Law Firms’ Organizational Impression Management Strategies on Twitter

Abstract

This study examined the organizational impression management (OIM) strategies adopted by the US law firms on Twitter. The Diction software package for textual analysis of nearly 10,000 tweets, coupled with statistical analysis, was used to assess the significant differences among law firms over 5 years. Although higher revenue law firms were found to exhibit higher certainty and optimism than lower revenue firms, analysis via repeated measures analysis of variance did not show significant differences. When companies’ OIM strategies were observed over a period of 5 years, there was a statistically significant difference in activity between 2011 and 2014. The findings add to the body of corporate communications research through examination of social media OIM strategies used by financially successful US law firms.

Keywords

Organizational impression management social media brand management corporate image organizational communication Twitter

Introduction

Impression management (IM) is rooted in dramaturgical and self-presentation social psychology theory. Goffman (1959) was the first to introduce IM as the process of creating, influencing or manipulating an image held by an audience. Individuals are often referred to as actors, who use IM in order to control the impressions others form of them (Winter, Saunders & Hart, 2003). The reasons why people engage in IM include influencing perceptions of an audience, creating favourable portrayal of self, and minimizing negative impressions others may form of them.

Much like individuals, organizations are concerned with the presentation of both the company’s image and brand. Organizations desire approval from constituents, desire for status and may even need to fend off negative image (Highhouse, Brooks & Gregarus, 2009; Tyler, Connaughton, Desrayaud & Fedesco, 2012). Since organizations also strive to gain status through admiration, prominence and prestige (Highhouse et al., 2009), many have relied on industry rankings as a status marker of success (McDonnell & King, 2013). Subsequently, companies can also utilize the organizational impression management (OIM) strategies in organizational communications to influence the public’s perceptions surrounding an organization and its brands (Colleoni, 2013).

The introduction of the Internet and social media, however, has vastly transformed how stakeholders of an organization interact with one another (Kwok & Yu, 2016). Today, social media has become an important communication vehicle for organizations. Social media is a distinctly different platform than traditional ones because of its rapid availability, broader audience and ability for two-way communications. The increased visibility in social media can rapidly affect organizational image to its various stakeholders, such as customers, clients, shareholders, suppliers, employees, government and the media (Bolino ed: et al., 2008; Patelli & Pedrini, 2013; Saxton & Guo, 2012; Schniederjans, Cao & Schniederjans, 2013). Consequently, organizations need to be cognizant of how they manage their image in social media, and they are eager to find effective ways to communicate with the stakeholders on social media and hopefully shape their online discussions according to the company’s mission and goals (Kilgour, Sasser & Larke, 2015; Kwok & Yu, 2013).

Research of OIM in a social media setting is timely and relevant to the current literature in organizational communications, as described by Lillqvist and Louhiala-Salminen (2014). This study used law firms, the business that is bound by legal and ethical constraints (Demay, 2011), as an example to examine business’ OIM strategies on social media. The ‘disclosure culture’ of social media directly conflicts with that of law firms, which embraces confidentiality, privacy and conservatism (Vinson, 2010). There are legal consequences for violation of American Bar Association (ABA) rules, as well as issues of violation of discovery rules, client and witness contact, among a host of other violations. Nonetheless,law firms have increased their use of social media, although hesitant (Vinson, 2010). The growth of social media to over 1.43 billion users in 2013 reinforces the fact that it is a significant communication vehicle for organizations (Schniederjans et al., 2013). Most organizations strive to project a favourable image to stakeholders, although social media has presented some challenges, especially due to the rapid dissemination of information, and the two-way communications capabilities that make it very different from traditional organizational communication channels. Not only can the legal industry benefit from this study, but additionally, this research can benefit managers through examination of how OIM strategies are used by an industry constrained by legal and ethical boundaries (Vinson, 2010).

Among all the social media platforms available for businesses, Twitter is by far one of the widely used social media sites for organizational communications (Mathioudakis & Koudas, 2010) and one of the two most popular platforms (Twitter and LinkedIn) among law firms (LexisNexis, 2014), although ethical issues remain a major concern for law firms. Twitter is by far the largest micro-blogging site on the Internet and is used by businesses to promote their products, services, solicit a fan base and gain consumer feedback (Lovejoy, Waters & Saxton, 2012). Twitter has grown exponentially to over 50 million global users since it was launched in 2006 (Hambrick et al., 2010). Twitter messages, called ‘tweets’, offer up to 140 characters per post. In addition, Twitter has an older audience, with estimates that only 11 percent of its users are under the age of 17 (Hambrick et al., 2010; Lovejoy et al., 2012; Miller, 2009). The brevity of the message effectively makes it a micro-blogging application, which is ideal for organizational communications among law firms.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the most successful US law firms’ OIM strategies on Twitter.Since successful law firms are often identified through their financial performance, this study examined the OIM strategies on Twitter from a sample from the AmLaw 100 list.The knowledge of how successful law firms use OIM via social media within a highly regulated industry may assist others in formulating effective communication strategies. Marketing or corporate communication managers in other industries may possibly refer to our results as a benchmark to develop a set of best practices to improve or enhance public perceptions of company image or brand. Law firms, specifically, need to be aware that the changes social media is necessitating and may find this study useful. Specifically, this study was initiated to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: How are the law firms in the top quartile in the AmLaw 100 list different from those in the bottom quartile in the AmLaw 100 list in regard to the business’ OIM strategies on Twitter?

RQ2: How did law firms’ OIM strategies on Twitter change over time (i.e., from 2010 to 2014)?

Theoretical Foundations and Relevant Literature

Goffman (1959) was the first to introduce the theory of IM, which states that individuals create, manipulate and try to enhance their image to others. Impression management has its roots in dramaturgical theory (Goffman, 1959) and symbolic interactionist sociology theory (Schniederjans et al., 2013). Earlier studies applied the theory to individual behaviour in the workplace, using Goffman’s symbolic interaction theory to explain employee and managerial behaviour (Bolino, 1999; Turnley & Bolino, 2001; Carlson, Carlson & Ferguson, 2010; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Nagy, Kacmar & Harris, 2011). In organizational settings, IM has evolved to the study of organizations and is known as OIM (Mohamed, Gardner & Paolillo, 1999). In OIM, organizations become the actors who strategically try to sway public perceptions to enhance their overall image or brand (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013). These types of organizational communications assist organizations in managing, protecting, maintaining and enhancing their public image (Chilcutt, 2009). Thus, organizations engage in IM through various methods of communication, such as visual cues, symbols and written and oral communications to their publics.

Jones and Pittman (1982) identified five quantifiable IM behaviours displayed by individuals in organizational settings. The Jones–Pittman taxonomy was eventually used to develop the OIM taxonomy by Mohamed, Gardner and Paolillo (1999). The OIM taxonomy consisted of four strategic behaviour categories exhibited by organizations: direct, indirect, assertive or defensive behaviours, none of which are mutually exclusive (Mohamed et al., 1999), as shown in Table 1. Categories and examples are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Organizations thereby behave in a strategic manner to alter public perceptions, much as individuals. Subsequent research on OIM has involved the analysis of press releases, financial documents, CEO profiles and marketing campaigns.

Table 1.

Taxonomy of Organizational Impression Management Tactics

	Direct Tactics	Indirect Tactics
Assertive tactics	IngratiationIntimidationOrganizational promotionExemplificationSupplication	BoastingBlaringBurnishingBlasting
Defensive tactics	AccountsDisclaimersOrganizational handicappingApologiesRestitutionPro-social behaviour	BuryingBlurringBoostingBelittling

Source: From ‘A Taxonomy of Organizational Impression Management Tactics’, by Mohamed et al. (1999).

Table 2.

Direct/Assertive Organizational Impression Management Tactics

Behaviour	Definition/Description	Example
Ingratiation	Behaviours that are used by organizational actors to make the organization appear more attractive to others	Promotional campaigns by the armed services that portray a branch of the military as providing attractive career opportunities
Intimidation	Behaviours that present the organization as a powerful and dangerous entity that is able and willing to inflict harm on those that frustrate its efforts and objectives	A large manufacturer that threatens a small supplier with a reduction of orders unless it terminates its relationship with one of the firm’s competitors
Organizational promotion	Behaviours that present the organization as being highly competent, effective and successful.	An organization that attributes the phenomenal sales of a new product to its savvy marketing campaign.
Exemplification	Behaviours that are used by the organization to project images of integrity, social responsibility and moral worthiness; this tactic may also have a goal of seeking imitation by other entities.	Fund-raising campaigns by the Ways United that highlight the moral worthiness and social benefits that accrue from the charitable causes the organization supports.
Supplication	Behaviours by the organization that portray an image of dependency and vulnerability for the purpose of soliciting assistance from others.	Domestic firms that emphasize their vulnerability to foreign competition while lobbying for tariffs and other forms of trade protection.

Source: Adapted from ‘A Taxonomy of Organizational Impression Management Tactics’, by Mohamed et al. (1999).

Table 3.

