Are opportunities and threats enough? A development of the labels of strategic issues

ABSTRACT

This study joins the scholarly discussion that uses strategy in media management and provides a developed framework of strategic issues. This paper assists organisations in overcoming uncertainty by helping them construct issues and not impose the opportunity or threat labels on ill-defined issues. Based on a qualitative case study of two newspapers that represent an industry in disruption, this paper extends the existing conceptual framework on strategic issues by providing an additional strategic issue label, amorphous issues, that captures the uncertainties organisation members face during periods of disruption. Moreover, this paper also illustrates how the construction of issues can change over time. This emphasises the dynamic nature of strategic issues construction, which more closely aligns with the disruptive environment in which many contemporary organisations operate.

KEYWORDS:

• Strategic issues
• issue label
• opportunity
• threat
• newspaper organisation

Introduction

The concept of strategic issues has been important to strategic management for decades. Most researchers point back to Ansoff (1980), who explains that strategic issues are developments that affect an organisations’ ability to reach a desired outcome. Developing Ansoff’s view, Dutton (1993) provides a commonly accepted definition that an issue is an event interpreted by organisational members as having an impact on an organisation. This definition highlights its socially constructed nature. However, this concept has evolved into a static interpretation¹ of issues, generally by top managers (Nordqvist, 2005; Plambeck & Weber, 2009), who either construct an issue as an opportunity or threat. This is surprising, as Jackson and Dutton (1988) initially constructed four labels: opportunity, threat, consistent-with-both, or consistent-with-neither. Not all of these labels are continually used, as researchers often only use opportunities and threats (e.g. Julian, Ofori-Dankwa, & Justis, 2008; Nutt & Backoff, 1993; Sharma, 2000).

The lack of dynamism in strategic issues and general criticism of the opportunity/threat (OT) labels has been noted in previous research. For example, some criticise the labels and argue that to diagnose issues solely as opportunities and threats is not enough (Julian et al., 2008). Due to the limits of the two labels, these are at times imposed on issues, which could result in organisations overlooking solutions that may overcome uncertainty. (Nutt & Backoff, 1993). Moreover, if organisational members have limited information they are inclined to interpret the issue as a threat and become defensive (Thomas & McDaniel, 1990). The sharp distinction of the two labels contradict early work on strategic issues, which suggests that strategic issue diagnosis and labelling is fluid, dynamic, and sometimes ill-defined (Dutton & Fahey, 1983). Some scholars addressed this limitation in part by introducing a third label – ambivalent – which refers to an issue that is perceived as both an opportunity and a threat (Plambeck & Weber, 2009, 2010; Yuan, Bao, & Olson, 2017).

The concept of strategic issues has become increasingly relevant in the past two decades as numerous industries have been challenged by transformations. This highlights a “marked change in form, nature, or appearance” (Oliver, 2018, p. 278) and has resulted in many changes for organisations (Allen, Brown, Karanasios, & Norman, 2013; Chatman, Caldwell, O’Reilly, & Doerr, 2014; Pacheco, York, Dean, & Sarasvathy, 2010; Porter, 2001; Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012). For example, the media industries are deeply affected by the internet and digitisation (Järventie-Thesleff, Moisander, & Villi, 2014; Naldi, Wikström, & Von Rimscha, 2014), which continue to threaten the fundamental survival of these entire industries (e.g. Franklin, 2008). However, issue labelling only determines “known issues” (Jackson & Dutton, 1988, p. 377), which seems counterintuitive in the disruptive and uncertain environment organisations are facing today (Ansell & Boin, 2017; Oliver, 2014). Thus, there is a need to step away from the static (OT) labels and allow for a more dynamic view of strategic issues that accounts for both ill-defined issues and known issues.

Joining the growing scholarly work that uses concepts and frameworks from strategy in media management (e.g. Hasenpusch & Baumann, 2017; Horst & Järventie-Thesleff, 2016; Küng, 2016), this paper explores the labelling of strategic issues in media organisations. This allows for conceptual clarification with regards to strategic issues and to highlight the uncertainties that could occur when organisational members interpret strategic issues during periods of transformation (Oliver, 2018). This paper provides a framework of issues labels that can help organisations set up a more flexible agenda and not impose labels of “opportunity” or “threat” on an issue that is ill-defined. To explore and develop the concept of strategic issues, we turn to newspaper organisations. The newspaper industry has been strongly affected by the internet, resulting in changes that have caused numerous economic, technical, and social concerns for newspaper organisations and journalists (Franklin, 2008; Kagermann, 2015; Lewis, 2012). Throughout the developed world, newspaper circulation and revenues are in decline (McNair, 2009) and advertisers are moving to digital outlets. This shift has caused a decline in the main revenue streams on which newspaper organisations rely: circulation and advertising (Picard, 1998). In addition to financial concerns, however, the newspaper industry has been plagued by immense pressure to provide more content with constant updates across several media platforms, such as websites, apps, mobile phones and tablets. This change has meant an increased workload and pace that is suggested to negatively influence the quality of news (Spyridou, Matsiola, Veglis, Kalliris, & Dimoulas, 2013). In addition, the ability to compare sources of news online has resulted in a loss of trust in both the newspaper as a medium and the journalists who provide the news (Örnebring & Jönsson, 2004; Skovsgaard, 2014). Taken together, these concerns have caused much uncertainty in newspaper organisations (Dickinson, Matthews, & Saltzis, 2013; Franklin, 2008; O’Sullivan & Heinonen, 2008; Oliver, 2014). Consequently, the newspaper industry provides a timely and interesting context to extend strategic issues. Previous research highlights how labels can indicate organisational response and prioritisation. As such, this proposed framework can help organisations and researchers better understand and contribute to resolving issues.

Theoretical framework

Most scholarly work in strategic management on strategic issues draws on Dutton’s work (e.g., Bansal, 2003; Bansal, Kim, & Wood, 2018; Chattopadhyay, Glick, & Huber, 2001; Dutton & Walton, 1989; Jackson & Dutton, 1988; Melander, 1997; Nordqvist, 2005; Thomas & McDaniel, 1990; van der Steen, 2017) that focusses solely on opportunities and threats. However, Jackson and Dutton (1988) conceptualise four categories of labels: threat, opportunity, consistent-with-both, or consistent-with-neither. An opportunity is interpreted as a positive situation where there is a potential gain, while a threat represents a negative interpretation where there is a lack of control or a potential loss. Consistent-with-both highlights an ambiguous, nondistinctive issue that could include some potential gain and loss, while consistent-with-neither is not interpreted as either a gain or loss and represents a more neutral stance to the issue (ibid, p. 377). However, this interpretation assumes the presence of a “known issue” (Jackson & Dutton, 1988, p. 377), one which organisational members can clearly interpret and define. Modern business environments are replete with disruptions and “unknown unknowns” (Ansell & Boin, 2017, p. 5) and it seems counterintuitive that all issues could be easily interpreted or known. Thus, there is a need to develop the existing framework of strategic issues to include the contemporary uncertain business environment.

Organisational members generally interpret several issues that can impact their organisation, but naturally cannot respond to all. Thus, organisational members must be discriminant when choosing the issues to which they will respond (Daft & Weick, 1984). Furthermore, the construction of issues is important, as the label that is attached to an issue arguably has an impact on organisational responses (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Jackson & Dutton, 1988; Melander, 1997; Sharma, 2000). In this line of research, the assumptions are that issues exist as separate from organisations but are interpreted inside the organization by the people in it (Bansal, 2003). Thus, organisational members construct issues at a certain point in time based on their background, role, and previous experience. In broad terms, issues are organisational members’ attempt to categorise events or objects in meaningful groupings, such as positive or negative, or opportunity or threat (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Sharma, 2000).

