Corporate Diversity Communication Strategy: An Insight Into American MNCs’ Online Communities And Social Media Engagement 3030299430, 9783030299439, 9783030299446

Table of contents :
Contents......Page 6
List of Figures......Page 8
Part I: Online Corporate Diversity in the Financial Industry......Page 9
Chapter 1: Introduction......Page 10
Literature Review......Page 12
Methodology......Page 18
Chapter Preview......Page 21
References......Page 22
Chapter 2: Online Diversity Communication at JPMorgan Chase......Page 29
Quantitative Analysis......Page 31
Qualitative Analysis......Page 40
Conclusion......Page 42
References......Page 43
Chapter 3: Online Diversity Communication at Wells Fargo......Page 46
Quantitative Analysis......Page 47
Qualitative Analysis......Page 55
Conclusion......Page 57
References......Page 58
Chapter 4: Online Diversity Communication at Bank of America......Page 60
Quantitative Analysis......Page 61
Qualitative Analysis......Page 66
Conclusion......Page 70
References......Page 71
Chapter 5: Online Diversity Communication at Citigroup......Page 74
Quantitative Analysis Results......Page 75
Qualitative Analysis Results......Page 80
Conclusion......Page 82
References......Page 83
Results......Page 86
Conclusions......Page 97
References......Page 103
Part II: Online Corporate Diversity in the Tech Industry......Page 105
Introduction......Page 106
Quantitative Analysis......Page 110
Qualitative Analysis......Page 115
Implications......Page 119
References......Page 121
Introduction......Page 123
Quantitative Analysis......Page 125
Qualitative Analysis......Page 133
Implications......Page 136
References......Page 138
Quantitative Results......Page 140
Qualitative Results......Page 149
Implications......Page 150
References......Page 153
Part III: Online Corporate Diversity in the Consumer Goods Industry......Page 155
Introduction......Page 156
Quantitative Analysis......Page 158
Qualitative Analysis......Page 167
Implications......Page 168
References......Page 169
Introduction......Page 171
Analysis......Page 172
Implications......Page 176
References......Page 177
Chapter 12: Conclusions from the Consumer Goods Industry......Page 179
Contending Issues in J&J’s Online Diversity Communication......Page 180
Contending Issues in Altria’s Online Diversity Communication......Page 183
Conclusions......Page 185
References......Page 186
Part IV: Industry Comparison......Page 188
Chapter 13: New Directions for Theory and Practice......Page 189
Corporate Diversity Communication Across Industries......Page 190
Bond-Based Versus Identity-Based Attachment Across Industries......Page 194
Differences Regarding the Expressed Intention to Participate in Diversity Initiatives Offline......Page 195
Online Diversity Communication......Page 199
References......Page 203
Index......Page 207

Citation preview

Roxana D. Maiorescu-Murphy

Corporate Diversity Communication Strategy An Insight into American MNCs’ Online Communities and Social Media Engagement

Corporate Diversity Communication Strategy

Roxana D. Maiorescu-Murphy

Corporate Diversity Communication Strategy An Insight into American MNCs’ Online Communities and Social Media Engagement

Roxana D. Maiorescu-Murphy Emerson College Boston, MA, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-29943-9    ISBN 978-3-030-29944-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29944-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

‫בס"ד‬ With gratitude to my husband, Brian Murphy, and to our parents.

Contents

Part I Online Corporate Diversity in the Financial Industry   1 1 Introduction  3 2 Online Diversity Communication at JPMorgan Chase 23 3 Online Diversity Communication at Wells Fargo 41 4 Online Diversity Communication at Bank of America 55 5 Online Diversity Communication at Citigroup 69 6 Conclusions from the Financial Industry 81 Part II Online Corporate Diversity in the Tech Industry 101 7 Online Diversity Communication at Microsoft103

vii

viii 

Contents

8 Online Diversity Communication at Google121 9 Conclusions from the Tech Industry139 Part III Online Corporate Diversity in the Consumer Goods Industry 155 10 Online Corporate Diversity at Johnson & Johnson157 11 Online Corporate Diversity at Altria Group173 12 Conclusions from the Consumer Goods Industry181 Part IV Industry Comparison 191 13 New Directions for Theory and Practice193 I ndex211

List of Figures

Fig. 6.1 Diversity in context Fig. 9.1 Organizational legitimacy through diversity communication Fig. 13.1 The online diversity communication model (ODC)

94 149 204

ix

PART I

Online Corporate Diversity in the Financial Industry

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The multifarious projects that corporations develop to promote diversity and inclusion speak to the importance they attribute to embracing differences so as to abide by current legislation, understand and appeal to consumers, and attract and recruit top talent (Baker & Kelan, 2018; Knights & Omanović, 2016; Kulik, 2014; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Singh & Point, 2004; Swanson, 2002; Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017; Wondrak & Segert, 2015). Despite these efforts, the recent discrimination lawsuits faced by corporations such as Ford (Associated Press, 2018), Lockheed Martin (Campbell, 2018), and IBM (Bloomberg, 2018) raise concerns about the effectiveness of diversity programs. The 13.6% surge in the number of sexual harassment charges that the US Equal Opportunity Commission addressed  in 2018 (US Equal Opportunity Commission, 2019) and  the  recent research that evinces the reticence of job seekers to apply for jobs that stress commitment to diversity (Windscheid et al., 2017), showcase that the present approaches to diversity are in need of serious revamping. Internally, companies are facing employee fatigue and reluctance toward diversity trainings, programs, and recruitment strategies (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Kidder et al., 2004; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016) and such corporate initiatives were shown to lead to anxiety, fear (Schwabenland & Tomlinson, 2015), misunderstanding, suspicion, and conflict (Bassett-Jones, 2005; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015). Finally, studies showed that diversity recruitment and training may reinforce stereotypes and lead to employee backlash (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; © The Author(s) 2020 R. D. Maiorescu-Murphy, Corporate Diversity Communication Strategy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29944-6_1

