Beyond Stakeholder Management: Organizational Listening for Nonprofit Stakeholder Engagement

Abstract

Organizational listening to solicit, consider, and incorporate information and inputs from diverse stakeholders is critical for tackling organizational and societal challenges. Yet, despite the potential benefits of organizational listening, researchers studying stakeholder engagement and communication have focused on how organizations speak to stakeholders while overlooking how organizations listen to stakeholders. Drawing on survey data from a purposive sample of 122 nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in the United States and 40 interviews among these organizations, we explored organizational leaders’ conceptualization of organizational listening, including what, why, to whom, and how NPOs listen. Results also suggested operational capacity was a key factor influencing organizational listening. This study builds on prior stakeholder research to suggest organizational listening as a more holistic approach to stakeholder engagement. The findings have important implications for the research and practice in organizational listening and improving diverse participation and representation in stakeholder engagement, particularly for NPOs and mission-driven organizations.

Keywords

organizational listening stakeholder engagement stakeholder voice stakeholder communication nonprofit capacity

Copious research has shown the importance of engaging stakeholders—anyone whose actions affect and are affected by an organization (Freeman, 1984)—for organizations to improve performance and tackle societal challenges (see Lewis, 2011). Yet, research has traditionally focused on how organizations identify and target stakeholders through stakeholder management (Mitchell et al., 1997). Only recently has research reflected a broader view of stakeholder engagement that acknowledges the power and legitimacy of stakeholders in influencing organizational action (e.g., Garner & Garner, 2011; Jackson et al., 2020). For instance, Ihm (2019) examined how organizational stakeholders formed autonomous networks for mobilizing collective action. In recognition of stakeholder influence, scholars have recommended studying how organizations solicit, consider, and act on stakeholder information in a process known as organizational listening (OL; Lewis, 2020; Macnamara, 2016). OL can promote trust, open communication, community-building, and positive change; improve organizational learning and legitimacy; and generate organization-stakeholder mutual benefits (Kim & Leach, 2020; Lewis, 2020; Reinikainen et al., 2020).

Despite the importance of OL, empirical evidence shows that organizations listen sporadically, often poorly, if at all, to their stakeholders (Macnamara, 2018). As recent #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo movements and numerous organizational scandals and crises illustrate, the consequences of poor OL can be significant, even catastrophic, for organizations, stakeholders, and society at large. The tragic consequences of poor OL include the two Boeing aircraft crashes, in which over 300 people were killed in 2018 and 2019, and decades of sexual abuse of Olympic gymnastics athletes training at Michigan State University, which led to USA Gymnastics filing for bankruptcy in 2018 (see Lewis, 2020). In these cases, organizations failed to listen to and act on numerous internal and external reports of safety concerns and misconduct, which led to costly financial settlements, reputation crises, and trauma and fatalities for victims.

To address the “crisis of listening” in stakeholder research (Macnamara, 2018, p. 8) and advance theory and empirical research, the current study seeks to gain a richer understanding of how organizations listen to their stakeholders. Specifically, we focus on organizational leaders’¹ conceptualization of OL, including what, why, to whom, and how nonprofit organizations (NPOs) listen. OL merits further exploration because communication and nonprofit scholarship has long advocated two-way communication as a way to enable dialogue, relationships, and engagement with stakeholders and publics (Grunig, 2001; Kent & Taylor, 2002; Taylor, 2022). Yet, the extant literature has traditionally prioritized how organizations identify, target, and speak to their stakeholders with an eye toward stakeholder management while largely ignoring listening to stakeholder needs and requests. To provide a comprehensive review of NPO listening, we used an extension mixed-methods design (Greene, 2007), composed of a nationwide survey of a purposive sample of 122 U.S. NPOs and 40 semi-structured interviews with NPO leaders.

Our study makes three contributions to research in OL and stakeholder engagement with specific implications for NPOs. First, we illuminate how nonprofit practitioners conceptualize OL, contributing to a multidimensional model of OL. We highlight that OL is an individual skill, one that serves stakeholders and builds community trust; a tool for strategic planning; and a job attitude. In doing so, this study extends prior research that focused on cognitive (see Flynn et al., 2008), competency-based (Burnside-Lawry, 2012), constitutive (Jacobs & Coghlan, 2005), ethical (Macnamara, 2016), and strategic (Lewis, 2020) approaches to OL. Second, we offer insight into the key stakeholder groups and communication channels in NPOs’ OL efforts. In contrast to the traditional organization-centered models of stakeholder thinking in which organizations recognize and target stakeholders through a management lens (e.g., Mitchell et al., 1997), this study presents OL as a form of stakeholder engagement.

Third, this study suggests nonprofit capacity is significant in shaping OL. Specifically, findings revealed NPOs with greater operational capacity—the use of documented procedures to set goals and assess outcomes (Shumate et al., 2017)—tend to engage in public-facing OL and mediated listening using emails, phone calls, and mail. In doing so, we connect OL practices to recent conversations that emphasize the role of nonprofit capacity (e.g., Bryan, 2019; Saxton & Guo, 2011) and information communication technologies (ICTs) in stakeholder communication (e.g., Taylor, 2022; Xu & Saxton, 2019). Practically, these findings have important implications for NPOs who seek to build an OL architecture (e.g., technologies, culture, structures, processes, policies; Macnamara, 2018), as well as for stakeholders clamoring for opportunities for increased participation in decision-making in the organizations that impact their lives.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we review the evolution of research in stakeholder engagement and communication, highlighting a turn from research in stakeholder management to OL. Next, we pose a set of research questions (RQs) and hypotheses to understand nonprofit OL, followed by descriptions of the method and results. Finally, we discuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications.

Literature Review

Conceptualizing OL

Earlier research on OL emphasized the interpersonal context, highlighting that OL “involves hearing and cognition and assumes the ability and behavioral skill to selectively perceive, interpret, understand, assign meaning, react, remember, and analyze what is heard” (Flynn et al., 2008, p. 143). More recent research focuses on OL at the organizational level and conceptualizes it as a combination of varied organizational factors (e.g., culture, policies, infrastructure, technologies, practices, systems) that enable stakeholder interactions (Lewis, 2020; Macnamara, 2016, 2018). OL is thus one way in which an organization formally and informally engages with internal and external stakeholders.

Beyond simply soliciting feedback or “hearing” stakeholders, organizations proactively pay attention to, interpret, understand, and appropriately respond to stakeholders through OL (Macnamara, 2018). Hence, OL facilitates organizational learning and knowledge management (Jacobs & Coghlan, 2005; Yanow, 2004). OL is often strategic in that “an organization’s attention is directed toward vital information and input to enable learning, questioning of key assumptions, interrogating decisions, and ensuring self-critical analysis” (Lewis, 2020, p. xvi).

However, stakeholder research historically reduces communication to (a) a strategy for connecting those stakeholders key to reaching organizational goals, (b) an interactive approach in which organizations have dialogues with stakeholders, and (c) a normative approach in which organizations respond to stakeholders because they have a responsibility to do so (see Koschmann, 2016). Recognizing the limitations of past research, scholars have reconceptualized stakeholder communication as a discursive process that socially constructs or constitutes organizations (Koschmann, 2016; Lewis, 2011). Such a constitutive approach describes OL as a social process of interaction by which meaning is produced and cocreated to sustain organizations (Jacobs & Coghlan, 2005). This move recognizes that stakes are not just given by the organization but communicatively negotiated via two-way communication consisting of both speaking and listening.

OL can create organizational and social value when practiced properly. Within an organization, OL is critical to improve employee satisfaction; employee-organization relationships (Qin & Men, 2021); and organizational performance, adaptability, and change (Kim & Leach, 2020; Neill & Bowen, 2021). To learn and generate useful knowledge, members must listen carefully to one another and integrate knowledge from individual members into collective organizational activities (Cook & Yanow, 1993). Outside an organization, OL is important for organizations to build relationships and trust with the public (Reinikainen et al., 2020), address unmet community needs (Yanow, 2004), and improve services for vulnerable groups and marginalized communities (Raeymaeckers & Van Puyvelde, 2021). These societal benefits were particularly needed during the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing, remote work, and increasing social and public health disparities required changes in operations and novel ways of organizing (Shi et al., 2020). Collectively, OL is critical for improving diverse participation and more equitable representation in organizational decision-making and public policy-making (Macnamara, 2018) and hence leads social change (Jones et al., 2021).

Given its essential role in stakeholder engagement, we first seek to understand how practitioners define OL, which may have critical implications for organizational learning and performance. To execute OL effectively, practitioners must understand it well. We ask:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do NPO leaders define and conceptualize OL based on their practice?

Opportunities and Challenges

To understand OL and actualize OL in nonprofit practice, it is important to understand its benefits and challenges. Organizations rely on good listening practices to build meaningful stakeholder relationships that demonstrate organizational attention and willingness to act (Jones et al., 2021). As a result of internal OL, employees are more committed to their organizations (Ruck et al., 2017), leading to positive organizational change (Kim & Leach, 2020). OL with external stakeholders helps build community, mobilize action, and foster organizational accountability (Lai & Fu, 2021; Macnamara, 2018).

Although organizations have more channels (e.g., social media, chatbots) to engage with their stakeholders in the digital age (e.g., Reinikainen et al., 2020), research has shown that NPOs often engage in one-way communication rather than encouraging a dialogue (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012; Taylor, 2022). Organizations often dismiss or ignore activist stakeholders or counter-publics at the risk of significant reputational damage (Jackson et al., 2020). Research further shows that organizations often face significant constraints, such as limited competencies for listening; the absence of policies, systems, and routines that specify or aid listening; and a lack of organizational culture that encourages listening, all of which result in poor, sporadic listening (Lewis, 2020; Macnamara, 2018).

In summary, despite the critical role of OL in advancing organizational, community, and social problems, organizations still tend to prioritize one-way communication. If organizations are to overcome the barriers to OL, they must understand those they face. Identifying the underlying motivations and barriers to OL can help strategize resources to catalyze effective listening and stakeholder engagement for organizational and social change. Thus, we ask:

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are perceived (a) benefits and (b) challenges to OL?

Stakeholder Groups

Scholarly understanding of NPO stakeholders has grown considerably more sophisticated than frameworks developed in corporate contexts (e.g., Freeman, 1984). To that end, several typologies now exist for identifying stakeholders. Nonprofit typologies typically focus on the stakeholders’ relationship to the organization, such as internal stakeholders including managers and employees and external stakeholders including clients, collaborators, funders, donors, and volunteers (Van Puyvelde et al., 2012). Recent research further suggests the presence of disparate stakeholder groups in stakeholder identification and targeting for strategic communication (e.g., Lai & Fu, 2021; Xu & Saxton, 2019).

However, the existence of these diverse stakeholder types does not mean that NPOs provide equal consideration to all stakeholder groups. Research suggests that different stakeholder groups are associated with distinct organizational motivations, processes, and outcomes and that NPOs make strategic choices in targeting certain stakeholders. For instance, decisions on differentiating constituencies and communication can reflect the realities of external partnerships and resources (Lai & Fu, 2021) or a strategic assessment aimed at listening and responding to specific stakeholders (Ospina et al., 2002). Addressing how NPOs prioritize stakeholders in their listening practices will reveal the underlying priorities in NPO decision-making and thus help build the NPO “architecture of listening” (Macnamara, 2018, p. 11). Therefore, we ask:

Research Question 3 (RQ3): To which major stakeholder groups are NPOs listening?

Communication Channels

Similar to the clusters of stakeholders, research has revealed repertoires of communication channels that organizations use to engage internal and external stakeholders. Within an organization, Estell and Davidson (2019) proposed a framework for employee usage of ICTs to address issues that affect them within an organization that suggests that the choice of prosocial voice ranges from personal (e.g., this issue affects me) to impersonal (e.g., this issue impacts all of us) and that ICT channels range from low visibility to high visibility. Employees will select the channels that they believe will maximize chances of success in having their grievances heard. In a study of global humanitarian NPOs, Lai and Fu (2021) identified three types of non-social-media channels for stakeholder communication: social channels (face-to-face conversations, text messaging, organizational websites), semi-social channels (phone calls, news media), and low-social channels (print flyers, emails, newsletters).

Research suggests different repertoires of communication channels are utilized in service to distinct organizational goals, processes, and outcomes (Lai & Fu, 2021; Sommerfeldt et al., 2019). However, research also suggests that despite the availability of various ICTs, NPOs typically do not utilize all the ICTs available to them (Fu et al., 2019). Similar to how NPOs pay differential attention to different stakeholder groups, we argue that they are also likely to use different communication channels to engage in OL differently. We suggest that a more nuanced understanding of communication channels for OL is pivotal for researchers to better understand the different affordances of ICTs and how OL works, as well as for NPOs to actualize and strategize stakeholder engagement. Thus, we further ask:

Research Question 4 (RQ4): What repertoires of communication channels do NPOs use to engage in OL?

Nonprofit Capacity and OL

Research suggests organizational attributes may influence stakeholder engagement and communication more broadly and OL specifically, such as organizational resources, structure, culture, and operational activities (Lewis, 2011, 2020; Qin & Men, 2021). Nonprofit scholars generally view capacity as consisting of an organization’s ability and means to achieve goals and as a multidimensional concept comprised of several dimensions (see Bryan, 2019). This study focuses on operational capacity, meaning an organization’s ability to set out measurable objectives and performance indicators; create plans; and use documented procedures to regularly guide, track, monitor, and evaluate programs and activities (Shumate et al., 2017). Scholars have linked operational capacity, “sufficient know-how and capability exist to achieve desired results,” to organizational and social value creation (Moore, 2000, p. 198); to public reputation, client satisfaction, and program quality (Shumate et al., 2017); and to the use of ICTs to communicate with partners (Fu et al., 2019). Because the plans and procedures that comprise operational capacity are relevant to how NPOs listen to diverse stakeholders, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Organizations with different levels of operational capacity will prioritize different stakeholder groups in OL.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Organizations with different levels of operational capacity will use different communication channels for OL.

Method

Data Context and Mixed-Method Approach Overview

The data for this study were collected as part of a broader mixed-methods research on OL and organizational change. In doing so, we focused on nonprofit listening practices as drawn from interviews and the first-wave data from a two-wave survey collected in 2020-2021. Although scholars have long characterized nonprofits as operating in turbulent environments due to economic and political uncertainty and inconsistent support for their missions (Eadie, 1997), the period of data collection was during a particularly difficult time due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In elaborating on their responses in interviews, some nonprofit leaders focused on general challenges experienced during the pandemic (e.g., shrinking budgets, losing clients and donors, and remote work) or changes they enacted in response to it or social-justice-related needs they perceived in their environments due to the pandemic.

This research employed an extension mixed-methods design for the purpose of expansion (Greene, 2007), in which different methods were used to assess different phenomena to expand our understanding of OL. Greene noted that this approach has been frequently used to collect data in discrete parts of a study; for example, within Greene’s own field of program evaluation, extension mixed-methods design historically relies upon quantitative methods to assess program outcomes and qualitative methods to assess implementation of that same program. In this design, quantitative and qualitative methods do not interact with one another during the study, and the methods used can be of varying weights and implemented sequentially. Our adaptation of Greene’s design shaped two distinct research phases: The first phase involved surveys focused on questions about stakeholders and channels. The second phase involved interviewing the survey respondents to gain their perspective on OL through in-depth conversations.

Greene (2007) described an extension design as a complementary strength’s stance, in which paradigms, context, and theory guide practical decisions for methodological use but are kept separate from one another. This design can vary in terms of how “mixed” the methods are. In this study, our consideration of the OL-related constructs as well as the limitations of our sample size (i.e., only 38 of 122 organizations that participated in the survey also participated in the interview) ruled out what Greene (2007) would identify as more integrated designs.

We relied upon different types of data to answer different RQs. Because OL has not been explored very often in an empirical sense and is inherently a difficult concept to conceptualize, we decided that having interviewees define OL in their own words would help capture a wide range of views and practices that promote OL. Hence, we answered RQ1 using the interview data, while we answered RQ2 to RQ4, which relied upon previously identified constructs (e.g., perceived benefits and challenges, stakeholder groups, communication channels), through the survey data. Given the different purpose and content of each phase of data collection, the quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately, while the overall findings helped develop a holistic understanding of OL.

Survey Sample and Procedure

We relied on NPO leaders as key informants for their organizations’ listening practices to obtain organizational-level data (see Fulton, 2018). Nonprofit executive directors or their equivalents participated in the first survey, from October to December 2020. Participants received $10 gift cards as research incentives. Before the research was launched, we invited three leaders who work in human services, health, and educational NPOs to pilot test the survey and provide constructive feedback to improve the quality of the survey.

The sampling frame was the nonprofit population of 1,757,420 NPOs who filed taxes in the United States in 2019. We applied two filters that resulted in a purposive sample of NPOs: First, we focused on 10 National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) categories.² We selected these categories to maximize diversity in our sample and because research suggests organizations in these categories are more likely to engage in innovation and change than organizations in other categories (e.g., Dimitriadis et al., 2017; Shier et al., 2019). Second, we focused on medium-sized and large NPOs because they have more resources for stakeholder engagement than smaller NPOs (e.g., Saxton & Guo, 2011), eliminating organizations with annual revenue under US$250,000. From the resulting 49,855 NPOs, we selected a random sample of 2,000 organizations, of which 1,826 organizations had valid³ mailing addresses.

We sent postcards with an online survey link and QR code to invite online participation to the 1,826 organizations. To enhance response rate, we sent follow-up postcards, two rounds of paper-based surveys with a pre-addressed envelope, and emails to those who had not yet responded. These subsequent contacts all gave the option to participate in a paper-based survey. Given the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and resource constraints on the nonprofit sector, it is not surprising that mail (postcards or letters) to 15% of organizations, 271, was returned because the organization had moved or disbanded, a trend consistent with observations of decline in program income, donations received, and staff stability during the pandemic (Faulk et al., 2021). Among the 1,555 remaining NPOs, 20 returned paper surveys and 296 started the online survey. Upon checking data quality, we found 122 valid responses (response rate = 8%), meaning they completed all questions in their entirely and answered both attention check questions correctly (see Online Appendix A). Nonresponse bias tests suggested that responding and nonresponding organizations did not differ significantly. However, the final sample was skewed toward larger NPOs, arts and culture NPOs, and environment NPOs compared with the population of U.S. NPOs (see Online Appendix B).

Measures

Perceived Benefits (RQ2a)

Lewis (2020) proposed seven goals of OL (see Online Appendix C, Items 1-7). We supplemented this list with the eight innovation adoption benefits from Kennedy and Fiss (2009). Taken together, these have resulted in a list of 11 unique items. We asked respondents to indicate the level of importance of each goal for their organization’s decision to listen to stakeholders on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all important, 7 = very important).

Perceived Challenges (RQ2b)

Following Lewis (2020), we asked respondents to indicate their agreement on a list of six problems that are significant in enabling listening in their organization on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Stakeholder Groups (RQ3, H1)

We compiled a list of 12 unique stakeholder groups that are on organizations’ listening dashboard for NPOs from prior research (e.g., Lai & Fu, 2021; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012; Xu & Saxton, 2019). These included competitors, collaborators, news organizations, employees, donors, funders, board members, and volunteers. We asked respondents to indicate how frequently their organization routinely monitors and cares about these stakeholder groups on a 5-point scale.

Communication Channels (RQ4, H2)

We relied upon several disparate lines of research to develop a list of communication channels that organizations may use to listen to their stakeholders. Reviewing the literature (e.g., Lai & Fu, 2021; Lewis, 2020; Macnamara, 2018) generated 12 unique communication channels for NPOs, including in-person meetings or interviews; town-hall meetings; surveys; news media monitoring; and comments via phone calls, emails, and mail (see Online Appendix C). We then asked respondents to indicate how frequently their organization listens to stakeholders and collects feedback on a 5-point scale.

Operational Capacity (H1, H2)

Operational capacity was assessed using a four-item instrument on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) from the Nonprofit Capacities Instrument (Shumate et al., 2017). The four-item scale exhibited satisfactory reliability (M = 2.83, SD = .54, α = .80). This variable was used to test H1 and H2.

Organizational Attributes

We included several basic organizational attributes as control variables that research shows influence stakeholder engagement (e.g., Saxton & Guo, 2011). We asked NPO leaders to indicate their primary social mission from a list of 10 NTEE categories. Most NPOs focused on arts and culture (n = 48, 39%), environment (n = 21, 17%), education (n = 19, 16%), human services (n = 33, 27%), and public and societal benefit (n = 11, 9%).

Respondents indicated their revenue in the previous year on an 8-point scale (1 = <US$100,000; 2 = US$100,000 to < US$250,000; 3 = US$250,000 to < US$500,000; 4 = US$500,000 to < US$750,000; 5 = US$750,000 to < US$1 million; 6 = US$1 to < US$5 million; 7 = US$5 to < US$10 million; 8 = >US$10 million). The mean of their revenue was 4.49 (SD = 1.77), that is, about US$750,000. We further asked respondents to indicate the approximate number of salaried employees working for their organization (M = 23.63, SD = 50.33).

For board size, respondents indicated the number of board members who were performing a supervisory role for their organization (M = 6.60, SD = 8.01). Organizational age was 2022 minus an organization’s founding year (M = 34.77, SD = 24.64, Min = 4, Max = 137). Overall, the average revenue and age of NPOs suggest a good fit for this study in that they are sufficiently large and established that they are likely to have staff and resources to engage in some OL, as well as some having sustained stakeholder relationships. Finally, we controlled for partnership diversity from eight external stakeholders, including other NPOs, governments, communities, corporations, and so forth (Meyskens et al., 2010). Respondents were asked to check whether they had partnered with each of these eight types of entities (M = 3.94, SD = 2.17). Online Appendix D presents the descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations.

Interview Sample and Procedure

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with NPO leaders between March and August 2021. Interviews offer organic ways to understand respondents’ experiences, motivations, and justifications for their actions or opinions through detailed accounts, which is especially valuable for investigating issues that are difficult to observe or access efficiently (Tracy, 2019). Because stakeholder engagement can happen at any time and in a variety of settings, hearing NPO leaders’ perspectives allowed us to learn about their overall approaches, examples from past events, and evaluations.

We utilized a previously collected first wave of survey data to recruit NPO leaders. Among the 122 survey responses, 61 respondents indicated interest in participating in an interview study and provided their contact information at the end of the survey. We sent email invitations to the 61 individuals, and among them, 38 individuals responded and scheduled interview meetings. Two interviewees invited their coworkers in different leadership positions to the interview meeting. Thus, the total number of interviewees was 40 representing, 38 different NPOs.

These 38 NPOs were headquartered in 22 different states (see Online Appendix E). Two of 38 NPOs had offices overseas for international operations. On average, the NPOs had 18 salaried employees. Except for those working for the two NPOs employing over 100 salaried workers, our participants identified their employers as small- or medium-sized NPOs based on their size and budget. The age of the NPOs in the interview sample ranged from 4 to 137 years old (M = 35.95, SD = 26.44). Organizational revenue ranged from 1 to 8 on our scale of 1 to 8, with an average of 4.26 (SD = 1.75), or about US$560,000 annual revenue. Most organizations worked in arts and culture (n = 14, 37%), followed by human services (n = 9, 24%), education (n = 5, 13%), environment (n = 4, 11%), and public, societal benefit (n = 4, 11%).

We conducted all 40 interviews via Zoom (recording audio only; see Online Appendix A) and transcribed them verbatim. Interviews lasted 1 hr on average, ranging from 40 to 70 min. Our semi-structured interview protocol included the following: (a) background information about the NPO such as history and mission; (b) interviewees’ understanding of OL and examples from past and recent experiences; and (c) if and how they believe OL practices impacted their work. When discussing OL, we asked for organizational-level practices, but some interviewees struggled to respond. They said things like, “We all have to be good listeners [individual-level]” or “Listening is part of the job of staff [group-level].” Others provided organizational-level activities such as sending surveys and planning collective visioning meetings. We included reports of OL at various levels to stay true to participants’ voices (i.e., emic perspective) but probed for examples of organizational-level implications (e.g., how OL shaped their NPOs’ stakeholder relationships or reputation). All interviewees received a US$20 gift card.

Results

RQ1: Conceptualization of OL

We conducted thematic analysis of the interview data to identify the ways in which our participants conceptualized OL. We followed Braun and Clarke’s (2012) six steps (see Online Appendix A for details) and identified five themes (see Table 1 for illustrative examples). In the first theme, individual skill, interviewees emphasized that OL is accomplished at the individual level. As shown in Table 1, some interviewees said it is a skill that they and their staff can learn through training (e.g., motivational interviewing, reflective and active listening), but others stated that personality dictates how well or poorly one can listen even if training is available. Interviewees with both mindsets emphasized that having “good listeners” in their NPOs was critical to achieving their social mission and thus that they used listening as a key criterion when hiring staff (e.g., Doug said, “We look for people who are not just technically proficient but also good listeners”).

Table 1.

RQ1: Qualitative Findings Overview.

Themes	Illustrative examples*
Individual skill	Trainable technique	You don’t know how many times I’ll say to someone, “That person is not an active listener.” In a discussion, I’ve learned to say: “Now, what did I say to you?” Because oftentimes, they do not say back to you what you said to them. And that’s about listening [. . .] if you really want to make sure you’re all on the same page [you should] be an active listener yourself. (Yvonne)
	Trainable technique	It’s something that we focus on a lot in our work: people are trained in motivational interviewing, which is a technique that encourages people to really listen and accept somebody where they are. [We provide] a lot of support for our staff to listen to their clients. (Jill)
	Inherent trait	It comes down to the individuals doing the listening. That’s kind of my job, to do that; to be the person who’s listening and making sure they feel heard. [. . .] I think you’d train maybe 20% of it. Eighty percent of it is personality. If you’ve got somebody who’s just not open to listening, is not open to new ideas [. . .] you can’t train that out of somebody. (Marianne)
Serving stakeholders	We certainly try to listen. We do a lot of different things here like renting out the theater, the building, the venue. So we definitely listen to renters. If they’re telling us that our prices are too high or they need something that we don’t have, we definitely listen and respond because that’s the market. (Karina)
Serving stakeholders	So I think organizational listening is hearing, not just collecting, the feedback. It is one thing [to] collect[] the feedback, but it’s also then taking that and doing something with it. I think that is the piece with organizational listening. It’s not just going through the motion of collecting it, but then doing something with it, of that action behind it. (Hyun)
Building community trust	The framework [I use for organizational listening] is community-based participatory research, so it’s listening to the community. [And the best way to do so is] to develop those relationships so that people will trust you and talk to you. And I never reach out directly for the relationships. I always use somebody that’s already trusted to make that introduction. (Eleanor)
Building community trust	When we first started as an organization, I would go to the domestic violence shelter and provide [resources]; then I’d get to interact with the other staff there. [. . .] I think, by hopping around like that, I got a lot of trust from them. And they knew that they could talk about what was going on, which helped me so much when I first got into this job of building the coalition.. . . (Dawn)
Strategic planning tool	If you’re looking to the future and really want to expand outside of your community, you really have to listen to stakeholders that are more national or international at this point, specifically with diversity work and just basic seasonal selection. (Forrest)
Strategic planning tool	We were in the process of working on a strategic plan before COVID hit. We were working on five listening sessions that will include donors, ticket buyers, [and] community partners, where we can talk about ideas of what we are thinking about next season or as we come out of COVID, what we’ve done, and what they think has been effective. [. . .] With those new ideas in mind, how we might move forward. (Bernard)
Job attitude	We look for people that are good listeners; people that are not just technically proficient at that type of work [. . .] but who really embraced the mission and are taking the job to really help people. People that take the job here often do so because even though perhaps they’re not paid as much as [they] could [be] elsewhere, they really believe in what we’re doing. . . (Doug)
Job attitude	I just think listening is just super huge, and it’s how you work. [. . .] With what we do sitting in front of screens and writing grant applications constantly, you just have to have everything in perspective and understand that listening—how you interact and how you’re perceived—is the best way to work through everything. (Claudia)

Note. *These quotations are from participants’ response to the interviewer’s question, “What is your understanding of organizational listening, and could you give an example of when/how it happens in your organization?”.

In the second theme, serving stakeholders, interviewees said that OL is about identifying and addressing stakeholder needs (e.g., “We only know how best to serve them if we listen to them”). Examples included sending surveys and organizing meetings to ask stakeholders what they needed. As Gavin said, before their organization made such effort to listen to stakeholders, “We really were in the dark, but now we have thousands of responses [to our email newsletter] and want to respond to those. We feel like we’re really helping the needs of our people.” Interviewees stressed that simply identifying stakeholders’ needs is not genuine listening if organizations do not take actions to address them.

In the third theme, building community trust, interviewees described OL as the primary way of gaining community members’ trust, which is important for accomplishing their social missions. They explained how their nonprofits were founded upon the value of listening to get embedded into the network of communities in their region. For instance, when Jamie started working with schools in low-income areas, she wondered, “How do you build trust with parents who haven’t lived in the United States for very long?” Over time, she realized, “It’s about continuing to show up at monthly parent meetings, taking a lot of time just sitting around [to listen]. Then people started asking me questions about our programs.” As this implies, listening as a trust-building process often did not have a specifically identified purpose other than being present to signal interest and sincerity. Also, such trust-building processes could occur via various organizational practices that demonstrate their willingness to listen, including consistently attending stakeholders’ community meetings and inviting stakeholders to ask questions about their NPO’s work. Regardless of the specific practices, interviewees emphasized prioritizing relationship building and communicating genuine care to build trust through OL.

The fourth theme is OL as a strategic planning tool. Interviewees who conceptualized listening in this way often mentioned organizing “listening sessions” as they began formulating or updating their organizations’ strategic plan. Thus, listening was described as a market research technique. For example, Ethan said, “We are beginning to envision what our post-COVID model is going to look like. We are being really intentional in hearing from people who use [our service] and looking at other models.” As Ethan noted at the end of his quote, interviewees also talked about listening to other nonprofits during strategic planning for benchmarking purposes. Nancy said, “I don’t want to reinvent the wheel. [So I listen to] other groups that are also working with families in my area and ask them to share.” Suzie similarly explained, “[I listen to] agencies that have already created a new policy and procedure so that I can look at it and see how I can adapt this for [my organization].”

In the fifth theme, job attitude, interviewees conceptualized listening as the way of working and living as nonprofit leaders and employees. This theme is related to the second theme (serving stakeholders) in that interviewees from both themes viewed listening as a necessary part of nonprofit work. But, unlike interviewees in the second theme who described specific efforts to listen to stakeholder needs (e.g., surveys), interviewees in this theme generally characterized OL as the value that those in the nonprofit sector must embrace to do the job well. Based on the idea that she is never not listening as a nonprofit director, Annie said,

Listening is done also through observing actions and behaviors, not just words that are coming out of someone’s mouth. A lot of times I will say, ‘How are you?’ [to our visitor] and they’ll say, ‘Oh, I am fine.’ [Then I respond] ‘No, you’re not [fine], what’s going on?’

RQ2: Opportunities and Challenges in OL

Descriptive statistics (see Table 2) showed NPOs most valued OL to improve client satisfaction and/or retention (M = 6.31) and improve quality of products and services (M = 6.33). Although listening is often described as a means of economic value creation (Borner & Zerfass, 2018), this research shows NPOs most frequently employ OL for prosocial considerations. In fact, beating the competition with other organizations was least important for NPOs (M = 3.94), corroborating Curley et al.’s (2021) finding that NPOs tend to shy away from competition.

Table 2.

Perceived Benefits and Challenges in OL.

My organization listens to varied stakeholder groups to. . ..	M (SD)	Min	Max
. . .improve quality of products, programs, and/or services	6.33 (0.94)	1	7
. . .improve client satisfaction and/or retention	6.31 (0.96)	1	7
. . .be perceived as a leader in our sector	5.81 (1.37)	1	7
. . .improve decision-making quality	5.73 (1.18)	1	7
. . .improve employee morale and/or retention	5.45 (1.49)	1	7
. . .improve coordination among units	5.40 (1.39)	1	7
. . .improve efficiency of task completion and productivity	5.15 (1.55)	1	7
. . .improve effectiveness of job performance	5.15 (1.42)	1	7
. . .improve timeliness of task completion	4.93 (1.48)	1	7
. . . address influence and/or requests of an accreditation organization or funder	4.93 (1.64)	1	7
. . .beat the competition with other organizations	3.94 (1.91)	1	7
Which of the following are significant problems and challenges with enabling listening in your organization?	M (SD)	Min	Max
We lack sufficient training to summarize or analyze the information that is collected.	2.05 (.90)	1	5
We lack sufficient training to collect needed information from stakeholders.	1.98 (.85)	1	5
Our organization lacks sufficient procedures or capacities to share information with units/individuals who need it.	1.95 (.86)	1	4
We feel overwhelmed with what we hear from stakeholders.	1.94 (.83)	1	5
Our organization lacks the technology to collect what we need to listen to.	1.88 (.87)	1	5
We have limited ability or processes to communicate what is heard up the chain.	1.59 (.75)	1	4

Note. Further ANOVA and t-tests revealed no significant differences in perceived benefits of OL among NPOs of different social mission.

Further ANOVA and t-tests revealed no significant differences in perceived challenges in OL among NPOs of different social mission. OL = organizational listening; NPOs = nonprofit organizations.

The most significant challenge to implementing OL was a lack of sufficient training to summarize or analyze the information that is collected (M = 2.05), followed by insufficient training to collect needed information from stakeholders (M = 1.98). The least frequently referenced barrier to OL was communication of what is heard when listening up the hierarchy (M = 1.59).

RQ3: Stakeholder Clusters in OL

We used principal factor analysis to identify major groups of stakeholders in OL (see Table 3). We completed an oblique factor analysis with an oblimin rotation.⁴ Results revealed two major factors that each had an eigenvalue larger than 1. We removed two items that had low factor loadings (i.e., news organizations and employees that had a loading of .38 and .27, respectively).

Table 3.

Factor Analysis Results: Major Stakeholder Groups (RQ3).

Stakeholder groups	Public-facing listening	Interorganizational listening
Our competitors		0.71
Our collaborators		0.78
News organizations
Research institutions		0.55
Full-time or part-time employees
Donors and funders	0.46
Clients/customers/constituents/beneficiaries	0.55
Regulators and policymakers		0.45
Board members	0.60
General members of the community	0.70
Volunteers	0.71
Activists/protesters	0.45
Eigenvalue	2.77	1.39
Variance	2.39	2.20
Proportion	0.57	0.53

Six stakeholder groups uniquely loaded onto the first factor with factor loadings greater than .45 (variance explained = .57): donors and funders, clients and beneficiaries, board members, general members of the community, volunteers, and activists. We labeled this factor as public-facing listening (M = 3.86, SD = .58) since all stakeholders in this factor are individuals.

Four stakeholder groups uniquely loaded onto the second factor (variance explained = .53): competitors, collaborators, research institutions, and regulators and policymakers. We labeled this factor as interorganizational listening(M = 3.44, SD = .67) since most stakeholders in this group are organizations. Further analysis showed the two groups were significantly different in their listening frequency (t = 6.01, p < .001), indicating that NPOs tended to prioritize public-facing listening.

RQ4: Communication Channel Repertoires in OL

Results from an oblique factor analysis with an oblimin rotation revealed three major factors that each had an eigenvalue larger than 1 (see Table 4). We removed two items that cross-loaded on multiple factors (i.e., private events for specific groups of stakeholders and surveys).

Table 4.

Factor Analysis Results: Major Communication Channels (RQ4).

Communication channels	Mediated listening	In-person listening	Socially mediated listening
In-person, one-on-one meetings, or interviews		0.57
Focus groups		0.75
Town-hall meetings		0.76
Public events that my organization hosts or participates in		0.53
Private events designed for specific groups of stakeholders (e.g., board meetings, client receptions)
Surveys
Monitoring of comments and posts on social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)			0.74
News media monitoring			0.56
Monitoring of websites, excluding social media sites			0.74
Comments and/or complaints via phone calls	0.91
Written comments and/or complaints via emails	0.96
Written comments and/or complaints via mail	0.93
Eigenvalue	4.07	1.37	1.05
Variance	3.43	2.65	2.38
Proportion	0.53	0.41	0.37

Three channels uniquely loaded onto the first factor with factor loadings greater than .45 (variance explained = .53), including comments and/or complaints via phone calls, emails, and mail. Hence, we labeled this factor as mediated listening because it contained more standard and basic ICTs (M = 3.71, SD = 1.14). Four channels uniquely loaded onto the second factor (variance explained = .41): in-person, one-one-one meetings or interviews, focus groups, town-hall meetings, and public events that my organization hosts or participates in. Hence, we labeled this factor as in-person listening (M = 2.84, SD = .76). Finally, three channels loaded onto the third factor (variance explained = .37), including monitoring of comments and posts from social media, websites, and news media. Hence, we labeled this factor as socially mediated listening since it contained more advanced ICTs (M = 3.13, SD = .90). Across the three repertoires of communication channels, NPOs most frequently used mediated channels (i.e., phone calls, emails, and mail) for OL.

Hypotheses Testing

Regression results (see Table 5) showed NPOs with greater operational capacity routinely engaged in public-facing listening (B = .242, SE = .090, p = .008). However, operational capacity was not related to interorganizational listening (B = .152, SE = .111, p = .175). Thus, H1 was partially supported. As for the three repertoires of communication channels (H2), results suggested NPOs with greater operational capacity more frequently engaged in mediated listening using phone calls, emails, and mail (B = .578, SE = .189, p = .003). Operational capacity was not significantly related to in-person listening (B = .101, SE = .125, p = .421) or socially mediated channels (B = .036, SE = .146, p = .808). Thus, H2 was partially supported.

Table 5.

Regression Results.

Variables	Public-facing listening		Interorganizational listening		Mediated listening		In-person listening		Socially mediated listening
Operational capacity		0.242** (0.090)		0.152 (0.111)		0.578** (0.189)		0.101 (0.125)		0.036 (0.146)
Age (logged)	0.083 (0.071)	0.071 (0.070)	−0.090 (0.087)	−0.106 (0.088)	0.227 (0.153)	0.226 (0.150)	−0.024 (0.097)	−0.034 (0.099)	0.063 (0.115)	0.096 (0.116)
Revenue	0.012 (0.029)	0.013 (0.028)	0.099** (0.035)	0.099** (0.035)	0.054 (0.062)	0.056 (0.060)	0.048 (0.040)	0.048 (0.040)	0.127** (0.047)	0.130** (0.047)
Employee size	−0.002 (0.001)	−0.002^† (0.001)	−0.001 (0.001)	−0.001 (0.001)	0.001 (0.002)	0.001 (0.002)	−0.000 (0.001)	−0.001 (0.002)	0.000 (0.002)	0.000 (0.002)
Arts	0.132 (0.135)	0.159 (0.133)	−0.192 (0.167)	−0.185 (0.167)	0.118 (0.294)	0.205 (0.286)	−0.271 (0.188)	−0.266 (0.190)	0.701** (0.221)	0.741** (0.221)
Education	0.139 (0.165)	0.236 (0.166)	−0.136 (0.204)	−0.073 (0.209)	0.049 (0.359)	0.275 (0.355)	−0.166 (0.228)	−0.125 (0.234)	654* (0.269)	662* (0.274)
Environment	0.167 (0.168)	0.228 (0.166)	0.117 (0.207)	0.155 (0.209)	0.069 (0.371)	−0.208 (0.362)	0.243 (0.236)	0.267 (0.239)	0.515^† (0.279)	0.523^† (0.280)
Human services	−0.053 (0.155)	−0.077 (0.152)	−0.242 (0.187)	−0.266 (0.187)	0.163 (0.328)	0.106 (0.318)	−0.407^† (0.208)	−0.423* (0.210)	0.237 (0.248)	0.258 (0.248)
Public benefit	0.141 (0.205)	0.176 (0.200)	−0.036 (0.252)	−0.016 (0.253)	−0.333 (0.444)	−0.246 (0.430)	−0.076 (0.282)	0.089 (0.284)	0.545 (0.333)	0.558^† (0.332)
Partnership diversity	0.100** (0.021)	0.099** (0.021)	0.075** (0.026)	0.073** (0.026)	0.057 (0.046)	0.061 (0.045)	0.064* (0.030)	0.062* (0.030)	0.042 (0.035)	0.049 (0.035)
Board size	−0.014* (0.006)	−0.014* (0.006)	−0.001 (0.007)	−0.001 (0.008)	−0.025^† (0.013)	−0.021 (0.013)	0.003 (0.008)	0.003 (0.008)	0.009 (0.011)	0.012 (0.011)
Intercept	3.69** (0.299)	2.496** (0.390)	3.163** (0.367)	2.787** (0.487)	2.558** (0.646)	0.824 (0.830)	2.610** (0.410)	2.359** (0.549)	1.702** (0.486)	1.423* (0.645)
R ²	.220	.265	.155	.168	.091	.162	.126	.131	.181	.199
Adjusted R²	.153	.194	.084	.089	.014	.081	.051	.047	.110	.122
∆R²	—	.041	—	.013	—	.071	—	.005	—	.018
F	3.27**	3.74**	2.18*	2.14*	1.17*	2.01*	1.68^†	1.56	2.55**	2.58**

Note. Unstandardized coefficients B (standard error SE).

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

Based on a purposive sample of 122 U.S. NPOs, we explored nonprofits’ OL practices, shedding light on what, why, to whom, and how NPOs listen from the perspective of nonprofit leaders. The findings showed that nonprofit practitioners employed diverse approaches to OL and mainly employed OL for social value creation in that they used it to meet client needs and improve social services. However, NPOs faced significant challenges in OL, including limited capacity and training in collecting information from stakeholders and generating insights based on that information. Principal factor analyses revealed two major stakeholder groups (i.e., public-facing and interorganizational listening) and three repertoires of communication channels (i.e., in-person, mediated, and socially mediated listening). Furthermore, results suggested operational capacity was related to OL stakeholder prioritization and the use of communication channels. Specifically, NPOs with greater operational capacity routinely engaged in public-facing listening and used more standard channels (e.g., phone calls, emails, and mail) to listen to stakeholders.

This research makes three main theoretical contributions. First, NPO practitioners’ varied conceptualization of OL—as an individual skill, as a way of serving stakeholders or building community trust, as a tool for strategic planning, and as a job attitude—demonstrates the complexity of NPO contexts and extends prior research that focused on cognitive (see Flynn et al., 2008), competency-based (Burnside-Lawry, 2012), ethical (Macnamara, 2016), constitutive (Jacobs & Coghlan, 2005), and strategic (Lewis, 2020) approaches to OL. Furthermore, as depicted in our findings, OL involves an integrated, multidimensional OL that elaborates on stakeholder types and channels. In turn, we contribute to shifting the dominant paradigm in stakeholder communication to center on OL over speaking to stakeholders. We also emphaize and position NPOs as a rich context for further exploration and application of OL practices that favor stakeholder engagement rather than stakeholder management.

Second, this research suggests what, why, to whom, and how NPOs listen, with important practical implications. Results demonstrate that NPOs prioritize public-facing listening, and most value OL to improve client satisfaction and/or retention and improve quality of products, programs, and/or services. In contrast to corporate assumptions about stakeholder value, these findings support a constitutive stakeholder view in that NPOs socially construct stakeholders (Koschmann, 2016) through prosocial forms of listening, and OL represents a stake in the organization (e.g., Koschmann & Kopczynski, 2017). That NPOs are focused on these groups indicates that they recognize their value and that input from these groups are critical to NPO survival and success. Although prior research has suggested the importance of prosocial listening to improve diverse participation and more equitable representation in organizational decision-making and public policy-making (e.g., Macnamara, 2018), recent studies focus on listening to employees. Employees are an important internal stakeholder group but certainly not representative of the complex interests that NPOs typically serve (e.g., Qin & Men, 2021). In this way, we extend our understanding of prosocial listening by expanding upon the stakeholder categories typically thought to be of value to organizations.

In addition to the who, why, and what, this study focuses on how NPOs engage in OL. The data suggest that NPOs rely on mediated channels (phone, email, mail) for OL. This is perhaps not unexpected given what we know about how NPOs connect with others (e.g., Fu et al., 2019) but adds to our understanding of how NPOs engage stakeholders and offers practical implications for how leaders might develop an “architecture of listening” (Macnamara, 2018, p. 19). These results suggest that NPOs that provide services to specific constituencies (e.g., human services organizations) are less likely to use social media. Although NPOs are motivated to engage stakeholders through OL, they may face practical constraints in terms of the available channels, the time needed to engage, or the training needed to collect and summarize stakeholder input. For instance, as of this writing, NPOs continue to experience pandemic-related limitations, brought on by reduced program income, donations, and staff stability (Faulk et al., 2021), which may very well limit their listening practices.

Third, this study suggested that nonprofit capacity was a key factor in shaping OL. Findings suggested that those organizations with greater operational capacity were also more likely to engage in public-facing OL and to rely on mediated listening using more basic ICTs. These findings shed light on the NPO context and, in particular, continue to reveal challenges in nonprofit management related to nonprofit capacity (e.g., Shumate et al., 2017) and the use of ICTs in stakeholder communication (e.g., Fu et al., 2019; Taylor, 2022). We have previously explored the multidimensional aspects of OL within nonprofits and the tendency toward pro-social listening, but findings in those studies suggest the very real constraints that nonprofits navigate as they engage in this complex process. NPOs may benefit from specific efforts to address these barriers. These may include the creation of policies and procedures for active listening as part of the organizational repertoire, or increased efforts to utilize (or increased funder support to utilize) open, interactive ICTs that encourage comments and allow timely responses to social media. In short, organizations must allocate resources to listening activities and open communication channels to policy- and decision-making. Although cultural aspects of OL have not been studied in depth, national and ethnic values may play a role in how organizations listen and what characteristics stakeholders find salient.

Limitations and Future Research

This research has several limitations that present opportunities for future research. First, although we have followed the best practices in organizational survey research to enhance response rate, it is a relatively small sample with a low response rate (i.e., 8%), making it sensitive to threats of nonresponse biases (see Fulton, 2018). Although we performed several nonresponse bias tests on key organizational demographics using archival data, we were not able to perform all possible tests. Thus, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, we employed a purposive sample of U.S. NPOs that are mostly medium-sized and large in size, with more representation from NPOs in several social issue areas (e.g., arts and culture, human services, environment) and geographic areas (see Online Appendix B). Taken together, future research may build upon our study and seek a larger survey to generalize findings and to study OL among more diverse NPOs (e.g., size, mission, institutional context). Researchers may use other response-enhancing strategies (e.g., inviting and highlighting the endorsers, providing higher monetary incentives) to improve the response rate (see Fulton, 2018). Research may also explore whether providing monetary incentives and gift cards influences data quality.

Second, because research on OL is still emerging, future research may revise the survey scales we used from Lewis (2020). For instance, the “listening dashboard” metaphor may read as jargon and alienate research participants; the scale we used may confuse symbolic OL practices with genuine OL based on true concern; and some questions may not be applicable to all stakeholder groups. Moreover, future research should refine some double-barreled questions such that they do not ask about both stakeholder retention and satisfaction or employee morale and retention, simultaneously.

Third, recent social movements have motivated scholars to reorient their attention from organizational speaking to OL to giving stakeholders a voice, particularly those of marginalized communities and underrepresented groups. Called “fringe” (Daudigeos et al., 2020), “marginalized” (Derry, 2012), or “insignificant” (Freeman, 1984), stakeholders far from the centers of organizational power, urgency, or legitimacy (Mitchell et al., 1997) often find that organizations ignore their needs. Future research that builds on these findings may examine how organizations listen to and include more marginalized and underrepresented groups, who typically have little power and resources, in their listening processes. This has the potential to “bring beneficiaries more centrally” into nonprofit research and practice (Benjamin, 2021, p. 5), and hence better address various social issues, contribute to social value creation, and alleviate social suffering.

Fourth, this research focused on OL from the perspectives of organizational leaders. Since OL may serve symbolic impress management functions (Lewis, 2020), self-reported data may not accurately capture the dynamics of OL and substantive functions or genuine intentions for organization-stakeholder mutual benefits. Future research should investigate OL from the perspective of stakeholders and gain a more accurate, nuanced understanding of OL, eliciting perspectives across diverse stakeholder groups (including, e.g., well- and less-resourced stakeholders). Research may also explicate nonprofit practitioners’ varying attitudes toward the five different conceptualizations of OL and their different consequences.

Finally, this research relies on cross-sectional data. As OL is in continual flux and shifts based on external environments, future research can examine how OL evolves over time and dynamically influence key organizational processes and outcomes, specifically in relation to the effectiveness of OL.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research highlights the stakes—and stakeholders—involved in OL for NPOs. In contrast to past research that presented one-way communication as a form of stakeholder management, this study positioned OL as a stakeholder-centered frame for nonprofits seeking to engage, rather than manage, diverse perspectives. The (re)orientation to understanding OL will have specific implications for organizational managers, practitioners, and public policymakers in public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Future research may build on the results of this exploratory research to more robustly examine how organizations listen to diverse stakeholders for social value creation.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-nvs-10.1177_08997640231201068 – Supplemental material for Beyond Stakeholder Management: Organizational Listening for Nonprofit Stakeholder Engagement

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-nvs-10.1177_08997640231201068 for Beyond Stakeholder Management: Organizational Listening for Nonprofit Stakeholder Engagement by Jiawei Sophia Fu, Katherine R. Cooper, DaJung Woo and Melanie Kwestel in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Rutgers University Faculty Research Council and School of Communication and Information faculty startup funding.

ORCID iDs

Jiawei Sophia Fu

Katherine R. Cooper

DaJung Woo

Melanie Kwestel

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jiawei Sophia Fu (PhD, Northwestern University) is an assistant professor of Communication at the School of Communication and Information of Rutgers University. Her research interests center around organizational communication, social networks, digital innovation, and global social impact organizing.

Katherine R. Cooper (PhD, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) is an assistant professor at the College of Communication of DePaul University. Her main interest is how non-profits collaborate with others to increase their social impact.

DaJung Woo (PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara) is an assistant professor of Communication at the School of Communication and Information of Rutgers University. Her research examines communication practices enabling cross-boundary collaboration, stakeholder engagement, organizational socialization, and membership negotiation.

Melanie Kwestel is a doctoral candidate at the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Her research focuses on how marginalized or fringe groups collaborate to challenge established interests.

References

Benjamin

L. M.

(2021). Bringing beneficiaries more centrally into nonprofit management education and research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020918662

Borner

Zerfass

(2018). The power of listening in corporate communications. In Bowman

Crookes

Ihlen

Ø.

Romenti

(Eds.), Public relations and the power of creativity (Vol. 3, pp. 8–22). Emerald.

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

Bryan

T. K

. (2019). Toward a contingency model for the relationship between capacity and effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4), 885–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018815617

Burnside-Lawry

(2012). Listening and participatory communication: A model to assess organization listening competency. International Journal of Listening, 26(2), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2012.678092

Cook

S. D. N.

Yanow

(1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269324010

Curley

Levine Daniel

Walk

Harrison

(2021). Competition and collaboration in the nonprofit sector: Identifying the potential for cognitive dissonance. Administration & Society, 53(8), 1293–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211005834

Daudigeos

Roulet

Valiorgue

(2020). How scandals act as catalysts of fringe stakeholders’ contentious actions against multinational corporations. Business & Society, 59(3), 387–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503185756892

Derry

(2012). Reclaiming marginalized stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1205-x

10.

Dimitriadis

Lee

Ramarajan

Battilana

(2017). Blurring the boundaries: The interplay of gender and local communities in the commercialization of social ventures. Organization Science, 28(5), 819–839. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1144

11.

Eadie

D. C.

(1997). Changing by design: A practical approach to leading innovation in nonprofit organizations. Jossey-Bass.

12.

Estell

Davidson

(2019). Employee engagement, voice mechanisms, and enterprise social network sites (ESNS). In Proceedings of 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 2387–2396). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.288

13.

Faulk

Kim

Derrick-Mills

Boris

Tomasko

Hakizimana

Chen

Kim

Nath

(2021). Nonprofit trends and impacts 2021. The Urban Institute.

14.

Flynn

Valikowski

Gran

(2008). Listening in the business context: Reviewing the state of the research. International Journal of Listening, 22(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010802174800

15.

Freeman

R. E.

(1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pittman.

16.

J. S.

Cooper

K. R.

Shumate

(2019). Use and affordances of ICTs in interorganizational collaboration. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(2), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918824041

17.

Fulton

B. R

. (2018). Organizations and survey research: Implementing response enhancing strategies and conducting nonresponse analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(2), 240–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115626169

18.

Garner

J. T.

Garner

L. T.

(2011). Volunteering an opinion: Organizational voice and volunteer retention in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010366181

19.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. John Wiley & Sons.

20.

Grunig

J. E.

(2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In Heath

R. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Sage.

21.

Ihm

(2019). Communicating without nonprofit organizations on nonprofits’ social media: Stakeholders’ autonomous networks and three types of organizational ties. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2648–2670. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819854806

22.

Jackson

S. J.

Bailey

Welles

B. F.

(2020). HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. MIT Press.

23.

Jacobs

Coghlan

(2005). Sound from silence: On listening in organizational learning. Human Relations, 58(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705050938

24.

Jones

Jallinoja

Pietilä

(2021). Representing the “voice” of patients: How third sector organisations conceptualise and communicate experiential knowledge in health service development. VOLUNTAS, 32(3), 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00296-5

25.

Kennedy

M. T.

Fiss

P. C.

(2009). Institutionalization, framing, and diffusion: The logic of TQM adoption and implementation decisions among US hospitals. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 897–918. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.44633062

26.

Kent

M. L.

Taylor

(2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X

27.

Kim

Leach

(2020). The role of digitally-enabled employee voice in fostering positive change and affective commitment in centralized organizations. Communication Monographs, 87(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637551.2020.1745859

28.

Koschmann

M. A.

(2016). A communication perspective on organisational stakeholder relationships: Discursivity, relationality, and materiality. Communication Research and Practice, 2(3), 407–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1217383

29.

Koschmann

M. A.

Kopczynski

(2017). Stakeholder communication. In Scott

C. R.

Lewis

Barker

J. R.

Keyton

Kuhn

Turner

P. K.

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of organizational communication. John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc193

30.

Lai

C.-H.

J. S.

(2021). Humanitarian relief and development organizations’ stakeholder targeting communication on social media and beyond. VOLUNTAS, 32(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00209-6

31.

Lewis

L. K.

(2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication. Wiley-Blackwell.

32.

Lewis

L. K.

(2020). The power of strategic listening. Rowman & Littlefield.

33.

Lovejoy

Saxton

G. D.

(2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x

34.

Macnamara

(2016). Organizational listening: The missing essential in public communication. Peter Lang Publishing.

35.

Macnamara

(2018). Toward a theory and practice of organizational listening. International Journal of Listening, 32(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2017.1375076

36.

Meyskens

Robb-Post

Stamp

J. A.

Carsrud

A. L.

Reynolds

P. D.

(2010). Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing Ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00389.x

37.

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 Journal, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247

38.

Moore

M. H.

(2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(Suppl. 1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S009

39.

Neill

M. S.

Bowen

S. A.

(2021). Ethical listening to employees during a pandemic: New approaches, barriers and lessons. Journal of Communication Management, 25(3), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-09-2020-0103

40.

Ospina

Diaz

O’Sullivan

J. F.

(2002). Negotiating accountability: Managerial lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764002311001

41.

Qin

Y. S.

Men

L. R.

(2021). Why does listening matter inside the organization? The impact of internal listening on employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 33(5), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2022.2034631

42.

Raeymaeckers

Van Puyvelde

(2021). Nonprofit advocacy coalitions in times of COVID-19: Brokerage, crowdfunding, and advocacy roles. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(6), 1304–1317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021991675

43.

Reinikainen

Kari

J. T.

Luoma-Aho

(2020). Generation Z and organizational listening on social media. Media and Communication, 8(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2772

44.

Ruck

Welch

Menara

(2017). Employee voice: An antecedent to organisational engagement? Public Relations Review, 43(5), 904–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.008

45.

Saxton

G. D.

Guo

(2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009341086

46.

Shi

Jang

H. S.

Keyes

Dicke

(2020). Nonprofit service continuity and responses in the pandemic: Disruptions, ambiguity, innovation, and challenges. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 874–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13254

47.

Shier

M. L.

Handy

Jennings

(2019). Intraorganizational conditions supporting social innovations by human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018797477

48.

Shumate

Cooper

K. R.

Pilny

Pena-y-lillo

(2017). The nonprofit capacities instrument. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 28(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21276

49.

Sommerfeldt

E. J.

Yang

Taylor

(2019). Public relations channel “repertoires”: Exploring patterns of channel use in practice. Public Relations Review, 45(4), 101796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101796

50.

Taylor

M. P.

(2022). Can we chat . . . privately? Using Twitter chats to facilitate offline engagement for nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52, 745–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221111937

51.

Tracy

S. J.

(2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley.

52.

Van Puyvelde

Caers

Du Bois

Jegers

. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011409757

53.

W. W.

Saxton

G. D.

(2019). Does stakeholder engagement pay off on social media? A social capital perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018791267

54.

Yanow

(2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management, 15(S1), S9–S25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00397.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB