past and even in the present, interviewees noted that
regional newspapers were more likely to be regarded as competitors for the same market
audience. As different types of partnerships become more common, awareness of coopetition or
the tension between cooperation and competition among partner organizations is worth noting.
This recognition of competition is an important way people define distinctiveness and
identity of their organization. Yet, as Riley and Howard (1999) denoted, the cultural metaphor of
can be used ineffectively as an excuse for poorly thought-out change. Thus, a further tension to
be managed is striking the right balance between the potential pitfalls of using competition as an
excuse for ill-informed actions, and the recognition that because people think about competition
in different ways, it is useful to explore what may be ignored or invisible to some, particularly at
the managerial level.
33
Industry-level Cognition vs. Intra-organizational Strategy. Another tension lies in
aligning industry-level views about competition and organizational identity with internal
strategy. In some instances the way individuals described their organizational strategy for digital
media conflicted with their views about who was -- and was not -- competition. This discrepancy
calls into question how strategic decisions get prioritized, particularly when resources are scarce.
For example, if broadcast competitors are at the forefront of managerial cognition, then it may be
that much harder to commit limited resources to experimentation in digital media (non-
broadcast) endeavors. Improved communication about how managers and employees
(particularly those working in digital and social media) view their organization in relation to
other entities can help make visible potential tensions that could impede the implementation of
strategic endeavors in the digital space or other forms of innovation. This requires the translation
of cognitive industry-level assumptions to organizational-level strategic goals, and potentially
increased or improved cross-departmental communication.
Conclusion
In this study I show (1) that the ways in which people talk about competitors illuminate
perceptions of organizational identity, and (2) how this can impact the way value is placed on
strategic choices, such as the expenditures of resources on analog versus digital projects.
Distinctiveness cuts across the literature and findings in terms of its role in fostering
organizational identity and cognition with regard to the notion of competition and strategic group
identity. This study has implications for those within public media, as well as for others in
industries undergoing disruption including those in the publishing and retail industries.
Furthermore, this study makes a contribution by assessing data from people in different
departmental roles in organizations rather than solely with managers. Most research on strategic
34
change privileges a managerial point of view (Sonenshein & Dholakia, 2012). Sonenshein and
Dholakia (2012) argue that more research should address how employees impact the enactment
of strategic changes. This study provides insight into strategy and communication by examining
views between departments in organizations, as well as among organizations.
Limitations and Future Research. The use of purposive sampling and qualitative
interviewing are methods that provide an in depth look at a sample of unique and influential
organizations. That said, this approach lacks the breadth that other quantitative methods provide
such as surveying the opinions and networks of a wider range of employees at each organization.
Future research can build on this project by approaching organizational identity and conceptions
of competition from different methodological angles.
This study also focuses on U.S. public radio; expanding to address public television or
commercial media entities could provide a comparison of how industry characteristics inform
reactions to disruption and change. Cross-cultural comparisons with media systems in other
countries such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the British Broadcasting
Corporation could also address how differences in national media systems inform organizational
changes and perceptions about identity. In conclusion, this study contributes to our
understanding of how strategy is tied to sensemaking about organizational identity and how
communication can play a role in moderating dialectical tensions that can potentially impact
innovation and organizational change.

35
CHAPTER 3
Staying Ahead of the Digital Tsunami: The Strategic Use of Sensegiving and Identity to
Manage Organizational Change
In this study, I analyze how personnel in public media organizations make sense of recent
strategic changes centered on digital media. Strategic change can be defined as, “An attempt to
change current modes of cognition and action to enable the organization to take advantage of
important opportunities or to cope with consequential environmental threats” (D. A. Gioia &
Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 433). Examples of changes include: the reorganization of employees from
medium-focused departments (radio broadcast news, online-only content) to topic based,
multimedia groups, such as an environmental news department; the integration of
digital/interactive teams into newsrooms; and changing content production from radio-first to
Web-first, meaning creating content with the Web in mind then adapting that content to radio
broadcast rather than the converse.
Organizational identity plays an important role in how public radio personnel make sense
of the changes occurring within these organizations and may inform the ways in which
organizational strategy is developed, however, little research has addressed how these processes
occur. Previous research (Gioia et al., 2013) has identified a gap in the study of the relationship
between identity theory and strategy, particularly in the context of analyzing how organizational
identity influences aspects of strategic management. This study addresses this gap by examining
the connection between organizational identity and interpretations of digital media strategy.
This study asks, how do individuals make sense of organizational changes occurring in
their organizations related to digital media? And, how do managers attempt to lead
organizational changes related to digital media? Through the analysis of interview data with
36
personnel and managers in public radio stations from different regions of the U.S., I demonstrate
how identity frameworks are used to make sense of strategic changes. Finally, I argue that the
language of identity fostered sensegiving strategies as a form of internal strategic communication
to further organizational change goals.
Literature Review

Sensemaking and Organizational identity
The starting point for the analysis of these organizational change-oriented research
questions lies in sensemaking literature. Sensemaking can be defined as the ongoing, social
process through which people derive meaning from equivocal situations. This process is based
on “ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are
doing” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 409). Weick’s concept of sensemaking positions
communicative action as the means by which individuals make sense of situations in response to
occasions of uncertainty or ambiguity (Herrmann, 2007) because “situations, organizations, and
environments are talked into existence”
4
(Weick et al., 2005, p. 409). Sensemaking bridges
interpersonal and organizational levels (Herrmann, 2007), and positions meaning as socially and
communicatively constructed (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).
Strategic Communication and Sensegiving.
Weick’s (1995) notion of sensemaking is intertwined with how identity construction is
enacted and how identity informs organizing. Organizational identity involves how people within
organizations make sense of the collective identity of their organization through communicative
activities like “rituals, ceremonies, and stories” (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994, p. 243.)
Past research (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; D. A. Gioia & Thomas, 1996) shows that

4
The Communication Constitutes Organization (CCO) perspective further builds on this
constructivist view of organizing but is not addressed in this study.
37
organizational identity is developed through sensegiving as well as sensemaking processes.
Sensegiving is the strategic use of communication to inform sensemaking processes within
organizational settings (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). For example, Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991)
applied sensemaking to study a planned organizational change process at a university. In their
ethnography, they focused on the leadership and strategic change processes and argued, “The
initiation of strategic change can be viewed as a process whereby the CEO makes sense of an
altered vision of the organization and engages in cycles of negotiated social construction
activities to influence stakeholders and constituents to accept that vision” (1991, p. 434). The
sensegiving approach presents a strategic view of how communication can be used to prompt
sensemaking in others.
Organizational identity can become more salient when agents, such as employees in an
organization, are reacting to a major change like fork-in-the-road situation (Whetten, 2006), or
an external threat (Tripsas, 2009). For example, Glynn and Navis’ (2010) work on satellite radio
addressed identity salience in the context of new organizations striving for self-definition and
legitimacy. Along these lines, technological changes can amplify ambiguity in organizations and
challenge organizational identity. Tripsas (2009) argues that even minor changes in technology
usage within organizations can have repercussions for organizational identity because identity
percolates through “routines, procedures, information filters, capabilities, knowledge base, and
beliefs of an organization” and individuals use organizational identity as a filter for the
interpretation of external stimuli (p. 454). Managers therefore deal with uncertainty by falling
back on organizational identity. If a new technology challenges an organization’s identity, an
organization may fail to notice its importance, or may take an inertial stance and fail to adapt to
the technology in question (Tripsas, 2009).
38
This overview of literature is used to analyze the questions: how are individuals making
sense of organizational changes occurring in their organizations related to digital media? And,
how are managers attempting to lead organizational changes in this context? This first question
addresses sensemaking processes regarding the ambiguity of organizations in flux. The second
question addresses the leadership of change in the context of media organizations facing
technological disruption.
Method
Context: Public Radio Stations in the U.S.
The pace of technological change has been uneven at the station levels. According to
interview data, from 1995-2005 many stations began using Websites and tracking Web metrics
in makeshift ways. The popularization of social media sites like Twitter, and the emergence of
Google Analytics around 2007 increased focus on online tools and performance assessment.
Since 2007 there has been a great deal of experimentation in the digital and online space.
According to interviewee M. Fuerst, people have been throwing a lot of “spaghetti against the
wall” but there has been no strong “culture of regular change” in many stations or at NPR itself.
Another recent trend has been the influx of people coming to radio from newspapers
(e.g., leaders in KPCC, KPBS, and WBEZ) due to the widespread downsizing of the newspaper
industry. In general, the culture of newspapers encompasses a journalism ethos shared by many
on the news side of public media organizations. For many stations in this study - even some that
do not produce news like KUSC – a journalism/news ethos permeates the organizational culture.
Unlike radio, newspapers tend to have a stronger emphasis on breaking news. As R. Stanton at
KPCC stated, public media people tended to have a reactive mindset and emphasize analysis
versus breaking stories. Some people with newspaper backgrounds interviewed for this project
39
described the attempted institution of some newspaper processes such as a Daily Budget—a
systematic way to track projects. That said, there has also been tension between those with non-
radio backgrounds and radio personnel in some instances. For example, reporter Kevin Roderick
quoted an anonymous KPCC staffer: “I work at a radio station that's trying to be a website that's
run by newspaper people” (Roderick, 2013b).
In recent years stations have attempted a range of approaches to enact strategic and
technological change. Some early-adopter stations like KPBS have had a Web presence since the
mid-nineties and have used digital media as an outlet for multimedia content distribution for
several years, while other late-adopters like WLRN have just redesigned their billboard Website
(a site providing basic information about the organization) to be a news site for content
distribution in the past year. Additionally, some organizations have achieved relative success in
terms of ratings (Roderick, 2010) but still face challenges developing multi-faceted and
sustainable business models, and digital media strategies that mesh with traditional radio
programming and donor interests, as in the case of the classical radio station KUSC. Other
organizations have consolidated local public television and radio via joint licensing agreements
in order to develop new cross-platform distribution strategies centered on local journalism, such
as KPBS. Still others like WNYC and WLRN, have focused on building their brand through
unique content partnerships with other organizations like the BBC and with regional news
entities.
Participants
Participating organizations were selected based on a purposive sampling typology that
encompassed organizations that were: undergoing change; that produce some amount of their
own content (as compared to just broadcasting NPR programs); that together reflect regional
40
representation in the U.S.; that include primarily NPR stations and a few contrasting cases (a
music format station and a small market station). See Appendix A for a list of cases.
Interviews were conducted with 66 individuals working in public radio stations, and nine
individuals affiliated with related organizations such as NPR Digital and CPB (see Appendix B).
I attempted to interview at least one top-level manager and one digital media or Web employee
from each organization; when possible, I interviewed several people from each organization.
Procedures
Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2012 and 2013. Interviews were conducted
in person, over the phone or using the voice-over IP service, Skype. Interviews lasted from 40
minutes to up to two hours. All interviewees had the option of confidentiality but most permitted
the use of their names. I used a semi-structured interview style, and asked questions that
addressed examples of projects that were innovative, examples of things that were supposed to
be innovative but failed to progress as expected, and what innovation means to the individual
(see Appendix C for interview guide).
Analysis
I analyzed interview data in the qualitative analysis program, MAXQDA. Coding was
completed using first and second round coding procedures, that included Descriptive, In Vivo
and Thematic coding (Saldaña, 2009; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Table 4 shows the
codes and descriptions used in this part of the study.
41

Table 4
Codes and Descriptions of Interview Results
Codes Description Implications
Organizational Change:
Urgency Paradoxical mix of urgency
and relative success; need for
auto-disruption
Sense of urgency pushes organizational
change even in relative successful entities.
Pace of
change
Continuous, need to keep up It also reflects a panic about keeping up and
being nimble.
Identity Frameworks:
Medium vs.
Content
From a radio company to
creators of content; “story first,
platform second”
Sensemaking and sensegiving strategies are
being used to bring people along with
changes
Platform vs.
Platform
Agnostic
From analog-first broadcasting
to “shipping departments” for
content
Sensemaking and sensegiving strategies are
being used to bring people along with
changes

Organizational Change. Organizational change was coded based on Gioia et al.’s (2013)
depiction of dimensions of change: “pace of change ("shorter time horizons" vs. longer periods),
nature of change (continuous vs. discontinuous), source or impetus for change (internal vs.
external) and context of change (technological changes, high-velocity environments, mergers,
and so on)” (p. 139). Discourse on strategic planning and the communication of strategy within
organizations was also coded.
Identity. Identity was coded based on how people described their professional identity via
“I statements,” and organizational identity through statements about “we” as an organization. In
42
Vivo statements about “identity” and “(our organizational) culture” were included as emergent
themes in this category. The terms, “identity” and “culture,” were deliberately not used in
interview questions but were instead introduced by many of the interviewees.
Results
Organizational Identity and Change
The first research question asked: How do people make sense of organizational changes
in the context organizations disrupted by digital media? Each respondent was asked to describe
changes occurring in their organizations. This interviewer did not use terms like ‘identity’ or
‘culture’ when asking questions in order to avoid leading respondents. The focus of analysis was
on how people described the pace of change, for example, urgency of change; the source of
change such as key drivers; and the nature of change, such as continuous versus discontinuous
change.
Urgency. Most interviewees described a paradoxical situation – public radio stations
were fairing relatively well, yet there was a deep sense of urgency for change and fear of
repercussions if change did not occur fast enough. This urgency for change centered on the
perceptions about the speed at which digital technology is changing. From the outside (non-
station) perspective of NPR Digital, T. Mundt described his interpretation of the state of public
radio:
I’ve been talking to a lot of the bigger stations and they’ve had some relative success…
and then they’ve kind of felt this need to move into the digital space more competitively,
but they haven’t felt like the pressures that newspapers felt where it was…all of a sudden
they went off a cliff and everything had to change and it was just a debacle. But some
people have been saying they feel like that could happen to them in the future, like
43
they’re sensing that a big change will happen. (T. Mundt, NPR Digital)
This view was echoed with greater urgency at the station level. J. Ferro (KCRW) likened the
current state of radio to the plot of the film Singing in the Rain, which featured the rapid shift
from silent films to “talkies;” the implication was that radio is not changing fast enough, and it is
almost inevitable that an even greater technological disruption will happen overnight, akin to the
revolution that occurred in cinema.
Digital media were viewed as a driving force for continuous change. One Boston-based
General Manager stated:
WBUR is healthy and vibrant and thriving at the moment that is not likely to remain the
case unless we make some very substantial changes around how we deliver our content to
our listeners and users on every platform and every tool that they choose to consume
news and information here….The reality is that the digital tsunami will crash right
over us and wash us away if we donʼt stay ahead of it. (C. Kravetz, WBUR)
Similarly, a top manager in Los Angeles stated:
I’ve known we’ve needed to make changes but urgency has increased or accelerated in
last two years… We only have a real five-year window or …we will go the way of the 78
recording – a fringe and insignificant audience. (B. Davis, KPCC)
Some individuals worried that the focus on technology as a driver of change was distracting
leaders from making the managerial changes necessary to adapt to new technologies. KPBS acts
as a consultant to other public media organizations regarding the use of multiple platforms for
content distribution. According to the station manager:
We have many, many stations who come to visit us…Always, their first question is,
ʻWhat piece of equipment do I buy?ʼ I always say, ʻAre you willing to change peopleʼs
44
jobs? Are you willing to merge departments? Are you willing to have a level of change
management thatʼs painful and difficult? (D. Mackey, KPBS)
To D. Mackey, stations tended to fixate on technologies – a deterministic perspective -- not on
the process of change management.
The nature of change addresses whether change is viewed as continuous versus
discontinuous. Several respondents stated that the pace of technological change was so rapid that
it was hard, if not impossible, to do long-term planning. Notably, there was no shared perception
of a single shift to achieve organizational equilibrium. For example, getting a mobile app or
improving access to mobile content was not an end-goal for dealing with disruption and
achieving equilibrium; rather, interviewees expressed a desire to be nimble and keep up with
changing technologies.
According to B. Davis at KPCC, the rate of smart phone and tablet adoption causes “our
head [sic] to explode.” Two years prior, KPCC’s strategic focus was on developing a desktop
computer strategy with a complementary mobile side; now this has been inverted. They have
been focusing on developing applications and have increased investment in mobile Web.
Notably, like most stations, KPCC’s biggest audience and source of funding is still broadcast
radio.
Organizational Identity Frameworks
The second research question focused on internal strategic communication with regard to
how changes were being implemented and communicated. Two dominant sensegiving
frameworks emerged based on conversations with managers at the different radio stations.
Production: Identity as Medium vs. Content. One common identity frame dealt with
the production of content. Respondents used identity-oriented frameworks for depicting strategic
45
organizational changes. Across organizations, one consistent perspective was that strategic
organizational changes meant a shift from being a radio broadcast company to being a content-
driven company. This perspective emphasized content production, and implicitly, cross-platform
content distribution, as compared to a focus on broadcast production first.
One example of this organizational identity shift was discourse about moving from a
broadcast distribution company to a content company (e.g., OPB, WBUR, HPM). For example,
J. Davidow (WBUR) stated, they were shifting from being a “radio” to a “media” outlet. This
approach was used to deflect concerns about platforms by focusing on content rather than
medium. Most public media stations, particularly NPR-member stations, broadcast syndicated
content produced by other entities, such as radio programs produced by NPR like “All Things
Considered.” At the same time, many stations attempt to add value and serve their mission by
developing their own content, such as news and traffic reports and longer-form news and
entertainment programs. At OPB, their role of a broadcaster and distributor of other people’s
content was viewed as a disadvantage in the age of fragmented media. For example, distribution
across platforms alone was not enough if content could be accessed elsewhere (for example,
through podcasts or other sources). By emphasizing content, some managers were able to make -
or at least start - strategic and structural shifts that focused on building unique content areas that
incorporated multi-platform distribution in the process.
KQED is another example of an organization attempting this shift by gradually changing
its structure from being categorized by platform (TV, Radio, Education, Interactive) to an
organization structured around “story first, platform second” (T. Olson, KQED). One way they
are attempting this is by moving toward vertical topic units that mirror their experimental science
unit, QUEST. QUEST began in 2007 as department that integrated radio, TV and interactive
46
production. Initially, QUEST targeted different demographics on each platform and used the
Web as an archive for content (Simons, 2007). In 2012, additional grant funding allowed
QUEST to establish partnerships with other news organizations to increase environmental news
coverage in the Bay area (Eris, 2012).
Distribution: Identity as Platform vs. Platform Agnostic. A second frame used by
interviewees focused on distribution: meaning a shift from the primacy of analog radio for the
distribution of content to a multi-channel approach described as Web-first or platform agnostic.
For example, at KPBS, nearly every interviewee described the identity of their organization as
not a radio station, but a “shipping department” like FedEx or UPS, in which the goal was to get
content to audiences in any form they demanded:
Internally we don’t think of ourselves as a TV station or radio station. They’re just a
shipping department. (T. Karlo, KPBS)
B. Theriault (CPB) similarly stated that innovators in radio tended to be stations like KPBS and
KPCC “where they no longer dictate themselves as radio and TV’s organizations” but rather act
as “conveners in their community.” To B. Theriault, the shift away from platform represented
new ways of thinking about the community mission of public radio.
Discussion
Organizational Identity
Keeping Up. Among many interviewees there was a pervasive sense of urgency for
change even when organizational performance was viewed as relatively strong. This was tied to
the uncertainty of the perceived pace of technological change and resulting ambiguity about the
future of this legacy broadcast industry. This sense of urgency was both reactionary and strategic
in that it allowed for managers in particular to cultivate motivation for organizational change;
47
without a sense of urgency change seems less necessary. Several interviewees discussed changes
related to digital media in terms of processes rather than in technologically deterministic terms,
for example, D. Mackey’s observation about the importance of change management over new
equipment.
Sensemaking. Increased ambiguity in organizations can lead to a greater need for
sensemaking and sensegiving. The ambiguity stemming from uncertainty about the nature and
pace of technological change informed the prevalence of identity discourse. As expected (Weick,
1995), identity was used as a sensemaking mechanism. Within a sensemaking framework, the
identity of individuals as organizational actors impacts how they enact their environment. This
use of identity discourse is important as a communication process that bridged individual
sensemaking and descriptions of strategic change initiatives.
In addition to sensemaking with regard to technology and strategic change, interviewees
described variations of sensegiving as part of a strategic communication process. Among several
interviewees organizational identity discourse was used as part of a sensegiving process to help
facilitate internal changes. For example, the deliberate use of the term “shipping department”
within KPBS signaled a formal, shared metaphor that encapsulated their strategy for increasing
their footprint in the digital media space, and for encouraging buy-in with changes from
employees.
Sensegiving as the Strategic Use of Organizational Identity. As findings
demonstrating Production and Distribution frames indicated, identity was used strategically to
explain and support the changes that were occurring in several organizations. Previous research
has shown how leaders in new industries employ identity as a means for establishing internal
identification and external legitimacy such as Dutton and Dukerich’s (1991) study of spin-off
48
entities and Glynn and Navis’ (2010) analysis of the early stages of satellite radio. As Gioia,
Price, Hamilton, and Thomas (2010) argue, sensegiving has been shown as being a mimetic
process of identity establishment used to foster organizational distinctiveness. Tripsas’ (2009)
scenario of technologies as “identity-challenging” fits the situation in public radio in which
information and communication technologies (ICTs) challenge radio station identities while
simultaneously presenting new opportunities for organizational- and industry-level change.
While public broadcasting is a legacy industry, it is an industry facing a great deal of uncertainty,
and thus in several cases organizational identity is being used strategically to support structural
and cultural changes, and for employing discourse aimed at internal branding and sensegiving.

Conclusion
This study shows how identity plays a key role in how employees across organizations
make sense of changes. Some leaders and personnel are also using identity strategically to get
buy-in and shift organizational and professional cultures. This process of sensegiving is a form
of internal strategic communication centered on identity and designed to help shift professional
and organizational cultures. However, a purely top-down rhetorical approach is not necessarily
enough to fully influence culture change. Rather, incentives and related practices like training
and employee workload must align with strategic communication rhetoric. For example, several
journalists and managers at a range of organizations confirmed tensions involved in changing
views about organizational identity. Not only did one’s outlook about the organization have to
evolve, but often, professional identity was impacted as well. For example, many people
described the culture of radio as one that emphasized perfection in audio reporting and
production, thus any changes implied workload increases that conflicted with the time necessary
for reproducing a culture of broadcast perfectionism.
49
For managers, a stronger understanding of how people in different roles make sense of
changes and the organization as a whole, can aid in addressing concerns or roadblocks to
employee buy-in. Even in those stations in which employees across the organization adopted the
same strategic organizational identity language (such as in KPBS), there were challenges, such
as news employees feeling like they were being asked to do more and more. For managers, a key
takeaway is the need to balance sensegiving frames about to the shift from a broadcast/platform-
centric culture to a content/multi-channel culture with multi-directional communication about
professional identity and sensemaking among employees in different organizational roles.
In conclusion, by applying a sensemaking and sensegiving lens, this study analyzes
connections between identity and strategic communication within organizations. Paradoxical
ways of viewing technological change represent a challenge to those leading and managing
organizational change efforts. While change may seem continuous, fostering or maintaining a
sense of urgency for change may become problematic. This points to the potential value of
reframing organizational strategy from an urgency/change orientation to a capacity-building
orientation. The strategic use of identity frames by leaders also demonstrates how some
individuals are attempting to build organizational capacity for change by trying to transform the
way employees think about their organization as well as their own labor.

50
CHAPTER 4
Process, Product, and Storytelling Innovation
Innovation is a large, multifaceted topic yet some aspects of innovation theory have been
under-researched, specifically management innovation as a type of process innovation. Much
past literature has focused on technological process and products or outcomes (Černe, Jaklič, &
Škerlavaj, 2013). Additionally, research on management innovation and innovation more broadly
tends to focus on commercial manufacturing or services firms that are product-oriented, rather
than non-profit entities or those in the creative industries (Caves, 2000). There is increased
recognition that there are more ways to measure innovation than traditional product-oriented
measures like number of patents (Sempere-Ripoll, Hervás-Oliver, & Peris-Ortiz, 2014). That
said, with few exceptions (e.g., de-Miguel-Molina, Hervás-Oliver, de-Miguel-Molina, & Boix,
2014) the focus on innovation in a strategic management context continues to favor corporate
entities in the quest for understanding nuances of innovation.
I address these gaps in literature by examining the relationship between process and
product innovation in organizational in public media organizations. Public media organizations
in the U.S. are nonprofit institutions. Such organizations are tax-exempt entities whose missions
are goal-driven rather than profit-driven. There are approximately 1.4 million nonprofit
organizations that cover a range of missions from social services to cultural activities (Roeger,
Blackwood, & Pettijohn, 2012). In 2010 this sector of the U.S. economy accounted for $1.51
trillion in revenue (Roeger et al., 2012). The mission of public media organizations is to serve
the public interest by acting as a news and cultural resource for communities across the country
(Waldman, 2011; “About CPB,” n.d.).
51
In this study, I show how people in public media organizations make sense of innovation
by relying on process and storytelling frames. The following section provides an overview of
management literature on innovation and research on communication networks and innovation.
Literature Review
Contextualizing Innovation
There is no single definition of innovation (Lam, 2005). Instead, the context of
organizational settings and academic domains inform one’s definitional emphasis. This study
applies a strategic management and organizational theory lens to examine process and product
innovation. Based on a review of recent innovation literature from a managerial perspective,
Crossan and Apaydin (2010) combine prominent interpretations of innovation into their
definition of innovation as:
The production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in
economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and
markets; development of new methods of production; and establishment of new
management systems. It is both a process and an outcome. (p. 1155)
First, Crossan and Apaydin’s (2010) definition emphasizes novelty. The aspect of novelty
is a key feature that separates innovation from organizational change (Peris-Ortiz & Hervás-
Oliver, 2014; Woodman, 2008). Woodman (2008) nests creativity and innovation within the
broader domain of organizational change arguing that “all innovation is a change,” however,
only some changes are innovations (2008, p. 285). Secondly, as Crossan and Apaydin’s
definition indicates, a major dichotomy within innovation literature is the depiction of innovation
as a product or outcome and as a process.

52
Product Innovation
Schumpeter first described the differences between product- and process-oriented
innovation
5
(1934/1983). Product innovation can be described as “the introduction of a new
good…or a new quality of good;” process innovation was defined as “the introduction of a new
method of production…or a new way of handling a commodity commercially” (Schumpeter,
1934/1983, p. 66). As Schumpeter’s (1934/1983) definition indicated, product innovation implies
an assessment of outcomes. To Damanpour (1991, p. 561), product innovations are “new
products or services introduced to meet an external user or market need.” Armbruster, Bikfalvi,
Kinkel, and Lay (2008) similarly define product innovations as new services or products. Pianta
(2005) frames product innovation in the context of radical versus incremental innovations in that
“radical (new to the world) or incremental improvements on previous innovations, or imitation of
goods already produced in other countries or firms” (p. 572).
Research on product innovation and related concepts often use innovation outcomes as
dependent variables like patents and research and development (R&D) spend (e.g., Cattani,
2005; Silverman, 1998). Powell and Grodal (2005) argue these proxies for innovation can be
problematic. For example, even organizations that develop new products regularly may have
little need for patents; and conversely, some organizations purchase and maintain patent libraries
without having developed the intellectual property. Additionally, R&D tends to be a major factor
in certain types of industries like the technology sector, and thus research tends to ignore other
industries and examples of innovation. Public broadcasting is an industry in which product

5
He also described three other cases for innovation that will not be addressed in this paper: the
opening of markets, new supply sources, and the organization of industry for example into a
monopoly (Schumpeter, 1934/1983).
53
innovations may be developed, but where standard measures of product innovation like patents
do not apply.
Process Innovation
Process as “How.” Viewing innovation as a process means addressing “how” rather than
“what” or “how many” (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010, p. 1167), for example, how outcomes are
obtained. Schumpeter’s (1934/1983) definition of process innovation emphasized new methods
or practices. Scholars like Armbruster et al. (2008) have continued to adopt this definition of
“new production methods or new forms or organization” (p. 644). Based on a review of past
research, Armbruster et al. (2008) defined the category of process innovation further by focusing
on the subcategories: levels of analysis, internal, and external drivers. In terms of levels of
analysis, process innovation can be examined at the individual, group, organizational levels, and
at the population or interorganizational level. External drivers can include influences stemming
from markets or regulation. Internal drivers include: Direction, which relates to top-down versus
bottom-up processes; source, meaning the inspiration for ideas stemming from internal factors
such as ideation and knowledge, or external factors such as the adoption or imitation of outside
ideas; and locus, which refers to space of innovation such as closed (within firm) versus open (or
networked) processes. This study is particularly interested in the way internal drivers inform
innovation at the organizational level.
Management Innovation. Management innovation is a form of process innovation that
is considered non-technological and influential in impacting success measures (Černe et al.,
2013). According to Damanpour and Aravind (2012), management innovation encompasses
processes that lead to change in “strategy, structure, administrative processes, and systems” (p.
429). The terms management innovation and organizational innovation are often used
54
interchangeably; Administrative innovation has also been used in a similar way to describe non-
technological innovation within organizations (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012; Damanpour,
Szabat, & Evan, 1989). Definitions of managerial innovation tend to focus on novel change at
the organizational level. In this paper I apply Damanpour and Aravind’s (2012) definition that
positions managerial innovation as “new organizational structures, administrative systems,
management practices, processes and techniques that could create value for the organization” (p.
424).
Like process innovation writ large, management innovation is an under-researched area
(Damanpour & Aravind, 2012; Peris-Ortiz & Hervás-Oliver, 2014). This concept has been
addressed primarily within management and operations literature, and less so in communication
research. Management innovation is considered important because it has been connected to firm
performance. According to Lam (2005) process innovation precedes other forms of innovation
within firms. In a study assessing management innovation and cultural factors across an
international sample of firms, Černe et al (2013) found that management innovation was
positively correlated with propensity to innovate and with innovative performance.
Some researchers argue for a combined approach to the study of innovation. For
example, looking solely at process can inhibit a full understanding of innovation. Denning et al.
(2010) assert that getting swept up in the “process myth” can lead to innovation failure by the
overemphasis on managing processes without also focusing on adoption or other innovation
outcomes. Therefore, while a product-only focus can often be a weak proxy for innovation
(Powell & Grodal, 2005), a process-only focus can also be impractical and even detrimental for
organizations. Rather than minimizing process, a focus on the relationship between process and
product perspectives is needed. Damanpour (2010) tested the difference between process and
55
product innovation through a meta-analysis of past organizational research. He ultimately found
little difference between both types in relation to the explanatory variables of size and
competition. In light of these findings, he argued for an integrative approach to the study of
innovation in which both process and product innovation are studied jointly and in relation to
each other. Bhoovaraghavan, Vasudevan, and Chandran (1996) addressed the challenges in
defining these terms and the potential relationships between them. They argued that product and
process innovation can be viewed as a continuum rather than as distinct concepts.
Like the divide between process and product innovation, management innovation is often
placed in opposition to technical innovation. Technical (or technological) innovation is a type of
product innovation at the organizational level that usually refers to changes in operating systems
(Damanpour, Walker, & Avellaneda, 2009). Rather than over-valuing management or technical
innovation Peris-Ortiz and Hervás-Oliver (2014) advocate for research that uses a socio-
technical approach (Trist and Bamforth, 1951, as cited in Peris-Ortiz & Hervás-Oliver, 2014), to
assess the impact of combined management and technical innovations, for example, by analyzing
the co-adoption of such innovations and resulting outcomes. A study by Sempere-Ripoli, Hervas-
Oliver and Peris-Ortiz (2014) applies these ideas by using survey research to compare groups of
management and technological innovations. Their findings support the argument that a
combination of management and technological innovation had a greater impact on performance
than technological innovation alone.
Because little research has assessed process and product innovation within nonprofit and
media organizations, I assess the research question: How do public media personnel make sense
of process vs. product innovation? This question will be answered by applying a coding
56
framework based on the previous literature to analyze interview data about how people discuss
examples of innovation.
Radio Stations at an Inflection Point
Disrupted media institutions are not new phenomena. The newspaper and music
industries are examples in which the widespread use of the Internet allowed for increased access
to digital content, which disrupted analog business models based on print and CD sales.
Scholarship on the future of print journalism (e.g., Hinsley & Weiss, 2010; Picard et al., 2009)
has also clearly established that digital media are changing the practice of news production and
consumer habits.
The acute business model crisis that has impacted some industries like newspapers has
not had the same catastrophic impact on public radio or television yet (Ramsey, 2012; M. Fuerst,
personal communication, 2012; M. Reszler, personal communication, 2012). Several
interviewees noted that major historical events have increased uncertainty at the station level,
including the September 11 Attacks, the 2008 Great Recession, as well as the ongoing, changing
media landscape. Yet, many public radio stations have faired relatively well in recent years.
Revenues for the public radio industry as a whole have risen gradually since 1997, with the
biggest growth in individual giving (M. Fuerst, personal communication, 2012), though it is
notable that the largest stations account for a greater percentage of that growth. As of 2002, the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) reported that for public radio, private sector sources
accounted for $452.02 million, and government for $206.99 million. As of 2010, private sources
of revenues contributed $705.42 million, and government sources, $258.66 million
(“Corporation for Public Broadcasting 2011 Annual Report: Financials,” 2012). Additionally,
concerns that radio would be replaced—first by the introduction of the television in the 20
th

57
century and then with the advent of ICTs—have been unfounded so far (“Reports of radio’s
death have been greatly exaggerated,” 2013). Such respites aside, public radio and television are
still facing the threat of disruption.
Method
Public Media Context for Innovation
Public media stations are unique in terms of the study of innovation because they are not
obvious subjects for classical metrics of innovation such as R&D spending, number of patents, or
number of inventions or products developed over a given timeframe. In fact, one of the major
constraints to innovation in these organizations is that few stations have the economic resources
to allocate funds to R&D or exploratory innovation endeavors. Broadcast programming takes
precedence because of the 24-hour nature of the medium so it is difficult to shift funding away
from broadcast production; often grants or new sources of revenue are needed. Additionally
because of lean operating budgets and trends in grant funding that often favor the introduction of
new projects versus sustaining funds, it can be challenging to maintain new projects over time
(S. Edwards, personal communication, 2013; L. Pollard, personal communication, 2013).
Participants and Procedures
Please refer to the methods sections in Chapters 2 and 3 for background about
participants and interview procedures. Appendices A and B also list participating organizations
and interviewees.
For this study, when asking about innovation, I deliberately refrained from defining it or
from introducing related concepts like process and product innovation in order to avoid biasing
interview data. This allowed for variation in interviewee discourse regarding innovation.
Additionally, the question that specifically focused on an individual’s definition of innovation
58
was asked at the end of interviews because it was abstract and the placement avoided biasing the
response.
Interview Analysis. As in previous chapters, I analyzed interview data in the
qualitative analysis program, MAXQDA. Coding was completed using a combination of first and
second round coding procedures (Saldaña, 2009; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). First,
narratives about innovation and failed attempts at innovation, and definitions were coded. Then,
these segments were recoded based on codes stemming from theory and emergent codes (see
Table 5).
59

Table 5
Codebook for Interview Analysis
Code Definition
Product
Innovation
An outcome of some kind including an invention or product, reaching a
performance metric, new service.
Formal and informal processes that personnel use to select and
implement ideas like online voting systems, organizational structural
changes
Drivers: References to causes for innovative processes or products
Process
Innovation
Locus: sources of innovation
Relational Ties People: Innovation based on understanding or working with people
(Emergent) Partnerships: Partnerships with the organization that support innovation
efforts
Storytelling
(Emergent)
The ways in which people describe innovation as telling stories in new
ways; related journalism projects.
Not Innovative What’s not innovative or what failed to be as innovative as expected

60

Results
This study asks how public media personnel make sense of process versus product
innovation. This question was addressed using interview data.
Disruption as a Driver of Innovation
Maintenance vs. Autodisruption. One theme that emerged is the tension between the
relative health of many stations in the sample and the need to autodisrupt their organizations. By
autodisrupt I mean taking initiative within an organization to disrupt itself before external forces
compel change, like new competition or changing consumer behaviors. J. Davidow at WBUR
describes how, as with other stations, the largest audience and source of revenue still stem from
radio broadcast programming. However J. Davidow stated that to continue to succeed they must:
[Be] willing to disrupt ourselves -- even though it makes no sense to cannibalize our own
audience -- for a stronger outlet going forward. (J. Davidow, WBUR)
He meant that steering parts of the broadcast audience toward other, less well-monetized content
areas may hurt the organization in the short-term but pay off in the longrun.
Some interviewees mentioned the term disruption directly (this term was not used in
interview questions). B. Barnes (KUSC) framed constraints to innovation in the context of
dealing with disruption. She described the first steps she took toward revamping the strategy of
KUSC. During this process she also worked toward a Ph.D. in order to better understand how to
transform KUSC:
We’re solidly in traditional media, right, along with newspapers and network television
and all of the things you don’t want to be these days. How do you then start to transform
a traditional media organization into something that can take advantage of new
technologies and the capabilities that they provide to be able to accomplish your mission?
61
So it was, ‘How do we -- what do we do with all these technology stuff?’ How do we
develop a strategy for it and how do we start shifting the organization accordingly?
Because for us it’s truly disruptive innovation, right? Classic definition. (B. Barnes,
KUSC)
She found that there was almost no literature on innovation in nonprofit organizations, and
sought ways of building innovation into the structure of the organization. S. McCann of KQED
similarly stated that people entering public media must be comfortable with the “very, very
disruptive landscape” of changing media.
According to T. Mundt (NPR Digital), he was concerned that because many stations have
had moderate to improved performance records in recent years (particularly in larger markets),
they failed to see that disruption is occurring now. He stated:
What I do get concerned about is that in a lot of our industry, we look at our audience
numbers and we say we’re still doing really well. And so obviously, we’re not
being disrupted. And I think that’s problematic. Disruption theory doesn’t say that
you lose audience first. That’s not what happens. So calling that out as evidence that
there is no disruption occurring is just plain wrong…You know, the newspapers were on
a long slow gentle decline in audience before they were killed. And that continues. But
what killed them was the loss of revenue. (T. Mundt, NPR Digital)
M. Sill at KPCC echoed T. Mundt’s sentiment:
The tendency for media is to be pretty complaisant until everything starts to fall apart and
then suddenly try to panic. We’re in a position of strength where our audience has been
growing, our radio audiences continue to grow but disruption is all around us, and
disruption is about to reach radio so the things we’re doing with getting with staff
62
engaged in this is meant to keep us in an adaptable agile kind of mode so that we can
continue to be relevant in people’s lives. (M. Sill, KPCC)
M. Sill mentioned disruption both in terms of technological disruption and in terms of increasing
diversity in staffing and programming, an on going challenge in public media
6
. C. Kravetz at
WBUR stated that their new strategy is:
…Driven by a conviction of the digital revolution disrupting all media and that it will
continue to undermine journalism in America. While WBUR is healthy and vibrant and
thriving at the moment that is not likely to remain the case unless we make some very
substantial changes around how we deliver our content to our listeners and users on every
platform and every tool that they choose to consume news and information here. (C.
Kravetz, WBUR)
Along these lines, when asked what he would change if he could change anything in the
organization, C. Kravetz stated he would change everything; he viewed the organization as
vibrant and strong today but the changes necessary to succeed in ten or 20 years meant that it
would almost be easier to rebuild from the ground up.
J. Ferro (KCRW) further encapsulated the tension between managing a broadcast
enterprise and dealing with disruption. She stated, in general, public radio is “doomed to be un-
innovative” because it is a traditional medium first, and so everything is designed to support the
resource levels needed to maintain this structure, and there is little room for funding change.

6
The lack of ethnic and socioeconomic diversity in public media organizations, among the
content created for public media, and within public media audiences themselves has been a
major issue since (at least) the 1960s and is still a problem. This dissertation does not address
this issue but does position it as a topic for future research.
63

Management Innovation
Structures for Supporting Innovation. Several interviewees described organizational
structures and systems that have been instituted to support innovation. For example, WNYC
recently developed a formal system for scouting, piloting, and testing new ideas. This system
focuses on testing two project ideas per year and pairs radio and digital employees. They also
instituted more formal ways of soliciting outside ideas for programming ideas, and addressed a
major challenge of employee time. Most fulltime employees do not have the time or resources to
add on the work of developing a new project or idea so WNYC has set up a way to pay
employees involved on new projects over a set amount of time.
At WBUR, OPB and KQED, they have been experimenting with topic-based verticals or
pillars in which people are organized into teams based on topic (such as environmental or arts
coverage) rather than by medium (radio staff, Web staff, etc.). WBUR has also developed an
innovation fund and internal “laboratories” to help support idea development.
KQED is a partner on an accelerator, a venture capital entity that funds new projects.
This was a means through which KQED could formalize attempts at autodisruption and
disruptive innovation without infringing on day-to-day operations at the station. T. Olson stated:
As Clayton Christensen talks about, it’s really difficult to disrupt yourself, so one of the
ways we do that is to be a part of [the accelerator] where those entrepreneurs by their
own nature very well may disrupt media, not necessarily KQED in general or not
necessarily public media, but they could. Hopefully, they’re going to disrupt media. (T.
Olson, KQED)
64
This partnership was described as an “inside out and outside in” endeavor that aims to aid
disruptive innovation through design thinking
7
. These are a sample of some of the more
systematic managerial endeavors described to support innovation.
Technology and Process. Some interviewees described how technology/product is
incorporated into process views of innovation. According to L. Caloh, new platforms can
influence experimentation but evaluation processes are critical for managing experimentation:
There’s a lot about process and workflow and project planning that people don’t realize
are a key part of innovation as well. I mean I think you need to know the platforms, you
need to know the technology, and you need to know people’s experiences or expectations
of those platforms and then, you need to kind of be able to jump on it when you need to.
Know when it’s appropriate and when it’s not, like we haven’t started using Pinterest yet
because it doesn’t go as well with hard news. If we had a food show, I’ll be all over it but
not yet. (L. Caloh, KPBS)
Likewise T. Karlow stated:
Back in 2007 when we had those devastating fires in the San Diego County area, that’s
when we had one of our staff people say we need to start promoting Twitter. A lot of us
in the senior management kind of looked at each other going, ‘What the heck is Twitter?
What are you talking about?’ Lo and behold! We just said, ‘Well if you think in some
way that’s going to help people go for it, we’ll promote it on our radio.’ In a day or two
we had twelve hundred followers. They were getting valuable information. (T. Karlow,
KPBS)

7
Design thinking is an approach to innovation popularized in technology and engineering
sectors. This is an approach that aims for end-user outcomes such as product inventions by
focusing on the processes of collaboration and iterative product improvement or rapid
prototyping (Meinel & Leifer, 2010)
65
D. Mackey (KPBS) stated that she sees many people from other stations focus on the
technological side of innovation as a means for solving problems. However, she argues that a
culture of innovation is the way positive organizational change occurs:
We have many, many stations who’d come to visit us and want to understand how this is
done. Always, their first question is ‘What piece of equipment do I buy?’ I always say
‘Are you willing to change people’s jobs? Are you willing to merge departments? Are
you willing to have a level of change management that’s painful and difficult?’
(D. Mackey, KPBS)
When C. Mendez (KUSC) was asked to describe something innovative, he talked about mobile
apps that he had been working on for the station, and how these apps worked toward supporting
the values and brand of the organization. When he described the way he viewed innovation, he
emphasized that innovation was not invention, but rather a way of solving problems:
Invention is creating things from scratch. Innovation is rethinking them, rethinking
existing things, and giving them a new lens or a new filter. Innovation is really powerful
because you can solve abstract concepts or you can solve problems using abstract
solutions and maybe you can dive into different industry and go, ‘Here’s something
fascinating that can be applied to my industry.’ That’s different from pure invention
which is you’re just making stuff like that didn’t exist or that nature – I mean it's always
existed in nature, but it was you who kind of put it together. (C. Mendez, KUSC)
M. Green, who works in a similar Web development role at WBEZ stated that others assume
technological development equals innovation but this is not the case:
Some folks talk about our team at presentations because they’ll say like, “All these guys
are super innovative because they’re developing a mobile application.” That’s not
66
innovative. That may be innovative five years ago, hardly anybody had one…I think
innovative in our space is just often used for sort of like, “Hey they did something
modestly complex that was digital or technical in nature.” (M. Green, WBEZ)
This points to a dismissal of a purely invention-driven frame for innovation even among those
who design new products.
Storytelling Orientation.
Another common frame was innovation as storytelling. This was a salient response to
questions asking respondents to discuss an example of something in the organization they
viewed as innovative. This frame tended to mix product and process innovation in the context of
a journalism or storytelling example. For example M. Sill (KPCC) described innovation as
telling stories in new ways. L. Caloh (KPBS) emphasized multimedia storytelling as a type of
product. She gave the technical example of the creation of destination pages, or a single Web
page for each story to which all multimedia content on a story is directed. This technological
innovation was described as part of the larger process of reaching out to audiences in new ways
and changing journalism practices. J. Davidow (WBUR) stated, “I would say innovation for me
is pushing to find new effective and original ways of telling and informing and monetizing and
growing the people that we serve.” Similarly, K. Muller (KPCC) said that innovation meant:
Telling stories in a different and unexpected way or delivering stories in a different and
unexpected way… Like in terms of storytelling, I think of things like Planet Money [a
highly regarded NPR radio program] or breakthrough things that stick in your mind…It’s
about storytelling I guess mostly as opposed to delivery devices. (K. Muller, KPCC)
Others gave examples of innovative projects such as: Curious City (WBEZ) and Public
Insight Network (PIN) (multiple interviewees). Curious City is a tool that is designed around the
67
WBEZ local community mission. It allows audience members to ask questions about the city of
Chicago; questions get voted up or down by the public online, then reporters take on the more
popular questions to turn into news stories. PIN is an online network that connects journalists
with individuals who can be contacted as a source or asked to participate in news stories (“Public
Insight Network,” 2013). According to T. Akimoff (WBEZ), “I think [PIN] is really innovative
because it seeks to do something that a lot of other media outlets have sort of tried to capitalize
on individually, but not collectively” by creating a networked means for building stories and
engaging with sources. Other project-based examples included an Open Mic feature in which
members of the public can share their own music (L. Fahey, Folk Alley), and a real-time
information feed of posts, comments and photos during regional and national elections (D.
Kansas, APM).
These examples represent a mixed view of process and product innovation. As S. Eisele
(WBEZ) stated:
Innovation means “thinking in new ways about the storytelling that we do, and it means
applying that thought process to every assignment…. It's a process about challenging
ourselves to not fall onto the same habits that work really well in storytelling in public
broadcasting and that helped to define the sound of public broadcasting. (S. Eisele,
WBEZ)
T. Akimoff (WBEZ) similarly stated:
I think innovation for us, for anybody who’s telling stories, is largely based on how to do
what you do best better and different than anyone else, And sometimes that’s using tools
that exist and sometimes that’s creating tools. (T. Akimoff, WBEZ)
68
These statements capture the connection between storytelling and technology that bridge process
and product points of view on innovation.
Relational Dimensions: People and Partnerships
Some interviewees described the role of people and relationships in informing
innovation. D. Fraser (HPM) described innovation as being smart about the people and things
occurring around you. V. Lawhorn (HPM) similarly stated that her example of something
innovative stemmed from one of the first times KUHF radio worked with the local public
television (prior to their merger in 2013) by coordinating Texas primary election coverage. They
hosted a candidate debate and streamed it on television and radio, and supplemented this with
live blogging. V. Lawhorn stated “I’m not sure if you compare to the rest of the world, how
innovative it was, but for us, it was. We never worked together and we brought radio and TV
together.”
M. Holm (OPB) similarly said that working with new people with different technological
skills has been an example of innovation:
Innovation is “trying to do the same thing that you usually do but in new ways or trying
to do something you'd never done before but using the knowledge that you already have
to try to do it. So for us innovation often means working with people you haven't worked
with before. (M. Holm, OPB)
M. Holm meant that novel processes required radio and television employees to interact in new
ways and apply their skills in different media, for example, encouraging radio reporters to create
TV segments.
Relationships with other organizations were also described as examples of innovation.
This is particularly notable because within public media there is a history of organizations
69
behaving in solitary and idiosyncratic ways and not engaging in partnerships, particularly
partnerships involving programming and news production. While this is partly attributable to the
localized missions of each organization, it also reflects institutional culture. Now, this seems to
be changing. For example, WLRN has been one of the first NPR stations to partner with a
newspaper (the Miami Herald) for content sharing. One interviewee stated that the continuing
lack of content-oriented partnerships among public radio and other media entities stems from a
history of managerial arrogance that previously emerged on the part of newspapers and now is
present in radio stations. The interviewee stated:
The arrogance has a lot to do with the complacency in the system about disruptive
change. We’re just starting to see mobile technology disrupt our audience on air. But
very few people are worrying about this or responding to it. When the pain really starts
to hit and we start to see our listenership plummet - and we will -- when we really start to
see that is when people are going to start scrambling for alternatives like this and by then
it will be probably be too late. (Confidential Radio Employee)
Other interviewees (M. Marcotte, M. Holm) stated that this type of reticence toward partnerships
is changing but not without tension in some cases. For example, G. Scott (KCRW) stated that
KCRW was experimenting with partnerships with commercial entities. This has been frowned
upon by some in the public media community. For example, KCRW has partnered with
IHeartRadio, a digital radio and jukebox service, which is owned by Clear Channel, a corporate
entity. However, this partnership is one way this station has been pushing their music-oriented
programming out to audiences in novel ways.
70

Figure 3. Word cloud of terms used by interviewees to describe innovation. Size of word
indicates frequency of use in coded interview data. (The color of words is not meaningful.)
Discussion
These results show evidence of paradoxical tensions surrounding the maintenance of the
status quo versus disruption, expected and unique ways of portraying process and product
innovation, and evidence for communication network signatures that inform project performance
and innovation.
Paradoxical Tensions.
First, the concept of disruption was invoked as a way to describe changes occurring in
public radio. There was a shared emphasis on technology as a driver of change and the
inspiration for discourse on innovation. The term disruption stems from Christenson’s (2003)
widely known work, which defines sustaining versus disruptive innovation. Sustaining
innovations tend to be incremental improvements conducted within incumbent organizations
71
such as improving an existing project. A disruptive innovation is a type of radical innovation
based on the introduction of a product or service that results in the creation of a new market
(Christensen & Overdorf, 2000). The notion of disruption can be used to describe major
technological shifts, particularly with regard to the impact of ICTs on broadcast and print-based
journalism and media companies.
Autodisruption. The notion of autodisruption emerged from interview data as a strategic
way of conceptualizing innovation in relation to disruption. This type of self-disruption was
postulated by some leaders as the way to support internal innovation and to stay ahead of the
“digital tsunami” (Kravetz, WBUR). Within literature on innovation, there is an inherent tension
between maintaining the status quo and disruption, or the need for innovation-related change.
Tuomi (2002) argues that innovation “is possible only because members of user communities
can break the institutionalized forms of practice…More importantly some rules can be extended,
reinterpreted and broken” (p. 27). While Tuomi does not confine this statement to organizations,
the significance of this view is that innovation involves the conscious disruption of established
practices and rules. Thus, those who spoke in terms of autodisruption were describing a strategic
way of dealing with the tension between relatively strong contemporary organizational
performance and the knowledge that long-term performance depends largely on management
innovation and experimentation in the digital media space that challenges or even “cannibalizes”
successful parts of the business.
Process, Product and Managerial Innovation
Experimental Managerial Innovation. Many examples of innovation demonstrated
evidence for structural and administrative changes made in attempts to support innovation.
Among some organizations, experimental structures and processes were instituted to foster
72
innovation internally or externally (locus) and to help bridge top-down and bottom-up idea
development and implementation (direction; Armbruster et al., 2008). While most examples
focused on internal managerial innovations such as innovation labs, interviewees as KUSC and
KQED described locating groups outside the main workings of their organizations. At KUSC,
the interactive team started as a small independent group and was recently integrated into the
organization, and KQED’s investment in an accelerator is a unique attempt to capitalize on
external disruptive innovation, as well as design thinking and technology sector resources that
are situated in the San Francisco/Silicon Valley region.
Innovation as Relational: People, Places, & Stories. Overall, there was a much
stronger emphasis on process innovation than product innovation in narratives about projects or
other events viewed as innovative. Relationships among people and organizations were also
situated as loci of innovation (Armbruster et al., 2008). This discourse reflects the growing body
of research that points to how social networks among people and organizations can lead to
increased innovation (Powell et al., 1996; Powell & Grodal, 2005; Uzzi & Spiro, 2005).
There was also a strong trend toward innovation as being a novel means for storytelling.
Storytelling innovation combined process and product innovation frames in a unique way.
Stories (a synonym for content in this case) can be viewed as the products or outputs of these
media organizations. The idea of the story was depicted as guiding process as well as product
development. A story could be viewed as the outcome of managerial and technological
innovation processes; yet, stories were not framed as a type of invention. Rather, stories
represented the visible or auditory expression of networks individuals and technologies; for
example, the way PIN linked organizations, journalists, and sources through an online social
73
network, or the way story pages at KPBS combined the multi-media outputs of different
contributors on single topic areas.
When individuals did describe products such as mobile phone apps, these examples were
often couched in the language of process or reflected the combined socio-technical approach to
evaluating both types of innovation as advocated for by Peris-Ortiz & Hervás-Oliver (2014).
When examples of product innovation were discussed, they were often couched in cultural
discourse; for example, C. Mendez’ description of new mobile apps as expressions of
organizational values. This discourse was product-focused in that people talked about how new
technologies could change the ways in which news stories were gathered and distributed but the
emphasis on innovation was not on technological tools but on the outcome of a novel means for
conveying a story. Together these observations support research that points to the relational
factors that support innovation, and present an example of how innovation can be viewed in the
context of a creative industry organization.
Conclusion
This chapter sought to study how process and process innovation was interpreted among
people working in a unique nonprofit, media sector. This study builds upon management
literature by assessing the connections between management innovation systems and processes
that add value to organizations and outcomes (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012). Findings address
research gaps in the understanding of process innovation, and in innovation in a nonprofit,
creative industry context. Overall, the relational process and storytelling frames that dominated
discourse point to the value of network perspectives for assessing innovation within
organizations.
74
By coalescing data from a range of different public media organizations, this study has
strong practical implications for those in this industry, and in related industries facing disruption
such as the music industry, television news and television more broadly, and publishing. Because
many public radio stations act independently, it is valuable for this audience to gain a broader
understanding of what is happening in other stations and how different people (managers as well
as employees) make sense of over-used but highly valued concepts like innovation. This
depiction of sensemaking about innovation can be used to evaluate and inform strategic planning
and decision-making processes geared toward dealing with disruption. Additionally, the
theoretical contributions discussed point to new ways of conceptualizing innovation for
practitioners such as the importance of paying closer attention to communication networks.
This study faces several limitations. Because I focused on interpretations and opinions
about innovation, this chapter does not assess other types of outcomes such as the number or
impact of certain types of projects. For example, a story-based project may be viewed as
incredibly innovative but if few people see or hear it, what happens next? Future qualitative and
quantitative research can assess some examples of the innovation efforts mentioned more closely
to assess how ideas are developed and implemented and how project outcomes match with
perceptions about the project.
Future research can also examine other types of data to compare across organizations,
such as observable data from websites and social media sites that demonstrate the
implementation of new ideas or story innovations. Additional research could evaluate the
relationships between the organizations themselves (station-to-station partnerships, station and
non-public media partnerships, or networked innovation-oriented relationships like PIN) to better
assess knowledge sharing, advice seeking, or collaboration among different types of entities. In
75
sum, this paper makes a contribution to literature linking communication and a strategic
management perspective on innovation, and provides insight into how public media
organizations are dealing with disruption and change.

76

CHAPTER 5
Evaluating Social Structures of Innovation and Creativity
This chapter builds off the introduction to innovation literature provided in Chapter 4.
The social and communicative structures that inform innovation represent another aspect of
innovation within organizational research that needs to be better understood. There is a growing
body of literature that emphasizes how relationships among individuals (Obstfeld, 2012; Uzzi &
Spiro, 2005) and organizations (Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996) influence innovation and
creativity, yet more research needs to be done to show how network structures within
organizations inform innovation. This study uses Chapter 4 literature and findings as a starting
point, and incorporates social network research on the influence of networks on innovation and
creativity.
In this chapter, I analyze the relationships between communication networks, idea
implementation and project performance, and I develop an exploratory taxonomy of emergent
communication network structures that support innovative organizations.

Literature Review

Innovation research tends to be valued because the majority or it addresses outcomes
closely tied to organizational (and financial) performance such as the factors that lead to
inventions or patents. However, as argued in Chapter 4, the connections between process and
outcome need to be better understood. Along the same lines, the connections between creativity
and innovation are also relevant because of conceptual overlap at a theoretical level. According
to Zhou and Shalley (2008), creativity and innovation are not that different, however, approaches
to studying these topics have been divided along methodological lines. Historically,
77
psychological research (e.g., Amabile, 1996) focused on creativity, whereas sociological and
managerial research has focused on innovation (Shalley & Zhou, 2008). Like innovation,
creativity can be defined as a process and an outcome, where process emphasizes idea
generation, and product relates to outcomes like new works or ideas.
Amabile (1996) defines creativity as “a product or response…[that is] both novel and
appropriate, useful, correct or valuable response to the task at hand” given that the task is
heuristic (without a clear and obvious solution) as compared to algorithmic (tasks with obvious
and straightforward solutions) (p. 35). Csikszentmihalyi (1997) focuses on the societal value of
creativity by defining it as “a process by which a symbolic domain in the culture is changed” (p.
8), and as “any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an
existing domain into a new one” (p. 28). At the organization level creativity moves beyond
individual traits and dispositions to encompass the influences of culture, incentives, technology,
resources and other systematic influences; these influences can similarly affect process
innovations (Shalley & Zhou, 2008). Thus, the major difference between process innovation and
creativity definitions lies in the principle focus on idea development, as well as a tendency (with
the exception of some organizational-level research) toward psychological analysis. As with
innovation research, there is far less research on creative process versus outcomes.
As organizational-level creativity and innovation literature demonstrate, the connections
between novel idea generation (Amabile, 1996; Shalley & Zhou, 2008) and idea implementation
(Crossan & Apaydin, 2010) are interrelated and can be viewed as components of an innovation
process model . This overview, in coordination with the review of process innovation literature
in Chapter 4, leads to the first research question.

78
RQ1: How do perceptions about the quality of idea generation and idea implementation
correlated with views on project performance?
This research question focuses on how people perceive their ability to work with others to
generate ideas and get ideas implemented. Project performance is based on a measure of
perceived project creativity as an outcome measure relevant to creative industry organizations,
and one that cuts across a range of projects. Previous research has assessed project creativity as
an outcome measure (Kratzer, Gemuenden, & Lettl, 2008), and emphasized the role of “creative
projects” as forms of innovation stemming from routines within organizations (Obstfeld, 2012).
Networks as Sites of Innovation
Within the body of innovation literature addressed so far, the role of communication is
absent albeit implied as the mechanism by which novel processes are implemented and products
developed. Past research has begun to analyze how communication networks among people and
organizations inform innovation (Powell & Grodal, 2005), yet there is little research that
addresses how this occurs within organizations. Assessing innovation from a network
perspective can advance our understanding of the relationship between process and product
innovation in relation to the stakeholders and variables involved in developing both. Some past
research has foreshadowed this, for example, Becker (1984) depicted art as a symphony of
required activities like production, distribution, support, division of labor (e.g., feature film
production). His conceptualization of art worlds highlights the mobilization of resources and the
adoption and diffusion of ideas across relevant domains pointing toward an unspecified emphasis
on networks of relationships. Uzzi and Spiro (2005) similarly argue against the myth of the lone
inventor in that “structural preconditions suggest that creativity is not only, as myth tells, the
79
brash work of loners, but also the consequence of a social system of actors that amplify or stifle
one another’s creativity” (pp. 447-8).
Networks can be viewed as the locus of innovation (Powell et al., 1996), as
communication conduits that can influence innovation flows, and as a form of innovation itself
(Himanen & Castells, 2004). According to Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003), “A social network
approach looks specifically at how the context of social relationships influences behavior” (p.
190). Social network analysis can be used to examine the relationships between subjects, their
positions within the network, patterns of relationships and the structural dynamics of the whole
network (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). According to Powell et al. (1996), “A network serves as
a locus of innovation because it provides timely access to knowledge and resources that are
otherwise unavailable while also testing internal expertise and learning capabilities” (p. 119).
This positioning of the locus of innovation relates back to Crossan and Apaydin’s (2010) process
innovation taxonomy.
Network measures can provide insight into communication and social structures that
inform innovation. The principle theme within the study of innovation and networks relates to
the spread of diverse rather than homogenous information. For example, weak ties (Granovetter,
1973) can be influential in fostering creativity and innovation due to the increased possibility of
connecting with diverse or heterophilous nodes, and thus receiving new information or exposure
to differing outlooks (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Central individuals within a network may
be in a position to feel confident in terms of risk-taking, but it is also probable that they will be
less able to access new information due to a preponderance of redundant ties (Perry-Smith &
Shalley, 2003).
80
An increase in density of a social network can reflect the convergence of views over time
– something that is not necessarily great for fostering creativity in which access to diverse
information sources can be advantageous (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Individuals who bridge
groups (Burt, 1992) on the other hand may be able to access diverse information. Additionally,
Powell et al. (1996) and Powell and Grodal (2005) demonstrate how process innovation can be
assessed at the population level through interorganizational networks. These examples illustrate
some ways that network measures can be applied to assess a relational take on innovation, but
more research needs to be conducted to test and compare these research questions in different
organizational contexts.
This overview of network characteristics that point toward innovation lead to the
following research questions.
RQ2: In organizations in different stages of organizational change, how dense are
communication networks likely to be?
This study analyzes network characteristics that inform innovation in the context of advice
networks. Advice networks indicate the ways individuals seek information or advice from other
individuals within one’s social network (McDonald & Westphal, 2003). This research question
assesses density in the context of advice networks within organizations that are perceived to be
examples of innovative entities. Sparse ties should be evidenced as compared to a dense network
which is more likely to foster information redundancy (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003).
RQ3: In organizations in different stages of organizational change, will people seek
advice from individuals in different or similar organizational roles?
Research question three examines the probability that ties will tend to be heterophilous rather
than homophilous, in that a diversity of ties supports access to non-redundant information.
81
RQ4: Will individuals nominated by others be more or less likely to bridge departments
more than other individuals?
Research question four builds off structural hole theory (Burt, 1992; Picard, Stearns, & Aaron,
2009) which posits that bridging groups can increase access to diverse information. Research
questions two, three and four address the structural foundations of communication networks that
point toward support for innovation. These research questions will be tested using p* exponential
random graph models (ERGM), which will be further explained in the methods section.

Methods

Survey Procedures
Survey data were gathered to compare the views and relationships among employees
within organizations. Of the 14 stations in which interviews were conducted, seven initially
agreed to participate in the survey. Of these seven organizations, three produced usable data. The
response rates for the remaining four were too minimal to be analyzed independently.
In 2013 the survey was distributed to employees online via the survey design application,
Qualtrics. At each organization, a high-ranking manager or CEO sent out the survey to all
employees via email. This email included a brief introduction to the survey written by this
researcher that specified that survey was voluntary. Reaching out to all employees enabled a
greater degree of confidentiality for participants because it would be harder to identity
individuals. This potentially allowed for more robust social network data. The survey remained
open to potential respondents for a two-week period, and at least two reminder emails were sent
out by the respective managers at each location. Survey participation was voluntary, and the
survey took 12-15 minutes to complete.
82
Cases. Participating organizations included KUSC, OPB, and HPM. These organizations
reflect cases that differ along two axes: station type and change status (see Table 6).
Table 6
Comparison of Surveyed Organizations
Station Type Change Status
Incremental Change Radical Change
News-oriented (NPR member) OPB HPM
Music-oriented KUSC --

Both OPB and HPM are dual-license organizations, meaning they house both public radio and
television stations. Their radio stations are NPR member stations that have a news programming
focus (as compared to a music focus). KUSC is a classical music public radio station; it is not an
NPR member station and does not employ a news format. While all three stations are making
changes related to digital media content and services, HPM has been in a state of relatively
radical change.
OPB. OPB is located in Portland, Oregon. They have a history of being relatively early
adopters of new media. As a dual-license station, OPB has been in the process of breaking down
medium-based, silo’d departments over the past five years. They have been focusing on
changing the organizational culture to shift from a medium focus (radio, TV) to a content focus.
They have a new head of engineering from WGBH in Boston, and they are in the process of
building another news bureau in Southwest Washington (Lapin, 2013). They have a recent
history of experimentation in digital media including the construction of their own mobile apps,
and an iPad magazine with content distinct from other media content including broadcast radio.
83
HPM. HPM has been undergoing many big changes. In 2011, they launched a second
FM classical station (KUHA) and transformed the existing NPR/music station (KUHF) into a
news-only format station. In early 2012, the radio and public television (KUHT) stations merged
into one, dual-license entity. Many of the managers in charge during and after this transition
were from the radio side of the organization. Also, in early 2012 a group of HPM leaders visited
KPBS for consulting advice about improving their digital media and multiplatform footprint.
According to D. Fraser:
We made some assumptions -- again because you had a group of radio people -- thinking
well now what we need is some pictures and that was not the case. That wasn’t the case
at all. So, getting to learn from the trials and tribulations that KPBS had been through
and their successes, getting to learn from that made a really big difference. (D. Fraser,
HPM)
As of late 2012, HPM was developing a new strategic plan and working on increasing
collaboration between the television and radio departments. In early 2013, some top managers
including D. Fraser and E. Binetti were let go from the organization due to ongoing
organizational change efforts.
KUSC. KUSC has been undergoing a multi-year strategic planning process. Their
General Manager, B. Barnes, stated that they are at an inflection point and need to change to be
more than a radio station. From 2010-2012, they worked with a communications consultant to
address internal communication and leadership issues. They also focused on setting up an in-
house interactive media team, and a distributed network of specialty contractors for issues like
mobile application design. This interactive team first worked as an independent unit (away from
other KUSC personnel) to foster innovation, and it has now been integrated into the organization.
84
In late 2012 and early 2013, KUSC held a series of strategic planning meetings to discuss long-
term planning initiatives (10-15 years out) as well as steps to take in the near term. While these
meetings provided a forum for a range of people in the organization to connect, meetings
gradually focused on more near-term issues like building Web-based applications, and the long-
term perspective was not sustained. According to the B. Barnes there has been market failure for
classical music radio. Commercial stations are disappearing, however, as a nonprofit institution,
KUSC is in a stronger position. KUSC recently purchased a Bay area classical station.
About the Survey Data. The survey response rates for the organizations were the
following: 80% for KUSC, 73% for OPB, and 56% for HPM. HPM was in the process of
undergoing a merger between radio and television, which may at least partially account for this
low response rate. See Table 7 for more about survey respondents.
85

Table 7
About the Survey Respondents
N Job Category Tenure
(years)
Age
(years)
Gender
KUSC 32 44% Radio
9% Web/Engineering
16% Admin
6% Top Leaders
M = 9.75,
SD = 8.53
M = 50,
SD = 14
Men = 59%,
Women = 41%
OPB 41 32% Radio
20% TV
7% Web/Engineering
10% Membership/Business
5% Top Leaders
M = 10.46,
SD = 7.54
M = 43,
SD = 12
Men = 44%,
Women = 56%
HPM 26 23% Radio
8% TV
12% Web/Engineering
15% Membership/Business
M = 9.13,
SD = 7.98
M = 40,
SD = 12
Men = 53%,
Women = 47%
Combined
Data
99 33% radio
10% TV
9% Web/Engineering
16% Membership/Business
4% Top Leadership
M = 13,
SD = 1.66,
Range = 1-42
M = 45,
SD = 13
Range =
23-74
Men = 51%,
Women = 49%