3

4 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

Kidder et al., 2004). These results indicate that, in order to trigger significant societal changes and contribute to the well-being of the communities in which they operate, companies should take a different approach to diversity. In addition, given the changes that took place and are underway at a societal and global level, revisiting corporate diversity practices represents a desideratum for business success. It is expected that by 2060 no ethnicity will represent a majority in the US (Colby & Ortman, 2015; Madera, 2013; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Vespa, Armstrong, & Medina, 2018). Further, the typical generation Z employee values collaborative projects to an even greater degree than their millennial predecessor and appreciates the varied expertise, opinions, skills, along with the creativity and innovation that stem from collaborating with diverse colleagues (Forbes Couching Council, 2018). Finally, corporate approaches to diversity should be revisited as a result of the ongoing globalization of the market and the omnipresence of information and communications technologies (ICTs) that require companies to be culturally competent in order to survive and thrive in the marketplace (Den Hond, & de Bakker, 2016; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Roberge et  al., 2011; Sriramesh & Verčič, 2019; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015). By analysis of the diversity communication employed by America’s 2017 most profitable companies (Wieczner, 2017), this book led to the development of a theoretical framework with practical applications, which has the potential to address the aforementioned corporate challenges. Past research in business sciences and communication studies determined that the decreased interest in diversity programs, manifest by both employees and consumers, constitutes a consequence of the companies’ implementation of a business approach to inclusion, which revolves predominantly around gaining competitive advantage (Egan & Bendick, 2003; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2008; Uysal, 2013; Wrench, 2005) and leaves little to no room for stakeholder feedback. While several researchers pointed to the need for companies to address diversity by engaging their stakeholders in dialogue (Ciszek, 2019; Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2008; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Uysal, 2013), to date, few studies have attempted to explore how dialogue should be construed (Ciszek, 2019; Mundy, 2015, 2016) and what its impact may be on a company’s stakeholder groups. For example, Ciszek (2019) determined trust to be a precursor to dialogic communication with LGBTQ

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

publics and Mundy (2015, 2016) stressed the importance of an ongoing internal and external dialogue that organizations should foster in order to effectively embrace diversity. These studies have forged a new direction for research on communication and diversity that the current book is taking in order to contribute to the understanding of how dialogue should be construed. Further, the book contributes to the field by analyzing dialogue in online settings. The author was intrigued by the potential of the internet to foster conversations on diversity, particularly as offline settings were shown to be less conducive to doing so in general and with respect to dialogue during corporate trainings in particular (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016). The current chapter first discusses the literature review that led to the research questions investigated throughout this book. The literature review consists of recent and relevant research studies from social psychology, business, and communication studies. The interdisciplinary approach was necessary given the fact that the fields of social psychology and business have a longer tradition in diversity research than communication studies. However, the communication field in general and public relations in particular have the potential to make a significant contribution to creating effective dialogue on diversity. Further, this section will define the key concepts assessed in the book and explain the rationale behind their use. Next, the chapter will detail the research methodology employed for the purpose of this study and shed light on the data collection and analysis. The final section will provide a preview of the chapters.

Literature Review The business studies literature has a long tradition in investigating diversity and researchers focused predominantly on (1) the potential impact of diversity on the bottom line (Christian et al., 2006; Knights & Omanović, 2016; Shoobridge, 2006; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015); (2) inclusive organizational cultures (Fairfield, 2018; Ferdman, 2018; Hayashi, 2016; Mor Barak, 2015); (3) leadership and diversity (Ashikali & Groeneveld, 2015; Randel et  al., 2018; Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017); (4) the critique of corporate approaches to diversity (Lee et  al., 2017; Ozturk & Tatli, 2016; Poulis & Poulis, 2016; Rachele, 2017; Wrench, 2005); and finally (5) diversity and corporate citizenship (Downey, van der Werff, & Plaut, 2015; Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017). The critique of corporate approaches to diversity

6 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

revolved around the diversity management paradigm with the help of which corporations proactively reach out to diverse groups so long as these represent primary stakeholder groups, who have the potential to impact the bottom line (Knights & Omanović, 2016; Rachele, 2017). It is within this context that the ethical dimension of embracing differences emerged and raised concerns with respect to societal issues faced by ethnic and minority groups that lack buying power and, therefore, fail to garner the attention of corporate conglomerates (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Wrench, 2005). Researchers argued that by dedicating resources to certain causes over others, corporations define diversity in accord with their business interests, intruding into a domain reserved for governments and elected officials (Wrench, 2005). The utmost power  that corporations exert over the society is manifest at various levels (Alcadipani, & de Oliveira Medeiros, 2019; Deetz, 2004; McKee, Steele, & Stuckler, 2019) and, currently, a business focus on diversity enables them to “manage people with diverse characteristics” (Singh & Point, 2004, p. 296). Given the external pressure to engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to take an ethical approach to diversity, companies have started to address societal concerns raised by minority and ethnic groups that do not represent primary stakeholder groups. Research studies showed that companies have recently commenced to embrace differences by blending a business approach with a socially responsible one. Yet, the former prevails over programs directed at diverse groups that do not display buying potential (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Uysal, 2013). Given their tremendous amount of resources, where could corporations make the most contribution to the cause of diversity and what arguments could be made with respect to a return on investment that would mobilize them to take action? Our diverse neighborhoods are characterized by few interactions, leading to concerns about building social capital (Putnam, 2007). Interactions increase among diverse residents as a consequence of identification with a neighborhood and a perceived sense of belonging, yet do not surge between Anglo groups and minorities (Liu, 2018). Addressing the concern of offline interactions and social capital, Bouchillon (2018) ascertained the potential of the internet to lead to increased interactions and the display of trust among individuals who live in racial and ethnic diverse neighborhoods and had been shown to display a high level of distrust offline (Bouchillon, 2014; Putnam, 2007). It is within this context that corporations can make a significant contribution to the cause of diversity. Namely, companies foster the development of

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

brand communities (Carlson et al., 2019; Clark, Black, & Judson, 2017; Herhausen et al., 2019) or online communities that form around a firm’s official social media accounts, as users bond through the identification with the company. While brand communities have been studied in relation to their potential to shed light on consumer behavior (Liu et  al., 2019; Snyder & Newman, 2019) and with regard to the relationship building process among users (Dass et  al., 2019; Lima, Irigaray & Lourenco, 2019), research studies are yet to determine how diversity communication emerges in in this context. The present book aims to fill in this gap. Online communities represent an important means to communicate (about) diversity as a result of their potential to erase social barriers among which gender, socio-economic status, and race (Matei & Bruno, 2015; Ruggs et al., 2016; Stevens et al., 2017). In contrast to offline environments, brand communities foster anonymity and, therefore, increase self-­ disclosure, blurring the boundaries between internal (employees) and external (e.g., consumers, activists, journalists, government officials) stakeholder groups (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016). Today power relations have shifted from management to well-connected online users who have the tools needed to expose current corporate practices (Weinberger, 2011) and exert pressure on companies to take a different course of action. By shedding light on how a company’s stakeholders socially construct diversity in their online communication, the results of this study have the potential to address the current challenges that companies face in their diversity programs. Specifically, while engendering dialogue on diversity in offline settings (employee forums, trainings, induction days, etc.) may be impeded by the employees’ reluctance and reticence about the topic (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016), the anonymity of the internet can foster genuine dialogue and allow for a deeper insight into the stakeholders’ stances on present and future corporate programs. In addition, by communicating (about) diversity in online settings, companies can contribute to bridging social capital, as explained at a later stage in the chapter. Given the fact that corporations represent for-profit organizations, it behooves one to ask what they can gain by engendering dialogue and interactions around diversity in their online communities. Internally, diversity engagement through a dialogic lens has the potential to lead to long-term benefits for corporations as a result of  a  socially responsible approach. Such benefits include increased employee identification with the company, loyalty, work motivation, and low turnover intentions

8 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Brammer & Pavelin, 2006; Brammer, He, & Mellahi, 2015; Jones, 2010). External stakeholders too may be more prone to identify with a company that uses dialogue to facilitate their direct participation in the development of diversity programs. For example, having direct input in corporate practices enables consumers to perceive diversity engagement as conducted out of a concern for the society, as opposed to representing attempts to shun litigation and gain competitive advantage. In turn, perceptions of the corporations’ genuine interest in doing good may lead to increased engagement in organizational programs conducted offline (Korschun & Du, 2013; Maiorescu, 2013). Above all, corporations would gain the reputation of moral employers that past studies showed to represent an aura that allows for the recruitment and retention of top talent (Knights and Omanović, 2016; Trittin and Schoeneborn, 2017). Based on past research studies, online users initially join a brand community as a result of an identity-based attachment (Chung, Nam, & Koo, 2016; Grabowicz et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2012) or identification with the company and the overall online community that serves the brand’s purpose. In the present book the concepts of identity-based attachment and corporate identification are used interchangeably. In time, and by engaging in online interactions with other users, members of online communities are likely to exhibit bond-based attachment or attachment to other members (Grabowicz et al., 2013; Tausczik, Dabbish, & Kraut, 2014; Yu et al., 2017). Both identity-based attachment and bond-based attachment are likely to co-exist at some time or another in the life of an online community and the prevalence of one type of attachment over the other is contingent upon the number of newcomers and the degree to which online community members are willing to engage in interactions with one another (Grabowicz et al., 2013; Tausczik et al., 2014). This book assesses if and to what extent a company’s online communication about diversity manages to increase the bond-based attachment among members. Determining the presence of bond-based attachment is important due to its potential to bridge social capital (connecting people of different backgrounds) that would translate in offline settings (Bouchillon, 2014, 2018). Specifically, the reduced social distance fostered online (Atzori, Iera, & Morabito, 2014; Bauernschuster, Falck, & Woessmann, 2014) may lead to a perceived common identity as well as closeness, effects that are no longer found in offline settings (Putnam, 2007). It is likely that the way companies communicate about diversity in

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

their online communities will exert influence on the extent to which users display bond-based attachment. Consequently, a first research question was posed: RQ1: Is there a relationship between the company’s use of dialogic communication with respect to diversity and the users’ display of bond-­ based attachment? Dialogic communication was assessed by coding for the presence or absence of mutuality (Do companies attempt to collaborate with publics on diversity programs/proposals, etc.?), propinquity (Do companies ask online users for suggestions/recommendations for future diversity initiatives?), empathy (Do companies show support for the goals of a specific ethnic/minority community?), risk (Do companies create dialogue about diversity on the publics’ own terms?), and commitment (Are companies committed to diversity and to fostering dialogue about diversity? Do they value opposite views and do they try to find common ground?). These variables were derived from the main principles of dialogue developed in studies conducted in the realm of communication and public relations (Kent and Taylor, 2002; Sommerfeldt & Yang, 2018; Taylor & Kent, 2014). In addition, the companies’ dialogic communication was assessed by coding for their use of one-way versus two-way communication. One-­ way online communication was assessed by determining the presence or absence of the sole transmission of information with no request for involvement or feedback (McQuail & Windahl, 2015). By contrast, the presence of two-way communication was determined by assessing whether companies asked direct questions, whether open- or closed-ended. To ascertain whether corporate communication was conducive to triggering bond-based attachment, the study made use of several variables developed in social psychology (Bouchillon, 2014, 2018; Putnam, 2007), namely social distance, closeness (Do companies communicate about equality and/or commonalities among individuals and/or the common issues they face?), and shared experience (Do companies encourage their followers to share stories, talk about their experiences as these relate to diversity?). More precisely, the study assessed whether the companies’ online communication aimed to decrease social distance, increase closeness among online followers, and encourage information sharing and storytelling. The concept of commonalities is not used to suppress differences in any way. Rather, it refers to the erasure of social barriers such as

10 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

gender, ethnicity, and race in online settings (Matei & Bruno, 2015). The concept has the potential to lead to a bridging effect should companies enact it to complement communicative practices that revolve around the uniqueness of minority and ethnic groups. The users’ comments present in the discussion thread pertaining to each company tweet were assessed with the help of theoretical concepts from social psychology. Past research on online communities (Ren, Kraut, & Kiesler, 2007; Ren et al., 2012) determined that social interaction, self-­ disclosure, and personal attraction represented the main ingredients for bond-based attachment. Therefore, to assess the display of bond-based attachment among users, the study aimed to determine the extent to which online users made recurrent contributions in each discussion thread (social interaction) and the degree to which they engaged in storytelling which brought to light personal experiences with diversity (self-­disclosure). Finally, personal attraction was assessed by taking into account the extent to which online users communicated around perceived similarities (Ren, Kraut, & Kiesler, 2007; Ren et al., 2012). RQ2 asked if there was a relationship between the companies’ use of one-way communication and the users’ display of bond-based attachment. The question was posed to explore whether the prevalence of one-way communication led to a low display of bond-based attachment. In other words, it could be possible that the predominance of one-way corporate communication about diversity prevents users from engaging in dialogue and fails to create online bonds. In time, One-way communication may not lead to the conversion of identity-based attachment, which users display when they initially follow a company online, in to the bond-based attachment they should finally exhibit toward other members of the online community. While the assessment of one-way communication was explained in the previous paragraphs, it is important to mention that identity-­based attachment was coded by the display of the users’ agreement with a company’s operations, values, and products/services, namely in line with past studies that assessed corporate identification in online settings (Maiorescu, 2013). RQ3 investigated possible relationships among the users’ display of bond-based attachment and their online interactivity (recurrent contributions within a discussion thread) as well as their expressed intention to participate in corporate diversity initiatives offline. This question aimed to assess whether bond-based attachment has the potential to translate into offline action, consequently showcasing the potential of brand communities to build social capital. Finally, RQ4 assessed if there was a relationship

