Advance Search

A metamodern model for managing stakeholder relationships in non-profit organisations

Irma Meyer
University of South Africa
Rachel Barker
University of South Africa
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

A metamodern model for managing stakeholder relationships in non-profit organisations. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 39(1), 56-79. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v39i1.1529
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
  • Articles
  • Submited: October 6, 2022
  • Published: October 6, 2022

Abstract

It is posited that this article is an important theoretical addition in the field of strategic communication as it seeks to eradicate the conceptual tension between the two dominant discourses, namely modernist and postmodernist explanations of how organisations should manage stakeholder relationships. Modernists believe in a single truth, accept metanarratives and believe that grand theory represents knowledge and can explain everything, whilst postmodernists reject the absolute standards and grand theories typical of modernism in favour of awareness and tolerance of differences, ambiguity and conflict. This article links these two perspectives in a new metamodern model for stakeholder relationship management, aimed specifically at the South African non-profit sector. A conceptual theoretical framework was developed and tested by means of exploratory qualitative and interpretative research through interviews with senior management in the non-profit sector. The findings suggest that a metamodern perspective requires constant negotiation between modernism and postmodernism. We also highlight the need for formal
training in stakeholder relationship management. This entails adopting a micro-perspective by regularly identifying current strategic issues, mapping the stakeholders involved and linking them to these issues, and designing focused communication strategies to manage stakeholder relationships. The main research implications are that stakeholder relationship management is a
function which should not simply be delegated to the communication specialist, and that it should be practised from a metamodern perspective and not a modernistic or postmodern perspective. The originality and value of this research initiative lies in the development of a metamodern model for stakeholder relationship management for the non-profit sector which has been proposed and tested in practice.

pdf
pdf

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. Andriof, J., Waddock., S., Husted, B., & Rahman, S.S. (2002). Introduction. In Andriof, J, Waddock, S., Husted, B., & Rahman, S.S. (eds.) Unfolding stakeholder thinking, 7-16, Sheffield: Greenleaf.
  2. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2002.su.00004
  3. Bless, C. & Higson-Smith, C. (2000). Fundamentals of social research methods: An African perspective. Claremont: Juta.
  4. Broom, G.M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2): 83-98.
  5. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0902_01
  6. Brown, S. (2006). Recycling postmodern marketing. The Marketing Review, 6(3): 211-230.
  7. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934706778605322
  8. Burke, J. & Christensen, L. (2002). Educational research. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Available from: https://kerlins.net/bobbi/research/qualresearch/bibliography/paradigms.html
  9. Clarke, S. (2006). From enlightenment to risk. Social theory and contemporary society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07500-0
  11. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.
  12. De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B., & Delport, C.S.L. (2011). Research at grass roots. For the social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
  13. Donaldson, l. & Davis, J.H. (1989). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder return. Australian Journal of Management, 6(1): 49-64.
  14. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289629101600103
  15. Donaldson, T. & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.
  16. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
  17. Du Plooy, G.M. (2002). Communication research. Techniques, methods and applications, Lansdowne: Juta.
  18. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston Pitman.
  19. Freeman, R.E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 409-421.
  20. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857340
  21. Freeman, R.E. (2010). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press: New York.
  22. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675
  23. Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory. The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768
  25. Freinacht, H. (2015). Five things that make you metamodern. Available from: https://metamoderna.org/5-things-that-make-you-metamodern?lang=en
  26. Freinacht, H. (2017). Metamodernism, the conquest of a term. Available from: https://metamoderna.org/metamodernism-the-conquest-of-a-term?lang=en
  27. Gallagher, K. & Weinberg, C.B. (1991). Coping with success: New challenges for non-profit marketing. Sloan Management Review, 33(1): 27.
  28. Gastrow, S. (2014). King III is contentious in the non-profit sector. Available from: https://www.inyathelo.org.za/in-our-view/546-king-iii-is-contentious-in-the-non-profit-sector.html
  29. Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4): 881-896.
  30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00161.x
  31. Gregory, A. (2007). Involving stakeholders in developing corporate brands: the communication dimension. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1-2): 59-73.
  32. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707X178558
  33. Grunig, J.E. & Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: antecedents of relationships, public relationships, public relations strategies and relationship outcomes. In Ledingham, J.A. & Bruning, S.D. (eds.) Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations, 25-57, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence. Erlbaum.
  34. Grunig, J.E. & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations: New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  35. Grunig, J.E. (1992). Communication, public relations and effective organisations: An overview of the book. In Grunig, J.E. (ed.) Excellence in public relations and communication management, 1-28. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  36. Grunig, J.E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations, 18(2): 151-176.
  37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_5
  38. Grunig, J.E., Grunig, L.A. & Dozier, D.M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organisations. A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  39. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606617
  40. Holtzhausen, D.R. (2008). Towards an integrated model of Communication; the case of South Africa. Paper submitted to the Public Relations Division of the International Communication Association, 3 November 2008.
  41. Holtzhausen, L. (2014). Non-profit organisations bridging the communication divide in a complex South Africa. Public Relations Review, 40(2): 286-293.
  42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.10.006
  43. Hon, L.C. & Grunig, J.E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Available from: https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships.pdf
  44. Hoover, R.S. & Koerber, A.L. (2011). Using NVivo to answer the challenges of qualitative research in professional communication: Benefits and best practices. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(1): 68-82.
  45. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2009.2036896
  46. Institute of Directors of Southern Africa (IoDSA). (2013). Practice notes: A guide to the application of King III for non-profit organisations. Available from: https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iodsa.co.za/resource/collection/24CB4885-33FA-4D34-BB84-E559E336FF4E/King_III_A_guide_to_the_application_for_non-profit_organizations.pdf
  47. Irvine, M. (2014). Approaches to Pro-Mo. Available from: https://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/pomo.html
  48. Kim, S. & Rader, S. (2010). What they can do versus how much they care. Journal of Communication Management, 14(1): 59-80.
  49. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541011017816
  50. Knox, S. & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(2): 115-135.
  51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9258-3
  52. Koschmann, M. (2007). Communicative study of stakeholder relationships in the nonprofit sector: A conceptual foundation. National Communication Association: 1-27.
  53. Koschmann, M., Pfarrer, M., & Kuhn, T. (2009). Incorporating a communicative theory of the firm to understand stakeholder relationships and inter-organizational cooperation. National Communication Association: 1-31.
  54. Ledingham, J.A. & Bruning, S.D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1): 55-65.
  55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9
  56. Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (2015). Practical research. Planning and design. London: Pearson Education.
  57. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 163-188. London: Sage.
  58. Lovells, H. (2015). PBOs, NPOs and NPCs. Available from: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0fc85774-b458-4da1-813e-a181de4b082a
  59. Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Issues to resolve. Management Decision, 49(2): 226-252.
  60. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111109133
  61. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage.
  62. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853-886.
  63. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
  64. Morse, J.M., Barret, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2): 13-22.
  65. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202
  66. Mouton, J. (1996). Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
  67. Overton-de Klerk, N. & Verwey, S. (2013). Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic communication: Core driving forces. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 39(3): 362-382.
  68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2013.837626
  69. Prather, H. (1997). Notes on love and courage. New York: Doubleday.
  70. Rawlins, B.L. (2006). Prioritizing stakeholders for public relations. Available from: https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2006_Stakeholders_1.pdf
  71. Rowley, T.J. & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilisation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 204-219.
  72. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416080
  73. Rowley, T.J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 887-910.
  74. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022107
  75. Seltzer, T. & Zhang, W. (2011). Towards a model of political organisation-public relationships: Antecedent and cultivation strategy influence on citizens' relationships with political parties. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(1): 24-45.
  76. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2010.504791
  77. Shapiro, B.J.N. (2013). A critical investigation of the utilisation of the active consumer stakeholder concept among South African brand leaders. Unpublished Master's dissertation. University of Johannesburg: Johannesburg.
  78. Statistics South Africa. (2015). Statistics of the non-profit sector for South Africa, 2012. Statistics South Africa: Pretoria.
  79. Steyn, B. & Puth, G. (2000). Corporate Communication Strategy. Sandton: Heinemann.
  80. Svendson, A. (1998). The stakeholder strategy. Profiting from collaborative business relationships. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
  81. Thomlinson, T.D. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In Ledingham, J.A. & Bruning, S.D. (eds.) Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations, 185-212. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  82. Vermeulen, T. & Van den Akker, R. (2010). Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics and Culture, 2: 1-14.
  83. https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v2i0.5677
  84. Wiggill, M.N. (2014). Donor relationship management practices in the South African non-profit sector. Public Relations Review, 40(2): 278-285.
  85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.10.005
  86. Wyngaard, R. & Hendricks, P.S.A. (2010). South Africa's King III: Highlighting the need for a separate non-profit governance code. International Journal of Civil Society Law, 8(2): 177-100.
How to Cite
A metamodern model for managing stakeholder relationships in non-profit organisations. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 39(1), 56-79. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v39i1.1529

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate