Abstract
This study is based on the observation that the theoretical literature examining how government can improve the efficiency of its communication with business audiences has paid only limited attention to the technical (or formal) organization of the communicative process. The paper presents a quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of the use of different communication channels and of the use of multi-channel communication strategies. In doing so, it introduces the concept of “communicative result” as the criteria for measuring efficiency. It further compares the technical parameters of different channels in terms of their reliability, speed, and effectiveness. It considers the impact of cultural factors on the efficiency of communication channels. It presents a data-driven framework for evaluating and developing efficient government communication channels within specific national, cultural conditions.
Using the data collected in Russia, the paper presents how the most widely used government communication channels for voluntary, inter-active communication with business audiences actually work in practice. The empirical research draws from 1,065 individual government uses of specific channels to reach small, medium and large-scale business. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variation (ANOVA) and correlation analysis of channel complementarity and effectiveness. The study also explores the patterns of use of channels by businesses characterized as having different levels of innovation status and as operating with different levels of oversight or regulation by government.
Utilizing the overall theoretical framework and the specific information provided from studies in Russia, the paper presents some specific characteristics of the use of communication channels by Russian business, as well as a number of internationally relevant issues. It finds that: (1) Personal contact, either directly or through known intermediary acquaintances is the most efficient means of communicating with Russian business. (2) The smaller the number of steps in the communication chain, the quicker the response achieved. (3) Use of “mediated contact” is more important in reaching most types of businesses in Russia that in other countries. (4) Government organizations need to select the proper composition of various communication channels to achieve the most efficient results. (5) Just as in the study of any other communication, consolidation of the technical characteristics of communication channels and empirical data should be used to review the efficiency of government and business interactive communications.
Keywords
Introduction and statement of the problem
Government and business communication in contemporary society
Improving government and business communication has recently become one of the most important tasks for government agencies [1]. Implementing the concepts of open government, public participation, and governance 2.0 have presented challenges for governments seeking to “stay in touch” with business organizations [2, 3]. In many countries, collaboration, awareness, participation and ongoing interaction not only with citizens, but also with business organizations, has become an important attribute of change in governance, particularly in government information policy. In such countries, there is a shift in the regulatory function of the state towards more open and more interactive exchange. Business organizations now have a real chance to contribute to improving and developing public policy and governance.
Over the last twenty years researchers have demonstrated increasing interest in the issues of government interaction with business. Most of these studies consider the broad philosophical, sociological or ethical point of view, describing the concepts of government and business communication [4]. The most widely explored framework for this discussion is the social responsibility of business [5, 6], which implies a moral obligation for business to be more informed and to act as a more involved member of society, sharing responsibility with the government for policy making and strategic decisions. Some studies explore business attitudes to these changes in communication and participation. O’Neill and Harsell [7] stress that in the contemporary logic of governance, those business representatives who do not participate in communication with government regarding public policy may find themselves in a competitive disadvantage.
Thus, the existing literature gives a rather solid background of explanation why the communication of government and business should be developed in more intensive way in contemporary society. However, there is very little research on how from a technical or formal point of view this new emphasis on communication should be efficiently organized. There are a few studies examining communications between government and business that analyze the technical efficiency of communication channels [8]. Most of these studies are focused on the new forms of governmental information platforms and the benefits of Web 2.0 [9, 10], while investigation of the more traditional use of mail surveys [11] is almost lost as a subject for analysis.
The lack of understanding of how to efficiently organize the technical side of government and business communication poses risks for the success of this entire paradigm. It is obvious that communication between government and business does take place, but little is known about how exactly it does take place. We know that both government and business use different communication channels, either individually or in combination [12]. However, we have very little empirical data showing how this communication happens in practice and which channels are most efficient in receiving results from these communications.
Consider, for example, a situation in which a government agency is considering some new regulatory measure that will have differential impact on different sizes and types of businesses. Assuming that the government agency wants to solicit input, how can they determine the different positions that may be taken by various types and sizes of business? What communications channels should be used to effectively and efficiently obtain responses from small, medium and large companies? Should the government use the same channels for each or should it use different channels? In its choice of communication channels, should the government also take into account the location of the business, the level of technical sophistication and type of business? The answers to these questions and the resulting government communications strategy for choice of communication channels could be a critical factor for the communication process in soliciting business feedback on the proposed regulation in a way that improves the quality of governance overall.
Communication channels
From a formal (or technical) point of view, communication between government and business is quite similar to any other bidirectional interaction, i.e. business communications with consumers or partners. At its core, any communication presupposes call and response using certain communication channels.
The classic definition of a communication channel characterizes it as the technical (or formal) side of the communication process that allows us to transfer information from sender to receiver and vice versa [13]. A communication channel includes all the means for the creation and acceptance of a message, i.e. signs, language (including body language), codes, technical devices etc. A channel is a means of communication that an organization can either select to use or can decide not to use. A particular channel could be a preferred option in certain situations or totally ignored in other circumstances. Channels can be used separately or combined with each other.
Today, business and governmental organizations rarely use a single communication channel for the transmission of their messages. Studies [14, 15] show that combinations of two or more channels are rather frequent, and that these combinations can occur either sequentially or simultaneously [16]. Dutta-Bergman [17, 18] suggests that the increased use of new communication technologies is associated with increased use of older communication technologies and face-to-face communication. Ramirez et al. [19]; Ruppel and Burke [20] show that there are a lot of situations with complementarity, using different communication channels, like telephone, text messaging and e-mail, face-to-face communication and Facebook. Concrete preferences are dependent on levels of social competence, meaning the ability to interact in ways that are appropriate and effective [20]. The level of social competence of an organization determines its ability to use effective communication channels and particularly in combination.
Van den Boer et al. [8] showed that to fulfiil their infornamion needs, businesses use not only different channels suggested by government, but also multiple information sources, extending beyond government. In this situation, government has lost its monopoly on delivery of information to business. Still, government needs to initiate interaction with business in such a way as to elicit a response, particularly in circumstances in which business is not compelled to reply. Thus, understanding of the technical side of government and business communication to achieve results becomes critical to the new forms of inclusive governance. To get a desirable result, it is important to understand the specific characteristics of communication channels.
The principal characteristics for understanding various communications channels are as follows: reliability, speed and effectiveness.
Reliability
Reliability is a measure of certainty that the channel will function, meaning the likelihood that the communicative content (i.e. feedback or information) will be delivered. As Lapidoth and Narayan [21] stress, in many situations, both sender and receiver act without complete knowledge of the characteristics governing the channel over which transmission takes place. Reliability depends on many factors, such as the nature of channel disturbances, the information available to the sender, the presence of any feedback from the receiver or the communication skills and motivation to use this or that channel. Cultural and organizational differences can also affect reliability and build communication barriers [22]. This fact is particularly important for us, as we investigate the interaction between government and business as two different types of organizations. Where there is channel pluralism and complementarity, the reliability of the communication channel may be increased by choosing the most appropriate channel or combination of channels [23].
Speed
Speed refers to how fast it is possible to obtain a result from the communication, meaning either that information is delivered or a response is received. Communication speed is finite in terms of time and space. The response time is also associated with organizational practices and values, as well as with some individual characteristics [24]. International studies show that contemporary business communication channels like e-mail and social networks significantly accelerate the creation and broadcasting of messages as they significantly change business communicative space [25]. International innovative companies prefer digital communication channels and especially social media as the most preferable channel for this type of business [26]. In contemporary international business practice, one of the most important tasks is working with social networks and there is a lot of research shows increasing efficiency through use of these communication channels in large international companies [27].
Studies on the mutual influence of communication technologies and organization [28, 29, 30] show the impact of the information superhighway and how it affects the efficiency of organizations. First, these new communication channels enable the simultaneous transmission of a variety of information (text, audio, video, graphics and digital arrays). Second, they allow us to send huge amounts of information through one channel. Thirdly, the effects of hypertext and interactivity make it easy to process and change the information. Finally, there is a significant reduction in the cost of communication and the cost of using communication channels.
However, these changes are not exclusively positive. While there are obvious benefits from easier and quicker communication, research has found that by making so much information available, it is often difficult to obtain useful, relevant information when it is needed [31]. One way to overcome the obstacles that arise from the increasing speed of communications is the use of not one, but several communication channels [32]. As in the case of reliability, the use of different communication channels leads to receiving a higher amount of responses.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to choosing the right channel, or combination of channels to solve some particular problem and to increase organizational development [33]. As Westmyer et al. [23] state, effectiveness means that goals set for the communication interaction are fulfilled. Thus, the channel is perceived to be effective when it allows the organization to either send information or to receive responses from the recipient of that information. At the same time, the effectiveness of the channel depends on high efficiency, reliability and speed of communication.
The effectiveness of a communication channel is defined by the fact that each channel has a maximum amount of information that can be transmitted within a certain amount of time. Individuals or organizations choose alternative channels by reducing reliance on some channels and increasing reliance on others [13]. Effectiveness is also connected with the cost of communication. In most cases, the problem of effectiveness is referred to as the task of the optimizing [34] or finding the best possible solution.
The available variety of communication channels has essentially altered how government and business communicate with one another. Communicating effectively is equally important for both sides. Failure to get up-to-date information from business may be costly for timely government policy decisions. Failure to give up-to-date information reduces the influence of the interests of business in policy decisions within their particular field of economic development. Reducing or eliminating these failures can be achieved by more scientifically based understanding of communication channels.
Due to decreases in time and financial costs for channel interaction, it is possible to use multiple channels to achieve transfer of information. However, the problem of optimization still exists. Moreover, there may be issues arising from complementarity problems when combining different channels of interaction within a communicative chain.
By studying the technical aspect of government and business communication, it is possible to answer critically important questions, regarding how government can increase business feedback and communication by choosing channels to which business is more likely to respond and avoiding those that they are likely to ignore. In short, what are the best ways to organize the communication process with the least amount of time and financial cost? The answers to these questions are important for an effective communication strategy to solicit and include business feedback in government policy deliberations.
Communicative result
The focus of our attention in this paper is on whether some channels of communication lead to or do not lead to communicative result. In other words, what channels should be used and in what combination to achieve the desired result from government communications? We use the term “communicative result” to define a key measure of success of any particular act of government and business communication. The communicative result is a definite consequence from the government-initiated communication, whether through some sequential or complex utilization of communication channels. The communicative result demonstrates whether the government is shows is able to collect the information it needs from business, a positive communicative result, or is not able to collect that information, a negative communicative result.
Our earlier discussion of the effectiveness of a communication channel focused purely on its technical (or formal) characteristics, but communicative result involves assumes some of the cultural peculiarities of communication strategy design used in government and business communication, as well. Communicative result is always culturally dependent [35]. National cultures and cultural traditions of the administrative process [36, 37, 38], as well as of doing business [39] certainly constitute frameworks in which channels of interactions between the institutional agents are considered as preferable or even possible. These play a very important role as the background conditioning the reliability, speed and effectiveness of communication channels. Another culture impact comes from the fact that business typically adapts new means of communication much faster than government administrative bodies. The cultural conditionality of communication cannot be measured quantitatively, unlike effectiveness, reliability or speed. However, it should be taken into account when designing a communicative process between government and business, to get the most efficient possible communicative result.
Summing up, this article is addressed to the following research question: What are the key communication channels and how are they combined to get a communicative result in government and business communication? Our empirical study is based on data collected from studies of the communicative process a particular city and region of Russia and tests the following hypothesis:
The more likely government uses a combination of channels instead of a single communication channel, the more likely they are to obtain a positive communicative result. The more likely government customizes its choice of communication channel depending upon the size of the business, the level of business innovation, the amount of government regulation of that sector of business and the geographical location of the business, the more likely it is that they get a positive communicative result. The more frequently government choses the most effective communicative channel(s) for a particular, targeted type of business, the more likely it is that they get a positive communicative result.
Materials
The use of communication channels is rarely measured based on actual behavior. Most often it uses survey data through questionnaires. In this research, we were fortunate to be able to obtain direct objective data. Our study is based upon three previous research projects that were conducted in 2014 in the two Russian regions of the City of St. Petersburg and of the Leningrad Region. that were. The studies were based on opinion polls directed to business in small, medium and large businesses and were conducted at the request of the local governments in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region.
Thus, our study is based on previously conducted empirical research dealing with one specific type of government messaging, i.e. opinion polls. This type of messages is very specific, mostly because a reply is not obligatory. Unlike communications with a supervisory body like Tax Inspection or Fire Inspection, there are no sanctions for not replying to government opinion polls devoted to proposed policy changes or feedback on governmental actions. They are thus extremely easy to ignore and frequently considered by business organisations to be extraneous and boringly routine. However, studies show that responses to such polls have a positive impact on public policy [40]. One of these impacts is the participation of business in the processes of open government, public participation and governance 2.0 [2, 3]. That is why it is important to study better ways to improve voluntary government and business communication and to increase the communicative results from the channels utilized. This is less important when business is compelled to communicate by obligatory reporting processes.
In the three research projects that provided the data for this paper, there were a total number of 1,065 business executives polled by the governmental-affiliated research organisations. It is also important to stress, that the methodologies of all studies were set up by the analytical departments of governmental bodies, and the researchers were unable to change them.
The first study, “New forms of working spaces for young entrepreneurs in St. Petersburg”, was devoted to the specifics of new types of work spaces for young entrepreneurs in St. Petersburg, such as co-working centres, business incubators etc. The recipients of the surveys were small businesses, all with the different levels of innovation policy and generally less regulated. The sample included 321 business representatives.
The purpose of the second study, “The interaction of the regional authorities and business during the regulatory impact assessment procedures”, was to contribute to the development of a system of interaction between regional authorities and business during regulatory impact assessment procedures. This survey of 384 business representatives was conducted in the Leningrad Region. The recipients were representatives of small, medium and large business, with different levels of innovation policy and either highly regulated or with a medium level of regulation.
The aim of the third study, “The monitoring of trends in the development of regional innovation system in St. Petersburg”, was to develop a way of monitoring trends in the development of the regional innovation system in St. Petersburg. The recipients were representatives of a small, medium and big business, with medium or high level of innovation and different levels of government regulation. The sample included 360 business representatives.
Each of these research projects required establishment of contact with business representatives to get a communicative result, meaning an answer to the survey questions. In order to reach that goal and achieve a result, one, or more often several, communication channels were selected. These channel selections are the source of the data used for the research presented in this article.
In addition to the size of the business, we categorized businesses in terms of their level of innovation and in terms of the degree of government regulation of the business sector to which they belonged. For categorizing their level of innovation, we used categories devised by the OECD. These categories are highly innovative (mainly aerospace, computers, communications equipment and pharmaceuticals), middle level of innovation (mainly chemicals, electrical machinery, plastics, etc.) and low level of innovation (mainly food service, retail, clothing, etc.). These categories for classifying levels of innovation have been adopted in Russian statistics and in general world practice.
We also looked at the degree of government regulation of a particular business sector. There were similarly three levels of regulation – highly regulated, middle range and less regulated.
Procedure
Our research is based on a set of communication channels and communication chains employed in a specific order that was used to obtain replies from business representatives for our three survey research projects. There were several types of the communication channels used: (1) e-mail, (2) standard letter (3) message via social networks (Facebook, VKontakte), (4) personal face-to-face contact (a meeting) (5) telephone conversation (6) mediated contact.1
Here, it is necessary to address mediated contact as an additional element of effectiveness in communication channels that is not directly related to technical issues, but is connected to a specific cultural characteristic that plays a major role in the interaction between government and business. The reaction of Russian companies in communicating with local government and regional authorities often depends on the amount of the perceived power of those authorities to compel compliance and impact their business. For example, Russian businessmen usually ignore requests from state statistics bodies or the Labor Inspectorate, but they almost always respond promptly to the requests of the tax authorities. Russian companies are primarily interested in greater interaction with specific regional authorities from whom they might benefit in the form of state orders, subsidies and the other state support measures for companies. This interest is an external factor that also influences the intensity of communications. Very often, to get a business to respond to some “non-urgent” matters, it is necessary to resort to the help of a person, who is important for the business for other reasons. We call this “known intermediary acquaintances” or “mediated contact”. This mediated contact could be a former government bureaucrat, who has kept some link with the business; an influential person in the Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry; or possibly and important business partner. In the circumstances of our study, such mediated contacts may have written a letter to the business or more likely made a call to stress the importance of answering a questionnaire or communication sent by the local or regional government.
In total, we analysed 3001 cases of communication channel use. This figure involves 950 uses of e-mail, 557 uses of standard letter, 225 uses of message via social networks, 79 personal face-to-face contacts, 689 acts of telephone conversation, and 501 use of the mediated contact.
In conducting the study of communication chains a standard wait times for a response was set based on the technical specifications of a particular channel. Since our survey inquiries to business were made on behalf of the city and regional governments, they had the same status as an official government communication. These standard wait times were then compared with the actual average time to receive a response through the communication channels in the communication between the regional governments of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region and business.
The standard wait time used for results from communications by mail was twelve days. Despite the known difficulties of the Russian postal service [41, 42], this standard was felt to be sufficient since it was local mail distribution within the region and was priority post.
The standard wait times for e-mail and messages in social networks were three days. Electronic communications channels are usually viewed as one of the fastest [43, 33]; however, we know that in accord with the specifics of Russian business culture, business people do not typically make an immediate reply, either on social networks or to e-mail. Moreover, as communication via social networks is mostly perceived as informal, the motivation to reply is therefore vague.
Three days was the standard waiting time for receiving a reply to communication through a mediated contact. The standard wait time from personal and telephone conversation was equal to one day. In this case, we took into consideration the factor of direct contact, which makes it possible to relatively quickly understand whether the respondent is willing to provide the required information. According to the standard framework, this channel of communication is effective by definition because it is possible to persuade the person to answer the survey. However, this channel is the most labor consuming, particularly since direct meeting or telephone contact cannot be established with all respondents. Therefore, this channel was used only to reach strategically important business organizations from which it was import to receive an answer to the survey.
If the standard wait time set for a particular channel expired without a response, then another channel was used. Thus, at each stage there is data indicating whether the business answered within the standard time, less than the standard time or whether another channel was used to get a response. Once the final result (an answer) was achieved from each respondent, it is possible to construct a time matrix with the data rounded off a whole number that represents the number of days it took to get a response.
The time required to receive a reply from business was provisionally taken as a measure of effectiveness. We discounted any other costs (e.g. cost of postal stamps), because in the case of governmental communication in Russia, they are not significant for choosing the communication channel. In contrast, time is a crucial matter, because governmental research is often strictly limited in time for completing the empirical stage, due to the amount of paper work required before and after it is conducted.
Therefore, the effectiveness of channel
Reliability (
Speed
The higher the meaning of
Independent variables in the research are: a) the size of the business (small, medium, large) b) the level of business innovation (not innovative, innovative, highly innovative) c) the amount of government regulation of that business sector (highly regulated, medium regulated and loosely regulated d) the location of the business in one of the two Russian regions (St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region).
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrates that the use of a particular communication channel had a strong influence on the amount of time it took to receive a reply (
However, the inclusion in the analysis of independent variables shows that some substantial corrections in the distribution of the average parameters may be required and should be examined in more detail. This examination is reflected in Table 2. The data represented in the table shows that the business location has its impact on the effectiveness of the communication channel. For contacting business representatives located in St. Petersburg, the most frequently effective were mediated personal or telephone contact (175). For contacting companies located in the Leningrad Region, more frequently successful results were obtained via the “telephone conversation” communication channel (201). The largest spread in days for obtaining results was found using the regular mail communication channel (5.7 in St. Petersburg and 2.4 in Leningrad Region). In St. Petersburg, the minimal spread was e-mail (0.5), face-to-face (0.5), telephone conversation (0.5) and message in social networks (0.1). In the Leningrad Region, the minimal spread was through mediated personal or telephone contact (0.2). The fact that there was zero variance in both regions for the “e-mail”, “face-to-face” and “telephone conversation” channels indicates that obtaining communicative interaction via these channels in both regions required the same amount of days. The message in social networks had only one respond in total.
The size of the business has impact on the effectiveness of the communication channel, too. Results in communication with small businesses were most often obtained via “mediated personal or telephone conversation” communication channels (64), “message in social networks” (56) or “telephone conversation” (47). The communication channel “regular mail” (5.7) showed the largest spread in days to receive a reply. Across the other channels the spread is minimal. The communication channel “telephone conversation” was the decisive factor for success in conducting a survey about medium sized businesses (225) and large-scale businesses (13). The largest spread in days to receive a reply was once again through using “regular mail” (2.3 for medium sized businesses and 2.6 for large scale businesses). However, there is less variation in the data in regard to small business, with the smallest spread shown through use of the “face-to-face” and “telephone conversation” channels.
The level of innovation had a strong influence on the effectiveness of a channel. In cases of non-innovative and innovative businesses, the best results were obtained using the communication channel “telephone conversation” (17 and 260 cases respectively). The largest spread in days for receipt of an answer in these categories was found in regular mail. The minimal spread in the case of innovative business was found in use of the channels “message in social networks” (0.1), “telephone conversation” (0.2), “face-to-face” (0.3). In cases of non-innovative businesses the spread across these channels is non-existent. In highly innovative businesses, the most successful results came from using the communication channel “mediated contact” or telephone conversation” (14). The largest spread in days to obtain an answer was found in the “regular mail” communication channel” (3.7) and there was no spread in the “e-mail”, “message in social networks” and “face-to-face” channels.
Finally, the amount of government regulation of that business sector has impact on the effectiveness of a communication channel. For less regulated business the most effective communication channels turned to be “mediated contact or telephone contact” (61), “message in social networks” (56) and “telephone conversation” (40). The largest spread in days to obtain an answer for this category was using the “regular mail” (5.9) communication channel and the smallest time spreads came from using “message in social networks” and “telephone conversation” (0.1). In communicating with medium regulated business, successful results were mostly obtained via “telephone conversation” (154) and through “mediated contact or telephone contact” (105) channels. The largest spread in days to obtain an answer here was through the “regular mail” (2.4) communication channel and the minimal spread through “e-mail” (0.3) and “telephone conversation” (0.3). In the case of highly regulated business, the most successful results were obtained via the “telephone conversation” (91) channel. The largest spread in days to obtain an answer was through the “regular mail” (2.3) and through “mediated contact or telephone contact” (1.6) channels. There was virtually no time delay in obtaining responses through the “face-to-face” and “telephone conversation” channels.
The effectiveness of communication channels and of communication chains measured in a frame of time showed that in 87.7% of the cases, a reply to the survey from a business required the use of more than one act of communication, via a communication chain. This finding brings into focus the issue of complementarity of communication channels that was examined above. The following architecture of communication chain was most widespread: “e-mail – telephone conversation – e-mail” (5.8%), “mail – telephone conversation – e-mail” (5.6%), “telephone conversation – mediated contact” (4.2%), “mail – telephone conversation – engaging personal networks” (3.4%). Correlation analysis shows that the more steps a chain has, the more days are necessary to obtain a result (
However, if at the first stage a personal meeting was arranged, than on average a result was obtained in 1.3 days, independent from any further actions in 100% of the cases (31 cases). If at the first stage an e-mail was sent and then a personal meeting was held, then in 100% of the cases (39 cases), a result was obtained in 4 days. Therefore, a personal meeting and an e-mail are the optimal initial steps in communication chains.
The effectiveness analysis of the communication channels presented in Table 2 demonstrates that in general the most effective is the channel “mediated contact” (
The comparison with the defined standards via one sample Student’s T-test demonstrate major discrepancies between the supposed and actual time effectiveness of the channels (see Table 3). Thus, “e-mail” and “regular mail” channels demonstrate significantly smaller number of days than the standard. The channels “personal conversation”, “telephone” and “mediated contact” demonstrate significantly larger amount of days. The only channel that does not show any differences is a “message in social networks”.
| Location | Size | Level of innovation | Amount of government regulation | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| St. | Leningrad | Small | Medium | Big | Not | Innovative | High | Loosely | Medium | Highly | |||||||||||||
| Petersburg | region | innovative | innovative | regulated | regulation | regulated | |||||||||||||||||
| Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | Freq. | Var. | ||
| 1 | 7 | 0.5 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.3 | n/a | n/a | 1 | 1.0 | 6 | 0.4 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.3 | 1 | n/a | |
| 2 | Regular mail | 11 | 5.7 | 32 | 2.4 | 12 | 5.7 | 29 | 2.3 | 3 | 2.6 | 3 | 2.0 | 40 | 3.6 | 1 | 3.7 | 11 | 5.9 | 19 | 2.4 | 13 | 2.3 |
| 3 | Message in | 56 | 0.1 | 1 | 0 | 56 | 0.1 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 6 | 0 | 42 | 0.1 | 8 | 0 | 56 | 0.1 | 1 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| social networks | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Face-to-face | 34 | 0.5 | 38 | 0 | 25 | 0.6 | 40 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 60 | 0.3 | 7 | 0 | 25 | 0.4 | 21 | 0.4 | 26 | 0 |
| 5 | Telephone call | 84 | 0.5 | 201 | 0 | 47 | 0.1 | 225 | 0.2 | 13 | 0.1 | 17 | 0 | 260 | 0.2 | 8 | 0.1 | 40 | 0.1 | 154 | 0.3 | 91 | 0 |
| 6 | Mediated contact | 157 | 1.1 | 9 | 0.2 | 64 | 1.1 | 94 | 1.0 | 8 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.5 | 148 | 1.1 | 14 | 1.5 | 61 | 1.2 | 105 | 1.0 | 2 | 1.6 |
Effectiveness analysis of communication channels
Validity of standard reply waiting times in communication
Policy outcomes
The results of this empirical study on the most effective ways for the government to obtain a positive communicative result from business for purposes of formation of public policy are that: (1) There are different types of communication channels that should be used to reach various types and sizes of business to get a reply. In most cases, communication that gets a positive communication result is based not on a single communication channel, but on a combination of channels. (2) The data shows that different types of Russian businesses react differently to different communication channels. However, telephone calls are universally the most successful communication channel between government and all types business types (regardless of business size, level of innovations, level of regulation and location of business). These results generally support the conclusion of the van den Boer et al.’s study [8] that concludes that businesses use set combinations of channels and sources to obtain the information they need, as well as confirming the three hypotheses we set out for the empirical part of our study. (3) Also, we have find out some cultural specific of Russian government and business communication.
First of all, looking at highly innovative Russian businesses, successful results were usually obtained through face-to-face or telephone call channels. As we showed above, this is not a very typical choice of communication channel for highly innovative businesses, because innovative companies prefer digital communication channels and social media for communication with different groups of business environment [26]. Thus, this feature could be considered as a cultural specific of Russian business and government communication. Moreover, this difference in channel preference is the same in all the types of Russian business that we have studied. Russian businesses almost ignore digital communication channels. E-mail and messages through social networks are almost the least utilized channels, depending on location, rate of regulation, business size and its innovative/non-innovative character. At the same time, E-mail is a good starting point for the communication chain because it is inexpensive and has an official character or affiliation. When e-mail is used as a follow up to a personal meeting, results were obtained within a reasonable time of four days.
Secondly, in Russia, social networks are primarily used by small businesses, less regulated businesses and innovative businesses. The leaders of small, less regulated and innovative business are generally the relatively young cohorts of entrepreneurs, roughly between 35–40 years old. They understand information technology much better than the leaders of the “old generation” of business executives. Furthermore, these companies are more focused on consumer demand and as a consequence on communication with the external business environment, more than large industrial companies from the highly regulated sectors of the Russian economy. Therefore, it is logical that the smaller businesses and entrepreneurs would respond move quickly to messages in social networks. But even for these business types this communication channel is not their main channel of communication, even though Pilgun and Dzyaloshinsky [44] found that these smaller companies more actively used all sorts of social media.
Thirdly, the communication channels of Russian business also differ from the other countries in using “mediated contact” as the most effective channel for reaching most types of business. This communication type “through friends” is characteristic of “family” [45] and illegal business [46] in other countries. Thus, this practice cannot be considered exclusively Russian [47, 48]. However, in Russia it has a really important impact on communication. This can be explained by the theory of independent mindedness [49], describing the congruency between the culture created within a specific organization (i.e., micro-culture) and the larger culture (i.e., macro-culture) within which the organization operates. These types of differences allow us to characterize the use of communication channels by Russian business. Russian businesses aspire to more personal contact, directly or through intermediaries, using multimodal information (for example, tone of voice when talking on phone). More distanced and single-mode forms are less preferred (for example, a letter in the mail). Some scholars refer to this phenomenon as cronyism [50]; however, in terms of our study of the effectiveness of channels of communication, it does not necessarily have a negative meaning. Rather, we understand it as a cultural specific, which follows from Russian history and from current government-business relationships.
Finally, the supplemental use of more than one channel partly offsets the need for face-to-face and mediated communication, but does not completely eliminate this difference in Russian business communication. That is why it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the category of business when choosing a communication channel in Russia. These specifics are linked with business size, its innovative/non-innovative character, rate of regulation and location. The number of steps in the chain should be minimized. Correlation analysis indicated that the smaller the number of steps there were in the chain, the quicker result was achieved. It is necessary to elaborate the architecture of the communicative chain, taking into account the issue of complementarity [17, 19, 20]. A personal meeting and e-mail should preferably be the starting steps in the chain. At the same time, regular mail, normally an important channel for government communication can be excluded from communication chains in Russia, particularly in reaching small, innovative and less regulated business.
Limitations of the study
The contribution of this study to the research and theory of government and business communications has several limiting factors. The first limitation relates to regional particularities. We tested two regions in Russia, St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. These two are close to one another in both location and economic and political peculiarities of interaction between government and business. However, with these similarities we found different efficiencies in the basic channels of interaction. Therefore, we assume that a very different distribution of results for communication channels by speed, reliability and efficiency could be expected in other regions of Russia.
The second limitation concerns the modalities of communication, which were excluded from the research. We did not consider what led to the failure of the respondents to respond to a request through a particular communication channel. As shown by previous studies [51, 52], the cause of failure can be the behavioral characteristics of the sender. The influence of the message’s modality requires further detailed study.
The third limitation is due to the fact that we have considered only communication with government. The study of speed, reliability and effectiveness of using different communication channels in relation to other senders could also be interesting. This would facilitate observations about features of a communication channels as it relates to different social and economic agents.
Finally, the communicative interaction between government and business is a new subject of analysis in Russia. The majority of the existing research in the field is focused on the role of government communications in formation of open government. Concrete tools and channels of communication have not been the object of research, even though they could act as an initial link for improvement of government and business communication.
Conclusion
The topic of the communicative problems of government and business communication has been discussed for years, but has significantly escalated within the frameworks of e-government and digital citizenship. Yet it is surprising how little empirical research has been conducted in the particular field of government and business communication, regardless of the amount of theoretical works that emphasize the necessity of such investigation.
Despite the disclosed limitations from the geographical and political boundaries of this empirical study, our research has international significance as well. We have discussed business participation in public policy as a general conceptual framework. In addressing this topic, it is important to discuss the significance of this process for concepts of open government, or governance 2.0, but perhaps more importantly to be able to answer the question of efficient technical or formal channels of communication to provide an opportunity for business to be involved and to be heard. Business participation will not work without a careful exploration of the most effective communication channels in a particular cultural environment. It is the responsibility of government to understand and utilize the most appropriate communication channels to maximize the communicative results. This paper provides the overall approach for this analysis, based on quantitative evidence to support its theoretical framework.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors are sincerely grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments and valuable suggestions greatly improved earlier versions of this manuscript.