86
Measures. The survey instrument included items about communication and advice
networks of employees, views about idea generation and implementation, project creativity, and
demographics (see Appendix E).
Project-Based Communication Networks. Communication network questions address:
with whom one has communicated about a past meaningful project from the previous 6-12
months. Respondents were allowed to write in up to seven names.
Advice Networks. A second network item asked respondents to consider a major strategic
change that had occurred in their organization in the past 12 months, and to whom they went to
for advice. Respondents were able to list up to seven names. People were also asked to list at
least one person who came to them for advice. Frequency of advice seeking with regard to each
person listed was assessed using a Likert scale (see Appendix E for scale items and response
options).
Ability to Generate New Ideas and Get Ideas Implemented. Respondents were asked to
rate their abilities for developing new ideas and getting new ideas implemented with each person
they listed in the communication network item (α = .83). These questions stem from Sosa’s
(2011) research on creative interactions and the influence of social networks on creativity. These
items use a Likert scale in which 1 signifies “strongly disagree” and 5, “strongly agree.” For use
in parametric analysis, the means of these variables were computed to serve as a measure of each
respondent’s perceived ability to generate new ideas with colleagues (Mean Generate), and
ability to get ideas implemented by working with colleagues (Mean Implement). These measures
are a way of examining organizational capacity for key aspects of innovation: idea generation
and implementation. While these measure lack the nuance about innovation found in the in depth
87
interview data, this way of assessing innovation explores a wide range of views related to the
social side of innovation.
Z-scores of Mean Generate showed that it was significantly, negatively skewed and
leptokurtic (Skewness = -1.63, SE of skew = .246, Kurtosis = 3.85, SE of Kurtosis = .49),
indicating a tendency for positive views for this variable. To transform this variable, first I
reverse scored the item by subtracting the variable from the highest score recorded plus one (6 –
Mean Generate scores). I then log transformed this variable to improve normality. This resulted
in Skewness = .328, SE of skew = .246, Kurtosis = -.061, SE of Kurtosis = .488, which improved
skewness and kurtosis (Field, 2009. p. 156-162).
Mean Implementation was also significantly negatively skewed and leptokurtic
(Skewness = -.965, SE of skew = .245, Kurtosis = 1.33, SE of Kurtosis = .485). The log of the
reverse scored variable showed improved skewness and kurtosis (Skewness = -.077, SE of skew =
.245, Kurtosis = -.60, SE of Kurtosis = .485).
Project Creativity. Perceptions about project creativity were further assessed using Likert
items from Kratzer, Gemunden and Lettl (2008). These items ask respondents to rate the
newness and originality of solutions, the number of possible solutions developed, the number of
solutions taken into consideration, and the effectiveness of those solutions. On this scale, 1 was
“poor” and 5 was “excellent.” This variable was marginally significantly, negatively skewed
(Skewness = -.59, SE of skew = .25, Kurtosis = .12, SE of Kurtosis = .50; α = .86). Reverse
scoring and log transforming the variable did not improve skewness so the logged variable was
not used. The reverse scored (non-log-transformed) variable was used in analysis in order to
maintain directional consistency with other reverse-scored variables when reporting results.
88
Demographics. Demographic items asked about the respondents’ tenure in their
organizations, gender, age, and education levels.
Analysis
Survey data were analyzed using the statistical analysis program, SPSS, the network
analysis programs, Ucinet (Borgatti et al., 2002) and PNET (Wang, Robins, & Pattison, 2006).
First, independent variables from the three organizations were compared using a one-way
ANOVA and Levene’s test to assess homogeneity of variance among the organizations (between
groups). No significant differences were found among the organizations (p values for F tests
were all greater than p = .05). Demographic data were also compared between organizations. Of
these variables, there was a significant difference with regard only to age (F = 3.72, p = .03).
Non-significant results indicated that employees across the three stations answered survey items
reliably and therefore a statistical comparison between the three organizations was acceptable.
Multicolinearity was assessed among the variables, Mean Generate, Mean Implement,
and Project Creativity by using the variance inflation factor (VIF) test in SPSS. The VIF score
shows the degree to which there may be a linear relationship among variables (Field, 2009). The
Tolerance score is 1/VIF; a score of .1 indicates problematic multicolinearity, and a score of .20
or less is cause for concern (Menard 1995, as cited Field, 2009). This analysis yielded no values
at or below .20. A Durbin-Watson test was also conducted to assess independence of errors
(whether or not residuals are correlated). This yielded 2.22, indicating minimal correlation
among residuals.
Data Coding. The survey included name generator questions. In order to assess role or
organizational department all names listed were coded according to the following
role/departmental categories: Radio, TV, Web/Multimedia or Engineering, Membership/Giving,
89
Top Managers (based on About Pages that listed groups of top administrators/directors; those
who oversaw multiple parts of the organization), From a Different Organization, N/A. Those
who were named but were not survey respondents were coded based on data from radio websites
to assess role, when possible.
Regression. Research question one was tested using a linear regression model. Because
the independent variables were log-transformed, results can be interpreted based on percent
change rather than per-unit change (“SAS FAQ,” n.d.).
ERGM. Exponential random graph (p*) models (ERGMs) can be used to assess the
probability of the occurrence of endogenous and exogenous network structures (Robins, Pattison,
Kalish, & Lusher, 2007). This type of modeling is useful for multilevel research questions.
Endogenous network structures refer to predictions about structural parameters such as
centralization or reciprocity (mutual ties; Atouba & Shumate, 2010; Robins et al., 2007).
Exogenous predictors encompass actor attributes, such as homophily (attributes in common;
Robins et al., 2007). This type of multilevel model is also useful because, unlike parametric
statistics, it allows for the assumption inherent to network analysis that observations are not
independent (Shumate & Palazzolo, 2010).
The endogenous parameters assessed in this study include Arc to assess density (P2) and
2-Path to assess bridging ties (P4). The categorical exogenous parameter, Mismatch, assesses if
respondents are more likely to select people with dissimilar roles in their own organization, such
as membership employees seeking advice from Web employees as compared to other
membership employees (Wang, Robins, & Pattison, 2009). The ERGM models were estimated
using PNet (Wang et al., 2009). The following section provides an overview of survey results.
90

Results

The section provides an overview of the survey and network data, and the relevant
research question. Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations are listed in Table 8. In
Appendix D Figures 4, 5 and 6 are diagrams of the project networks, and Figures 7, 8 and 9 are
diagrams of the advice networks for each organization.
Table 8
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables for Entire Sample
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Generate Ideas 4.13 0.81
2 Implement Ideas 3.90 0.87 .686**
3 Project Creativity 15.76 4.04 .442** .428**
4 Culture 21.69 4.03 .399** .352** .416**
5 Role 1.55 0.50 0.066 -0.002 -0.077 -.237*
6

Organizational
Tenure 9.99 7.88 0.094 0.069 0.037 -0.041 -0.078
7 Age 44.81 13.20 0.18 0.171 0.01 0.016 0.069 .529**
8 Gender 1.49 0.50 -0.105 -0.204 0.075 0.004 -0.153 -.266* -.229*
* p < .05, ** p < .01
Communication Networks and Project Creativity. Project networks are
communication networks based on the main people with whom each respondent communicated
regarding a past project. These communication network diagrams are located in Appendix D.
Research question one stated: Perceptions about idea generation and ideas
implementation positively influence views on project performance. A linear regression model
was conducted to assess the possible influence of ability to generate ideas through project
91
networks (Mean Generate) and ability to get ideas implemented through project networks (Mean
Implement) on perceptions of project creativity, a measure of project performance.
In this model, I used hierarchical regression to assess the impact of control variables,
number of people in department, and tenure (number of years at the organization).
This model was significant, F(4, 74) = 11.27, R
2
= .38, Adjusted R
2
= .35, p < .01. Within
this model, Mean Implement was positively significantly correlated with project creativity (β =
.42, p = .001, t = 3.61, SE = .79). Number of people in department was also significant, (β = -.30,
p = .002, t = -3.26, SE = .01). Mean Generate and Tenure were not significant at the p = .05 level
(p = .06 and p = .57, respectively). Thus, as the ability to get ideas implemented and the number
of people in one’s department
8
increase, perceptions of project creativity also increase. Because
the independent variables were log-transformed but the dependent variable was not, I can state
that a one percent increase in the average level of perceived ability to implement ideas (Mean
Implement) can result in a .03 (2.84/100) increase in perceived project creativity. These results
indicate that network-based implementation is critical to overall project creativity. Additionally,
a larger pool of people from whom advice can be drawn seems to improve this model.
Advice Networks. Whereas research question 1 dealt with measures centered on project
network communication, the remaining research questions deal with the structural characteristics
of advice networks in three organizations: KUSC, OPB and HPM. As denoted in the methods
section, the three organizations reflect different case-based attributes with regard to station type
and incremental versus radical change. Each organization was viewed by several interviewees
and public media experts as innovative and undergoing change. Notably, there were no
significant differences in terms of how people in these organizations viewed creativity and

8
Because the control variables were not reversed but the independent and dependent variables
were, control variables are interpreted in a reversed way here.
92
innovation variables including Mean Generate, Mean Implement and Project Creativity. Because
of these similarities, it can be ascertained that similar network structures should be present
among the three organizations.
Endogenous and Exogenous Network Structures. Research questions 2, 3 and 4
addressed network structures expected within advice networks. ERGM estimate results are listed
in Table 9. Research question 2 asserted that advice networks would be sparse rather than dense.
This research question was supported by the significant, negative arc parameters within the
models for each of the three organizations. Research question 3 stated that people are more likely
to seek advice from heterophilous individuals. Research question 4 stated that those nominated
tend to bridge more structural holes than other individuals. The hypothesized ERGM model
(including P2, P3, and P4) was tested separately for each organization.
For OPB, this ERGM model demonstrated support of both P2 and P3 but not for P4. This
advice network was sparse as demonstrated by the negative Arc parameter estimate, and people
in this network tend to seek out others from different departments for advice. This shows
evidence of heterophilous ties. There was no evidence showing that individuals in the network
were more likely to bridge groups than to not bridge groups.
Within KUSC and HPM, only the Arc parameters of the hypothesized models were
significant, indicating network sparseness. There was no support for heterophilous advice
seeking (or the converse, homophilous advice seeking), nor was there support for increased
likelihood of bridging ties.
93

Table 9
Hypothesized ERGMs and Results

Variable
Type Parameters Estimates SE t Converged Est/SE Theory RQ
KUSC Endogenous Arc -5.21 0.60 0.08 * <.1, Yes -8.71 Density 2
Endogenous 2 Path -0.04 0.23 0.08 <.1, Yes -0.19
Structural
Holes 4

Exogenous:
Role Mismatch 0.27 0.56 -0.01 <.1, Yes 0.48 Heterophily 3
OPB Endogenous Arc -34.10 4.87 -0.01 * <.1, Yes -7.01 Density 2
Endogenous 2 Path 0.10 0.11 -0.04 <.1, Yes 0.95
Structural
Holes 4

Exogenous:
Role Mismatch 28.98 4.89 -0.01 * <.1, Yes 5.92 Heterophily 3
HPM Endogenous Arc -5.21 1.03 -0.02 * <.1, Yes -5.08 Density 2
Endogenous 2 Path -0.86 0.49 -0.08 <.1, Yes -1.74
Structural
Holes 4

Exogenous:
Role Mismatch 0.44 1.07 -0.03 <.1, Yes 0.41 Heterophily 3
* p < .05
Post-hoc ERGM models were assessed to explore models of best fit within these
organizations (see Table 10). For this exploratory process, I started with the Arc parameter then
added one endogenous parameter at a time to assess the strongest endogenous model. I then
added exogenous parameters. The KUSC advice network demonstrated triadic closure (transitive
triad). This demonstrates evidence of hierarchical network tendencies that pertain to the
94
likelihood for two individuals to connect with a common third contact (Monge & Contractor,
2003).
For OPB, in addition to the hypothesized Mismatch parameter, 2-star-out (outdegree
variance) was also significant. This indicated that those nominated tended to seek advice from
multiple individuals. For HPM, there was evidence of popularity (2-star-in) within the network.
This implies that people tend to seek the same individuals (popularity within the network) for
advice seeking.
95

Table 10
Models of Best Fit Per Organization
Variable
Type
Para-
meters Est. SE t Converged Est/SE Theory RQ
KUSC
Endogenous arc -5.05 0.16 0.00 * <.1, Yes -31.00 Density 2
Endogenous
030T
(transitive
triad) 1.83 0.90 0.04 * <.1, Yes 2.03
Hierarchical
relationships
Triadic
closure
OPB
Endogenous arc -44.42 0.92 -0.04 * <.1, Yes -48.25 Density 2
Endogenous 2-star-out 0.66 0.07 0.07 * <.1, Yes 9.06 Out ties
Actors are
more likely to
select others.
Exogenous:
Role mismatch 38.51 0.92 -0.04 * <.1, Yes 41.84 Heterophily 3
HPM
Endogenous arc -4.80 0.27 -0.07 * <.1, Yes -17.93 Density 2
Endogenous 2-in-star -1.91 0.94 0.09 * <.1, Yes -2.04 Popularity
Actors are
more likely to
select the
same actors.
* p < .05
These findings reflect different structural signatures within the three organizations that explain
the way advice networks about strategic changes operate. While, the advice network within OPB
was a better fit with regard to research questions about what communication networks within an
96
innovative organization should look like, the exploratory findings point to differences among the
three organizations.
Discussion & Conclusion

Connecting Communication, Process, and Outcomes. The survey results build upon
our understanding of how relational networks can inform innovation, and more specifically, how
communication plays a role in innovation within organizations. Results from the regression
model showed that perceived ability to get ideas implemented through project networks
influenced perceived project creativity. Perceived ability to generate ideas was not significant in
the model. This indicates that while idea generation is not unimportant, performance outcomes at
the project-level depend on how groups work together to implement ideas. This is supported by
research on process and management innovation (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Damanpour &
Aravind, 2012) on how the exploitation of new processes, practices or structures creates value. It
also matches with past research (Evans, Working Paper) in which entertainment executives
described how the challenge they faced was not a shortage of new ideas from employees, but
rather the ability to select and implement ideas. The significance of department size also aligns
with network theories (such as weak ties and structural holes) pertaining to the value of network
structures that enable access to diverse sources of information as compared to redundant sources.
Structural Foundations of Innovative Organizations. The ERGM models of the three
organizations provide some evidence for what types of network structures we should expect to
see in these types of innovative organizations. While this portion of this study is exploratory, the
findings demonstrate evidence of hypothesized and emergent structural signatures of
communication networks that support the organizations assessed in this study. Additionally,
while research has explored network relations at the interorganizational level (e.g., Powell et al.,
97
1996), there is less research that provides models of network signatures in an innovation context
at the organizational level. This represents a critical theoretical and practical research need
because so many organizations (in a range of industries) are working toward becoming more
innovative
9
.
OPB findings showing evidence of heterophilous advice seeking fit with past research
that emphasizes the importance of the diversity of information in relation to innovation.
Diversity is aided through structural characteristics such as the ability to get unique information
due to position in network and network density. That said, KUSC and HPM did not show similar
network structures beyond the low density of advice networks. One possible explanation is that
differences in the organizations in terms of characteristics, culture, or the current state of change
affecting network structures which should be explored in future research.
For example, exploratory findings in the KUSC ERGM model show evidence of
transitive triads and outward-seeking ties. Because this type of advice network is a more formal,
work-oriented network rather than an informal network (e.g., a friendship network), transitive
triangles can indicate relationships situated in hierarchies such as “one’s boss’s boss is also one’s
boss” (Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 59.) Exploratory findings in the HPM model show
evidence of popularity or people seeking similar nodes for advice. There could be a number of
explanations for this. For example, this may have to do with the challenges that go along with
radical change, in this case a merger and eventual leadership turnover. There could be existing
power structures within communication and collaboration networks in which a few individuals
control or have access to relevant information or influential people. Similarly, there could also be

9
It is well-known that “innovation” and “innovative” are over-used concepts in management
settings, but the popularity of these terms also demonstrates the need for more precise
understandings of what people mean when they talk about innovation (see Chapter 4) and ways
of measuring of these, and related, concepts.
98
a fear of risk-taking, which may cause individuals to avoid diverse information sources, for
example, if most decisions have to be approved by specific managers which might constrain
innovation. While these results do not explain why network structures persist, this approach
demonstrates a way of exploring innovation from different methodological perspectives, and
points to directions for future research.
Future research could explore this issue of network taxonomies, or what organizations
should expect communication networks to look like given certain organizational change
parameters. Additional qualitative data, such as interviews could shed light on why network
signatures are appearing in certain ways, such as, why individuals may trend toward popular
sources versus diverse sources of information. Future research could also further analyze how
networks of individuals impacts different types of project performance outcomes in addition to
project creativity.
99
CHAPTER 6
Thinking Short and Long: Future-Oriented Discourse and Digital Media Strategy
This study examines managerial cognition about the temporal side of strategic
management through a sensemaking lens. Specifically, I analyze how managers in public media
organizations describe the short- and long-term strategies of their organizations, and how this
discourse on temporality provides insight into organizing. A problem for many organizations lies
in envisioning and planning for the future. This is an integral and implicit part of strategic
management processes yet the temporal elements of strategy are often taken-for-granted and
under-researched (Das, 2004). These types of strategic activities can encompass setting long-
term goals, mapping out strategy, and anticipating complex environmental phenomena that can
potentially impact performance. The challenge of envisioning the future is particularly acute for
organizations facing high degrees of uncertainty, for example, those in industries that are
changing rapidly (Schoemaker, 1991). Within organizations, there is an implied assumption that
top management teams will develop strategies that take foresight into account, yet this may be
invalid because of factors like institutional and cultural inertial pressures that stifle foresight
(Schwandt & Gorman, 2004). For organizations, particularly those in industries facing major
changes like the journalism and publishing sectors, envisioning the future can seem almost
impossible when facing such near-term uncertainty.
This study applies a communication framework to the analysis of future-oriented
discourse and strategy. Through the lens of sensemaking and the Communication Constitutes
Organization (CCO) perspective, this study analyzes how individuals within organizations
construct frames for envisioning the future and fostering strategic decision-making. This study
builds off Weickian sensemaking as well as organizational research on managerial cognition and
100
strategy (Das, 2004; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013). According to Kaplan and Orlikowski (2013),
managerial cognition about time impacts strategy development and implementation. It is not
enough to focus on categorizing time; rather, more research is needed to assess cognitive
differences in how people think about time and functional implications for how strategy is
developed in response to future time dimensions (Das, 2004).
This study examines interpretations of time in relation to discourse about digital media
strategy in U.S. public radio stations. These organizations represent a population that is facing
uncertainty due to disruption and convergence stemming from digital media. For many stations
in this legacy media world, there is a tension between balancing 24/7 broadcasting and the
increasing demands for multiplatform audio and video content. By digital media strategy I mean
strategic initiatives that center on positioning content across different platforms, and dealing with
increased competition such as Pandora, Spotify, and other online news competitors. Through
interviews with managers and digital media employees at public radio stations and supporting
entities from different regions of the U.S., this study shows how uncertainty caused by rapid,
ongoing technological change has constrained perceptions about the future in most cases.
Literature Review
Communication Constitutes Organization
The CCO perspective is an approach that can be used to connect agency and
communication with managerial cognition. This perspective argues that communicative acts are
interlocking microprocesses that build on top of each other to constitute organizing. CCO’s value
as a theoretical perspective lies in its ability to shift the interpretation of communication from the
classic sender-receiver paradigm to a process view that encompasses agency and structure
(Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004). The CCO perspective is based on the idea that organizations are
101
“language-based and constituted by multiple voices, cognitive domains, and communities of
practice,” and that “organizations emerge ‘from the recursive processes of the conversations of
the members, where each conversation narratively frames, explicitly or implicitly, the previous
one’ (Robichaud et al., 2004, p. 264, as cited in Stohl & Stohl, 2011, p. 5). Recursivity (Giddens,
1979) implies the routinization of behaviors in which “patterns of interaction…become,
reflexively, their own justification and meaning, thus both framing and structuring subsequent
interaction” (Brummans et al., 2014, p. 187).
McPhee and Zaug’s (2000) foundational approach to CCO established the concept of the
four flows, which are viewed as overlapping but distinct mechanisms that contribute to
organizing. These flows address communication processes that target audiences across different
levels including at the individual level (membership negotiation), the organizational
(organizational self-structuring), the group or practice level (activity coordination) and the
institutional level (institutional positioning)
10
. Some critiques have been levied against McPhee
and Zaug’s (2000) approach to CCO, particularly the challenge of applying the flows empirically
as well as their scope, meaning they could apply to both organizations and other forms of
organizing like social movement and networks (Brummans et al., 2014).
It is also a perspective that can be applied to strategic management theory in which
communication is implied but often under-theorized. Some studies have applied the CCO

10
These flows have been defined as necessary for organizing through communication with four
types of audiences. Membership negotiation focuses on communication with organizational
members, particularly with regard to member socialization. Organizational self-structuring deals
with the entity itself, for example, how individuals actively represent an organization through
discoursive acts like signs or jargon. Activity coordination pertains to groups, tasks and work
processes within the entity. Institutional positioning deals with external audiences such as other
institutions and Face-presentation (such as external identity and related external communication
processes like public relations; Brummans, Cooren, Robichaud, & Tayler, 2014; McPhee &
Zaug, 2000; Putnam, Nicotera, & McPhee, 2009).
102
perspective in a strategic context. Spee & Jarzbkowski (2011) analyzed how the interaction
between communication about strategic planning and the texts developed through the strategic
planning process fit a model of recontextualization and decontextualization in which the strategic
planning process becomes the recursive interaction of conversation and text. They argue that
communication is not just an outcome of a strategic planning process but inherent to the planning
process. Fenton and Langely (2011) examined the theoretical foundations of strategy as practice
through the lens of narratives. The authors added to Whittington’s (2006) strategy-as-practice
framework based on practitioners as members who author strategy, practices such as routines
and procedures, and praxis which involves interactions that lead to shared understandings of
strategy. To this framework they add to the concepts of strategy text, metaconversations and
narrative diversity. Strategy text, or viewing texts as artifacts maps onto the duality of
conversation and text in CCO. Metaconversations also address a conversation-oriented approach
to the enactment of organizational identity. Narrative diversity addresses how differences at the
individual level relate to collective narratives. These examples demonstrate some conceptual
overlap among the practice perspective on strategy and CCO.
Another critique of the CCO perspective is that it is historically focused, and thus far, has
provided little insight into future-oriented processes. Temporality has not been explained fully
within CCO research, despite fulfilling an integral role as an assumption of organizing processes.
For example, as with the retrospective nature of sensemaking, the four flows can usually be
viewed as historical rather than evaluative of ongoing organizing processes (Putnam et al., 2009).
Cooren and Fairhurst (2009) took a step toward conceptualizing time in relation to the past,
present and near-future. They argue that the present is structured by both the past and the future
in that current interactions are “contaminated” by past interactions which lead to future
103
contemporary interactions (Cooren & Fairhurst, 2009, p. 124). A stronger focus on the role of the
future and its impact on communication and organizing processes is still lacking in discourse on
the social embeddedness of time and space.
The way CCO has been applied empirically has also been somewhat constrained. CCO
has been operationalized through the duality of talk and text, where studies primarily rely on the
analysis of speech acts often through conversation analysis and/or textual analysis (Blaschke,
Schoeneborn, & Seidl, 2012; Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011; Stohl & Stohl, 2011). For example,
Spee and Jarzabkowski’s (2011) analysis of a strategic planning process focuses on
conversational discourse in addition to textual analysis. While that study makes a valuable
contribution by framing strategic planning as a communication process, the methods fall within a
narrow view of communicative acts. As Stohl and Stohl (2011) point out, cognitive domains are
included within the boundaries of communication, yet this cognitive angle has received less
attention thus far.
Temporality and Sensemaking.
Weickian sensemaking relates to managing and resolving uncertainty. Sensemaking can
be defined as “the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what
people are doing” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 409). While sensemaking takes into
account retrospection, or how interpretations of the past inform sensemaking, future time is not
addressed by this perspective. Weick (1995) presents an argument about future-orientation and
sensemaking that cautions that retrospection about the past cannot be avoided or ignored as a
driver of enactment in this theoretical paradigm. Weick wrote:
The dominance of retrospect in sensemaking is a major reason why students of
sensemaking find forecasting, contingency planning, strategic planning, and other
104
magical probes into the future wasteful and misleading if they are decoupled from
reflective action and history. (1995, p. 30)
Notably the examples of a future-orientation here reflect similar ones critiqued by those
espousing foresight versus forecasting (as outlined in the following section). Weick groups
perspectives together that attempt to ascertain certainty about the future like forecasting.
Scholars have attempted to address the flows between the past, present and future in
sensemaking while avoiding the prediction-oriented approaches critiqued by Weick (1995).
Gephart et al. (2010) and Wiebe (2010) advocated for sensemaking to be viewed as prospective
as well retrospective. Gephart et al. (2010) assess future-oriented sensemaking from a post-
Weickian perspective. By comparing three perspectives on sensemaking (agency,
ethnomethodology and institutional rhetoric) they build on the concept of future-oriented
sensemaking (Gioia, Corley, & Fabbri, 2002). This term was defined as the use of future-perfect
sensemaking by imagining a future outcome and then retrospectively making sense of events that
hypothetically led to that future. Gioia (2006) noted that this way of conceptualizing future-
oriented sensemaking did not catch on due to the challenge of applying it to phenomena.
Through an ethnomethodological approach Gephart et al. (2010) attempt to adapt this concept to
explore rhetorical approaches to sensemaking about the future through the analysis of
conversations among stakeholders. They also argue that sensemaking about the future is used to
support organizational legitimation and reduction of uncertainty with regard to future action.
Weibe (2010) analyzes temporal sensemaking by starting from the notion of time as a
social construction (Pettigrew, Whipp, & Rosenfeld, 1989, as cited in Wiebe, 2010). This study
provides insight into temporality through the analysis of narratives about organizational change
initiatives. Weibe argues that “thinking narratively means thinking temporally” (2010, p. 233).
105
Temporal sensemaking in this case deals with relationship between the past, present and future.
Narrative and interpretive perspectives are ways of studying temporality beyond the limits of
clock time. Ultimately, Weibe articulates five frames depicting time in relation to organization
change and these are then delineated according to interpretations of organizational change that
express continuity and discontinuity. These qualitative studies represent approaches to analyzing
social constructions of time through sensemaking theories.
Plausibility and Foresight
While sensemaking does not address future-orientations, Weick does address cognition
about the future in the context of imagining. The difficulty in envisioning the future was
described by Weick (2005) as “imagination failure;” meaning a failure to move beyond inertial
labels, categories and communication processes used to construct and constrain the ways in
which people in organizations anticipate the future (p. 426). Imagination can be defined as “a
shaping or modifying power” that “represents things that are absent…unifies the empirical and
the ideal…[and] fills out and extends incomplete experience” (Weick, 2005, p. 427). Weick’s
essay on failures of imagination reflects a shift in emphasis from making sense of the present
through the interpreting the past to gaining a better understanding of the constraints people face
when envisioning the future. Weick (2005) showed how failures of imagination led to tragic
examples of organizational failure such as the failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks and NASA’s
missteps that contributed to the Columbia shuttle disaster. He argues that these failures stemmed
from constrained labeling and categorizing, and failing to share knowledge and interpretations
across the organizational space.
According to Weick (2005), there are three ways that organizing can constrict
imagination: the shareability constraint, which reflects constrained perceptions; the inference
106
constraint that deals with challenges regarding conjecture; and the mindfulness constraint. The
shareability constraint applies to the way that people share and coordinate their mental
perceptions with those of others. Inference constraints addresses how norms and assumptions,
like uncertainty reduction and rationality, guide the way people analyze and make sense of
information. In terms of mindfulness constraint, social structures and norms can discourage
differentiation and nuanced views that challenge existing ways of thinking and organizing. For
example, Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) describe how failures of imagination stemming from
constraints can lead to the role of strategy as a trap:
Strategic goals explicitly describe how the organization wants to position itself. But they
do not describe the important mistakes people should guard against in pursuit of these
goals. It is the failure to both articulate important mistakes that must not occur and to
organize in order to detect them that allows unexpected events to spin out of control. (p.
9)
Mindfulness means being able to successfully deal with uncertainty by constantly scrutinizing,
updating and deepening one’s interpretations and expectations of problems in relation to new
experiences and information in order to improve foresight and ones ability to face challenges
(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).
Weick’s emphasis of envisioning the future parallels literature that positions foresight as
an approach to viewing organizing in the context of imagining the future. Foresight differs from
both strategy and forecasting. A strategic management perspective can be defined as “major
intended and emergent initiatives taken by general managers on behalf of owners, involving
utilization of resources, to enhance the performance of firms in their external environments”
107
(Nag, Hambrick, & Chen, 2007, p. 944). Strategic management is usually situated within the
realms of problem solving, building a single path forward, and near-term planning (Das, 2004).
Foresight also differs from forecasting in that it is not about accurately predicting future
event. It can be defined as “a refined sensitivity for detecting and disclosing invisible,
inarticulate or unconscious societal motives, aspirations and preferences and of articulating them
in such a way as to create novel opportunities hitherto unthought and hence unavailable to a
society or organization” (Chia, 2004, p. 22). This definition emphasizes the development of a
frame for thinking about the future that emphasizes attunement to emergent social drivers and
communication in order to lay the groundwork for the development of new opportunities.
Attempting to predict or foresee accurately is a flawed notion because the unavoidable roles of
uncertainty and complexity make this impossible (Tsoukas & Shepherd, 2004). According to
Makridakis (2004), the purpose of foresight is:
To enhance an organization’s ability to consider various future scenarios without any
preconceptions, debate their implications, examine the risks involved, estimate potential
benefits, predict the costs/investments involved to arrive with practical alternatives that
can be translated into executable actions. (p. xiv)
This definition builds on the notion of sensitivity to the environment through the use of multiple
scenarios as a mechanism for foresight development, and long-term thinking and decision-
making.
Strategic Decision-Making
Strategic management inherently deals with what is to happen in the future
(Venkatraman, 1989), yet the notion of future time is taken for granted and rarely problematized
in research (Das, 2004). Time is linked to strategy in two ways: in the functional aspect of the
108
appropriateness of strategic decisions in relation to time and in the cognitive sense of how
managers interpret time (Das, 2004). This subjective, cognitive aspect of time is pertinent to this
study. People involved with developing strategy differ in how they conceive of short- versus
long-term conceptions of time (Das, 2004). This implies different meanings and different
individual capacities for envisioning the future.
Recent research has addressed this subject. Kaplan and Orlikowski (2013) conducted
empirical work assessing strategy, managerial cognition and time dimensions in an
organizational context. They analyzed five strategy processes within an organization, which
resulted in a temporal work model. This model takes into account evidence of competing
interpretations about the future as well as the past and the present and how these temporal
patterns are used to develop forecasts. The authors argue, “Strategy is not the outcome of
decision taken by a monolithic organization but rather is produced in the ongoing interpretations
and interactions of multiple organizational participants in practice over time” (p. 990). This
parallels Spee and Jarzabkowski (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011). From this practice perspective,
Kaplan and Orlikowski showed that the way people interpret and interact informs strategy.
Results from this study challenge a primary strategic management assumption that the
greater the accuracy of forecasts the greater the strategic success; the authors counter, that it is
not about information accuracy but “plausibility, coherence and acceptability of accounts that
link interpretation of the future to the past and present” (p. 990). It’s all about what is “enabled or
precluded by different projections” (p. 990). They also challenge the assumption of history as
path-dependent; they argue that while history is important, path dependence often implies
determinism (Davie, 1985 and Stinchcombe, 1965 as cited in Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013) and
unnecessarily limits individual agency. Additionally, competing interpretations about all aspects
109
of time including the past can imply a greater degree ambiguity about accepted notions of path
dependence.
Research Questions
The connections drawn between CCO, sensemaking and strategic research on temporality
leads to the following research questions. These questions address cognition and discourse
about digital media strategy in public broadcasting organizations.
RQ1: What timeframes are represented in discourse about the short- vs. long-term?
RQ1a: How do individuals cluster when grouped according to timeframes represented in
discourse?
RQ2: How do people interpret short- versus long-term organizational strategies with
regard to digital media?
Method
Participants and Procedures
Interviews were conducted with: 66 individuals from 14 different public radio stations,
nine individuals from organizations related to public radio such as the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, and two interviews with individuals from BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
Radio. The U.S. public radio stations included were those viewed as innovative in the digital
media space by experts in public media and journalism, including professors of journalism and
public media consultants (see Appendix A for a list of organizations). The cases encompass
primarily NPR-member stations (radio stations with a news-oriented format who receive some
programming from NPR), along with some contrasting cases such as KUSC, a classical music
station. I attempted to interview at least one manager and one digital media employee at each
organization, as well as other employees if possible. On average, four people were interviewed at
110
each organization (see Appendix B). Interviews were conducted over the phone, via Skype, or
in-person. Most interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis.
A semi-structured interview guide (Appendix C) was used ask questions about digital
media strategy and short- versus long-term strategies. Questions central to this paper included:
• Talk about any recent changes at this organization (e.g., structural, leadership, strategic).
• Tell me about the digital strategy of the organization.
• How would you describe the near term strategy regarding digital media?
• How would you describe the long-term strategy?
These questions were used to elicit explanations and narratives about organizational change and
impressions about strategy. When asking about changes and strategy in general, most
respondents focused on what had occurred in recent years and what was taking place now (for
example, organizations including KUSC, KPBS and WBUR had recently undergone or were
undergoing strategic planning processes; descriptions of this focused on changes leading up to
the present). The near-term/long-term comparison item was a way to encourage people to talk
about the future and to assess not just the flows of discourse across the categories of
past/present/future, but also to assess what is meant by “future” with the goal of assessing
foresight as a type of capacity that can aid organizations.
Analysis
First and second round coding of interview data (Saldaña, 2009) were conducted in
MAXQDA, a qualitative data analysis program. First round coding categories addressed
responses to interview questions about short- and long-term strategy, as well as comments that
included temporal interpretations of strategy. A second round of coding was completed on these
selections to assess fine-grained, theoretically-driven and emergent child codes (See Table 11). A
111
taxonomy of present-day, near-future and far-future was developed to categorize interviewee’s
responses based on literature that tends to position strategic planning timeframes as from a few
weeks to “two or more” years (Bryson, 1995, p. 217), and foresight or more future-oriented
planning as at least five years into the future. For example, Schoemaker (1995) gives examples
of foresight-oriented scenario planning activities conducted with various types of corporate
media entities as being from five to ten years out, whereas other industries like the energy sector
have a 40-year history of conducting foresight activities for 20 or more years out (e.g., Shell
International Limited, n.d.).
112

Table 11
Coding Scheme for Interview Data
Code Definition
Defining Short- & Long-term:
Present-day / No future Future is impossible or impractical to consider; discourse
about future focuses on present-day
Near-future Discourse addresses near-term future, for example a 1-3-
year strategic plan
Far-future Discourse addresses longer-term time frame (5+ years),
or aspects of foresight like drivers of change or plausible
scenarios
Foresight/Envisioning:
Prediction (Emergent) Thinking about the future implies predicting, certainty, or
knowledge about the future.
Near-term uncertainty Challenges or constraints to thinking about strategy in the
present or very-near-future (e.g., next few months)
Long-term uncertainty Challenges or constraints to thinking about strategy
beyond the near-term
IT Frame (Emergent) Using frames or project management terms stemming
from IT/Engineering to talk about strategy
Imagining Constraints Shareability, Inference, Mindfulness

113

Results
How Long-term is Long-term?
Research Question 1 and 1a addressed the timeframes that people indicated when
discussing digital media strategy. Understanding how people interpret near- and long-term
strategy provides a snapshot about the way individuals frame the future of their organizations.
Here it is worth reiterating that the cases (stations) selected for this study were chosen because
they were interesting examples of innovative, changing public radio organizations. I did not seek
out cases that were not making any changes and were not viewed as innovative by experts in the
field. This is important because if frames that allow for foresight (or something close to
foresight) exist in this industry, these are the places to look; yet results are mixed.
Nearly all interviewees described the “long-term” as being five years or less. Even among
interviewees from a range of stations (KPBS, HPM, WBEZ, OPB) who positioned “long-term”
as five years out, there was an emphasis on the difficulty of imagining the future. T. Akimoff
stated that more than five years was too difficult to think about, and joked, “Ten years scares the
hell out of me.” Only two interviewees (D. Kansas, APM and B. Barnes, KUSC) described a
timeframe of up to ten years. This did not mean they were planning ten years out, but rather the
concept of long-term reached that far. It was notable that of the non-NPR stations--KUSC, Folk
Alley and Marketplace--only KUSC interview data showed divergence from a relatively short-
term interpretation of the future with regard to digital media.
Based on coding conducted in MAXQDA, interviewees were grouped according to
categories: Present-Day Orientation, Strategic Plan-Orientation and Foresight Orientation.
Present-Day Orientation meant that planning for the future was viewed as not possible or not
practical, or that the interviewee addressed contemporary issues in response to questions about
114
the long-term, such as K. Muller who described ideas for reorganizing the way contemporary
content is positioned on the Web by focusing on radio/reporter-personalities rather than topic
categories. Strategic Plan Orientation meant those who discussed a long-term timeframe as
being from one to up to five years, which was more typical of formal strategic plan. Foresight
Orientation indicated a view of the long-term as five years or more, for example, B. Koon
referenced a strategic planning process for the year 2020 (around seven years out at the time of
the interview): “[By 2020] there is no radio station, there is no TV. It’s integrated along content
lines…and audiences participating back.”
These clusters do not imply that some respondents were capable of thinking about the
strategic future of their organizations and some were not, but rather, respondents’ comments
depict the frames they used to make sense of strategic timeframes. Likewise, these comments do
not reflect whether or not the organizations themselves were following formal strategic plans of
some kind.
Each cluster contained a mix of people from different stations and different roles. Thus,
results show that single stations or role types (e.g., journalists or managers) cannot be
categorized in homogenous way. This speaks to the diversity of frames used to make sense of the
future and calls into question how or if shared sensemaking is occurring within organizations.
The individuals in present-day cluster tended to be leaders and journalists. The two
Web/Interactive individuals on this list are slightly unique in that their responses focused on the
inability to think too far out because of recent organizational changes: E. Chen stated:
It’s very hard for me to think about the future because we’ve had so much
turnover here, and I don’t really know what resources we’re going to have. There are
definitely some projects that I think would be great if we had more people but I don’t
115
even plan for that situation because I don’t know that there will be those people. (E.
Chen, WLRN)
Similarly, J. Counts described how long-term should indicate five years out but because of the
recent merger between TV and radio stations, they had lost staff, could not hire new employees,
and thus the focus was on the short-term out of necessity.
Those who expressed a strategic planning outlook included a mix of managers, reporters
and Web producers. Like those in the Present-Day category, this discourse focused on the future
as near-term and tangible. For example, S.E. McCann described an iterative strategic planning
process:
I do strategic planning with my staff for the long-term view about every six months or so.
We’re currently in the process of trying some new things. For instance, we just started
creating a series of multitouch eBooks using iAuthor for iPad. So, the short-term plan is
for us to actually meet our deliverables and create three of these for the year, but our
long-term strategic plan is to really try and figure out how this project is being used, what
kind of learning happens with it, and how could we be conducting evaluation and
research so that we can make sure that the product is actually what educators and general
audience and members are interested in consuming. (S.E. McCann, KQED)
Likewise, E. Rocco described how her outlook is oriented to a three-year timeframe based on
funding new projects:
Every time we introduce a new platform…[the strategy] has always been, ‘Where I can
find a little money to build it up?’ But the goal is roughly three years out, to have it so
much an integral part of our operation and to have it so productive in terms of expanding
116
what we’re able to provide audiences that it essentially will become just a part of our
budget…because our service or role has gotten, by some factor, better. (E. Rocco, NCPR)
This practical, near-term view linking funding and strategic initiatives is even more pronounced
for a relatively small, rural station like NCPR that have fewer staff members to help seek
donations and write grant proposals. These views share a focus on what is known, near-term, and
routine.
Those who fell into the Foresight Orientation category include primarily leaders of
organizations. B. Koon and D. Kansas were leaders who both have print journalism
backgrounds. T. Olson, T. Akimoff, J. Counts, and D. Grech all were in roles that focused on
leadership in digital media. S. Bass and B. Barnes are long-time leaders in public media. B.
Barnes has a background in classical music radio and has obtained a Ph.D. in which she studied
audiences and technological disruption in radio. S. Bass has a long career in public television and
radio. S. Eisele is on the journalism side and P. Maerz is in radio operations. As in other
categories, there is no obvious trait (organization or role) that unites this group. Notably, those
who were not leaders in their organizations (P. Maerz, D. Grech, J. Counts) came from HPM and
WLRN; leaders of those organizations tended to cluster in the Present-Day category, which
points to the divergence of views across leader versus non-leader roles in the same organizations.
Comparisons. While this study does not encompass a cross-cultural or cross-industry
comparison, some limited data can be used to contextualize these results. This divergence in
views is reflected in interviews with some individuals in BBC radio.
11
According to J. Daponte

11
The BBC is the dominant public media network in the UK, but it differs from U.S. public
media in significant ways. One major difference has to do with its funding model based on
public support via a mandatory license fee. The BBC also funds a large R&D division. U.S.
public radio stations receive significantly less support from the government, and instead raise
most revenues from donations, underwriting from corporations, and grants. There is a patchwork
117
(personal communication, October 2012), BBC radio has completed a one, five and ten-year
strategic planning process in part because the BBC “has the luxury of secure funding” and can
therefore take “a longer vision.” On the other hand, S. Still (personal communication, October
2012), a program manager, focused on a six month to two-year timeframe because the pace of
technical change meant the need to react to change and thus it was difficult to plan far in
advance. This preliminary comparison points to directions for future research that are addressed
in the conclusion.
Additionally, this type of near-term orientation is not uncommon for journalism-oriented
organizations but does contrast with other industries. For example, the energy sector has a long
history of using scenario planning as a technique to imagine plausible future scenarios 20 years
out in order to foster long-term strategic planning in a volatile sector (Shell International
Limited, 2005; Schoemaker, 1995). While this study does not go further into a detailed
comparison at this time, these observations provide some context for industry-level implications
of these findings.
Interpretations of Digital Media Strategies
The second research question asked how do people interpret near- versus long-term
organizational strategies with regard to digital media? This question was intentionally ambiguous
in several ways: first, near- and long-term timeframes were not defined by this interviewer,
rather these terms were used to encourage people to talk about the future; second, while the
question focused on strategy, interviewees could interpret this to mean was what planned or
happening already or what they thought the future would hold. In most cases, formal planning

of R&D initiatives stemming from organizations like NPR Digital, but these are not centralized
and sometimes temporary.
118
was taking place at some level but responses tended to focus on speculation and interpretation
rather than established organizational tactics or plans.
Near-term Uncertainty. For some, the near-term was as ambiguous as more future-
oriented thinking. This points to how some are dealing with industry-level and organizational-
level disruption. For example, E. Binnetti (HPM) was part of an organization that had recently
undergone a merger with public television station. She stated:
I think that a near-term strategy is continuously in limbo because we’re not always
certain of what the new ways of distributing these media are going to be. I think that if
you would ask people ten years ago, ‘Do you think people are going to get their news
headlines from Facebook?,’ we would have laughed at that….I think it’s constantly
being mindful. For example, apps right now. How much of your effort for the
station are put into building new apps versus building better, more accessible mobile
sites? (E. Binetti, HPM)
A few interviewees denoted concern about short-termism or organizational focus purely
on the near-term. Among media (public as well as commercial) organizations in general, an
overarching near-term concern has been that returns on investment in digital media do not match
the returns for analog media. On moving into digital content, B Theriault stated that, “Other
people say ‘Well, I don’t want to go there because there’s no return.’ That’s fine until there’s no
return in what you’re currently doing and you don’t know how to go there.” J. Ferro also
emphasized the need for keeping up with changing technologies and for avoiding short-term
myopia.

119
M. Skoler (PRI) portrayed the sense of panic that many people feel at the perceived pace
of technological change:
I think the short-term strategy for us and for everyone else has been, ‘Oh my God! Things
are happening all over the place! We do need to do things!’ (M. Skoler, PRI)
The deliberate ambiguity of M. Skoler’s use of the word “things” underscores the unfocused
reaction to change occurring in many organizations. Notably, M. Skoler is affiliated not with a
station but with the audio distribution organization, PRI, an organization that is free from some
of the institutional constraints impacting public media such as their public service missions, and
funding and licensing models. M. Skoler argued that organizations need to shift from this type of
reactionary posture to a strategic posture. He described how PRI had faced a similar transition in
which five years ago they had a website but felt the need to develop an app -- “You had to have
an app!” At the time, they were responding in a purely reactionary way to new platforms. They
are now working on emphasizing strategy with regard to a focus on community: an attempt to
shift away from a reactionary to more methodological, strategic position.
Long-term Uncertainty. Two themes emerged with regard to long-term strategy or
thinking about the long-term future: the long-term as impossible, and long-term as impractical.
The theme of long-term as impossible touches upon the link between the notion of long-term and
the notion of prediction. One way interviewees discussed future time was in the context of
predicting the future. The focus on predicting in order to plan for the future is logical in its
intuitive simplicity but constraining as a cognitive frame. It is restrictive in that no one can
predict the future; if no one can predict the future, then how can one plan for the future? B.
Barnes (KUSC) addressed this conceptual challenge when she described her efforts to develop a
new strategy for KUSC that encompassed a shift toward digital media content:
120
You can’t really predict what the world’s going to look like five years from now or ten
years from now. The iPod and the iPhone and the ‘i’ everything sort of
overnight change people’s behavior. So when you’ve got innovation happening at that
level and that kind of way with that kind of speed, it’s pretty difficult to predict. So I
said, ‘I’m not trying to write a five-year strategic plan. I’m trying to say where do we
start? What’s step one?’ That’s a hard enough goal for me right now. (B. Barnes,
KUSC)
While prediction was recognized as not possible, B. Barnes still emphasized the value of a long-
term perspective. For example, she showed a slide projecting audience listenership to 2032 if
nothing at the station-level changes; the downward slope was shocking. B. Barnes stated:
You’re going to look at it and you’re going to go, ‘Oh my God.’ By the time you get to
2032, which is a long time from now for people, longer than ten years but not that long,
you’re gone. You’re gone. If you’re not changing, you’re gone. (B. Barnes, KUSC)
Similarly, when T Akimoff was asked about long-term strategy he stated:
You know, I don’t have a crystal ball. My son asked me last night, he said, ‘Dad, have
you ever had a MySpace?’ And it was a really funny question because I thought man,
that’s like when I was a kid asking my dad if he ever owned a ’57 Chevy…It’s
like a historical thing. ( T. Akimoff, WBEZ)
He continued, explaining that long-term is, “How do we build our content around things that are
easier for people to consume on the go, wherever they’re at” and short-term is about being
“responsive to what we feel like people are doing today.” J.J. Yore (Marketplace) echoed this
tension when he stated that he had to prepare his organization “for a future that is not so clear”
because the future cannot be predicted; yet, he went on to describe the investment in a
121
multiplatform digital environment as part of that future. As these examples indicate, there is a
tension between the constrained notion of prediction as an impossibility, and the necessity of
developing a plan or vision beyond the present. For example, investment in a multiplatform
environment, while futuristic in some ways, is contemporary and happening now in the
organizations included in this study.
A variation on the future as prediction is the notion of the future as predetermined. By
predetermined, I do not mean that the future is known or predictable, but rather there is an
inevitable sense of motion toward a certain scenario. According to D. Fraser (HPM):
The longer term would be that content is content; quit talking about what platform it goes
on, but I’m having trouble still myself seeing that yet…I don’t know what’s coming, but I
know I make good content, so we’ll just keep making good content and assume that
there’s going to be a way to give it to people whether it’s on our phones or whatever. (D.
Fraser, HPM)
As D. Fraser indicates, this discourse is less about strategic plans and more about a deterministic
vision of the future, and the uncertainty of dealing with that future is still present in discourse.
Similarly, V. Curren (CPB) stated:
I mean from the long-term perspective, that’s where it’s all going right [to digital media
channels]? So I think there is no choice but to figure out delivery models that work. From
a short-term perspective, it is much more uncertain what the right set of things to do is.
…You’re providing a media service, you need to be able to provide that service on digital
channels as well as your legacy channels because that’s what people’s expectations are,
but there is really no way to raise revenue for doing that. So that means that you have to
be very tactical about the way that you allocate your resources. (V. Curren, CPB)
122
No Long-Term. Other interviewees indicated that there was no long-term plan or that
long-term thinking was impractical given various factors contributing to high uncertainty
including the pace of changing technology. To J. Davidow (WBUR), the near- and long-term
were the same thing:
For WBUR to grow and other public stations to grow, there has to be true collaboration
and coordination across multiple platforms for all aspects of the operation whether it’s
membership [and] tying that into listening, tying things into different ways of telling
stories, producing contents on multiple levels… I think near-term is now and long-term
is now. (J. Davidow, WBUR)
One the one hand J. Davidow makes the point that the needs of today are needs that also pertain
to the future in some way, but on the other hand, his view hints at how the possibility of
alternative future scenarios or foresight in general is absent. Similarly, when asked about long-
term, D. Mackey (KPBS) stated, “That’s like three to five years because I don’t really think in
digital, you can plan. Even five years is a long time.”
A. Scholly (WBEZ) responded in a similar way in that a long-term plan was not
necessarily practical. She started by saying that some major aspects of convergence have been
accomplished, specifically the integration of interactive teams into newsrooms. Many such teams
had been created in the 1990s as separate entities in order to keep their funding from getting
subsumed by the broadcast sides of organizations. Such changes indicated that organizations
were keeping pace at some level with technological change. When asked about long-term
perspective she stated:
I don’t think you can go too far out. Long-term would be five years from now
but I don’t think anybody in their crystal ball can anticipate what it’s going to be like in
123
five years. So that long-term view is actually shortened and I think you have a vision for
what that five years will be like but then you revisit that vision every year, so you’re
constantly recalibrating. (A. Scholly, WBEZ)
C. Kravetz (WBUR) described how the station was taking proactive steps to develop a
strategic plan but that their timeframe could only be a few years out. He stated, “I’m not sure that
anybody really can afford to indulge in a long-term strategy,” and that, “We’re thinking out three
years at a time and wondering whether we’re moving fast enough.” C. Kravetz points to the
challenge of facing the urgency to keep up with the changing mediascape while also dismissing a
long-term mindset as indulgence. The uncertainty caused by internal organizational changes also
led to the long-term being deemed a luxury. V. Lawhorn from HPM stated:
I guess I don’t have really the luxury of thinking too long term because of the nature of
how everything changes….There’s really no long term. I mean it’s really like, how can I
grow what I have as things are changing? To be honest, our station is a little behind so
I’m just trying to get things into the present. (V. Lawhorn, HPM)
A similar sentiment was echoed by one of the top managers at WLRN, J. Labonia:
I don’t have a long-term strategy. In digital, everything to me is day to day. What we do
know is and part of our strategies, like I mentioned to you earlier, is you can’t talk to
people the same way in the different platforms. The idea of putting the same story we
have in print, on radio and put it the same way in mobile doesn’t work.
(J. Labonia, WLRN)
P. Maerz (WLRN) confirmed J. Labonia’s sentiment. With regard to WLRN he stated:
I think a lot of the long-term strategies are undetermined at this point because we’re still
observing trends and watching how things shake out. I mean in terms of our user
124
habits…those things are changing very rapidly. I mean from a couple of years ago to
now for instance, our demographic went from like 20 or 30 percent Facebook
usage to over 50 percent Facebook usage. (P. Maerz, WLRN)
E. Chen’s (WLRN) aforementioned statement about increased turnover in her organization also
underscored the challenge of discussing long-term strategy.
Exceptions and Alternatives. Some individuals supported the importance of short and
long-term outlooks. D. Kansas (APM) defined “thinking short” versus “thinking long.” Thinking
short entailed execution of tactics, where as thinking long related to strategic thinking and
experimentation. He stated:
You have to be thinking long term, how are these things going to evolve, how social
media is going to evolve, you need to try to think and imagine what the future might look
like, how will radio transform itself, what are the lessons we can learn from other media,
and so there's a combination I call thinking short and thinking long. (D. Kansas, APM)
He also stated the legacy side of public broadcasting meant that even when people embrace the
ideas of digital media, “People are uncomfortable with pace of change; it’s hard to get people to
think beyond radio even when they understand the importance of digital.”
D. Grech (WLRN) stated:
Near-term strategy is how we translate what we do on air that is so popular and
successful to online. And then the longer-term strategy is to be the very best at that, both
in terms of largest audience and in terms of quality, in terms of awards - across all the
metrics best in class in the public radio system. (D. Grech, WLRN)
He continued that transitioning to a multiplatform organization was part of the near-term future
however there were ongoing challenges:
125
The near-term strategy is to transition radio reporters and a radio newsroom into a
multiplatform newsroom. This is not ideal because a lot of the approaches, habits and
frames of mind of radio are inevitably going to influence the way they approach digital,
and digital will always be second. The long-term strategy is to become the sort of best-in
-class digital news operation in public media. (D. Grech, WLRN)
Some digital media employees focused more specifically on project management
perspectives. According to L. Caloh (KPBS), a short-term frame addresses how things are
performing, as well as ongoing evaluation and feedback for staff and analytics, where as the
long-term is how to stay on top of trends and distribution. S. Eisele (WBEZ) stated:
The short-term strategy really has to do with training and it has to do with sort of daily
conversations about really thinking consciously about how we disseminate content. …
It's kind of like developing a consciousness. This is not just about going out and covering
a static radio piece, a spot, a three to five-minute piece, what have you. (S. Eisele,
WBEZ)
As a Web person M. Green described how they employ Agile Development, a type of iterative
process to digital media design. He states that this approach is at odds with a typical master plan-
oriented way of organizing, but it allows for more agility through the ability to change course.
Long-term goals drive the process but long-term is one to two years out. This project
management perspective not only is embedded in a short timeframe but also expressively defies
other type of strategic planning in order to foster greater flexibility.
126

Discussion and Conclusion
Present and Future Overlap
Results from interview data demonstrate how the intuitive desire to think about the future
using a frame centered on prediction constrains foresight and future-oriented discourse.
Additionally, the compressed timeframes provided by interviewees (even long-term timeframes
were relatively short) show little distinction between present-, near-, and future-oriented
thinking. This can be explained by previous research on uncertainty that shows that increased
complexity can heighten uncertainty and that “complexity affects what people notice and ignore”
(Weick, 1995, p. 87). Empirical research (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, 2007) has also
shown how uncertainty can mediate perceptions about the quality of communication related to
organizational changes and respondents’ openness to change. While such situations encourage
sensemaking, they can also foster short-term thinking. Some interviewees described their
concern about short-termism, or the problems that arise when strategic thinking translates into
near-term, reactionary decision-making. Venkratramen (1989) described how a long-term
timeframe is related to effectiveness, whereas efficiency connotes a short-term timeframe. In this
study, short-termism was portrayed as being less about efficiency and effectiveness, than
reactionary responses in the near-term and the inability to foster prospective sensemaking.
Prediction vs. Foresight
One of the major reasons interviewees viewed long-term strategy as being impossible or
impractical lies in the inclination to think about the future in the context of prediction rather than
foresight. Framing the future in the context of prediction acts as a constraint for future-oriented
discourse and imagining. According to Kaplan and Orlikowski (2013):
127
Though the future will likely not turn out the way it was projected, this does not mean
that projections do not matter. Articulating projections shapes attention, deliberation,
investment, and effort. Thus the question should not be whether projections are accurate,
but rather what strategic possibilities are enabled and precluded by different projections.
(p. 990)
Many interviewees portrayed the complex tension between the inability to predict change and
plausible technological trends like investing in multiplatform strategies. The indulgence
perspective put forth by C. Kravetz, implied a need for tactical, near-term action rather than
long-term strategy or foresight. As a narrative structure, this type of framing device constrains
individuals from engaging in future-oriented sensemaking. While the context of this study is
situated in changes occurring within public media, these findings can also be used to question
other situational and organizational contexts, for example, the ways in which organizations are
dealing with – or failing to deal with – climate change. Akin to technological change, climate
change can be viewed as an urgent, continuously evolving source of disruption with enormous
economic ramifications for organizations (as well as society at large).
Imagining Constraints and Routines: The short timeframes for future-oriented
discourse can be examined in the context of Weick’s interpretation of imagining. In terms of the
shareability constraint, themes from this sample show how the uncertainty of the digital media
environment evinces itself in constrained mental models about the future. This matches similar
findings from a study about future scenarios written by top leaders from journalism organizations
(Evans, Klagsbrun, & Riley, Working Paper). This study found that notions of the future were
collapsed into views on the present.
128
With regard to the inference constraint, the interview questions positioned talk about the
future in the context of digital media. For those in different roles, there were shared inferences
about what this meant for organizing. The clearest difference was among Web/interactive
employees who took a project management focus rather than a strategic management focus to
discussion about the future. The norms and assumptions associated with an interviewee’s role
have an impact on these interpretations.
Near-term and mid-term frames also indicated discourse on routines, in which routines
were used as a default way of dealing with uncertainty rather than engaging in sensemaking.
Previous research points to how routines as performative behaviors can inform change as well as
stability (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). Thus, examples of routines such as iterative, adaptive
project management systems used among some Web employees do not imply inertia. However,
for some interviewees, the reliance on language of routine in the context of future-oriented
discourse points to both retrospective sensemaking with regard to how things have been done, as
well as a tendency toward focusing on continuity (Weibe, 2010) rather than alternatives such as
discontinuity, disruption or alternative plausible scenarios.
Communicative Capacity for Foresight
These findings can be framed in the context of capacity, specifically what I label here as
the communicative capacity for foresight. In an uncertain environment people within
organizations with a greater degree of communicative capacity should be engaging in joint
organizational sensemaking about the future, instead of solely calling upon routines. Yet, due to
high uncertainty there is an inability or unwillingness to engage in sensemaking even among
individuals who embrace notions of innovation, experimentation, and urgency for organizational
change. There are also discrepancies in sensemaking among individuals within organizations.
129
This relates to Weick’s (2004) critique of a “bias for action” in which he argues this
lauded managerial approach fails to account for the assumptions that go into actions taken, and
ignores the importance that organizational discourse plays in constituting organizations. Weick
(2004) points to assumptions such as the relationship between organizing and the use and
shaping of raw materials, and the “conceptual imagery that preserves organizational becoming”
(which also ties in to previous chapters on organizational identity in this dissertation; p. 406).
Past research on NPR (N. Usher, Riley, & Porter, 2012) provides an example of how a
discoursive approach that incorporates a communicative capacity for foresight is needed to better
address how organizations can deal with uncertainty and temporality. Usher, Riley and Porter
(2012) described how a central component of NPR’s digital media strategy (circa 2010) involved
“rapid prototyping” (a concept popular in engineering and Design Thinking), or near-term
experimentation with new projects that allowed for the implementation of novel ideas and the
potential failure of ideas. The introduction of a communicative capacity for foresight does not
conflict with the potential benefits of well-done, short-term experimentation efforts, however, an
over-reliance on this type of near-term strategy can reflect a “bias toward action,” or colloquially
“throwing spaghetti against the wall” (M. Fuerst), that omits shared sensemaking efforts about
organizational assumptions and the future.
A great challenge facing public media organizations lies in foresight and strategic
management within a complex, turbulent environment. Organizations face challenges in how
they imagine the future and develop long-term strategic and foresight processes. The larger
social value of sensemaking lies in its use for the production of shared meaning. The inability to
develop a “shared social reality” (Gephart et al., 2010, p. 300) can have implications ranging
from constraining managerial cognition in a way that harms both strategic decision-making and
130
organizational performance, to the potential disintegration of society (Gephart et al., 2010) via
the disappearance of any sense of mutual obligation (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 2002, as cited in
Gephart et al. 2010, p. 300). In the end, this study argues that cognition about the future and the
role of strategy in relation to the future should not center on the future as prediction but rather
should start from a greater awareness of the different future-oriented frames from people across
the organization. One way to do this is to increase communication about ways of thinking about
the future between key constituencies like digital media managers and top management teams.
As shown in the results of this study, even among well-regarded, relatively innovative
organizations, the understanding and importance of foresight was the exception rather than the
rule. Thus, combining process and communication approaches can have practical implications
like increasing awareness of how people think about drivers of change in their organizations and
industry, and how people can plan for a future in which the pace of technological change seems
to move faster and faster everyday.
Limitations and Future Research. This study relies on the analysis of interview data to
compare views at a high level across organizations. An in depth examination across employees
within a single organization (or multiple organizations) through more interviews or a survey
would provide a more comprehensive picture of divergent interpretations and opinion clustering
at the organizational level.
Additionally, observational analysis of strategy-related processes within organizations,
such as the development of strategic plans or related documentation about strategic plans could
provide insight into the recursivity of near- and long-term sensemaking and codified texts.
Another avenue for future research is to better understand flows of communication in relation to
cognitive clustering. For example, where do individuals from the three time-oriented groups fall
131
within intraorganizational communication networks – in the center or on the periphery? Do
members of certain groups bridge departments within organizations? Are certain members more
popular than others? Survey data collected from three organizations as part of this dissertation
can begin to address these questions but not at the level of the entire set of cases or across a
larger public broadcasting population.
An in depth comparison with public media organizations in different countries such as
BBC Radio can provide a cross-cultural comparison of how organizations within different
institutional environments are reacting to the same types of disruptive phenomena. Finally, the
findings from this study can also be used to explore other disruptive contexts such as how certain
types of organizations are dealing with climate change.
In conclusion, this study combines areas of research that conceptualized temporality and
strategy in overlapping ways. By combining communication perspectives including sensemaking
and CCO in the context of organizational strategy, this study provides theoretical and practical
insights into how media organizations are dealing with disruption and why it is so challenging to
change course, even when the threats of not acting quickly enough are widely known.
132
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
At NPR in 1994, a memo was circulated announcing: “Internet is coming to NPR! To
some this will be long-awaited, good news; to others, it won’t mean much…” (Fuze, 2014).
Twenty years later, many organizations including public media stations are still trying to figure
out how to deal with disruption and convergence that have origins in decades past. This study
contributes to the conversation about why so many organizations continue to struggle to keep up
with changing technologies, even after awareness about the urgency and pace of change has
grown so acute. Digital media affordances and disruption provide the overarching context for
how strategy and change are assessed in this project. The studies in this dissertation are designed
to build on our understanding of how a unique population of media organizations is changing,
and why changes are occurring in certain ways by connecting cognitive sensemaking and
structurational perspectives on communication with strategic management theory.
The purpose of Chapters 2 and 3 are to better understand how people make sense of
strategic changes in their organization. Findings show the strategic use of sensegiving by shifting
organizational identity frames, and how perceptions about competition inform organizational
distinctiveness and cognitive distance among people in different roles. Additionally, these
studies highlight the paradoxical tension of a continuously changing technological environment
and the managerial strategy of maintaining a sense of urgency to promote change. This paradox
is one example of why reframing the way individuals view disruption from an urgency/change
frame to a capacity-building frame can potentially impact organizing.
Chapters 4 and 5 sought to assess how people make sense of process and product
innovation in an under-researched industry. The concept of innovation represents a common way
to describe how organizations are attempting to change with regard to digital media and ICTs.
133
Yet like the notion of competition (Riley & Howard, 1999), innovation can easily be used as a
blunt excuse for actions that may or may not be advisable. Results from this study show unique
interpretations of process and product innovation that contribute to the study of innovation
within creative industry institutions. The notion of autodisruption is introduced to describe how
leaders are interpreting their strategic role in dealing with changing digital media technologies.
The storytelling orientation frame also presents a way of thinking about innovation unique to this
type of creative industry context that combines aspects of process and product innovation.
Chapter 6 aims to analyze managerial cognition and strategy by assessing temporality and
sensemaking in greater depth. This study connects future-oriented discourse with strategic
management and the Communication Constitutes Organization (CCO) perspective. A key
finding from this study points to how intuitive, prediction-oriented ways of thinking about the
future can constrain capacity for foresight. Findings add to the conversation around the
paradoxes involved in navigating awareness of the need for change and the way uncertainty leads
to cognitive frames that prevent shared sensemaking about the future and foster an over-reliance
on existing routines.
Emergent Themes
There are several themes that tie these studies together and point to theoretical and
practical implications.
Strategy as Communication. Each study presents different ways of viewing strategy as
communication. Sensemaking theory is a through-line for understanding how social interaction
at the individual level informs organizing. These five studies examine different ways people
think about their organizations in terms of: (1) connecting organizational identity and strategic
134
group identity, (2) interpreting discourses of innovation, and (3) analyzing cognitive frames used
to make sense of the past, present, and future.
Visibility. An emergent theme across the studies has to do with visible versus hidden
frames. Although many organizations in the sample were relatively small (under 50 people), the
frames that people used to make sense of identity, competition, innovation, and time were not
inherently visible or shared, for example, findings pointing to discrepancies among digital media
and managers in Chapter 2, and among employees within organizations in Chapter 5. Leaders are
tasked with developing and enacting the vision of an organization, thus the findings in this
dissertation point to ways managers can use multidirectional communication (across levels and
departments) to help build and sustain organizational vision. Improved communication structures
could make visible different ways of viewing the organization and its place in the mediascape, as
well as divergences in social constructions of innovation, time, and strategy. Additionally, some
concepts like competition were largely invisible or at least rarely discussed because of several
factors including organizational culture. Expanding discourse on topics like competition could
help improve shared sensemaking or at the very least make the variety of interpretations that
should inform strategic decision-making more visible.
Narrative Diversity. Akin to visibility, a recognition of narrative diversity (Fenton &
Langley, 2011) can also be used to take advantage of the diverse frames and perspectives of
employees in different parts of the organization. This concept relates to the tension faced in
sensemaking theory and in organizational practice of reconciling multiple voices within
organizations to a coherent organizational narrative and strategy. This also speaks to Latour’s
(1987, as cited in Fenton & Langley, 2011) notion of translation, meaning translating the
interests of multiple stakeholders into organizing processes (Fenton & Langley, 2011). Some
135
employee-level interviewees and interviewees unaffiliated with stations stated that even among
some digitally-minded organizations within the cases in this study, there is a greater need for
leadership to listen to other employees.
Change Capacity. These five studies ultimately contribute to our understanding of
organizational capacity for change. Nonprofit organizational capacity can be described by a wide
range of processes and factors that support organizational performance such as having an
external communications strategy, sound financial practices, knowledge of relevant policies and
regulations, and effective partnerships (“Nonprofit Capacity Building,” 2014). Change capacity
more specifically has been defined as a focus on change processes that lead to performance
outcomes (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001, p. 701).
Building change capacity in a communication-oriented way involves viewing the theme
of visibility in a temporal context. Tsoukas and Shepherd (2004) touch upon the challenge of
fostering shared sensemaking when they stated that it is more difficult “for an organization to
sharpen its collective capacity to perceive” than for individuals because “organizing is the
process of generating recurrent behaviors, namely a process for reducing differences among
individuals thorough institutionalized cognitive representations” (p. 6). Increasing the capacity
for making diverse frames visible can thus aid in change efforts and in developing new frames
for building future-oriented sensemaking and foresight. Capacity should be viewed as more than
just resource-based measures; management of organizational identity, sensegiving, innovation,
and future-orientation play roles in how well organizations – even relatively well-resourced
organizations – can adapt to disruption.
This project also presents ways of rethinking the assessment of organizational capacity,
for example through the analysis of sensemaking as well as network-oriented analyses, like
136
measuring the relationship between one’s ability to get ideas implemented and project
performance.
Limitations and Future Research
Several limitations and ideas for future research have been touched upon in the individual
studies. As a dissertation based on original fieldwork this project provides valuable insights and
demonstrates the challenges inherent to this type of research. For the most part, the people I
contacted across the public media industry were open to this project and generously gave their
time to speak with me. Gathering survey data proved much more difficult. The primary reason
given was that it was ok for an individual to donate his/her time for an interview, but not
appropriate to ask for the time of employees to take a survey. In some instances, even when
permission to distribute the survey was given, there were not enough intrinsic or extrinsic
incentives to prompt a strong participation rate. Thus, this dissertation operates within these
logistical boundaries.
Public Media: Organizational Level. There are many avenues for future research on
public media within the U.S. that could be explored based on findings from the data gathered
from this project. First, only a portion of the survey data were used in this project. Additional
nonparametric statistical tests could further assess independent variables in relation to
performance metrics for the three organizations surveyed.
Second, although this study assesses aspects pertaining to organizational change, this
project is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Gathering different types of data at a future
date will be beneficial for seeing how previous findings match with emerging reality, and how
strategic initiatives are transforming organizations.
137
Third, this study focuses on relatively innovative radio stations. Examining other types of
public radio stations such as smaller stations, or stations in other radio networks like Pacifica
could further inform this project. Additionally, public television was not addressed in this project
but it also faces the same type of disruptive forces as radio with the added hurdles of the high
cost of television production, and a lack of content that can be easily monetized at the station
level.
Fourth, diversity in terms of race, age, and socioeconomic background is a huge, long-
term issue for public media within the U.S. Within this industry, there is room for increased
diversity in terms in terms of the type of people working in public media, the types of
organizations and individuals creating content, and the audiences targeted by public media.
There is a long history of political contention and diversity issues in the public media arena that
this study does not address. Similarly, the power struggles and politics of funding and upper
echelon management are also not addressed in this project, such as the relationship between
entities like NPR and member stations or machinations in the embattled Pacifica network.
Fifth, this project does not evaluate the impact of products or content nor does it analyze
audiences. Future research could draw connections between the topics addressed in this study
within organizations and external impacts, like comparing internal and external identity in
relation to organizational legitimation, or assessing perceptions versus impact of innovative
exemplars and how the impact of new projects recursively informs process innovation over time.
Public Media: Interorganizational Level. Future research could examine public media
at the interorganizational level, for example by examining the relationships between
organizations. A survey-based study (Evans, Bighash, Guth, Hagen, & Marcotte, Working
Paper) is currently in progress assessing collaboration, communication and advice networks, and
138
local news production among a sample of public media organizations. Additional research at this
level could assess the sometimes-tense relationship between member stations and NPR or other
distribution entities like PRX, and the development of different types of partnerships over time,
such as content sharing alliances.
Comparative Research. Another limitation of this study is that the U.S. public media
system is extremely unique compared to public media systems in other parts of the world. Thus,
a promising avenue for future research involves a comparative study with stations in other
countries such as Canada, Australia or the UK. Some elements of this dissertation would also
benefit from a comparison with media institutions non-Western countries such as a cross-cultural
study on approaches to innovation and social constructions of time in relation to strategy.
Research in different industries undergoing similar types of disruption would also
provide a way for testing the validity of some of the theories and findings in this project. Such
industries include publishing (for example, changes in textbook publishing), journalism in
general, higher education (Massive Open Online Courses and the value of online versus offline
education), and retail clothing (particularly those in competition with online stores).
In conclusion, this dissertation provides insight into how one segment of the U.S. public
media industry is facing challenges and opportunities stemming from digital media disruption.
These findings have implications for public broadcasting as well as many other industries
including public television, commercial radio and television, higher education, publishing, and
retail.

139
REFERENCES
About CPB. (n.d.). Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Retrieved September 4, 2012, from
http://cpb.org/aboutcpb/
About Us. (n.d.). This American Life. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/about
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Organizational identity: A reader.
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during organizational
change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Management,
7(2), 187–210.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press.
American Public Media’s “Marketplace” launches new brand identity, responsive website and its
most extensive advertising campaign since inception. (2013, July 29). PR Newswire.
Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-
public-medias-marketplace-launches-new-brand-identity-responsive-website-and-its-
most-extensive-advertising-campaign-since-inception-217395741.html
Anand, V., Joshi, M., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2013). An organizational identity approach to
strategic groups. Organization Science, 24(2), 571–590.
Arbitron. (2012). Public radio today 2012. Radio Today Series.
Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The
challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation,
28(10), 644–657.
Atouba, Y., & Shumate, M. (2010). Interorganizational networking patterns among development
organizations. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 293–317.
140
Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. (2005). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 941–961.
Becker, H. S. (1984). Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bhoovaraghavan, S., Vasudevan, A., & Chandran, R. (1996). Resolving the process vs. product
innovation dilemma: A consumer choice theoretic approach. Management Science, 232–
246.
Blaschke, S., Schoeneborn, D., & Seidl, D. (2012). Organizations as networks of communication
episodes: Turning the network perspective inside out. Organization Studies, 33(7), 879–
906.
Borgatti, S., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for focial
network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Brummans, B. H. J. M., Cooren, F., Robichaud, D., & Tayler, J. R. (2014). Approaches to the
communicative constitution of organizations. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational
Communication (pp. 173–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bryson, J. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to
strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Inc.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University
Press.
Cattani, G. (2005). Preadaptation, firm heterogeneity, and technological performance: A study on
the evolution of fiber optics, 1970-1995. Organization Science, 563–580.
Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
141
Černe, M., Jaklič, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2013). Decoupling management and technological
innovations: Resolving the individualism–collectivism controversy. Journal of
International Management, 19(2), 103–117.
Chia, R. (2004). Re-educating attention: What is foresight and how is it cultivated. In H. Tsoukas
& J. Shepherd (Eds.), Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy.
Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chicago Public Media Professionals Vote to Join SAG-AFTRA. (2013, December 18). SAG-
AFTRA. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.sagaftra.org/chicago-public-
media-professionals-vote-join-sag-aftra
Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change
the way you do business. New York: Harper Collins.
Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change.
Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66–77.
Cooren, F., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2009). Dislocation and stabilization: How to scale up from
interactions to organizations. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building theories
of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 117–152). New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting 2011 Annual Report: Financials. (2012). Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from
http://www.cpb.org/annualreports/2011/financials/overview.html#panel
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6),
1154–1191.
142
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: Harper Perennial.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.
Damanpour, F. (2010). An integration of research findings of effects of firm size and market
competition on product and process innovations. British Journal of Management, 21(4),
996–1010.
Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and
antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.
Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A., & Evan, W. M. (1989). The relationship between types of
innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6), 587–
602.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation
types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations.
Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675.
Das, T. K. (2004). Strategy and time: Really recognizing the future. In H. Tsoukas & J. Shepherd
(Eds.), Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy (pp. 58–74). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
de-Miguel-Molina, B., Hervás-Oliver, J. L., de-Miguel-Molina, M., & Boix, R. (2014). Beautiful
innovation: Understanding management innovation in the spanish arts, heritage and
recreation industries. In Management Innovation: Antecedents, Complementarities and
Performance Consequences (pp. 91–104). New York: Springer.
143
Denning, P. J., Dunham, R., & Brown, J. S. (2010). The innovator’s way: Essential practices for
successful innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Doctor, K. (2013, December 12). The newsonomics of public radio’s all-in-one tablet strategy.
Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from
http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/12/the-newsonomics-of-public-radios-all-in-one-tablet-
strategy/
Driveway moment. (2013, August 2). Wiktionary. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/driveway_moment
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.
Eris, S. (2012, December). KQED’s QUEST Science Series Expands Nationally with $2.5
Million National Science Foundation Grant. KQED Pressroom. Retrieved April 24, 2014,
from http://blogs.kqed.org/pressroom/kqed%e2%80%99s-quest-science-series-expands-
nationally-with-2-5-million-national-science-foundation-grant/
Evans, S. K. (Working Paper). Managing Creative Capacity: Creativity as a Process of
Organizational Change.
Evans, S. K., Bighash, L., Guth, K., Hagen, C., & Marcotte, M. V. (Working Paper). Seeking
innovation: Comparing leadership and expertise interorganizational networks among
public broadcasting organizations.
Evans, S. K., Klagsbrun, E., & Riley, P. (Working Paper). Imagining the future of an industry in
flux: A comparison of journalists’ contemporary and future-oriented schemas.
144
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions.
Communication Theory, 14(1), 5–26.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source
of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 94–118.
Fenton, C., & Langley, A. (2011). Strategy as practice and the narrative turn. Organization
Studies, 32(9), 1171–1196.
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE publications Ltd.
Fuze, D. (2014, April 28). Internet at NPR. http://nprchives.tumblr.com/. Retrieved May 2, 2014,
from http://nprchives.tumblr.com/post/84119269701/a-memo-from-20-years-ago-today-
key-quote-the
Gephart, R. P., Topal, C., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and
institutional legitimation. In Process, sensemaking, and organizing (pp. 275–312).
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in
social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Gioia, D. A. (2006). On Weick: an appreciation. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1709.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Fabbri, T. (2002). Revising the past (while thinking in the future
perfect tense). Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(6), 622–634.
Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., & Corley, K. G. (2013). Organizational identity
formation and change. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 123–192.
145
Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Forging an identity: An
insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 1–46.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: sensemaking
during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370–403.
Glynn, M. A., & Navis, C. (2010). Entrepreneurship, institutional emergence, and organizational
leadership: tuning in to “the next big thing” in satellite radio. Research in the Sociology
of Work, 21, 257–286.
Goodman, E. P. (2009). Public Media 2.0. In A. M. Schejter (Ed.), And communications for all:
A policy agenda for a new administration (pp. 263–280). Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360–1380.
Herrmann, A. F. (2007). Stockholders in cyberspace: Weick’s sensemaking online. Journal of
Business Communication, 44(1), 13–35.
Himanen, P., & Castells, M. (2004). Institutional models of the network society: Silicon Valley
and Finland. In M. Castells (Ed.), The network society: A cross-cultural perspective (pp.
49–83). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.
Hinsley, A. W., & Weiss, A. S. (2010). The new newsroom: Changing job roles and news
organizations. In M. McCombs, A. W. Hinsley, K. Kaufhold, & S. C. Lewis (Eds.), The
future of news: An agenda of perspectives (pp. 41–58). Cognella.
Jensen, E. (2014, March 30). “This American Life” Considers Self-Distribution on Radio. New
York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from
146
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/business/media/american-life-considers-self-
distribution-on-radio.html?src=dayp&_r=1
Johnson, J. (1994). Anthropological contributions to the study of social networks. In S.
Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in
the Social and Behavioral (pp. 113–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Judge, W., & Douglas, T. (2009). Organizational change capacity: The systematic development
of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 635–649.
Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization
Science, 24(4), 965–995.
Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive social structures. Social Networks, 9(2), 109–134.
Kratzer, J., Gemuenden, H. G., & Lettl, C. (2008). Balancing creativity and time efficiency in
multi-team R&D projects: the alignment of formal and informal networks. R&D
Management, 38(5), 539.
Lam, A. (2005). Organizational Innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 115–147). Oxford University Press,
USA.
Lapin, A. (2013, December 13). OPB meets funding goal for new Southwest Washington bureau.
Current.org. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.current.org/2013/12/opb-
raising-funds-for-a-new-southwest-washington-bureau/
Livengood, R. S., & Reger, R. K. (2010). That’s our turf! Identity domains and competitive
dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 48–66.
147
Makridakis, S. (2004). Foreword: Foresight matters. In H. Tsoukas & J. Shepherd (Eds.),
Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy (pp. xiii–xiv). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Marcotte, M. V. (2012). NPR member station news dimensions (Working Paper). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=The+Coding+Manual+for+Qualitative+Res
earchers&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs’
advice networks and firms’ strategic responses to poor performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 48(1), 1–35.
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A
framework for explanation. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building theories
of organization: The constitutive role of communication (Vol. 10, pp. 21–47). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2010). Design Thinking Research. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L.
Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking: Understand–improve–apply (pp. xiii–xxi). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (Eds.). (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Miner, M. (2013, July 26). Torey Malatia leaves WBEZ. Chicago Reader. Retrieved January 19,
2014, from http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2013/07/26/torey-malatia-
leaves-wbez
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford
University Press, USA.
148
Mook, B. (2013, November 8). Brisk pace of turnover among pubmedia’s top execs in 2013.
Current.org. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.current.org/2013/11/brisk-
pace-of-turnover-among-pubmedias-top-execs-in-2013/
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M. J. (2007). What is strategic management, really?
Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management
Journal, 28(9), 935–955.
Nonprofit Capacity Building. (2014). National Council of Nonprofits. Retrieved July 1, 2014,
from http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/public-policy/federal-issues/nonprofit-capacity-
building
Obstfeld, D. (2012). Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done.
Organization Science, 23(6), 1571–1592.
Oliver, J., & Zaltzman, A. (n.d.). The Bugle. Retrieved from http://thebuglepodcast.com/
Peris-Ortiz, M., & Hervás-Oliver, J. L. (2014). Management innovation and technological
innovation: Friends or foes? In Management Innovation: Antecedents, Complementarities
and Performance Consequences (pp. 1–17). New York: Springer.
Perry, D. (2009, April 22). NPR on the iPhone. Inside NPR.org. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from
http://www.npr.org/blogs/inside/2009/04/npr_on_the_iphone.html
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic
social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106.
Peteraf, M., & Shanley, M. (1997). Getting to know you: A theory of strategic group identity.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 165–186.
149
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change
and development: Challenges for future research. The Academy of Management Journal,
44(4), 697–713.
Pianta, M. (2005). Organizational Innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 568–598). Oxford University Press,
USA.
Picard, V., Stearns, J., & Aaron, C. (2009). Saving the news: toward a national journalism
strategy. Free Press.
Porac, J., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities:
The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4),
397–416.
Porac, J., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2011). Competitive groups as cognitive communities:
The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers revisited. Journal of Management Studies,
48(3), 646–664.
Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of Innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, &
R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 56–85). Oxford University
Press, USA.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and
the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 116–145.
Public Insight Network. (2013). American Public Media. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from
https://www.publicinsightnetwork.org/
150
Public Media Company: What We Do. (n.d.). Public Media Company. Retrieved September 4,
2012, from http://www.publicmediacompany.org/what-we-do
Public radio finances. (2013, June 20). NPR. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from
http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
Putnam, L. L., Nicotera, A. M., & McPhee, R. D. (2009). Introduction: Communication
constitutes organization. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building theories of
organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Taylor
& Francis.
Rabin, J., Miller, G. J., & Hildreth, W. B. (Eds.). (2000). Introduction. In Handbook of strategic
management (2nd ed., pp. xv–xxii). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Ramsey, M. (2012, July 10). Is Radio Asking the Wrong Questions? Mark Ramsey Media.
Retrieved September 3, 2012, from http://www.markramseymedia.com/2012/07/is-radio-
asking-the-wrong-questions/
Reports of radio’s death have been greatly exaggerated. (2013, November 8). Priceonomics.
Retrieved January 8, 2014, from http://priceonomics.com/reports-of-radios-death-have-
been-greatly/
Riley, P., & Howard, L. (1999). Competition: The structuring of postindustrial organizational
life. In R. A. Goodman (Ed.), Modern organizations and emerging conundrums:
Exploring the postindustrial subculture of the third millennium (pp. 293–320). Lexington
Books.
Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., & Lusher, D. (2007). An introduction to exponential random
graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 173–191.
151
Roderick, K. (2010, February 18). KUSC claims #1 in public radio ratings. LA Observed.
Retrieved September 3, 2012, from
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2010/02/kusc_claims_1_in_public_r.php
Roderick, K. (2013a, February 9). Program director Craig Curtis leaves KPCC. LA Observed.
Retrieved January 19, 2014, from
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2013/02/program_director_craig_cu.php
Roderick, K. (2013b, August 15). KPCC “grappling with an identity crisis,” says The Wrap. LA
Observed. Retrieved April 11, 2014, from
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2013/08/kpcc_grappling_with_an_id.php
Roeger, K. L., Blackwood, A. S., & Pettijohn, S. L. (2012). The Nonprofit Almanac 2012.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
SAS FAQ. (n.d.). Institute for Digital Research and Education, UCLA. Retrieved April 11, 2014,
from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/faq/sas_interpret_log.htm
Schoemaker, P. J. . (1995). Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management
Review, 36, 25–25.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1991). When and how to use scenario planning: A heuristic approach with
illustration. Journal of Forecasting, 10(6), 549–564.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest and the business cycle. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.
Schwandt, D. R., & Gorman, M. (2004). Foresight or foreseeing? A social action explanation of
complex collective knowledge. In H. Tsoukas & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Managing the
152
future: Foresight in the knowledge economy (pp. 77–97). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Sempere-Ripoll, F., Hervás-Oliver, J. L., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Combining technological and
management innovations: Empirical evidence of a premium effect. In Management
Innovation: Antecedents, Complementarities and Performance Consequences (pp. 19–
28). New York: Springer.
Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. (2008). Organizational creativity research: A historical overview. In J.
Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 3–32). Thousand
Oaks: Psychology Press.
Shell International Limited. (n.d.). What are scenarios? Retrieved June 16, 2014, from
http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/scenarios/what-are-scenarios.html
Shell International Limited. (2005). Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050.
Shumate, M., & Palazzolo, E. (2010). Exponential random graph (p*) models as a method for
social network analysis in communication research. Communication Methods and
Measures, 4(4), 341–371.
Silverman, B. (1998). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification:
Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics.
Simons, E. (2007, November 13). KQED’s new science program offers a glimpse of the future.
Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/vision_quest.php?page=all
Sonenshein, S., & Dholakia, U. (2012). Explaining employee engagement with strategic change
implementation: A meaning-making approach. Organization Science, 23(1), 1–23.
153
Sosa, M. E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social
networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1–21.
Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process.
Organization Studies, 32(9), 1217–1245.
Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. (2011). Secret agencies: The communicative constitution of a clandestine
organization. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1197–1215.
Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The Digital
Photography Company.” Organization Science, 20(2), 441–460.
Tsoukas, H., & Shepherd, J. (2004). Introduction: Organizations and the future, from forecasting
to foresight. In H. Tsoukas & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Managing the future: Foresight in the
knowledge economy (pp. 1–18). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Usher, N. B., & Riley, P. (2009). Organizational Culture and Capacity for Change in Public
Service News Organizations. International Communication Association Proceedings.
Usher, N., Riley, P., & Porter, V. (2012).U.S.Public Service Broadcasting: The Case of National
Public Radio Online. In N. Brugger & M. Burns (Eds.), Histories of Public Service
Broadcasting Online (pp. 31–48). New York: Peter Lang.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem1.
American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct,
dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942–962.
154
Verrier, R. (2013, January 18). KPCC employees join SAG-AFTRA union. Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved January 19, 2014, from
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/18/entertainment/la-et-ct-kpcc-sag-aftra-20130118
Waldman, S. (2011). Information needs of communities: The changing media landscape in a
broadband age (pp. 1–468). Federal Communications Commission.
Wang, P., Robins, G., & Pattison, P. (2006). PNET: Program for the simulation and estimation
of p∗ exponential random graph models. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
Wang, P., Robins, G., & Pattison, P. (2009). PNet user manual (pp. 1–45). Dept. of Psychology,
School of Behavioural Science, University of Melbourne. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/search?q=pnet+users+manual&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-
8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Weick, K. E. (2004). A bias for conversation: Acting discursively in organizations. In D. Grant,
C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational
discourse (pp. 405–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Weick, K. E. (2005). Organizing and failures of imagination. International Public Management
Journal, 8(3), 425–438.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance
in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
What Is PRX? (2012). PRX - Public Radio Exchange. PRX.org. Retrieved September 8, 2012,
from http://www.prx.org/about-us/what-is-prx
155
Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of
organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219–234.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies,
27(5), 613–634.
Wiebe, E. (2010). Temporal sensemaking: Managers’ use of time to frame organizational
change. Oxford University Press Oxford, UK.
WLRN 2016: News is out future: A strategic plan to reinvent out future (Strategic Plan). (2012).
Retrieved from http://www.current.org/2013/12/opb-raising-funds-for-a-new-southwest-
washington-bureau/
Woodman, R. W. (2008). Creativity and organizational change: linking ideas and extending
theory. In J. Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 283–
300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Psychology Press.
Zaheer, A., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal,
21(3), 203.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity
research. In J. Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 347–
368). Thousand Oaks, CA: Psychology Press.
156

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

List of Participating Organizations
Organization Location # of
Interviews
Station Type &
Format
Market
Rank
12

American Public Media/Minnesota
Public Radio (APM/MPR)
Saint Paul, MN 2 NPR member, news 11-25
Marketplace (owned by APM) Los Angeles, CA 8 Radio content
organization
1-10
Folk Alley (part of WKSU) Kent, OH 1 Music, Internet only 51-100
KCRW Santa Monica,
CA
3 NPR member, news
& music
1-10
KPBS San Diego, CA 7 NPR member, news 11-25
KPCC (Southern California Public
Radio)
Pasadena, CA 5 NPR member, news 1-10
KQED San Francisco,
CA
4 Dual-license, NPR
member, news
1-10
Houston Public Media (KUHF) Houston, TX 7 Dual-license, NPR
member, news
1-10
KUSC Los Angeles, CA 4 Music 1-10
North Country Public Radio
(NCPR)
Canton, NY 1 NPR member, news 101+
Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) Portland, OR 3 Dual-license, NPR
member, news
11-25
Chicago Public Media (WBEZ) Chicago, IL 6 NPR member, news 1-10
WBUR Boston, MA 4 NPR member, news 1-10
WLRN Miami, FL 10 NPR member, news 11-25
WNYC New York City,
NY
1 NPR member, news 1-10
Individuals from entities including NPR, CPB, PRI,
and public media consultants/experts
8

12
Market size stems from the Arbitron Metro Market Rank, 2012 report (Arbitron, 2012). The
lower the number, the larger the market, so a market of size 1 represents one of the largest radio
markets in the U.S.
157
APPENDIX B: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
List of Interviewees
Organization Name Role
American Public Media/
Minnesota Public Radio
Michael Reszler Vice President, Digital Media
American Public Media/
Minnesota Public Radio
Dave Kansas Chief Operating Officer
Center for Investigative Reporting Joaquin Alvarado Chief Strategy & Operations
Independent Consultant Kate Gardner Digital Strategy Consultant
Corporation for Public
Broadcasting
Bruce Theriault Senior Vice President, Radio
Corporation for Public
Broadcasting
Vincent Curren Executive VP & COO
Folk Alley Linda Fahey Senior Director of Content
Houston Public Media Dave Fehling Reporter, State Impact Project
Houston Public Media Debra Fraser Former CEO
Houston Public Media Emily Binetti Former Director of Communication /
Interactive
Houston Public Media Jack Williams Director of News Programming
Houston Public Media Jared Counts Web Developer
Houston Public Media Shomial Ahmad PIN Analyst & Multiplatform
Specialist
Houston Public Media Valerie Lawhorn Web News Editor, PIN Analyst,
Social Media Editor & Producer
KCRW Gary Scott Program Director for News
KCRW Harriett Ells Program Director for Talk
KCRW Jennifer Ferro General Manager
KPBS Deanna Martin
Mackey
Associate General Manager
KPBS Katie Euphrat Video Journalist
KPBS Kyla Calvert Education Reporter
KPBS Leng Caloh Interactive Product Specialist
KPBS Nathan Gibbs Interactive Product Specialist
KPBS Suzanne Marmion Director of News & Editorial Strategy
KPBS Tom Karlo General Manager
KPCC Bill Davis President and CEO
KPCC Kevin Ferguson Reporter for Off-Ramp
KPCC Kristen Muller Managing Editor, Newsgathering
KPCC Melanie Sill Executive Editor
KPCC Russ Stanton Vice President of Content
KQED Alicia Aschauer Manager, Content Strategy & Board
Relations
KQED Bruce Koon News Director
KQED Sue Ellen McCann Executive Producer, Science &
158
Environment
KQED Tim Olson VP Digital Media & Education
KUSC Brenda Barnes President
KUSC Chris Mendez Web Developer
KUSC Sharon Browning Consultant for KUSC
KUSC Tim Gallagher KUSC Board Member
Public Media Futures Forums Mark Fuerst Director
Marketplace Dave Shaw Senior Editor
Marketplace Ethan Lindsey Senior Digital Editor
Marketplace J.J. Yore Former VP & General Manager
Marketplace Matt Berger Digital Director, Marketplace
Marketplace Paul Dawson Financial Analyst
University of Southern
CA/Marketplace
Robert Hernandez Assistant Professor of Professional
Practice, Marketplace Consultant
Marketplace Stephen Colon Manager, Audio Production
Marketplace Anonymous Former Employee
NCPR Ellen Rocco Station Manager
NPR Digital Services Todd Mundt Editorial Director
NPR West / USC Annenberg
Center on Communication
Leadership & Policy
Cinny Kennard Formerly Managing Director/Editor of
NPR West
Oregon Public Broadcasting Lynne Pollard VP, Digital Services
Oregon Public Broadcasting Morgan Holm Sr VP, Chief Content Officer
Oregon Public Broadcasting Steve Bass President and CEO
Public Radio International Michael Skoler VP, Interactive
University of New Mexico Michael Marcotte Journalism Professor of Practice
WBEZ Alison Scholly Chief Operating Officer
WBEZ Elliott Ramos Web Producer, Reporter
WBEZ Matthew Green Director of Digital Product
Management
WBEZ Sally Eisele Managing Editor, Public Affairs
WBEZ Tim Akimoff Director of Digital Content
WBEZ Steve Edwards Former Radio Host
WBUR Charlie Kravetz General Manager
WBUR John Davidow Executive Editor, New Media
WBUR Nate Goldman Social Media Producer
WBUR Tiffany Campbell Managing Editor, Digital
WLRN Stefania Ferro PIN Analyst
WLRN Alicia Zuckerman Editorial Director
WLRN Charles Michaels Information Technologies
Administration Director at Friends of
WLRN, Inc.
WLRN Elaine Chen Interactivity Producer
WLRN John LaBonia General Manager
WLRN Kenny Malone Reporter
WLRN Peter J. Maerz Programming and Operations
159
Manager
WLRN Terence Shepherd Assignment Editor
WLRN Dan Grech Formerly News Director
WLRN / McClatchy Anders Gyllenhaal VP, News & Washington Editor;
former Executive Editor at Miami
Herald
WNYC Laura Walker CEO

160
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE
Interview Questions
• Describe your role at _______. How long have your worked here?

• Talk about any recent changes at this organization. (structural, leadership, strategic)

• Tell me about the digital strategy of the organization.
o E.g., online, mobile, social media

• How would you describe the near term strategy regarding digital media (e.g., moving
content across platforms, etc.)? How would you describe the long-term strategy?

• How is strategy communicated throughout the organization?

• What were some of the challenges or constraints to implementing strategy?

• Tell me about an instance in the organization of something that was really innovative.
o And/or, describe a potentially innovative project that did not work out as
expected.

• How are new ideas encouraged?
o Or, talk about your role in a key project or strategic change. How were new ideas
encouraged? How were ideas selected? Implemented?

• How is performance measured?

• What organizations or entities do you view as competition?

• What types of organizations or entities does your organization aspire to be like? (Or, do
you look to for new ideas?)

• What does innovation mean to you?

• If you could change anything in your organization what would you change?

For top executives:
• Tell me about the relationship between your organization and NPR
o Other public media entities (e.g., PRI, etc, if applicable)

• Approximately how many employees are there at this organization?

161
APPENDIX D: FIGURES FOR CHAPTERS 2 AND 5
Chapter 2 Figures

Figure 1. Two Components of the Two-mode Network. The smaller component on the left
shows the individuals who listed “none” (node 16). The larger component on the right shows the
network of people connected to different types of perceived competitors.

162

Figure 2. Large Component of the Two-mode Network. Two-mode network of interviewees and
their views on organizational competitors. Round nodes are individuals; black square nodes are
competitor entities. Node color represents organization; node size reflects the number of
indegree ties.
163
Chapter 5 Figures
Key: Role: Radio = pink; TV = orange; Web/multimedia or engineer = green;
membership/giving = blue; Managers = purple; everyone else = light blue; Different
organization = black, NA = gray; Isolates have been removed.

Figure 4. KUSC Project Network. KUSC Project Network with tie width indicates Mean
Implement (wider links = more highly rated); node color = role; node size = in degree.

Figure 5. OPB Project Network. OPB Project Network with ties weighted by Mean Implement
(wider links = more highly rated); node color = role; node size = indegree.
164

Figure 6. KUHF Project Network. KUHF Project Network with ties weighted by Mean
Implement (wider links = more highly rated); node color = role; node size = indegree
165
Advice Networks Diagrams with Isolates and Pendants Removed

Figure 7. KUSC Advice Network. KUSC Advice Network, node color = role, node size =
betweenness

Figure 8. OPB Advice Network. OPB Advice Network, node color = role, node size =
betweenness
166

Figure 9. KUHF Advice Network. KUHF Advice Network, node color = role, node size =
betweenness
167
APPENDIX E: SURVEY ITEMS
Online Survey
You are invited to participate in a survey for a study conducted by Sandra Evans, a doctoral
candidate at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of
Southern California.

Introduction
The purpose of this survey is to better understand how innovation is supported within public
media organizations. This survey is part of Sandra's dissertation research. A summary of
anonymized survey results will also be shared with you and your organization. These results can
help explain how innovation works in your organization and provide ideas for managing
innovation in the future.

Procedures
You will be asked questions about communication and the culture of your organization. This
survey will take about 12-15 minutes to complete.

Confidentiality
All data from this survey will remain confidential. This means that no identifying information
(such as your name, the names of others) will be used in the final research report or shared with
others in your organization.

Participation
Participation is completely voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at anytime. There is no
direct compensation.

I thank you in advance for your participation!

Questions about the Research
If you have questions regarding this study, you may contact:
Sandra Evans
Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism
University of Southern California
sandra.evans@usc.edu

NETWORKS

1. In this section you will be asked to list the people who are influential to you in your day-to-
day activities. The purpose of these questions is to see with whom you communicate regularly
about new ideas or innovations.

Please note that names will not be shared with anyone in your organization or with any outside
parties. The purpose of these questions is to understand the structure of communication networks
only – something that can be valuable for improving our understanding of innovation.
168

1.1 Please list your name and job title or position.
First and Last Name ___________
Job Title _________

PROJECT NETWORK
1.2 Think about a recent project from the last 6-12 months that you thought was significant to
your career. Please identify at least 1 person with whom you communicated frequently during
the course of this project. They can be from your organization or from another organization or
industry. (You may list from 1 to 7 names.)
Name

Person 1
Person 2
Person …7

INNOVATION NETWORK ATTRIBUTES: ENABLERS OF INNOV (Sosa, 2011)
Think about novel ideas that were related to your media content, audiences or the way you do
things.

1.3 Do you agree or disagree with the following: When I interacted with this person it was easy
for me to generate novel creative solutions and/or ideas.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Person 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Person 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
P …7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.4 When I interacted with this person it was easy for me to get our solutions and/or ideas
implemented by the organization.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Person 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Person 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
P …7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CREATIVITY (Kratzer, Gemunden & Lettl, 2008)
Consider this same past project that was meaningful to you. Please rate the following questions
on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = poor and 7 = excellent.

1.5 How would you estimate the newness and originality of the solutions your team found to
problems?
1.6 How would you estimate the number of possible solutions your team developed to solve
problems?
1.7 How would you estimate the number of possible solutions your team took into consideration
in order to solve problems?
169
1.8 How would you rate the effectiveness of the solutions your team developed?

ADVICE NETWORK
2. Briefly describe a major strategic change in your organization from the past 12 months related
to digital content (such as online, social media, or mobile content) that has impacted how you do
your work.
________

2.1 Regarding this change, please identify at least 1 person you turned to for information or
advice about this. Seeking advice can mean asking for expertise, or seeking new ideas or
information.
Name
Person 1
Person 2
Person …7

2.2 How often did you turn to this person for advice or expertise?
Never Less than
1x/month
1x/month 2-3x /
month
1x/week 2-3x/week Daily
P 1       
P 2       
P …7       

2.3 Regarding this change, please identify at least 1 person who came to you for information or
advice about this.
Name
Person 1
Person 2
Person …7

2.4 How often did this person come to you for advice or expertise?
Never Less than
1x/month
1x/month 2-3x /
month
1x/week 2-3x/week Daily
P 1       
P 2       
P …7       

INFORMATION SOURCES: ADVICE NETWORK
2.5. In addition to seeking advice from people, we often seek advice from information sources
like Wikipedia, Google or other sources. From what information resources have you sought
information about the change mentioned above? (Select all that apply)
Online search (e.g., Google)
Topic-oriented websites (e.g., blogs, product sites)
Online forums
Wikis
Social media sites (e.g., Twitter, Facebook)
170
Enterprise social media (social media specifically used within you organization only, e.g.,
Yammer)
Books/manuals
Other (please specify)

CULTURE ((N. B. Usher & Riley, 2009)
3. This section focuses on the culture of your organization.

Think about your experience at your current place of employment. Do you agree or disagree with
the following items:

Response Option: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree (5-point Likert Scale)
3.1 I wish I knew about more improvements that have been successfully implemented in other
areas of the organization. (reversed)
3.2 We make time for conversations about how we should change in order to remain relevant and
vital.
3.3 We are encouraged to understand how our work affects the entire organization.
3.4 Employees at all levels are encouraged to give feedback about all aspects of the organization
to upper management.
3.5 Anyone who works here would say our organization is taking steps to respond to the
changing marketplace.
3.6 We recognize and reward behavior that advances change in line with our organization’s
vision.
3.7 We constantly review the way we do things in order to improve existing processes and act on
the best ideas.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CAPACITY (Judge & Douglas, 2009)
Organizational leader(s)
3.8 Protect the core values while encouraging change.
3.9 Consistently articulate an inspiring vision of the future.
3.10 Show courage in their support of change initiatives.
3.11 Demonstrate humility while fiercely pursuing the vision.

We have an organizational culture that
3.12 Values innovation and change.
3.13 Attracts and retains creative people.
3.14 Provides resources to experiment with new ideas.
3.15 Allows people to take risks and occasionally fail.

Most employees
3.16 Open themselves to consider change proposals.
3.17 Have opportunities to voice their concerns about change.
3.18 Generally know how change will help the business unit.
3.19 Generally view top management as trustworthy.

Information flows effectively
171
3.20 From executives to employees.
3.21 In a timely fashion.
3.22 Across organizational units.
3.23 From customers to the organizational unit.

FUTURITY DIMENSION (Venkatraman 1989)
Do you agree or disagree with the following:
3.24 Our criteria for resource allocation generally reflect short-term considerations
3.25 We emphasize basic research to provide us with future competitive edge. (e.g., R&D or
other research efforts)
3.26 We emphasize the forecasting of key indicators of environmental changes (e.g., issues like
changing technologies and audiences habits).
3.27 We emphasize the formal tracking of significant general trends.
3.28 We conduct "What-if" analyses of critical issues

DEMOGRAPHICS
4. In this last section we would like to know more about you. As with all prior questions, this
information will remain confidential.

4.1 How many people work in your department or unit? _____
4.2 How long have you worked at your current organization? (estimate number of years) _____
4.3 How long have you worked in public radio? _____
4.4 Prior to your current position, have you worked in a professional capacity at other types of
journalism outlets? (select all that apply)
Commercial radio
Public television
Broadcast television
Newspaper
Magazine
Blog or other online-only publication
Other (please specify)
4.5 What is your gender?
Male
Female
4.6 In what year were you born? _____
4.7 What is the highest level of education you have obtained?
High School/GED
2-year College Degree
4-Year Undergraduate Degree
Master's Degree
Professional Degree (JD, MD)
Doctoral Degree (PhD, EdD)
Other (please specify)
4.8 Do you have anything else you’d like to add? _________________

172
APPENDIX F: ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS
Public Radio at an Inflection Point
This section provides a brief overview of the changes that have been occurring in each
organization. It is notable that several top management interviewees were let go or left their
organizations months after interviews were conducted. Todd Mundt was also let go from NPR in
March, 2014 during a restructuring. This fits with a larger trend of increased leadership turnover
in the past year due to a range of forces including organizational restructuring and retirements
(Mook, 2013).
American Public Media / Marketplace
Interviews were conducted with Minnesota-based leaders in digital media at APM and
with several leaders and employees at Los Angeles-based Marketplace, a business news radio
program owned by APM. APM owns and operates many stations under the Minnesota Public
Radio brand, and owns several other media properties around the country. APM interviewees
described how the strategy of the company at the highest level was “audio everywhere” (M.
Reszler) and “beyond radio” (D. Kansas) meaning getting content to people regardless of
platform, and working with supporting entities like the online and mobile streaming audio
services, Slacker and Sticher (M. Reszler, APM). APM also maintains a large social media
presence.
Marketplace is syndicated on several public radio stations, and operates out of Los
Angeles. Top leaders, including M. Reszler are affiliated with both Los Angeles and Minnesota
offices. Marketplace was undergoing a strategic digital shift that included moving to a “digital
first” rather than radio first strategy, launching a new version of their website, a large marketing
campaign, the creation of a Digital Editor position, and increased digital media training for staff
173
(“American Public Media’s ‘Marketplace’ launches new brand identity, responsive website and
its most extensive advertising campaign since inception,” 2013). They then underwent a
restructuring in July 2012, initiated by APM with a focus on top leadership change and greater
integration of financial departments into APM. Editorial production remains situated in Los
Angeles and New York offices. As part of this restructuring, CEO J.J. Yore was let go a few
months after interviews took place in 2013.
Folk Alley
Folk Alley is based in Kent, Ohio and is produced by WKSU, the regional NPR station.
WKSU used to offer NPR programming as well as music programming until 2003 when Folk
Alley was spun off as its own online-only music station. Folk Alley maintains unique branding
and content but has a strong connection to WKSU included shared employees. Whereas WKSU
targets regional audiences, Folk Alley positions itself as a folk music destination for national and
global audiences. This station has a new general manager who has prioritized redoing the
website and improving mobile access.
Folk Alley started with two goals: creating a multimedia site, and creating content that
could be “spread around.” Today their digital strategy is focused on sending out content “in all
the ways to get reaction.” They focus heavily on cross promoting content through social media,
and there is a strong sense of urgency about keeping up with digital media. According to L.
Fahey, their “biggest challenge [is] now” because “everybody has caught up to us [in terms of
online offerings]. How can we stand out?”
Houston Public Media
See Methods section of Chapter 5.
174

KCRW
KCRW has undergone recent structural and cultural shifts. Under the leadership of J.
Ferro, they have added a layer of management to an otherwise flat organization. Three
individuals (H. Ells, G. Scott, Anne Litt) now oversee talk radio, news programming, and music
programming respectively. They have also hired some “hybrid” personnel who work in both
radio and social media, and they have created a News Department to help increase content
collaboration across program groups. They have attempted to shift their culture from being
program-focused (silo’d teams focused solely on a specific program) to content focused
(multiplatform emphasis, and collaboration across programs). In 2012 they also physically
moved staff to new desk spaces in a move some called the “deskitus” in order to facilitate cross-
departmental interaction. Many interviewees referred to KCRW as an innovative public radio
station, and one that they look to for new ideas.
KPBS
Most interviewees at KPBS described how the organization has a relatively long history
of embracing digital media and multiplatform content, and that 2007 represented a turning point
in which digital media strategy become even more embedded in the organization. In 2006, the
station put together an interactive team to manage the website. In 2007, brush fires ravaged
populated neighborhoods in the San Diego area. So many people were visiting the KPBS site for
news updates that the site crashed. The Web team worked closely with the News Department to
build real time online maps of the fires (see Figure 1). Google executives flew in to help enable
their Google Maps site (still in Beta) to support the increased web traffic. Interactive and
newsroom employees also started using Twitter, then a new service, to communicate breaking
news. Several interviewees used this story to describe how the organization integrated the
175
interactive team into the newsroom, and how subsequent strategic plans built on this combination
of a digital-first strategy and a local news mission.

Figure 10. Screenshot of KPBS Google Map of Brush Fires, 2007
As of 2009, online content became a central strategic focus, and the station refocused its mission
on producing local news content. T. Karlo described the shift in strategy from 2008 onward:
I really felt that public media and public broadcasting across the country was
struggling…Our economy was changing, and local journalism especially in this market
area of San Diego was declining. Our main daily newspaper was shrinking. Everyday
they laid off over fifty percent of their staff over the last five to six years. Local
commercial radio serving the community with news was literally nonexistent anymore.
Local television news was becoming very sensational...I didn’t want to be the one that sat
in my office and tried to figure out who is going to be laid off…I basically said that we
were going to be a news/journalism organization. (T. Karlo, KPBS)
176
Reporters were pushed to put content online so KPBS made changes to workloads and doubled
the number of reporter to 12. Departments are no longer delineated by medium (TV, radio,
Digital), and they have since created managerial partnerships between the heads of News,
Interactive and Programming to formalize interdepartmental collaboration. Recently, KPBS has
developed mobile applications, and they are in the process of designing a strategy for what the
interactive side of KPBS should look like over the next three to five years. Leaders from the
station consult for other public media organizations regarding digital media management. While
some interviewees (on and off the record) presented a mixed picture of how employees at other
organizations viewed consulting advice from KPBS leaders, many interviewees and public radio
experts viewed KPBS as being an innovative organization.

Figure 11. Word Cloud Created by Leaders at KPBS. This is based on their strategic planning
documentation. A printout of this was given to staff members.
177
KPCC
KPCC has expanded in size in recent years. In 2010 they brought in new leadership.
Many new hires have newspaper backgrounds, including R. Stanton. Their digital media strategy
has shifted from a focus on content designed for desktop computers, to a focus on mobile
content. They instituted employee training in the summer of 2012 to encourage digital and social
media publishing. They have also been in the process of developing their own apps, including an
iPad app (Doctor, 2013)
Other recent changes that have occurred during the course of the project within
programming and human resources include: a host of a flagship, KPCC-produced morning
program quit unexpectedly; another long-running, KPCC-produced call-in program was
cancelled; a program director left (Roderick, 2013a); and employees unionized in January 2013
(Verrier, 2013).
KUSC
See Methods section of Chapter 5.
NCPR
North Country Public Radio is a small market, rural station in upstate New York. They
have a long history of producing news and community-oriented content. Due to poor mobile
phone service in rural areas, NCPR has been an early mover on the Internet; for example, they
have had two full-time digital media employees since 2000 – much longer than most public radio
stations. Recently, they have developed their own smartphone and iPad apps. The size of this
station means that they do not deal with some issues present in larger stations like departmental
silos, but they also have fewer resources and staff members. They are widely regarded as an
example of a small, creative station that provides valuable local news content.
178
Oregon Public Broadcasting
See Methods section of Chapter 5.
WBEZ
WBEZ is in the process of enacting a digital strategy that focuses on their mission-based
goal of impacting the city of Chicago through programming. They have been adjusting their
social media strategy on an iterative, continuous basis, rather than planning far in advance
because of the fast pace of change. They have also been experimenting with interactive
programming such as Curious City, in which audience members post questions about the city of
Chicago; questions are voted up or down by the audience; then a story is developed by reporters
at WBEZ. In the summer of 2013 the head of WBEZ, Torey Malatia, left his position (Miner,
2013). WBEZ employees also joined the SAG-AFTRA union (“Chicago Public Media
Professionals Vote to Join SAG-AFTRA,” 2013)
WBUR
WBUR interviewees stated that they were one of the first public media organizations to
have a news website as compared to a “brochure” site (a site with just basic information about
the organization) four years ago. In 2011 WBUR held an in-house strategic planning process for
the organization, and implementation of the resulting three-year plan occurred in January of
2012. This strategic plan was called Futurecast. It included physical restructuring, digital and
radio integration, increased hiring, the creation of innovation labs and incubators, an expansion
of mobile app development, and the creation of an advisory board to oversee this strategic plan.
One staff member has also been placed in charge of innovation. They reframed their strategy to
be defined as four pillars: programming, digital, community, and revenue. According to C.
179
Kravetz, they were “driven by digital revolution as disrupting of all media and undermining
journalism in America.” According to J. Davidow:
We want to be everywhere our users are. We want to build our audiences…We are
turning on its head the idea of taking radio and turning it into narrative or words or digital
content. We are now shifting that paradigm in taking original contents built for the Web
through various journalistic verticals and turning that stuff into radio…Our strategy is to
build original content silos that can build up the radio. (J. Davidow, WBUR)
WLRN
WLRN has undergone a strategic planning process and developed a plan for up to 2016.
Their strategic goals are to become the leading local news source, and to be accessible on every
platform available (WLRN 2016: News is out future: A strategic plan to reinvent out future,
2012). Part of this plan builds up the role of the Interactive team by dedicating time and
resources to innovation-related activities and denoting some metrics for performance. This shift
in strategic focus reflects a big change for WLRN. For example, the WLRN website was
redesigned in October of 2012, transforming it from a brochure site to a news and content site --
a change made by many organizations in this sample a few years ago at least. As of August 2013,
digital media were still viewed as secondary, though steps were being taken to increase
multimedia training for reporters, and the importance of digital was stated by several
interviewees.
Since 2003, WLRN has had a partnership with the Miami Herald in which they share
reporting and content, and hold shared events. This type of partnership has been very rare in the
public radio world thus far. WLRN uses topic areas to guide content develop: politics, arts,
culture and education. The topic areas covered by WLRN are designed to provide content that
180
does not overlap with the Miami Herald (e.g., the newspaper tackles breaking news, whereas the
radio station deals with in depth stories on Arts/Culture and other topics). A top manager in
digital media, D. Grech, left WLRN unexpectedly in the summer of 2013.
WNYC
WNYC is owned by New York Public Radio. It is a non-profit organization, independent
of the typical university or community ownership ties usually associated with public radio
stations, and has its own board of directors. WNYC produces a great deal of programming and is
viewed by several interviewees as being innovative. They adopted a new strategic plan in 2011.
This station has also been growing, however CEO L. Walker stated that like other media entities,
they are still looking for better ideas about how to monetize and sustain digital media content.
Their new strategy encompasses the goal to go from reaching 9 million to 19 million people per
month through digital platforms, increasing multiplatform content creation, increasing audience
engagement, seeking new revenue sources, and becoming a more nimble organization. Like
KPCC, some recent top management hires have come from newspapers like the New York Times.
181

APPENDIX G: CLUSTERS BASED ON FUTURE-ORIENTATION
Table 12
Clusters of Future-orientation
Present-Day Orientation:
Strategic Plan Orientation:
Approaching Foresight Orientation:
Not possible or practical to think long-term
1-3 year outlook
5-10 year outlook
Folk Alley L. Fahey Senior Director
of Content
HPM J. Williams Director of News
Programming
APM D. Kansas Chief Operating
Officer
HPM D. Fraser Former CEO

KPBS D. Mackey Associate General
Manager

KQED B. Koon News Director
HPM J. Counts Web Developer

KPCC B. Davis President and CEO

KQED T. Olson VP Digital
Media &
Education
KPCC K. Muller Managing
Editor,
Newsgathering

KPCC K. Ferguson Reporter for Off-
Ramp

KUSC B. Barnes President
KPCC M. Sill Executive
Editor

KQED S.E. McCann Executive Producer,
Science &
Environment

OPB S. Bass President and
CEO
KPCC R. Stanton Vice President
of Content

KUSC C. Mendez Web Developer

WBEZ S. Eisele Managing
Editor, Public
Affairs
KQED S.E.
McCann
Executive
Producer,
Science &
Environment

NCPR E. Rocco Station Manager

WBEZ T.
Akimoff
Director of
Digital Content
WBUR J.
Davidow
Executive
Editor, New
Media

WBEZ E. Ramos Web Producer,
Reporter

WLRN P.J. Maerz Programming
and Operations
Manager
WBUR C. Kravetz General
Manager

WBEZ A. Scholly Chief Operating
Officer

WLRN D. Grech Formerly News
Director
WLRN E. Chen Interactivity
Producer

WBUR C. Kravetz General Manager

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

New theoretical and research directions for foresight scenario work: narratives, sensemaking, and networks

PDF

The data dilemma: sensemaking and cultures of research in the media industries

PDF

Building a unicorn: management of innovation, collaboration, and change in a Silicon Valley start-up

PDF

The new news: vision, structure, and the digital myth in online journalism

PDF

Media reinvented: the transformation of news in a networked society

PDF

Collaborative care capacity: developing culture, power relationships and leadership support for team care in a hospital

PDF

Digital creativity and innovation in Chinese social network sites industry

PDF

Effects of economic incentives on creative project-based networks: communication, collaboration and change in the American film industry, 1998-2010

PDF

Ecology and network evolution in online innovation contest crowdsourcing

PDF

The anatomy of the innovative organization: a case study of organizational innovation within a military structure

PDF

A multitheoretical multilevel explication of crowd-enabled organizations: exploration/exploitation, social capital, signaling, and homophily as determinants of associative mechanisms in donation-...

PDF

Digital storytelling as participatory media practice for empowerment: the case of the Chinese immigrants in the San Gabriel Valley

PDF

The missing link: the role of organizational culture in technology change management communication

PDF

Crowdsourcing for integrative and innovative knowledge: knowledge diversity, network position, and semantic patterns of collective reflection

PDF

Organizational mimicry in American social movement communities: an analysis of form communication effects on the evolution of crisis pregnancy centers, 1989-2009

PDF

The evolution of knowledge creation online: what is driving the dynamics of Wikipedia networks

PDF

Building social Legoland through collaborative crowdsourcing: marginality, functional diversity, and team success

PDF

The share factor: implications of global digital strategy for public relations

PDF

Communicating organizational knowledge in a sociomaterial network: the influences of communication load, legitimacy, and credibility on health care best-practice communication

PDF

Adjusting the algorithm: how experts intervene in algorithmic hiring tools

Asset Metadata

Creator Evans, Sandra K. (author)

Core Title Staying ahead of the digital tsunami: strategy, innovation and change in public media organizations

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publication Date 08/08/2014

Defense Date 05/12/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Communication Constitutes Organization,innovation,media organizations,networks,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational communication,organizational identity,sensemaking,strategy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Riley, Patricia (committee chair), Fulk, Janet (committee member), Rajagopalan, Nandini (committee member)

Creator Email evans.sandrak@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-458246

Unique identifier UC11286805

Identifier etd-EvansSandr-2797.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-458246 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-EvansSandr-2797.pdf

Dmrecord 458246

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Evans, Sandra K.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA