Issues Management: How is digitalisation changing the way organisations try to manage issues?

[Music] This is the Digital Corporate Communication Podcast. Hello, I'm Dr. Mark Battom. And I'm Professor Villalua Maho. Together we research corporate communication at Uvaskala University School of Business and Economics. And we are co-editors of the Handbook of Digital Corporate Communication or DCC. In this podcast series we interview some of the best corporate communication scholars across the globe. Each one has written a chapter for the Handbook. We ask what is technology changing or not changing in corporate communication. And how are we dealing with the influence of technology? [Music] Today we are talking about digital corporate communication and issues management. We are talking with Professor Laura Ilia, who is head of department of mass media and communication research at University of Freiburg, Switzerland. A lot of our research interests tend to center around communication processes taking place through social media and other new media, which contribute to the formation and management of legitimacy, reputation, issues and corporate social responsibility of business. Welcome to the podcast, Laura. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Laura, the issues is much discussed in our corporate communication scholarship and other disciplines as well. How do you define issues, especially from an organizational point of view? So issues and event or if you want also a fact, a topic that might become problematic for an organization, but what really characterizes it is that at the same time, depending on how it's managed, it can really become an opportunity. I think, for example, you have a company having a product defeat. Of course, this is clearly an issue, a problem, but depending on how they fix that and how practically they are and how they engage into good management of that, this can even become an opportunity to show how good the company is. So that's why issues has these two phases and even though the word itself in English recalls a problem in reality, it's something that also can be compositive. Uh huh. Right. So can is everything an issue? It seems that many things can turn into an issue, but what's the difference between just a problem that's being discussed and something becoming. I would say an issue, it's not the same like a topic or like any any problem, right? And and there are two reasons. First of all, an issue is something it's a problem that has behind us the colder. Someone who is interested in this issue, who's advocating for against it, right? So it's promoting it's developing communication around it. And what has a topic itself or any event any problem doesn't forcefully have that. That's, I would say, one of the reasons why issue is different from other events. And another reason is that an issue differently from any topic and event, my has a characteristic that it's something that an audience has an interesting interest and it's something that has a societal relevance. An issue might be related, for example, with diversity, with environment, with different things that are important, also from an economic standpoint, from society, every point. And that's why it makes it an issue, right? Because it's a high relevance. Um, but and it has an interest by someone. An event, a topic doesn't forcefully has that. Okay. So how do you define issues management then Laura? So really, if we speak in the organizational context, I would say that's a practice. It's a, it's a, it's a profession that has to aims. First to identify what is the most critical issue right from the point of view of the organization. So issues management is really about prioritizing problems and understanding which issue is the most important to address first because of course a business and an organization might have many different issues going on and same time doesn't mean that you have to manage them with the same priority all of them. So that's that's really what the core issues management, prioritizing, analyzing, monitoring and understanding how to prioritize issues. And the other thing which relates strictly to that, it's about understanding which the colders are the most important and advocating particularly and those organizations should engage with. And this, I think it's very important to understand that issues management, it's about enhancing organizational learning, right. It's about managing these prioritizations of issues and stakeholders for making the organization learn, making it, you know, reduce the gap between what it says and what really the reality is in the organization. And it's about being proactive and preventing things so the idea it's really about having a constant understanding of what's going on outside and inside the organization to be able really to be proactive in in in visiting things. And it's a bit like playing chess, right, you always try to look at the next move while you do the current move and and I would say and maybe I'm using this metaphor because I like chess, but I'd say issues management a lot like that. Oh, that's a very good metaphor Laura. Anything can become an issue, who do you say becomes a leader on an issue, is it any stakeholder who is just the loudest who takes it up earliest or an organization who responds, I mean, is there such a thing as kind of like a voice leader of an issue. So I think it really depends the context we are referring to, I would say today, especially in the digital world that maybe we will talk about this later that are different leading opinion leaders, right that my not for city be the most important influencers, no. Originally, yes, originally, when you when you have an issue, you have typically a stakeholder group is advocating particularly and actually the way to prioritize and understand them is really to understand who's saying something who's developing information, who's really a deleting of providing an opinion about it. Clearly, there is someone moving, moving this issue right and that's what makes an issue different from just any other event right because otherwise everything is an issue and yeah, and even even the organizations need to be in the issues management more, they don't need to be in a constant one right for everything then really need to understand what is real and issue what's not. So digitalization has changed so much hasn't it, I want to ask you how has digitalization impacted or changed the way that organizations deal with issues today. Well, I would say enormously and but at the same time doesn't mean that that's completely revolutionized and all issues management so why am saying that well clearly. Since digitalization is there the most important thing that has changed is that in fact before in the pre digital phase, an organization that wants to see manage issues look at voices like you said before right the one voice that's out there leading organization and NGO governmental institution or. Any any any organization that say something relating to that issue and his advocating for it and could start to manage it this way, whereas right now in the digital area voices are more refracted are more fragmented right so one has a different constituencies that are stakeholders because of course they have us take in the organization. But I'm not only stakeholders and maybe have us taking a specific issue that relates with the organization and not directly the organization right and you have different people having different viewpoints and much more fragmented and therefore because there is more possibility for different voices to be heard today right rather than having for example news media mediating this voices and and picking up the most relevant one and and and broadcasting it right now today. Potentially everybody can broadcast its own voice and this voice can become prominent and when it becomes prominent is when others participate and appropriate what this person says to their own domain right that's why things become fragmented and this is very very turning point like when I teach I say to students. You know what really changes a lot is that try now something which potentially is just one issue maybe might become five because of the way it evolves and refracts and changes and is really appropriate online and therefore the organization is really to understand how to deal with this fragmentation of issues right and whoever is translated into the process. And yeah and you know so the then the main difference is that before was about monitoring one voice one NGO and standing on institutional stakeholders there so one could start to look at the cold as well around and then understand the issues that okay when I try now is the other around one really start from issues and needs to understand all these refractive points this ecosystem of individuals that this kind of convert and then the personal experiences and trying to. to identify which voice is the most important address. So I actually, but a doxychally more difficult for organizations, because even though they have really this opportunity to monitor and understand what's said, at the same time, it's more difficult to understand which claim it's really telling them something directly. Right. Is there such a thing as fake issues or fake stakeholders? We like to call them fake holders here in New Veskola. Yeah. So I would say this is, of course, fake disinformation, so intended misinformation. So disinformation, it's always been there. It's not new, no, that there are rumors around and sometimes these rumors are not true. And but it is clearly a phenomenon that has boosted in the last years. And sometimes there are issues that are moved by fake holders that they intend to make money out of making circulating information, which is not true. And so if we think about an issue which relates, for example, a product problem or a CEO or a behavior or fake information relating to that, clearly what we can see is that, from my viewpoint, there is a kind of professionalization compared to the past. It's really more this phenomenon of the dark PR, where there are maybe individuals that professionalize and really make out money out of that. And so I think it's a growing phenomenon. And right now, conducting a study, we look at the fake news of the top 500 for 2,500 companies. And we're trying to understand what makes them more visible, what characterizes this news that are fake, that have been proved to be fake. What is a characteristic? And clearly what we could see is that the CSR, the governance of companies is what really is instrumentalized more to make the news seem true. So if you want the CSR and the governance aspects, which as those were, the companies push a lot, they're ethical and the good image on, is what is really the vulnerability into the world of fake information. Because why? Because if you want to make an information look true when it's fake, you leverage on the motion and ideology of people and CSR and governance has a lot to do with that. So people believe it more when it frames that way. And so definitely, this is a new issue itself. I would say the fake, the disinformation and this has to be something that really, it should be in the agenda of issues managers. You just mentioned something interesting there that I guess some issues are cool. And everyone wants to jump into them. Are some issues too hot to engage in, do you think, for some organizations? You mean when you defend yourself as an organization and we are trying to advocate on them? Well, it sounds like the sustainability and environmental type of issues, it would seem tempting for organizations to all of them just to step in and become involved in them. But some issues are probably not, they might sound cool and trendy, but perhaps organizations should not jump into them. For instance, you were talking before about, sometimes there's stakeholders of organizations, but there's stakeholders of issues who aren't stakeholders of organizations. When an organization steps into an issue, they'll draw in all sorts of other stakeholders, suddenly as stakeholders of the organization, there's a connection there. They could get into trouble. I see. Well, I think this goes back to, this is how this allows me to learn on the fact that this is managing as a lot to do with what the company stands for, right? And clearly, if there are some issues, which is hot, but it's core for who the company is, what it stands for. Clearly, there is no doubt that that's an issue for which the company should really go and advocate for. And so it really goes back to what is strategy, and what is positioning, and what is the culture, and what is organization, who is the organization, right? And so we don't have to forget that issues management, if not a practice that stands alone, before comes strategy, before comes what's the identity, right? And then an issue management is related to that. So when you prioritize, you prioritize based on how these stakeholders advocate, how urgent they are, how you know, there is a very information, how major isolated, different criteria, but ultimately this has to do with what the organization stands for. So I would say, transfer concretely with an example to your question. I don't know, let's take, for example, the company, dov, right, that they advocate for the self-esteem of young women. If there is an issue which relates with that, which is maybe hot and not easy to jump in, that relates with that. And this is core of who the Stanford's in the last 10, 15 years. There is no doubt that they should jump on it anyway, right? Talk just to make you one example. Talking of dov, I don't know, Laura, if you've heard, there was a recent crisis in Finland by dov because they engaged several influencers to write an op-ed in one of the leading newspapers in Finland about how they sign up or how they pledge to not use filters and not monitor their, or not change their appearance to appear to beauty standards, but just to represent themselves more naturally. And of course, this is a good thing, but it turned out that it was sponsored by Dov, and it was part of their influencer strategy and not something that the influencers wrote up themselves. And then there was a lot of talk about how, you know, the company would have been better off by just saying this is paid advertising. Transparent. Yeah, being transparent about it. Well, so Dov has a long history of, so it's a company that really became a brand with a bunch of view in the early 2000s. And in the last 10, 15 years, it helped us to stand down in the way the company was doing that. Even think about it was a campaign some years ago in the US in which there was an African-American woman taking away her clothes and becoming white, right? This was also very, very much, even though the intention was to show how you can change your skin and be beauty has won. This was, rationally, this was a big problem. And you asked yourself, as a stakeholder, how could the organizational cities what the problem is? Of course, this was, right? And here's the same, how could they not see that not being transparent on the way you advertise and pay influencers could become a problem? So, really becoming a brand with a point of view becomes problematic, right? You are much more onto the spot. And this requires more responsibility on your side to do things right always, right? Because otherwise, it doesn't seem authentic. Don't be an organization like any other, probably has some mismanagement insights related with some practices. I don't know what are the ethical guidelines that are going on and putting practice in Finland. I would say the basic of an organization to be transparent on paid advertisement, right? Today. And I don't know exactly what went wrong in that case. Why did it do that? But clearly, it's not smart move, definitely. So we've talked a lot about the digitalizations effect on issues and issues management. Has anything not changed despite, you know, digitalizations impact on it? What's remained the same? - So I would say, and you, maybe I might sound a bit vintage or classic, I don't know how to those who hear. And in particular, I think to students, and my students, when I say that, also in class, they say, "Okay, that's not the discovery of the hot water, but I really believe that media still provide still are important, right?" I mean, in issues management, the media sphere has always been news media, right? The traditional news media has always been very important to provide credibility to what it's said about an issue. And especially like in this world of fakeholders, like we said before, having, you know, a known news media certifies somehow what it said online and giving it importance, still, it's an important part of the process of issues management, right? And this hasn't changed. And so metaphorically speaking, if you think that issues management, like a cut pick up an airplane, well, the cockpit is always the same, right? You have in front of you a number of indicators, issues, the holders, you have the media, who's still are very important. And it's still an important piece of the process of issues management. And we don't have to forget about that. So even though we talk about digital revolution, there is still this very important symbiotic relationship between the new media sphere and the more traditional one, which has to be a knowledge and has to be given importance in issues management. - Okay. - What about, you know, we talk about influencers and you talked about vintage issue, yeah, some of us a little bit older than others and I remember opinion leaders. So do you think they still have a role to play influences or opinion leaders in issues management, despite digitalizations, effect on all of this? - So I would say, say one of the main learnings from digitalization and issues management is that it's not anymore about monitoring influencers, but it's about predicting content, boosting, right? And so I would say they are less important than before in the sense that given that now there is this digital collective that are done with many participants that might not be influencers, what one is interesting to monitor and predict is the raise of a discourse, right? And this sometimes doesn't depend on influencers. Now say that influencers are anyway very important in particular because when there is a digital collective going on, the influencer can really very much get a boost, right? But I would say if in the past influencers was the starting point for monitoring, nowadays is not the only starting point. So they still have to be considered as crucial, but they're not the only element in this cockpit, I would say. So you have new indicators to look at. And yeah, and I think this is a good news as well, right? Because and a bad news, right? On one side you have much more information and content to monitor. It's you can better predict things. On the other side, you have more difficulty to understand who is beyond that because if we don't have the influencer, who are the people behind this digital collective? What characterizes them? What are the motivations? We are in front of an audience, of a constituency that we don't really understand who they are and every time they have a new skin, right? So that makes it more difficult for issues managers. Well, Laura, is there a dark side or a downside when it comes to the digitalization on changes in issues management? So I wish they were not, but I would say yes, I think there is always whenever data information has become an exchange if you want, since digitalization is there, data is money, right? And so the fact that issues management collects information, data to analyze, monitor, predict the surveillance risk, right? On the motivation beyond the issues management is there. So data ingested for issues management purposes, my constitute a new form of surveillance if it's using that way. And this is clearly, I would say, an important, you know, possible, I wouldn't say is a current dark side, but it's a possible dark side of issues management. Because there might not be regulations and regulations that are improving, right? But still, I would say the way to treat the data one uses for analyzing how intrusion one can be, it's still a topic, I would say. And maybe another thing is what I thought before this dark PR, this nonethical use, using monitoring and using information more than to predict and final opportunities and monitor and defend more to attack and discredit could be another dark side. And this has always be like this, right? But the digitalization has has augmented the risk of that, because there are more people who maybe enter into the issues management would for the wrong purposes, right? And this is clearly, yeah, unfortunately, a possible risk. Tell us about this example of the delete Uber boycott and what lessons we can learn from that example. Yes, so we included this example in the chapter because this is from a study which was published in the Journal of Public Affairs and we are retaken in here as an example. It's a perfect example, because I bought a car for a company, right? And if you look at it superficially, you might think, okay, there is one boycott, one voice, everybody wants people to stop using the Uber app. This was the case of Uber, not during the Trump banning. Travel ban, Uber was still providing the service, whereas taxi drivers, they were trying, right? And so there was a controversy around the fact that Uber was opportunistically making money out of that, right? And so this boycott came out, one might think that's the main reason, there is a unity. But if you look at the digital collect is beyond it, that's what we do in the chapter, right? We show this as an example. There are many voices, many fires for Uber to try to distinguish, right? As issues. There was something related to diversity, other related to discrimination, to of course, the unfair competition to taxi drivers, to other topics related to this company, but that were not only topic, but were issues, because they had someone behind advocating for them, they had the possibility to be managed for the best, instead of only be just a trending topic. Just the company had the choice to decide what to dress first. And I think that's what we try to do with this example, showing the fragmentation beyond a possible unity, unique event like a boycott, right? So would you say that a company can, or any type of organization, can avoid issues? I think issues can be prevented, and their gravity can be avoided, right? So the fact that they become a crisis, this could be potentially avoided. That's the main function of issues managing is to avoid an issue become a crisis at some point, right? So, but an issue into early potential cases cannot be avoided, it can only be managed, right? What you can avoid is that it becomes a bad thing, right? A very big problem for the organization, but you cannot avoid issues, issues that are there. I think we could see that, we are now in a constant issues management mode after the pandemic, right? If before the work company is not doing issues management, now they are just doing the importance of doing that. And issues are there always, and it's the way you manage you are ready to react to them that makes them really very big and problematic issues or not. And that's really so, I don't think you can avoid an issue, you can avoid that it becomes later on in a much more urgent phase. So, yeah, it's really about prevention, right? You can prevent this really, you can do that. We're just wrapping up in a minute, Laura, so perhaps you could give some advice for organizations, especially for corporate communication practitioners who are dealing with issues management in today's complex digital environment. Yeah, so I would say probably the first advice I would give, and this is something that my co-host in this book chapter, "La la Conleunish" always says also for her long experience as a professional. And this is something that we really try to provide in this book chapter is the idea that issues management is not just anymore about monitoring, but it's about predicting, right? A predicting at tipping point, which is what we explain in the book chapter, it's a critical mass of discussions and discourse and hashtags or any unit of analysis you have that shows you there is, starts to be convergence around an issue, right? And it's about predicting the rays of this digital collective, more than just monitoring. So, I would say practitioners really, they need to change from the mood of just monitoring to the one of predicting. And this is crucial today, because why? Because before you could monitor stakeholders, but now you need to predict issues that emerge as digital collectives, right? You can't just monitor someone. So, the predicting aspect is crucial here, I would say, that would be my first suggestion. The other one is that to really focus on content rather than only influencers and users, right? We manage managers that maybe are putting to an issues management function, maybe they have a background in marketing or in others where they have been trained more to target influencers for marketing purposes. Where issues management is a bit different. Of course, you can still target influencers and you have to do that, but you also have to really focus on content, right? And just take orders and influencers, I would say. And then, yes, you know, stop monitoring just communities, right? The idea, some practitioners, right now, when I talk to them, they say, you know, I'm looking at this group and this group of people, these forums, yes, these are, this is where people discuss, but digital collectives emerge outside them, right? And so, you really need to really understand the ecosystem of these courses, right? That are there. And it's really about changing a bit the model's operandi of how we have been working so far as professional in this area. Yeah. Right. So, think a bit and this is our closing question towards the future. What do you think will happen to issues management in the future? You mentioned already that it's going to be more about predicting. Is that how you see it happening? Or will we be able to pre-empt things in real time in the future? Well, you know, I think I'm biased because I love this area and I've been teaching issues management in the last 15 years or more. So, of course, I think it will be like this. It's also a wish, I would say. And I think digitalization really has allowed the issues managers to professionalize more. The most difficult thing when you're an issues manager is to go to the board or to the people who are taking decisions and telling that that's a problem that's an issue we have to preemptively do something about that and of course it's difficult to prove to show right and and and I think the future of issues management is really to use all these more predicting reports. The tipping point analysis, digital collectives monitoring to really show that something is going on and it's becoming a situation to deal with and I would say yes I think the future of issues management I think it's right because in fact we can professionalize more. We right now I think yeah organization of really understood much more that probably even having a part of the department being devoted to that it's worth. And especially if if we really as academics and professional in this area we are able to really make past the message that it's about catching opportunities right and only avoiding and being on the defensive like you know like football right you have a good defense by you also need to have a good attack. That would be great I think this is really the future of issues management is to use all these tools for catching opportunities came more on the attack side and than just in defensive. Thank you so much Laura you've really provided everyone with and us with lots of insight into this especially because issues management and yeah it is changing quite a bit social media is making things issues develop so far so quickly and this multiple different factors that are triggering all of that so you've provided lots of insight into that so thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks Laura.