Direct/Defensive Organizational Impression Management Tactics

Behaviour	Definition/Description	Example
Accounts	Explanations of a predicament-creating event that seek to minimize the apparent severity of the predicament.	Top management downplays the severity of their firm’s bankruptcy, stating that Chapter 11 really means ‘there’s still hope’.
Disclaimers	Explanations given prior to a potentially embarrassing action to ward off any negative repercussions for the actor’s image.	Notices by brokerage firms that warn performance is not guaranteed for the future.
Organizational handicapping	Efforts by an organization to make task success appear unlikely to provide a ready-made excuse for failure.	Remarks by an aerospace manufacturer’s CEO that it is unlikely to outbid a French firm for a foreign contract because it is subsidized by the French government.
Apologies	Admissions of blameworthiness for a negative event, which include expressions of remorse and requests for a pardon.	A manager tells a customer, ‘We’re sorry for the delay in shipping your order. We pride ourselves on timely deliveries, but we slipped up this time. Please forgive us’.
Restitution	Offers of compensation that are extended by the organization to the offended, injured or otherwise harmed audience.	Airline passengers who are bumped from a flight due to overbooking are provided with vouchers for free round-trip tickets to any domestic destination of their choice.
Pro-social behaviour	Engaging in pro-social actions to atone for an apparent transgression and convince an audience that the actor merits a positive identity.	A southern university attempts to atone for past racial discrimination by offering an extensive array of minority scholarships and aggressively hiring minority faculty and administrators.

Source: Adapted from ‘A Taxonomy of Organizational Impression Management Tactics’, by Mohamed et al. (1999).

Businesses have been using various OIM strategies in organizational communications. For example, many organizations communicate their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities through direct assertive tactics of organizational promotion and exemplification (McDonnell & King, 2013). Avery and McKay (2006) used Mohamed et al.’s (1999) OIM taxonomy to study IM in recruiting minorities and females. Their study measured the direct/assertive and direct/defensive behaviours of organizations and found that organizational image efforts were the driving force of CSR campaigns. Other examples of CSR efforts include sponsorship of events to appear socially responsible, and communications to repair image and organizational reputation through use of OIM tactics (Avery & McKay, 2006; Colleoni, 2013; Matejek & Gössling, 2014). Matejek and Gössling (2014) studied BP, Inc., after the catastrophe surrounding the Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster and the ensuing image problem that had to be dealt with on the part of BP. This concept directly correlates with OIM theory of maintaining organizational image.

Another example of OIM strategies used in organizational communications is cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns. Consumer purchases are sometimes tied to organizational philanthropic donations (Chang, 2008; Jin & Lee, 2010). Prime examples involve asking consumers for contributions or stating that the organization will make a donation to a cause upon purchase. Organizational image is thus enhanced through the use of direct assertive OIM tactic of ingratiation (Mohamed et al., 1999). As explained above, CRM campaigns often entice consumers to act in a certain way, either through making donations or changing behaviours. Although CSR and CRM communications are tied to organizational image, organizations should convey these messages without appearance of intrinsic motives behind their marketing efforts (Du et al., 2010).

Similarly, organizations can manage brand image through annual reports. One study found that, although in Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 companies engaged in OIM, many were very selective on what they voluntarily disclosed on their annual reports to shareholders (Zeller, Stanko, & Jin, 2012) Researchers have found that organizations intentionally engage in manipulation of negative brand image through complexity of writing, through placing blame on circumstances outside the organization’s control, and through repetition and overemphasis of positive information (Rahman, 2012).

Moreover, research suggests that organizations communicate in ways to diffuse negative reactions (Dekay, 2012; Romenti, Murtarelli & Valentini, 2014; Tyler et al., 2012). Organizations facing challenges often engage in OIM to effectively manage threats to their reputations (O’Keefe & Conway, 2008). Boycotted companies significantly increase assertive and defensive OIM behaviours when the boycott receives more media attention and when the firm has a higher reputation to maintain (McDonnell & King, 2013). In the same vein, start-up companies looking for angel investors were found to use indirect OIM tactics in their business plans in order to improve chances of raising money (Parhankangas & Ehrlich, 2012). Organizational impression management plays an important role in overall organizational reputation (Mohamed et al., 1999; O’Keefe & Conway, 2008; Pollach & Kerbler, 2011; Vielhaber & Waltman, 2008; Westphal et al., 2012).

Although organizational websites still remain the most common communications tool for organizations, they serve as the main portal to their social media (Saxton & Guo, 2012). The content of websites and social media reflects the way organizations wish to be perceived. Researchers have linked the OIM taxonomy’s assertive and defensive tactics categories to rhetorical tone in organizational communications (Avery & McKay, 2006; Bolino et al., 2008; Chilcutt, 2009; Parhankangas & Ehrlich, 2012; Tyler et al., 2012; Vielhaber & Waltman, 2008). Empirical evidence also suggests organizations can use OIM tactics on Facebook to upload their acceptability and at the same time, promote their credibility (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014). However, OIM research is lacking across industries, especially in studies of successful organizations utilizing social media.

It appears that organizations may adopt various OIM strategies in organizational communications for different purposes. We argue the more successful law firms would use different OIM strategy metrics from those adopted by not-as-successful law firms. In addition, as suggested in Kwok et al., (2015), companies may acquire new corporate communication skills over time as they learn from their competitors or businesses in other sectors. The OIM strategies adopted by law firms might change over time as well. Accordingly, we refer to the two research questions raised earlier and propose two hypotheses for statistical analysis:

H1: More successful law firms and less successful law firms (measured by the company’s annual revenues in the AmLaw 100 list) practice different OIM strategies on Twitter.

H2: The OIM strategies adopted by law firms vary over the years (from 2010 to 2014).

Methodology

Population and the Sample

Financial performance is often used as a mark of successful companies. Industry lists, such as Fortune 500, Fortune’s Top 100 Employers to Work for, Most Admired Companies or other lists of the largest revenue-producing firms have become a status marker (McDonnell & King, 2013; Patelli & Pedrini, 2013). Prior OIM studies have identified successful companies through industries lists (Avery & McKay, 2006; Chilcutt, 2009; Halim & Jaafar, 2012; Kucuk, 2010; McDonnell & King, 2013; O’Keefe & Conway, 2008; Pollach & Kerbler, 2011; Westphal et al., 2012; Zeller et al., 2012). Likewise, this study drew a sample of firms from the largest revenue-grossing 100 US law firms as named by American Lawyer Magazine.

The sample examined in this study included six purposively selected law firms drawn from the legal industry’s 2013 American Lawyer AmLaw 100 annual list of largest revenue-grossing firms. The sample for this study had to meet the following criteria: firms chosen were US law firms; each firm chosen must specialize in a specific litigation area rather than general litigation for objectivity into litigation type; half (three out of the six) were chosen from the top quartile and half (three out of the six) from the bottom quartile for objectivity on financial ranking. Finally, firms chosen must utilize social media including Twitter in business communications.

Data Analysis

To answer the two research questions raised in this study and test the two hypotheses, we used a quantitative methodology, a causal comparative research design, with a historical content analysis data collection technique. Twitter social media postings initiated by law firms were pulled beginning in March 2014, in reverse chronological order until February 2009. Diction 7.0 software was used to extract rhetorical tone for a descriptive summary of variables linked to OIM strategies. The researchers further used Yuthas, Rogers and Dillard’s (2002) method of statistical significance on the resulting Diction scores. Finally, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to answer the research questions, in which, the independent variables were gross annual revenues of law firms, defined as upper and lower quartiles of the AmLaw 100 list. The dependent variables were OIM strategies measured by rhetorical tone of five variables, Optimism, Certainty, Activity, Realism and Commonality, by the largest revenue-grossing US law firms. The five dependent variables are defined in the Diction Software manual (Hart, 2014).

Results

First, we used content analysis software to identify the dependent variables because of its objectivity, validity and control for inter-rater reliability issues (Krippendorff, 2013). Diction software in particular was used to maintain consistency with prior OIM studies (Bravo, Matute & Pina, 2012; Craig & Brennan, 2012; Hall, Pennington & Lueders, 2013; Parhankangas & Ehrlich, 2012; Patelli & Pedrini, 2013; Tyler et al., 2012). Diction is based on a collection of such narratives since the 1960s (Craig, Mortensen & Iyer, 2013). Its robustness indicates empirical validity, and its automated analysis warrants measurement validity (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013). Accordingly, Diction software was used to analyze the tweets of six law firms from the AmLaw 100 over a 5-year period. The resulting Diction scores are listed in Table 4.

Table 4.

Distribution of Dependent Variables

	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std Dev
Activity	6	47.52	52.36	49.8767	1.55411
Optimism	6	43.95	51.85	49.0417	2.71279
Certainty	6	37.91	45.21	40.9067	2.47043
Realism	6	41.48	45.09	42.9417	1.48948
Commonality	6	47.88	50.41	49.4417	0.98296
Valid N (listwise)	6

Source: Authors’ own.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1 suggests that more successful law firms and less successful law firms (measured by the company’s annual revenues) would practice different OIM strategies on Twitter. The results from the ANOVA analysis are presented in Table 5. It appears there is no statistical difference between the law firms in the top quartile and the law firms in the bottom quartile of the AmLaw 100 list under all the five categories of OIM strategies being observed. Therefore, even though on average, higher revenue law firms in the top quartile seem to display higher levels of Certainty, corresponding to findings in prior research (Craig et al., 2013; Pollach & Kerbler, 2011), Hypothesis 1 is rejected.

Alternatively, it seems upper quartile firms showed higher Optimism scores than lower revenue firms over 5 years. Though not statistically significant, to some extent, Diction scores indicated that this study’s findings agree with prior findings that higher Optimism was exhibited by higher revenue firms (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013).

Hypothesis 2 suggests that law firms’ OIM strategies on Twitter changed over time (from 2010 to 2014). Table 6 shows the results of our ANOVA analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in Activity and in Realism over the years. By observing the mean scores of each item over the years, the variable Activity scored higher in 2011, perhaps due to the economic downturn caused by the mortgage and housing industries. This can be construed that organizational communications fluctuate with the state of the economy. Based on this study, law firms apparently used more action words in 2011 as compared to 2014 to stimulate consumer engagement in a tough economy.

Table 5.

Comparison of Rhetorical Tone between Upper and Lower Revenue Quartiles

OIM Metric	Revenue	M	SE	F	P
Optimism	LowHigh	48.0250.32	1.191.19	1.86	0.25
Certainty	LowHigh	38.1941.23	0.840.84	6.55	0.06
Activity	LowHigh	49.4749.22	0.400.40	0.20	0.68
Realism	LowHigh	43.7241.38	1.111.11	2.23	0.21
Commonality	LowHigh	48.1249.04	5.225.22	1.54	0.28

Source: Authors’ own.

Table 6.

Comparison of Rhetorical Tone over 5 Years

OIM Metric	Year	M	SE	F	P
Optimism	20102011201220132014	49.4148.3649.9449.2848.87	1.551.460.390.461.13	0.70	0.60
Certainty	20102011201220132014	39.1942.3641.2138.2137.59	1.880.970.891.641.91	2.07	0.12
Activity	20102011201220132014	49.6651.3449.0348.2748.44	0.400.300.671.050.42	3.67	0.02
Realism	20102011201220132014	39.8940.0544.3843.9944.43	2.042.100.940.870.92	3.09	0.04
Commonality	20102011201220132014	48.3949.1748.3148.5848.47	0.580.460.870.580.38	0.46	0.77

Source: Authors’ own.

Another interesting observation is that the Commonality scores for all firms were lower in years 2010 and 2012 than Diction’s normative range even though there is no statistically significant difference in Commonality scores over the 5 years of time being examined. It may conclude that law firms did not feel the need to adjust messages based on colloquial language and idiomatic values. Thus, the finding was that communication of Activity presented a statistically significant difference of the five OIM metrics used in this study. Apparently, volatile economic times necessitate that successful firms communicate higher Activity in their social media communications, represented by aggressive language featuring change, accomplishment, motion and avoidance of inertia. Hypothesis 2 is partially accepted.

Discussion

According to prior OIM research, high-reputation firms use present tense to exemplify what they are doing, in contrast to low-reputation firms that imply what they attempt to do (Craig & Brennan, 2012). The present study’s findings agreed that textual content of high-reputation firms demonstrates straightforward, no-nonsense style. Other inferences based on the findings in this study include that upper quartile firms of the AmLaw100 list generally exhibited higher levels of Certainty. This variable indicates resoluteness, tenacity, self-reference and embellishment, and has been related to Direct Assertive behaviours on the OIM taxonomy (Pollach & Kerbler, 2011; Schniederjans et al., 2013). Although this study did find statistical differences between higher revenue and lower revenue law firms, prior literature suggests that successful firms are inclined to use language reflective of Certainty in their social media communications (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013). The sample is reflective of successful law firms in general, without consideration of firms not appearing on the AmLaw 100 list. The implication is that more analysis using a different sample might yield different results.

Moreover, upper quartile firms exhibited higher Optimism scores each year compared to lower-revenue firms, although not statistically significant. However, the Diction scores indicated that higher Optimism among the upper quartile firms equated to higher revenues, similar to prior research (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013). Optimism is a direct assertive OIM behaviour (embellishment), whereby an organization actively endorses its own causes, people or events, highlighting its positive accomplishments (Pollach & Kerbler, 2011; Schniederjans et al., 2013). Thus, it can be inferred that direct assertive behaviours, specifically Optimism and Certainty, are traits exhibited by higher revenue firms.

Yet other researchers have stated that philanthropy and claims of social responsibility represent the OIM direct assertive category of exemplification (Pollach & Kerbler, 2011). Embellishment is also a component of Diction’s Master Variable Activity. However, the overall scores on the Master Variable Activity were within Diction’s normative range. Organizations flaunt corporate social activity, philanthropy and associations with welfare organizations to gain prestige. This statement contradicts McDonnell and King (2013), who studied past behaviours used to buffer future reputational threats. This study found that neither the upper nor the lower revenue quartiles exhibited high Activity but, rather, fell within Diction’s normative range.

While the variable Activity did not display any difference between firms, the upper quartile scored lower than the lower ranking firms on Realism and higher on Commonality. Commonality scores tend to increase when organizations uses engaging language as a sign of sincerity (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013). Higher Commonality scores have been positively associated with financial performance (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013). Hence, lower revenue quartile firms in this study exhibited lower Commonality scores on average and were lower than Diction’s normative range. In conclusion, this study found that use of engaging language and group values, indicative of high Commonality, is an OIM strategy used by financially successful firms. Similarly, it can be deduced that successful firms avoid excessive use of ordinary, common, unremarkable language, representative of the variable Realism, in their social media communications.

Theoretical Contributions

The present study contributed to Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical self-presentation theory. Research has shown that organizations try to control, maintain and manipulate their image to stakeholders. Yet, very few studies on OIM have been conducted on social media. This research is especially important for law firms because of content constraints and legal implications of posting what could be construed as legal advice.

Overall, this exploratory analysis contributed to OIM theory of organizational communications by testing OIM in a new setting, through social media. The findings aligned with prior research that higher Optimism was positively related to higher revenues (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013). The implication for marketing managers is that creation of optimistic messages in social media may equate to higher revenues, since higher revenue firms posted more messages indicative of immediate, everyday matters indicative of Realism. Similarly, Commonality scores were higher among higher revenue firms. The findings may be applicable across social media, including LinkedIn, Facebook and blogs, since many companies post similar communications across different social media platforms (Kwok & Yu, 2016).

This study also contributed to OIM research through exploratory analysis using longitudinal data. To date, very few studies have conducted longitudinal analysis of communications within social media (Kwok et al., 2015). Organizational communications change over time due to many factors. These changes could be responses to economic, environmental and other external factors, or they could reflect internal changes. Longitudinal studies may give insight to how successful firms communicate to stakeholders given changes over time. The information is applicable to managers, since this study found statistical differences among OIM strategies on Twitter over time.

Practical Contributions

Practitioners can use results of this study to reformulate corporate OIM strategies in social media communications. Prior research suggests that OIM is pervasive in organizational communications via social media, and successful organizations display more optimistic messages (Optimism) focused on group values (Commonality) (Patelli & Pedrini, 2013; Schniederjans et al., 2013). The indication is that successful organizations use multiple OIM strategies to exaggerate positive qualities, while downplaying the negative.

This study’s findings are significant for law firms, since AmLaw 100 firms billed more hours and pulled in higher fees, even as the economy slowed in 2013 (The American Lawyer, 2013). Consequently, law firms in the second 100 ranking also fared better than other US law firms in demand for and payment of legal services. Even though no statistically significant difference was found among law firms in this study, our observations of successful law firms’ OIM strategies on Twitter may provide a benchmark for those seeking to increase their financial standing. Finally, the statistically significant differences found over the 5-year time period suggest that successful firms alter their OIM messages over time. This information may prove beneficial for managerial decision-making concerning responses to changes over time.

Research Limitations and Future Studies

This study confirmed prior research findings that higher revenue-grossing firms communicate higher Optimism and Certainty in their communication to the public. The study found a statistically significant difference on Activity between years 2011 and 2014 among all law firms collectively. While this study added to the body of knowledge on organizational communications and OIM, several limitations must be addressed.

First, the population of firms appearing on the prestigious AmLaw100 list may not be representative of law firms in general. Second, the brief posts from Twitter allowed for a higher number of messages to be analyzed, although other social media may have provided richer content. Future studies should consider other social media sites used by law firms.

Third, this study only analyzed law firms’ OIM strategies on Twitter. Researchers are advised to examine whether the research findings will differ in different industries and on various social media websites. Finally, given the reciprocal nature of social media, it would be practical to conduct research on public perspectives of organizational communications. The ability of two-way communications has made social media that much more important for organizations to carefully craft their public image (Brennan, Merkl-Davies & Beelitz, 2013).

Conclusion

The study can offer guidance to others in formulating organizational communications strategies. Based on Goffman’s (1959) theories, it has contributed to the study of organizations trying to attain approval, status and prestige from various stakeholders through OIM (Highhouse et al., 2009). Organizational impression management is often achieved through strategic organizational communications in order to control information to influence stakeholders’ perceptions. The focus of this study was on units of Twitter messages instead of number of firms, although a larger sample size may have offered more insightful results. Tyler et al. (2012) suggested that the OIM model be tested in other industries and different types of organizations. The present study should be extended in the future to include stakeholders’ perceptions of organizational communications. Through future studies of OIM strategies via social media, researchers may find consistent themes in messages and the right technological options for communications (Vielhaber & Waltman, 2008).

References

Avery

D.R.

, & McKay

P.F.

(2006). Target practice: An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 157–187.

Bolino

M.C.

(1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82–98.

Bolino

M.C.

, Kacmar

K.M.

, Turnley

W.H.

, & Gilstrap

J.B.

(2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109.

Bolino

M.C.

, & Turnley

W.H.

(1999). Impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 187–206.

Bravo

, Matute

, & Pina

J.M.

(2012). Corporate social responsibility as a vehicle to reveal the corporate identity: A study focused on the websites of Spanish financial entities. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(2), 129–146.

Brennan

N.M.

, Merkl-Davies

D.M.

, & Beelitz

(2013). Dialogism in corporate social responsibility communications: Conceptualising verbal interaction between organisations and their audiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 665–679.

Carlson

, Carlson

, & Ferguson

(2010). Deceptive impression management: Does deception pay in established workplace relationships? Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 497–514.

Chang

(2008). To donate or not to donate? Product characteristics and framing effects of cause-related marketing on consumer purchase behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 25(12), 1089–1110.

Chilcutt

A.S.

(2009). The ‘reality’ of Southwest: A content analysis of managing organizational impression tactics during a season of ‘Airline’. Public Relations Journal, 3(3), 1–22.

10.

Colleoni

(2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 228–248.

11.

Craig

, & Brennan

N.M.

(2012). An exploration of the relationship between language choice in CEO letters to shareholders and corporate reputation. Accounting Forum, 36(3), 166–177.

12.

Craig

, Mortensen

, & Iyer

(2013). Exploring top management language for signals of possible deception: The words of Satyam’s Chair RamalingaRaju. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 333–347.

13.

Dekay

S.H.

(2012). How large companies react to negative Facebook comments. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(3), 289–299.

14.

Demay

J.E.

(2011). The implications of the social media revolution on discovery in U.S. litigation. The Brief, 40(4), 55–64.

15.

, Bhattacharya

C. B.

, & Sen

(2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR in communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x

16.

Goffman

(1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

17.

Halim

, & Jaafar

(2012). Intangibles disclosure and capital-raising in Australia: An analysis of information intensity. Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting & Finance, 8(2), 69–91.

18.

Hall

J.A.

, Pennington

, & Lueders

(2013). Impression management and formation on Facebook: A lens model approach. New Media & Society, 15(6), 1–25.

19.

Hambrick

M.E.

, Simmons

J.M.

, Greenhalgh

G.P.

, & Greenwell

T.C.

(2010). Understanding professional athletes’ use of Twitter: A content analysis of athlete tweets. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 454–471.

20.

Hart

(2014). Diction (Version 7.0): The text analysis program [Computer software]. Retrieved 20 January 2015, from http://www.dictionsoftware.com/

21.

Highhouse

, Brooks

M.E.

, & Gregarus

(2009). An organizational impression management perspective on the formation of corporate reputations. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1481–1493.

22.

Jin

, & Lee

(2010). The influence of regulatory fit and interactivity on brand satisfaction and trust in e-health marketing inside 3D virtual worlds (second life). Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 13(6), 673–680.

23.

Jones

, & Pittman

(1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In Suls

(Ed.). Psychological Perspectives on the Self. (pp. 231–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

24.

Kilgour

, Sasser

S.L.

, & Larke

(2015). The social media transformation process: Curating content into strategy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(3), 326–343.

25.

Krippendorff

(2013). Content analysis: An introduction (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

26.

Kucuk

(2010). Negative double jeopardy revisited: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Brand Management, 18(2), 150–158.

27.

Kwok

, & Yu

(2013). Spreading social media messages on Facebook: An analysis of restaurant business-to-consumer communications. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 84–94.

28.

Kwok

, & Yu

(2016). Taxonomy of Facebook messages in business-to-consumer communications: What really works? Tourism and Hospitality Research, 16(4), 311–328.

29.

Kwok

, Zhang

, Huang

, Yu

, Maharabhushanam

, & Rangan

(2015). Documenting business-to-consumer (B2C) communications on Facebook: What have changed among restaurants and consumers? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 7(3), 283–294.

30.

Leary

, & Kowalski

(1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34

31.

LexisNexis. (2014). Global social media check up: A global audit of law firm engagement in social media methods. Retrieved 20 January 2015, from http://www.martindale-hubbell.co.uk/socialmedia

32.

Lillqvist

, & Louhiala-Salminen

(2014). Facing Facebook: Impression management strategies in company-consumer interactions. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(1), 3–30.

33.

Lovejoy

, Waters

R.D.

, & Saxton

G.D.

(2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.

34.

Matejek

, & Gössling

(2014). Beyond legitimacy: A case study in BP’s ‘green lashing’. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 571–584.

35.

Mathioudakis

, & Koudas

(2010). Twittermonitor: Trend detection over the twitter stream. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (pp. 1155–1158). West Lafayette, IN: ACM.

36.

McDonnell

, & King

(2013). Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 387–419.

37.

Miller

C.C.

(2009, August 25). Who’s driving Twitter’s popularity? Not teens. The New York Times. Retrieved 20 January 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/technology/internet/26twitter.html?em

38.

Mohamed

, Gardner

, & Paolillo

(1999). A taxonomy of organizational impression management tactics. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 7(1), 108–130.

39.

Nagy

, Kacmar

, & Harris

(2011). Dispositional and situational factors as predictors of impression management behaviors. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12(3), 229–245.

40.

O’Keefe

, & Conway

(2008). Impression management and legitimacy in an NGO government (University of Tasmania School of Accounting & Corporate Governance Working Paper Series No. 2). Retrieved 20 January 2015, from http://eprints.utas.edu.au/6193/1/OKeefeConwayForAuthorReview.pdf

41.

Parhankangas

, & Ehrlich

(2012). If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all: How blasting the competition affects your chances of raising business angel funding. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 32(1), 1.

42.

Patelli

, & Pedrini

(2013). Is the optimism in CEO’s letters to shareholders sincere? Impression management versus communicative action during the economic crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 19–34.

43.

Pollach

, & Kerbler

(2011). Appearing competent: A study of impression management in U.S. and European CEO profiles. Journal of Business Communication, 48(4), 355–372.

44.

Rahman

(2012). Impression management motivations, strategies, and disclosure credibility of corporate narratives. Journal of Management Research, 4(3), 1–15.

45.

Romenti

, Murtarelli

, & Valentini

(2014). Organisations’ conversations in social media: Applying dialogue strategies in times of crises. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 19(1), 10–33.

46.

Saxton

G.D.

, & Guo

(2012). Conceptualizing web-based stakeholder communication: The organizational website as a stakeholder relations tool. Communication & Science Journal. Retrieved 20 January 2015, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2189036

47.

Schniederjans

, Cao

, & Schniederjans

(2013). Enhancing financial performance with social media: An impression management perspective. Decision Support Systems, 55(4), 911–918.

48.

The American Lawyer. (2013, May 10). The AmLaw 100. The American Lawyer. Retrieved 5 October 2013, from http: www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202596373262

49.

Turnley

, & Bolino

(2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351–360.

50.

Tyler

J.M.

, Connaughton

S.L.

, Desrayaud

, & Fedesco

H.N.

(2012). Organizational impression management: Utilizing anticipatory tactics. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 336–348.

51.

Vielhaber

, & Waltman

(2008). Changing uses of technology: Crisis communication responses in a faculty strike. Journal of Business Communication, 45(3), 308–330.

52.

Vinson

K.E.

(2010). The blurred boundaries of social networking in the legal field: Just ‘face’ it. The University of Memphis Law Review, 41(2), 355–412.

53.

Westphal

, Park

, McDonald

, & Hayward

(2012). Helping other CEOs avoid bad press: Social exchange and impression management support among CEOs in communications with journalists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 217–268.

54.

Winter

, Saunders

, & Hart

(2003). Electronic window dressing: Impression management with websites. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(4), 309–322.

55.

Yuthas

, Rogers

, & Dillard

J.F.

(2002). Communicative action and corporate annual reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 141–157.

56.

Zeller

, Stanko

, & Jin

(2012). Investigating presentational change in company annual reports: An extension. Accounting & Financial Studies Journal, 16(3), 1–12.