1 INTRODUCTION 

11

among the users’ display of identity-based attachment and their expressed intention to take part in diversity initiatives offline. RQ4 was worth pursuing in order to determine whether a solid corporate identification led users to take action offline and independent of the emergence of bond-based attachment. The four research questions were investigated in the case of each company analyzed in the present book. Furthermore, companies were classified based on their industry, such as the banking, the financial sector, and the consumer goods industry. The study aimed to answer to three research questions, as follows: (1) Are there any differences in corporate diversity communication across the companies in a specific industry? (2) Are there any differences in the users’ display of bond-based/identity-based attachment across the companies in a specific industry? And, finally, (3) Are there any differences in the users’ online engagement and their stated intention to take part in diversity initiatives offline? These questions were considered paramount in understanding the most effective diversity communication practices within each sector. The last stage of the study involved a comparison among the three industries analyzed. The comparison was conducted to reveal whether and to what extent there were differences in diversity communication among industries that relied more or less on innovation. Specifically, past studies (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016; Wrench, 2005) alluded to the likelihood that companies that rely more on innovation, such as those pertaining to the pharmaceutical and tech industries, may value diversity to a larger degree than those whose operations revolve primarily around routine practices (Wrench, 2005). Lastly, while tangential, the analysis also assessed the valence of the users’ messages as well as the users’ reactions to the companies’ diversity communication in the US versus abroad. The assessment of these variables will be discussed throughout the book and represents an important step toward understanding how consumers react and respond to local and global corporate diversity efforts, a present gap in the current literature.

Methodology This book focuses on America’s most profitable multinational corporations in 2017, as determined by Forbes. The selection of these companies, whose collective profit represents  $890 billion (Wieczner, 2017), is appropriate for the purpose of this study, due to the extensive resources

12 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

that such companies invest in programs meant to foster inclusion. The most profitable companies in 2017 were Apple, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Berkshire Hathaway, Wells Fargo, Alphabet, Bank of America, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Citigroup, and Altria Group. Because Apple lacked a social media presence, the company was excluded from the analysis. Furthermore, Berkshire Hathaway’s social media communication did not allow for a robust analysis, given the company’s low online communication and user engagement. Therefore, Berkshire was excluded from the study. It was considered that the analysis of the four remaining banks— namely JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup— would provide sufficient information to understand how diversity is communicated across the financial sector. In a similar vein, Alphabet’s low online interactions would have made it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about its communication practices. Consequently, for the purpose of this analysis the researcher replaced Alphabet with Google and considered that being Google’s parent company, Alphabet shared its values and employed similar communication practices. The period of analysis for this study was 60 months, namely from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017. It was considered that studying social media communication over a period of five years will allow for an in-depth and robust analysis. The samples of analysis represented  the companies’ tweets that revolved around diversity and the discussion threads they triggered among online users. Tweets that did not make reference to diversity and inclusion were excluded from the sample, as were user comments that were not written in English or were classified as spam. Each tweet and each comment it generated represented a unit of analysis. The companies were  analyzed separately based on  their own sample. Finally, the total sample of analysis was used to analyze discrepancies in diversity engagement across industries and the companies therein. Each chapter that follows provides further details about the sample of analysis and breaks down the number of user comments and corporate tweets. The data were collected from the social networking site Twitter. First, Twitter was considered the most suitable platform for this study due to user anonymity and increased self-disclosure. Second, Twitter was regarded as a medium where online users interact with corporations to a larger extent than other platforms and for reasons that range from product complaints to holding companies accountable for responsible business p ­ ractices

1 INTRODUCTION 

13

(Einwiller & Steilen, 2015; Nitins, & Burgess, 2014; Read, 2019/ in press). The present study took a mixed-methods approach. Because to date no studies combined the dialogic theory (Taylor & Kent, 2014) of public relations with concepts from social psychology, the variables discussed in the previous paragraphs were assessed with the help of a codebook that had previously been compiled after conducting a thematic analysis of the first 50 tweets posted by each company in 2017. In addition, the user comments pertaining to each tweet were analyzed to determine the direction that the codebook would be taking to assess user perceptions. The thematic analysis was conducted at a latent level, namely by looking at not only semantic meanings, but also covert ideas and assumptions (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Maguire & Delahunt, 2017) to ensure the rigorous study of online communication. The thematic analysis took an inductive-deductive approach and was driven by both the collected data and the theoretical concepts (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Maguire & Delahunt, 2017) previously discussed. During the first stage of the analysis, the researcher became familiar with the data corpus and took notes of first impressions, as recommended by Maguire and Delahunt (2017). Afterwards, the data were organized to generate initial codes that captured relevant information regarding the research questions asked in the study. New codes emerged as a result of multiple exposures to the text. The data were coded by hand, as recommended (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017) when the purpose of the analysis is to capture covert and subtle meanings within text, something that cannot be accomplished by the use of qualitative software. The next step of the thematic analysis involved the search for preliminary themes that emerged as a result of the examination of the codes and of the extent to which the latter fitted together. It was determined that some codes were part of more than a single theme and were listed as such. The themes were later reviewed and defined (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). Each company’s communication was coded based on the guidelines that resulted from the preceding thematic analysis. Several coders were trained in the procedure and took turns in assessing intercoder reliability. The details of the process are provided in each chapter. Several frequency analyses, goodness of fit tests, and chi-square tests were conducted in order to answer to the research questions asked in this study. In the case of each company, a thematic analysis was conducted to provide a deeper understanding of the users’ comments. The researcher took a bottom-up,

14 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

inductive approach, determined by the data themselves (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). Finally, comparisons among the companies in a specific industry and among industries were done with the help of several chi-­ square tests.

Chapter Preview The book is divided into four parts. Each part tackles a specific industry. The first part is dedicated to the financial industry. Chapter 2 discusses the details of a study conducted on JPMorgan Chase’s online community and diversity communication. The chapter sheds light on the impact of a solid corporate reputation on the users’ perceptions and response to diversity practices. Chapter 3 is dedicated to Wells Fargo. The results of several quantitative analyses conducted to assess online diversity communication revealed that the company’s enactment of dialogue did not lead to bond-­ based attachment. The thematic analysis performed on the users’ comments provided valuable explanations in this sense: the company’s recurrent crises and the need to reestablish trust. Diversity at Bank of America is discussed in Chap. 4 and the analysis reveals that the company should further detail and clarify its diversity approaches in order to enhance the users’ understanding of their impact. Diversity communication in Citigroup’s brand community is discussed in Chap. 5, which highlights the importance of corporate identification as well as its potential to transform online users in active participants in diversity initiatives offline. Further, Chap. 6 compares and contrasts the banks’ diversity communication and the users’ interactions in order to ascertain the most effective ways to communicate (about) diversity in the financial sector. In addition, it proposes a model with practical applications. The second part of the book tackles the tech sectors by looking at Microsoft (Chap. 7) and Google (Chap. 8) and draws comparisons between the two companies’ online communities in Chap. 9. Chapter 9 discusses the development of an organizational legitimacy model that can be applied in the context of diversity communication in the tech sector. The third part of the book discusses diversity communication in the consumer goods industry. Chapter 10 discusses the results of several analyses conducted on Johnson & Johnson’s online community. Chapter 11 looks at Altria and assesses the company’s diversity initiatives and their communication from the perspective of the “sin industry.” Despite the fact that the two companies are classified as belonging to the consumer

1 INTRODUCTION 

15

goods industries, their divergent business profiles make it impossible to compare their communication strategies. Consequently, Chap. 12 ­discusses the main implications of the studies conducted for each company, without making any analogies or drawing conclusions for the industry. The last part of the book (Chap. 13) discusses the result of a comparison across industries, introduces a model for the implementation of online diversity communication, and tackles the limitations of the current book while giving directions for future research.

References Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. Alcadipani, R., & de Oliveira Medeiros, C. R. (2019). When corporations cause harm: A critical view of corporate social irresponsibility and corporate crimes. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–13. Ashikali, T., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Diversity management in public organizations and its effect on employees’ affective commitment: The role of transformational leadership and the inclusiveness of the organizational culture. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 146–168. Associated Press. (2018, April 5). Ex-Ford employee awarded $17 million in discrimination case. New York Post. Retrieved from https://nyp.st/2XLAy8d Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2014). From “smart objects” to “social objects”: The next evolutionary step of the internet of things. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(1), 97–105. Baker, D.  T., & Kelan, E.  K. (2018). HRM practices to diversity management: Individualization, precariousness and precarity. In D. G. Collings, G. T. Wood, & L.  T. Szamosi (Eds.), Human resource management; a critical approach (pp. 117–134). New York: Routledge. Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169–175. Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., & Woessmann, L. (2014). Surfing alone? The Internet and social capital: Evidence from an unforeseeable technological mistake. Journal of Public Economics, 117, 73–89. Bloomberg. (2018, September 17). IBM is being sued for age discrimination. Fortune. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2Y4l4vx Bouchillon, B. C. (2014). Social ties and generalized trust, online and in person: Contact or conflict—the mediating role of bonding social capital in America. Social Science Computer Review, 32(4), 506–523.

16 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

Bouchillon, B.  C. (2018). Patching the melting pot: Sociability in Facebook groups for engagement, trust, and perceptions of difference. Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318791241 Brammer, S.  J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 435–455. Brammer, S., He, H., & Mellahi, K. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: The moderating impact of corporate ability. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 323–352. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Campbell, A. F. (2018, August 15). Why the gender discrimination lawsuit against Nike is so significant. Vox. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/32LpBCy Carlson, J., Wyllie, J., Rahman, M.  M., & Voola, R. (2019). Enhancing brand relationship performance through customer participation and value creation in social media brand communities. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 333–341. Christian, J., Porter, L. W., & Moffitt, G. (2006). Workplace diversity and group relations: An overview. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 459–466. Chung, N., Nam, K., & Koo, C. (2016). Examining information sharing in social networking communities: Applying theories of social capital and attachment. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 77–91. Ciszek, E. (2019/in press). “We are people, not transactions”: Trust as a precursor to dialogue with LGBTQ publics. Public Relations Review. DOI https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.02.003 Clark, M., Black, H. G., & Judson, K. (2017). Brand community integration and satisfaction with social media sites: A comparative study. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 11(1), 39–55. Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the US population: 2014 to 2060. US Census Bureau, 9, 1–13. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/09c9/ad858a60f9be2d6966ebd0bc267af5a76321.pdf Dass, S., Sethi, R., Popli, S., & Saxena, V. N. (2019, in press). Drivers of brand engagement: The role of brand communities. Global Business Review. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0972150919825516. Deetz, S.  A. (2004). Critical theory. In S.  May & D.  Mumby (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication. Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. (2016). Boomerang politics: How transnational stakeholders impact multinational corporations in the context of globalization. In A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility (pp.  321–338). New York: Routledge.

1 INTRODUCTION 

17

Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7). Retrieved from https://bit.ly/28KAo2R Downey, S. N., van der Werff, L., Thomas, K. M., & Plaut, V. C. (2015). The role of diversity practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 35–44. Egan, M.  L., & Bendick Jr., M. (2003). Workforce diversity initiatives of U.S. multinational corporations in Europe. Thunderbird International Review, 46(6), 701–727. Einwiller, A.  A., & Steilen, S. (2015). Handling complaints on social network sites- An analysis of complaints and complaints responses on Facebook and Twitter pages of large US companies. Public Relations Review, 41, 195–204. Fairfield, M. (2018). The ground for inclusion: Diversity and interdependence. Gestalt Journal of Australia and New Zealand, 14(2), 19–44. Ferdman, B.  M. (2018). Incorporating diversity and inclusion as core values in organization development practice. In D. W. Jamieson, A. H. Church, & J. D. Vogelsang (Eds.), Enacting values-based change: Organization development in action (pp. 157–167). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Forbes Couching Council. (2018, February 27). Here comes Gen Z: How to attract and retain the workforce’s newest generation. Forbes. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2McbPmJ Grabowicz, P. A., Aiello, L. M., Eguíluz, V. M., & Jaimes, A. (2013). Distinguishing topical and social groups based on common identity and bond theory. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 627–636). New York: ACM. Hayashi, M. (2016). Diversity in international policy on educational equity and inclusion of social groups: A case of 77 state parties to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 27. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Ni1iXV Herhausen, D., Ludwig, S., Grewal, D., Wulf, J., & Schoegel, M. (2019). Detecting, preventing, and mitigating online firestorms in brand communities. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 1–21. Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 857–878. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot-Mason, D., Mollica, K. A., & Friedman, R.  A. (2004). Backlash toward diversity initiatives: Examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 77–102.

18 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

Knights, D., & Omanović, V. (2016). (Mis) managing diversity: Exploring the dangers of diversity management orthodoxy. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 35(1), 5–16. Korschun, D., & Du, S. (2013). How virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs generate value: A framework and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1494–1504. Kulik, C. T. (2014). Working below and above the line: The research–practice gap in diversity Management. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(2), 129–144. Lee, D., Kirkpatrick-Husk, K., & Madhavan, R. (2017). Diversity in alliance portfolios and performance outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1472–1497. Lima, V. M., Irigaray, H. A. R., & Lourenco, C. (2019). Consumer engagement on social media: Insights from a virtual brand community. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 22(1), 14–32. Liu, L., Liu, R., Lee, M., & Chen, J. (2019). When will consumers be ready? A psychological perspective on consumer engagement in social media brand communities. Internet Research, 29 (4), 704–724. Liu, W., Son, M., Wenzel, A., An, Z., Zhao Martin, N., Nah, S., et al. (2018). Bridging mechanisms in multiethnic communities: Place-based communication, neighborhood belonging, and intergroup relations. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 11(1), 58–80. Madera, J. M. (2013). Best practices in diversity management in customer service Organizations: An investigation of top companies cited by Diversity Inc. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 124–135. Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-­ by-­step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 3351–3365. Maiorescu, R. (2013). Blogging at Mercedes-Benz. A mixed-method approach to assess corporate identity convergence in online settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, West-Lafayette, IN. Maiorescu, R. D., & Wrigley, B. J. (2016). Diversity in multinational corporations. New York: Routledge. Matei, S. A., & Bruno, R. J. (2015). Pareto’s 80/20 law and social differentiation: A social entropy perspective. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 178–186. Mazzei, A., & Ravazzani, S. (2008, January 25–26). Leveraging differences for competition: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 7th international congress on marketing trends. Venice, Italy. McKee, M., Steele, S., & Stuckler, D. (2019). The hidden power of corporations. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Retrieved from http://bit. ly/2St7GLT

1 INTRODUCTION 

19

McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (2015). Communication models for the study of mass communications. New York: Routledge. Mor Barak, M. E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is Inclusion? Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance, 39(2), 83–88. Mundy, D. E. (2015). Diversity 2.0: How the public relation function can take the lead in a new generation of diversity and inclusion (DandI) initiative. Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 2(2), 1–35. Mundy, D. E. (2016). Bridging the divide: A multidisciplinary analysis of diversity research and the implications for public relations. Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 3(1). Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2PUF50l Nitins, T., & Burgess, J. (2014). Twitter, brands, and user engagement. In Twitter and society (Vol. 89, pp. 293–304). New York: Peter Lang. Ozturk, M. B., & Tatli, A. (2016). Gender identity inclusion in the workplace: broadening diversity management research and practice through the case of transgender employees in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(8), 781–802. Poulis, K., & Poulis, E. (2016). Problematizing fit and survival: transforming the law of requisite variety through complexity misalignment. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 503–527. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-­ first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. Rachele, J. S. (2017). Dismantling diversity management: Introducing an ethical performance improvement campaign. New York: Routledge. Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., et al. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. Read, W., Robertson, N., McQuilken, L., & Ferdous, A.  S. (2019, in press). Consumer engagement on Twitter: Perceptions of the brand matter. European Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2017-0772 Ren, Y., Harper, F. M., Drenner, S., Terveen, L. G., Kiesler, S. B., Riedl, J., et al. (2012). Building member attachment in online communities: Applying theories of group identity and interpersonal bonds. Mis Quarterly, 36(3), 841–864. Ren, Y., Kraut, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Applying common identity and bond theory to design of online communities. Organization Studies, 28(3), 377–408. Roberge, M.-E., Lewicki, R. J., Hietapelto, A., & Abdyldaeva, A. (2011). From theory to practice: Recommending supportive diversity practices. Journal of Diversity Management, 6(2), 1–20. Ruggs, E. N., Walker, S. S., Blanchard, A., & Gur, S. (2016). Online exclusion: Biases that may arise when using social media in talent acquisition. In Social

20 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

Media in Employee Selection and Recruitment (pp.  289–305). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Schwabenland, C., & Tomlinson, F. (2015). Shadows and light: Diversity management as Phantasmagoria. Human Relations, 68(12), 1913–1936. Shoobridge, G.  E. (2006). Multi-ethnic workforce and business performance: Review and synthesis of the empirical literature. Human Resource Development Review, 5(1), 92–137. Singh, V., & Point, S. (2004). Strategic responses by European companies to the diversity challenge: An online comparison. Long Range Planning, 37, 295–318. Snyder, D. G., & Newman, K. P. (2019). Reducing consumer loneliness through brand communities. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(2), 337–347. Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Yang, A. (2018). Notes on a dialogue: Twenty years of digital dialogic communication research in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30, 59–64. Sriramesh, K., & Verčič, D. (Eds.). (2019). The global public relations handbook. Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Stevens, R., Gilliard-Matthews, S., Dunaev, J., Woods, M. K., & Brawner, B. M. (2017). The digital hood: Social media use among youth in disadvantaged neighborhoods. New Media & Society, 19(6), 950–967. Swanson, D. R. (2002). Diversity programs: Attitude and realities in the contemporary corporate environment. Corporate Communications, 7(4), 257–268. Tausczik, Y. R., Dabbish, L. A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014). Building loyalty to online communities through bond and identity-based attachment to sub-groups. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 146–157). New York: ACM. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. Theodorakopoulos, N., & Budhwar, P. (2015). Diversity and inclusion in different work settings: Emerging patterns, challenges, and research agenda. Human Resource Management, 54, 177–197. Trittin, H., & Schoeneborn, D. (2017). Diversity as polyphony: Reconceptualizing diversity management from a communication-centered perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 305–322. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2019). EEOC releases fiscal year 2018 enforcement and litigation data. Retrieved from http://bit. ly/2YZ2F07 Uysal, N. (2013). Shifting the paradigm: Diversity communication on corporate web sites. Public Relations Journal, 7(2), 8–36. Vespa, J., Armstrong, D. M., & Medina, L. (2018). Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.

1 INTRODUCTION 

21

Weinberger, D. (2011). The hyperlinked organization. In R.  Levine, C.  Locke, D. Searls, & D. Weinberger (Eds.), The cluetrain manifesto. Tenth anniversary edition (pp. 187–205). New York: Perseus Books Groups. Wieczner, J. (2017, June 7). The Fortune 500s 10 most profitable companies. Fortune. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2sD2CaG Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J., & Morner, M. (2017). The paradox of diversity initiatives: When organizational needs differ from employee preferences. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 33–48. Wondrak, M., & Segert, A. (2015). Using the Diversity Impact Navigator to move from interventions towards diversity management strategies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 239–254. Wrench, J. (2005). Diversity management can be bad for you. Institute of Race Relations, 46(3), 73–84. Yu, B., Ren, Y., Terveen, L., & Zhu, H. (2017). Predicting member productivity and withdrawal from pre-joining attachments in online production groups. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 1775–1784). New York: ACM.

CHAPTER 2

Online Diversity Communication at JPMorgan Chase

JPMorgan Chase & Co., America’s largest bank (McKinney, 2018), prides itself on cutting-edge diversity programs, among which is the Women on the Move, a global initiative that aims to ascertain the career barriers that women face through townhall meetings held worldwide. Since its inception in 2013, Women on the Move has reached 6000 female employees worldwide due to the commitment of two JPMorgan Chase executives, Marianne Lake and Mary Erdoes (JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2018a). Additional laudable efforts include the work of the company’s Office of Disability inclusion, that concentrates on the hiring and promotion of neurodiverse employees, such as those suffering from autism. The company’s contribution to the society through fighting and breaking the stigma around autism is notable. Other noteworthy contributions include a commitment to racial equality manifest in both the US and the UK. Specifically, the company’s mission statement details the role of Carol Lake, a JPMorgan executive, in serving on the advisory board of the UK’s Prime Minister to help facilitate equality in youth employment (JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2018a). Diversity at JPMorgan is developed and implemented in light of organizational values such as integrity, exceptional client service, operational excellence, and corporate responsibility (JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2018b) and its contributions represent the top talent that enables the company to meet/exceed its business objectives (David, 2017). Therefore, diversity appears to be triggered by integrity, exceptional client service, operational excellence, and corporate responsibility and, in turn, may exert influence © The Author(s) 2020 R. D. Maiorescu-Murphy, Corporate Diversity Communication Strategy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29944-6_2

23

24 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

on these values within a cyclic process. At any stage in this process, diversity approaches would be modeled by the needs of the company as the latter shapes its preceding values according to the business objectives it aims to meet and the expectations in the macrosystem (as evident in JPMorgan’s emphasis on corporate responsibility). Specifically, the high level of activism present in the US (Sriramesh & Verčič, 2019) may trigger diversity initiatives that do not necessarily impact the bottom line directly, but add to a positive reputation that proves an investment in the long run as a result of low turnover intentions and identification with the company manifest by both external and internal stakeholder groups (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016). For example, responding to increased media attention regarding the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi Embassy in Turkey, the company’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, joined the leaders of MasterCard, BlackRock, and Blackstone in their decision to drop out of an investment conference in Saudi Arabia (Tan, 2018). In addition, in a response to calls from the Congressional Black Caucus, the company partnered with several financial firms to create “The Diversity Project” whose aim is to ensure diversity in the financial workforce (Holman, 2018). Despite the aforementioned efforts, the bank hasn’t been spared of controversies and lawsuits. In September 2018 JPMorgan agreed to invest $4.5 million in an anti-bias program and paid $19.5 million to present and former employees in a settlement that ensued from a lawsuit claiming uniform and national racism. Further, the company recently settled for $55 million to avert a lawsuit that claimed discrimination against mortgage borrowers (Laursen, 2018). It is important to note that JPMorgan is not alone in facing discrimination lawsuits. Banks like Wells Fargo & Co. settled a similar lawsuit for $35.5 million (Laursen, 2018) and in 2013 Bank of America paid $160 million for the same purpose (Braswell, 2017; Laursen, 2018; Rosenblatt & Son, 2013). These lawsuits come in a context in which banks are still restoring their reputation, after the 2008 financial crisis revealed an internal culture that encouraged tremendous risk taking (Marria, 2018) and led to subsequent government bailouts. Not only do discrimination lawsuits continue to erode the reputation of the financial industry, but they also illustrate corporate cultures that have likely failed to accommodate the needs and expectations of employees. In its various forms, diversity (whether related to ethnicity, gender, professional experiences, or thought) and the way a company approaches it play a paramount role in the development of corporate cultures as employees should feel included, respected, and an integral part of the organizations, all of which in turn determine motivation, commitment, and finally turnover.

2  ONLINE DIVERSITY COMMUNICATION AT JPMORGAN CHASE 

25

The present chapter takes a look at JPMorgan’s social media communication and discusses the results of its diversity communication as well as its followers’ responses. It presents the findings of an inquiry into how the company communicates about diversity online, the responses its communication ensues along with its potential to trigger dialogue and create a bridging effect that would contribute to building social capital. The results stem from the application of mixed-methods of research. Several chi-square tests, frequency analyses, and goodness of fit tests were conducted for this purpose. In addition, the study made use of a thematic analysis lest the subtle meanings in the text be lost as a result of the sole implementation of statistical tests (Aronson, 1995). The total sample of analysis comprised N = 280 (42.5%) company posts that were related to diversity and N = 378 (58%) user responses. The data were collected for a period of five years, namely from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017. It was considered that this period of analysis would provide sufficient data for a robust analysis of how diversity is approached and communicated at JPMorgan. For the purpose of the interrated reliability 20% of the company’s posts and 20% of the user comments were coded by an additional coder who had been previously trained in the procedure. Every fifth company post and user comment were selected and the coder received a total of 75 user comments and 56 company posts. The interrated reliability was calculated with the use of Cohen’s kappa and was found to be k = 0.78 for the company’s posts and k = 0.81 for the users’ comments. These results indicate substantial agreement (Viera & Garrett, 2005). Because the thematic analysis involves an inductive-deductive approach that relies heavily on the researcher’s perspective and does not require intercoder reliability, the researcher conducted a rigorous analysis to ascertain the coherence of themes, patterns, and subthemes in the text (Leininger, 1985). The next paragraphs detail the results of the statistical tests and are followed by a discussion of the findings pertaining to the qualitative analysis. The chapter ends with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications.

Quantitative Analysis Two frequency analyses and goodness of fit tests were conducted on the collected data: the first analysis revealed the frequency of the assessed variables across the company’s posts and was followed by the frequency analysis of the users’ comments. The company discussed its diversity programs

26 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

in the US in 33.4% of the posts (n = 220) while its efforts abroad emerged to a lesser degree (9.0%, n  =  59). In doing so, JPMorgan focused on employee diversity in 10.6% (n = 70) of its overall diversity communication, while programs addressed to external constituencies emerged to a larger degree (24.4%, n = 161). Online communication does not necessarily mirror a company’s operations; therefore, the results do not imply that JPMorgan focuses on external diversity to a larger degree than it does on employee programs. Further, depending on the company’s overall reputation and history of diversity-related crises, the attempt may be perceived as sincere and, therefore, embraced by online users, or viewed as disingenuous and, rejected as “window dressing,” a term used by Trittin and Schoeneborn (2017) to illustrate the public relations practices involved in the process of diversity promotion. The qualitative analysis of user comments will provide further insight into the effectiveness of these messages and will be discussed at a later stage in the chapter. In its overall diversity communication, the company expressed commitment to diversity in 13.8% (n = 91) of its posts and its pursue of minorities’ best interests in 19.0% (n = 125). The dialogic approach the company was taking was evident in posts that denoted empathy toward the issues faced by minority communities (10.0%, n = 66), a focus on developing diversity programs through stakeholder collaboration (4.1%, n = 27), along with messages on equality (17.3%, n  =  114). Despite a low presence (7.3%, n = 48), the communication process denoted commonalities among individuals of various backgrounds (n = 48), which has the potential to trigger a bridging effect. The analysis revealed that JPMorgan could further expand its dialogic approach to diversity through the dimension of risk (Taylor & Kent, 2014), that in this study was assessed by the degree to which the company engaged its minority online followers in discussions aimed to inform future corporate practices. Specifically, the analysis looked at whether the company was asking for feedback on its past/current projects or for recommendations for the development of future ones. During the period of analysis, the dialogic risk emerged solely once (0.4%, n = 1). The frequency analysis conducted on the user posts (58%, n  =  378) generated by JPMorgan’s diversity communication revealed recurrent user contribution in 23% of the posts (n  =  87), as followers returned to the company’s initial diversity tweets to engage in further conversation. These results corroborate previous findings that revealed the potential of the internet to reduce social distance (Atzori, Iera, & Morabito, 2014;

2  ONLINE DIVERSITY COMMUNICATION AT JPMORGAN CHASE 

27

Bauernschuster, Falck, & Woessmann, 2014); erase social markers such as gender, ethnicity, and race (Matei & Bruno, 2015); and enable engagement in dialogue around topics that are generally rather difficult to discuss in offline settings (Maiorescu, 2016; Turner, Grube, & Meyers, 2001). Given the fact that past studies showed that diversity communication has the potential to lead to anxiety, fear (Schwabenland & Tomlinson, 2015), reticence, and fatigue (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016), the role of social media platforms in engendering diversity-centered conversations cannot be overstated. The recurrent user engagement in these conversations could perhaps be best explained by Jin et al. (2013) who determined self-­ efficacy and satisfaction to be predictors for recurrent online contributions. The company’s dialogic communication could lead to perceptions of self-efficacy that, in addition to increasing online engagement and despite a low presence, resulted in expressed intention to engage in offline diversity projects (0.8%, n  =  3). Moreover, the online engagement may have been engendered by user satisfaction (coded here in terms of the valence of the user comments; a positive tone emerged in 9.5%, n = 36). The potential of social media to trigger conversation around diversity was further bolstered by the fact that online users shared their experiences with diversity in about a fifth of their online interactions (18.3%, n = 69), as they discussed discrimination, opined on corporate diversity practices, and made suggestions for future diversity approaches. While the majority of the online interaction had a positive valence (9.5%, n = 36), users expressed a negative stance toward the company’s approaches to diversity in 7.7% (n = 29) of the comments. The difference isn’t substantial and, therefore it becomes paramount to understand the reasons behind the positive versus negative reception of diversity messages, something that the chapter will tackle at a later stage, as it introduces the results of the qualitative analysis. Interestingly, while predominantly the users’ posts denoted no identification with the company (63.8%, n  =  241) and disagreement with JPMorgan’s overall business strategies emerged in more than a quarter of the posts (27.8%, n = 105), users showed support for its diversity efforts (16.1%, n = 61) to a larger extent than they expressed disapproval (11.6%, n = 44). The fact that stakeholders are likely to embrace diversity programs regardless of whether they agree or disagree to the company’s other operational aspects suggests the potential of diversity programs to add to a company’s overall reputation. Moreover, such perceptions may emerge as a result of the morality behind diversity programs which

28 

R. D. MAIORESCU-MURPHY

appeals to the general public on a more personal level (Maiorescu & Wrigley, 2016). It is worth mentioning that user responses to diversity tweets were predominantly neutral (72%, n = 272) and further investigation is required to determine the extent to which and how dialogic communication may transform inactive users into active ones. In line with these findings, the study showed a low presence (0.8%, n = 3) of the users’ intention to take part in diversity initiatives offline. A low presence emerged for posts that denoted the users’ perceptions of similarity (6.1%, n  =  23), therefore implying the company’s online community can further benefit from messages that trigger a bridging effect among users of different backgrounds which, in turn, may increase the likelihood of offline engagement in diversity programs. Following the preceding frequency analyses, several chi-square tests were conducted to answer to the study’s four research questions (RQs), whose investigation is discussed next. RQ1 aimed to ascertain  the  relationship between the company’s dialogic communication and the users’ development of bond-based attachment. The question investigated whether dialogue had the potential to trigger a shift from identity-based attachment (Grabowicz, Aiello, Eguíluz, & Jaimes, 2013; Tausczik, Dabbish, & Kraut, 2014) or the identification with the brand, which determines online users to first join an online community, toward their later attachment for other community members. The company’s dialogic communication was assessed with the help of the five dialogic principles (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Taylor & Kent, 2014) and the data were coded for mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, and commitment, as detailed in Chap. 1. Additional variables were introduced to assess the company’s dialogic efforts, namely the degree to which corporate messages stressed commonalities among individuals (to increase online interaction through perceived similarities) and attempted to trigger user engagement through the enactment of open- or closed-ended questions. The users’ bond-based attachment was assessed by coding for interactivity (the extent to which discussion threads included recurrent contributions from users), the social distance that these interactions ­ denoted, as well as the extent to which users were comfortable enough to share their experiences with diversity. The following paragraphs detail the results by tackling each dialogic tenet (empathy, equality, risk, propinquity, mutuality, commitment) and its possible impact on the creation of

2  ONLINE DIVERSITY COMMUNICATION AT JPMORGAN CHASE 

29

bond-based attachment. Each tenet was assessed with the help of the variables discussed in Chap. 1 and mentioned in the next paragraphs. The extent to which the company communicated about empathy did not exert influence on the users’ responsiveness to and interaction with diversity-related posts (x2 (1, N  =  657)  =  11.19, p  =  0.00). Similar results were found for the company’s messages on equality that aimed to increase bond-based attachment by reducing social distance (x2 (1, N = 657) = 21.05, p = 0.00). Moreover, the company’s attempt to emphasize that its programs addressed the best interests of minorities (risk taking) did not trigger higher engagement in conversations about diversity (x2 (1, N = 657) = 23.56, p = 0.00). An additional dialogic variable that was tested for its impact on interactivity was the communication style. Interestingly, the users’ interaction with a specific tweet was not triggered by the company’s two-way communication versus one-way communication style (x2 (1, N = 657) = 74.48, p = 0.00). Furthermore, corporate messages that reflected a commitment to diversity did not impact user interaction (x2 (1, N  =  657)  =  16.12, p  =  0.00) and neither did messages aimed to have a unifying effect among online users (x2 (1, N = 657) = 8.08, p