The label of an issue is essential, as previous research highlights that the label will impact prioritisation, responses, strategic action, organisational change, and learning (Jackson & Dutton, 1988; Julian et al., 2008; Nutt & Backoff, 1993; Sharma, 2000; Thomas & McDaniel, 1990). Some researchers complement the opportunity/threat labels with other frameworks, such as Julian et al. (2008), who suggest that threats and opportunities should be used in combination with a model called FUI (favourability, urgency, and influence). These studies expand the OT labels with other frameworks and argue in favour of a more powerful explanation of strategic issues. However, the FUI framework does not focus on the construction of the issue, though it is useful tool to prioritise issues once they have been perceived. This study specifically focusses on the construction of issues, rather than the prioritisation. Regarding the construction and labelling of issues, the dichotomous OT labels are highly prominent, which is contradictory, as previous research explains the diagnosis of issues is fluid, dynamic and at times ill-defined (e.g. Dutton & Fahey, 1983). Since the existing framework solely focusses on known issues, there is a risk that organisations may overlook potential opportunities or threats simply because they cannot interpret the implications of certain issues using the existing schemas. Accordingly, there is a need to introduce a label that captures ill-defined issues.

Recent research has attempted to combine the OT labels to capture some of the complexities of strategic issues incorporating an additional label: ambivalence (Plambeck & Weber, 2009, 2010). An ambivalent issue is one that is interpreted simultaneously as positive and negative, or consistent with both, as Jackson and Dutton (1988) called it. Moreover, the authors distinguish ambivalence from ambiguity:

“[An ambivalent evaluation] does not indicate that the valence of an issue is vague or unknown, which would imply that no specific cognitive structures are activated. Rather, ambivalence refers to the application of distinct and competing evaluations of an issue, so that cognitive structures associated with both evaluations are activated,” (Plambeck & Weber, 2010, p. 691).

Thus, adding an ambivalent label addresses the weakness of the binary OT labelling, clearly delineates opportunity or threat, to include some aspects of both. This line of research shows that the OT labels are insufficient to capture the complexities and uncertainties of strategic issues and the disruptive changes that are affecting organisations today.

Based on the previous work, there are two main weaknesses in the current literature on strategic issues that this paper aims to fill. First, there is an over-reliance on the sole use of opportunities and threats. This reliance exposes several underlying weaknesses as organisations may impose labels on issues that could lead them to overlook potential gains. Previous research suggests organisational members easily become defensive and can interpret issues as threats and, in doing so, could easily overlook opportunities. This is especially relevant in today’s disruptive business environment, and calls for a label that includes ill-defined issues, not simply opportunities and threats. Second, the early conceptualisation of issues explains the diagnosis as fluid, dynamic and ill-defined. However, the majority empirical work on the interpretations of issues shows a static view of either opportunity or threat. Nascent scholarship argues that issues can be interpreted as both, namely as an ambiguous issue. However, there is a need to revisit the fourth label that Jackson and Dutton (1988) outline: consistent-with-neither. Organisations must be able to capture ill-defined issues if they seek to learn more about a given issue, change their interpretation of that issue, and ensure opportunities are not overlooked.

Method

This study employed a qualitative case study with an embedded design (Stake, 1995) with two Australian newspapers: The Courier-Mail and The West Australian. The two case organisations are both owned by a larger media group, they are state-wide, legacy newspapers that are also online, and thus affected by digitisation. Moreover, the organisations have a similar position in the respective market as both are the most read newspaper in their respective state. The embedded design focused on two aspects: (1) the perceived pressures affecting the organisation and (2) the constructed issues by organisational members.

In this study, the two case organisations have inherently similar characteristics. Sample selection is a crucial aspect of case study research (Stake, 1995), and was conducted carefully in this study. First, theoretical sampling was considered to select case organisations that highlight the phenomena to be studied. Here, this was considered in the choice of context. When choosing newspapers as case organisations, there are several characteristics that must be considered. Traditionally, there are established distinctions between types of newspapers with inherent differences: if a newspaper is local, regional, or national; if it is broadsheet or tabloid; and if it is online and/or offline (Bergström, Wadbring, & Weibull, 2005). A screening process was conducted and the two case organisations selected were regional, legacy newspapers that are now online and thus affected by digitisation. On top of the similarities in characteristics, both organisations have a similar position in their respective markets; they are the largest newspapers in their respective state and both newspapers are owned by two of the four largest media organisations in Australia.

Data sources

The empirical material was collected using semi-structured interviews, observations, and documentation (Silverman, 2013) during the final quarter of 2015 and the first half of 2016. This project has ethical approval from the host institution, and informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study. In total, there were thirty-six (n = 36) interviews conducted with thirty-four (n = 34) representatives throughout both organisations; follow-up interviews were sought with two top managers. To gain a holistic view of the organisations, interviews were conducted with senior and junior management, journalists and reporters, representatives from sales and advertising, and previous employees. The previous employees were included by recommendation from current employees who suggested that these individuals were highly informed and involved in certain issues during their time at the firm. Thus, they could contribute information that some current employees could not, especially regarding the interpretation of issues. Participants were selected to cover the complexity and duality within a newspaper organisation and the dual logics within the commercial and editorial divisions of the organisations (Achtenhagen & Raviola, 2009). The diverse selection of participants would capture potential differences in construction of issues between different groups in a newspaper organisation. By including participants from several departments and levels of the organisation, this approach provides a holistic view of the perceptions of the people who are currently working, or have worked, in the organisations. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and sent back to the participant for validation (e.g. Silverman, 2013).

Observational data include both formal and informal observations of walk-throughs with respondents in the newsroom. Formal observations were conducted in the newsroom; either by attending meetings or observing different organisational members and their tasks. Informal observations were conducted in connection with interviews where respondents elaborated on certain topics they brought up during interviews. In addition, observations were made at industry meetings focusing on digital journalism and changes in the work and industry in general. Field notes were used to document all observations. The documentation reviewed consists of over fifteen hundred pages of information; both internal and external documents. The internal documents are memos, transcriptions of speeches, or guidelines from management. These documents were provided by employees or managers in the organisations. The external reports are industry reports or published articles that are publicly available. These documents generally explain changes in the newspaper industry or externally published reports about the organisation that are available online. Lastly, two books were used – namely a narrative non-fiction book and an autobiography – that were used to gain a greater understanding of the Australian newspaper industry. The books were suggested by certain participants to be informative about the organisation and thus were included as data. Books, and especially autobiographies, have recently been noted to contribute to organisational research (Mathias & Smith, 2016). The combination of data sources ensures validity and consistency between the sources (e.g. Silverman, 2013).

Data analysis

The data were coded openly based on the following theoretical framing; (1) the perceived pressures affecting the organisation, and (2) the constructed issues by organisational members, including both the initial construction and whether it changed. Each topic was coded in NVivo to be able to focus on one theme at a time; this involved coding for pressures and issues. From there, data were grouped and organised in tables to provide an overview of descriptions of the same pressure or issue, which aided in drawing conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 1994). For example, all data focussing on one issue were grouped together to interpret one issue at a time. The analysis initially focussed only on the collected data and then shifted to an iterative process between the data and the literature. After the data were collected and had been analysed, focus was put on the theoretical development, and to explore whether issues were interpreted as opportunities, or threats, or as something different that would not fit into the existing issue labels.

To understand the perceived pressures, data were drawn mainly from documentation and interviews. The initial broader coding was then inductively grouped together to create categories, followed by an iterative process that considered the existing literature on newspapers and journalism to identify consistencies with pressures these organisations are facing. These findings were grouped together to outline four main pressures: (1) new technologies, (2) financial constraints (mostly that there is a general decline in circulation and advertising revenue in the industry as a whole), (3) new pressures from the audience to engage with newsmakers and contribute to the news, and (4) market changes (including new regulations and a changing competitive landscape).

The understanding of issues emerged inductively through the discussion with the respondents (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). In these discussions, respondents were asked to explain their concerns or worries about the organisation, and changes that have affected either their work or the organisation. The majority of respondents within each organisation reported similar issues. This process was iterative between data and analysis, and organisational members explained over twenty-five organisational issues across both organisations. In this study, purposive sampling (e.g. Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) was used to show the differences in how organisational members constructed and labelled the issues. Four illustrative issues – two in each organisation – are discussed below. These issues were specifically selected to show four different ways that the organisation members interpreted and labelled issues. Thus, the labels are constructed based on discussions with organisational members.

Findings

Of the twenty-five issues identified by organisational members, four are chosen to highlight the differences in the construction of issues. At The Courier, the two issues chosen are metrics and user-generated content (UGC). At The West, the two issues chosen are the impact on the immediacy of news and a suggested regulatory change – relating to the Finkelstein Inquiry. All four issues are connected to digitisation and new technology, but each represents a different construction by organisation members. Table 1 summarises the chosen issues and the perceived cause of the issue (the pressure).

Table 1. The constructed strategic issues.

Organisation	Pressure	Issue
The Courier	New technology New relationship with the audience	Metrics The availability of metrics, which can be fruitful to know more about the audience, however, it could also hurt the journalistic standards if the focus is on vanity metrics and uses clickbait to increase traffic.
	New technology New relationship with the audience	User-generated content Users want to contribute with content. They want to engage with the newspaper and be included in the production process.
The West	New technology Change in the consumption of news	Immediacy of news Everything is faster, increased workload at a faster pace. “It’s not good being first and wrong but it’s also not good being right and second … ” It is about balancing quality and accuracy with speed.
	New technology Regulatory changes	The Finkelstein Enquiry Regulatory changes and new rules due to digitisation, which is perceived by the members of the organisation to threaten the freedom of press

This section outlines the construction of each of the four issues respectively, which reflects how the organisation members initially categorised them. This shows the background of the issues in terms of how organisation members explained them. The next section focusses on how organisation members explained changes in the interpretation of issues to highlight a more dynamic view. First, however, each issue is described in more detail to highlight how organisation members perceived pressure and how they constructed the issue.

User-generated content (UGC) – an opportunity to save?

At The Courier, readers want the ability to discuss and sometimes contribute content, which challenges the gatekeeping role of journalists to control the flow of content. However, newspapers need to listen to their audiences; readership and circulation are in decline and newspapers could lose audiences altogether if they do not adjust. Thus, there is a need for a more interactive relationship with audiences. In a public speech in 2005, Rupert Murdoch notes:

“ … give the people control of media, they will use it. Don’t give people control of media, and you will lose them.” (Speech Murdoch, 2005, internal documents)

The internet has changed the way audiences read and interact with news and newspapers (Lewis, Kaufhold, & Lasorsa, 2010; Paulussen & Ugille, 2008). Previously, newspapers were gatekeepers in which professionals controlled what the audience should read through one-way communication. Now, however, the internet affords two-way communication between the news provider and audience. Digitisation seems to be the disruption that has allowed for this new relationship to emerge. This has also spurred an interest from formerly passive audiences to engage, discuss, and even contribute content. This was a concern which several of the organisation members at The Courier-Mail discussed, as UGC created several struggles with regards to quality control and legal implications. Even so, UGC is a well-documented change, and newspaper organisations cannot simply ignore audiences who want to engage without the risk of losing them altogether.

Resources are scarce; if audience members want to contribute free UGC that seemed to be a positive change. Thus, as the respondent’s quote below shows, this issue was interpreted as an opportunity to save money.

… as the resources get tighter and tighter and you’ve still got, well, in print, this amount of space to fill, user-generated content becomes very attractive … “Oh, you want to tell a story about what’s happening in your suburb?” You beauty. I don’t have to pay you to do it. Good. I don’t have any money, I’ve got no budget. (Former Manager, The Courier)

The finkelstein inquiry – a threat to the freedom of press?

Any form of government control of the media is simply irreconcilable with our system of democracy. I would have hoped that argument had long been put to bed in Australia. But apparently not. (Documentation from respondents, 2012)

In 2012, the Australian Minister of Communication requested an inquiry into the Australian media industry, since Australian media industry was too “culpable of transgressions” (Fernandez, 2013, p. 25). Thus, the Australian government initiated The Finkelstein Inquiry, a regulatory reform about the online accountability of Australian media. The basis of the Finkelstein Inquiry was that there was little consensus as to how news organisations were being held accountable, especially in regard to digital media, as online news was not specifically included in regulations at the time. The purpose of the inquiry was to “ … set journalistic standards for the news media in consultation with the industry, and handle complaints from the public when those standards are breached.” (The Finkelstein Inquiry, 2012, p. 8)

The inquiry suggested a new, stronger council to hold Australian newspapers and media organisations accountable and uphold journalistic standards. This new body was a partly government-funded “super regulator” (Fernandez, 2013) called the News Media Council (NMC) (The Finkelstein Inquiry, 2012).

The NMC, like the existing Australian Press Council (APC) which had been tasked with holding Australian media accountable since its inception in 1976, would consist of community, industry, and professional representatives. This new council was criticised and opposed by some Australian media organisations. Opponents argued there was no need to strengthen the APC or its means of accountability. Thus, the new council received much media attention, with one of the fundamental issues being that it would be partly funded by the Australian government. Headlines read: “LABOR Plan to Control the Media” in Australian Financial Review (Inside Story, 2012), and The Conversation decried “Media Inquiry misses the point, as the news crisis worsens” (Hirst, 2011). The prospect of a new media council was a highly publicised event, but, for several reasons, the NMC was not established. Nevertheless, the inquiry and its aftermath had an impact on The West, and several respondents highlighted an issue related to this inquiry.

At The West, the fundamental issue of the NMC, and the suggestions made by the Finkelstein Inquiry, was the government funding and what it would mean in practice. The respondents referred to the problems associated with government influence in journalism, which does not accord with journalistic values and norms. To have any sort of government control impinges on the freedom of press – a cornerstone of a democratic society – and the responsibility of the press to be fair and accurate in reporting news, which was also outlined in the reform (The Finkelstein Inquiry, 2012). Even though the reform outlined that the role of government would only be financial, the inquiry also suggested that free press needed to be regulated since it can cause harm.

For organisation members at The West, the inquiry was the government’s attempt to interfere with the media (Internal documentation, 2012). This argument was highlighted by the fact that the inquiry named specific newspapers that ostensibly criticised The Green Party, a political party in Australia. The inquiry named The Australian and The Daily Telegraph (The Finkelstein Inquiry, 2012, p. 16), which caused some respondents to express concern over the direct criticism of specific newspapers. Even though the report did not name The West, it sparked a debate as to whether the council would fulfil its purpose of accountability or rather try to control the media.

In a document (Internal documentation, 2012) sent to Senator Finkelstein in response to the inquiry, representatives from The West stated that the changes would not lead to accountability but rather punishment of the press. The representatives argued that it was counterintuitive to impose government directives on an organisation that has a published editorial policy stating, “The press shall not be subject to government license and government authorities should not interfere with the content of news nor restrict access to any news source” (Documentation from respondents, 2012). This was a clear threat to The West, which they took an active stance against:

“Our company, on behalf of all our publications, subscribes to the principles of the Press Council and, again, this is spelt out in the board’s published editorial policy. But we do not support the concept of a “super regulator” with government funding to become a huge unwieldy bureaucracy,” (Documentation from respondents, 2012).

Metrics – positive or negative?

“Is data your friend or enemy?” (Former Manager, The Courier).

Due to technological change, data is more readily available for newspapers. These technological developments allow newspapers to track what their audiences are reading and, conversely, not reading. However, according to the respondents, this can be a double-edged sword.

The issue of metrics stems from a combination of new technology that exploits a somewhat new relationship with audiences. Organisational members explained that there are positive sides to metrics; news providers now know what people want to read when, and can adjust accordingly. However, if editorial decisions rely too much on audience preference it could damage the quality of news and undermine journalistic roles. Thus, editorial decisions need to balance what audiences want (relevance and connection to their lives) with what audiences need (objective news sources and reliable content). The question comes down to the positive and negative aspects of metrics and the data available.

According to respondents, the use of metrics is something that The Courier embraces. The positive side is that The Courier knows its audience better, such as which articles are trending and how long people spend reading articles, down to the second.

[metrics are] giving you signals every second to every day about what they love or hate and ultimately care about, through their activity on our digital properties. To be the best, you need to pay close attention to them and understand how they interact with us. Be driven by the data. (The Digital Playbook, The Courier-Mail, 2003, internal documentation)

One respondent said the period between 2003 and 2006 included much experimentation and innovation with regards to metrics and technological change (Former Manager, The Courier). The issue was that the organisation members were pushed to develop an online presence and were even pressured at the group level to pay more attention to metrics. According to some respondents they did not have the “skills or knowledge” (Former Manager, The Courier) of how to use it at the time. Thus, the organisation members saw both positive and negative aspects in the issue of metrics.

Immediacy of news – a changing issue?

“How can I place this new, emerging fact in its proper context when I have to bang it out like five minutes ago? (Journalist, The West).

The fourth issue is immediacy; the pressure stems from the fact that the production of online news is much faster than print. Producing and publishing content immediately can potentially harm the quality of the content. Moreover, as the technology life cycle is moving faster, there are constantly new platforms and tools that newspapers should incorporate, which introduces new opportunities and new ways to connect to audiences but which also increases workload. Organisation members may be uncertain how to handle the changes created by new technologies, as one respondent explains:

And, you know, bang you had your press conference at 9 o’clock, you’re live tweeting as it’s happening, at 9:30 you’re on radio, quarter to ten you’ve done that social media ‘sim-sat’², and then by 10 o’clock, it’s on your social media web page, twitter, whatever. Then you start trying to write the story and craft the story and all that sort of stuff, so that’s how I think the technology has changed what we do to the point where a lot of the guys on the road now are a lot busier, a lot earlier. (Middle Manager, The West)

One potentially negative aspect is the enforced increased speed of production, which stems from new ways of consuming news. Audiences have access to social media and can constantly check news on their mobile phone. When something newsworthy happens, audiences want to be informed minutes after. As online content is expected to be published directly to online outlets, respondents discussed the impact of immediacy on the quality of online news. The respondents outlined two main issues relating to quality. First, journalists do not have enough time to process content, which could harm the analytical depth of the content. Second, on top of immediacy, there is also an increased workload. Journalists must publish on social media, their organisation’s website, mobile apps, tablet apps, make a video, and then write for the paper. Taken together, these changes to pace and workload challenge organisations to maintain journalistic standards.

It is important to keep up with new platforms and find an efficient way to provide the news across various outlets. As such, organisational members do see a value in using these new platforms. However, they lack the skills and know-how, and the platforms end up distracting and detracting from news content. Respondents demonstrate that it is not just immediacy and working faster that creates new pressure, but also the complete change to their workday; workloads are increasing and journalists must update their social media instantly. Moreover, with a faster pace and greater workload, mistakes are bound to happen. The pressure to be first can cloud journalists’ judgement to ensure the accuracy of the content, which relates to the question of technology’s impact on the quality of news. One respondent said, “It’s not good to be first and wrong but it’s also not good being right and second … ” (Manager, The West). Organisation members feel forced to use these new platforms and social media, to be able to reach the audience in a timely manner. One employee said in an informal talk in the newsroom that immediacy is better than having the best quality of everything (Observations newsroom, 2016). Thus, this issue is evolving beyond immediacy and into that of work tasks and the quality of the journalistic content.

This trend could impact in-depth content and push newspapers to publish shallow content. Some respondents reinforce this concern and question if newspapers are capable of surviving digital changes, arguing that twenty years have passed since internet disruption began in the newspaper industry, with still no solution (Journalist, The West). Several respondents expressed concerns about the depth and type of content that is now published at their newspaper, suggesting a rise in superficial content:

The luxury … what gives is that thing that is the difference between reportage and journalism – journalism being your ability to actually go out there and find exclusive stories and luxuriate in terms of the amount of time you have to investigate, finesse, and work-up a story. It tends to be more, nowadays because of the pressure, you tend to get things to print as soon as possible. You don’t always necessarily have days and days to write stories – sometimes you still do. (Journalist, The West)

Developing the labels of strategic issues

The organisation members in this study used different labels to categorise the four constructed issues. The organisation members’ explanations of opportunities and threats aligned with Dutton and Jackson’s (1987) original issue categorisation framework. When discussing issues, there were instances where organisational members either explained the issue as a clear opportunity to make money or a clear threat to the organisation. For example, while describing the issue of UGC, a former manager said, “I don’t have to pay you to do it. Good. I don’t have any money.” (Former Manager, The Courier) This former manager viewed UGC as a profitable opportunity for the organisation; because their budget was diminishing they could use UGC to save resources and obtain content for free from their audience, which was perceived as positive or a gain. At the other end of the spectrum, the Finkelstein Inquiry was purported to be a threat to the professional values of the newspaper organisation. The organisation members took a clear stance against the reform, arguing it opposed freedom of the press. They associated it with a violation that would have a negative impact, in line with the categorisation of threats developed by previous scholarly work (e.g. Chattopadhyay et al., 2001; Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Jackson & Dutton, 1988). In these instances, the organisation members clearly understood the issues.

Organisation members had more difficulties interpreting and constructing strategic issues that involved an unclear understanding of the issue and its potential implications. As outlined in Figure 1 below, some issues were more complicated, and organisation members connected the issues to both opportunities and threats. On the issue of metrics, a former manager questioned whether data was a friend or enemy. In this situation, the respondent referenced the benefit of metrics in providing comprehensive information of what audiences read, which helps the organisation offer targeted, relevant content. By contrast, using metrics is also a threat to the organisation’s journalistic standards, as the editorial decisions of an independent and objective news outlet should not be influenced by clicks and likes of the audience. Consequently, this issue is labelled as an ambivalent issue (e.g. Plambeck & Weber, 2009, 2010). Though the implications of using metrics are somewhat unclear, organisation members still see the value of metrics and thus perceive both opportunities and threats. Finally, the immediacy of news is an issue that arose following a shift to more rapid consumption of news. However, as organisational members developed a better understanding of the immediacy issue, it snowballed into several issues. First, respondents explained that immediacy impacts the quality of the news because they have less time to produce new content. Moreover, they showcase how immediacy is changing the way they work, as they now have to publish content directly and across several platforms. Thus, they need to find new routines to adjust to immediacy.

Figure 1. An expanded framework of issue labels.

Building on the conceptualisation of the consistent-with-neither label (Dutton & Jackson, 1987), and reviving its relevance, this paper introduces amorphous issues. Even studies that focus on ambivalent issues overlook these ill-defined issues (Plambeck & Weber, 2010). As this study illustrates, organisation members could not initially construct what the issue was or how it would impact their organisation, but saw something that they needed to follow and explore. This issue was initially constructed as immediacy which then snowballed into issues relating to workload and quality of content. This process is highlighted by the label amorphous issue, as the issue is connected to uncertainty and the struggle of organisation members to construct and label the issue. In the case of amorphous issues, organisation members may not yet know what the issue is and the impact of the issue may change and evolve as they learn more about it.

The organisation members also delineated their construction of issues according to how issues were perceived, or the antecedents of the issue (see Figure 1 below). For example, when organisation members felt as though a new technology was being imposed or enforced on them, they constructed the issue as a threat, or as an amorphous issue when the issues were connected to a high degree of uncertainty. On the other hand, if the antecedent of the issue was a search for improvement, the construction of the issue was that of an opportunity or an ambivalent issue. This relates to the understanding of the issue. Both amorphous and ambivalent issues are marked by an unclear understanding of an issue, whereas opportunity and threat involve a better understanding of the issue at hand, as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

By clarifying the strategic issue labels, this framework provides more flexibility to issue construction. Organisation members are not bound to impose the opportunity or threat label. Here, the constructing and labelling of issues takes the antecedents of the issues into consideration. Thus, the findings presented here reinforce the relevance of opportunity and threat labels in the construction of issues. In addition, this study clarifies the ambivalent label (e.g. Plambeck & Weber, 2009, 2010) by highlighting not only the label but the antecedents of the issue. However, while the ambivalent label does not include uncertainty, the proposed label amorphous issues captures ill-defined issues and thereby aids organisations in identifying the opportunities or overcoming the threats in uncertain situations.

A change in construction

An interesting finding in this study was the change that labels and the construction of issues can undergo. Findings suggest that opportunities and threats are not mutually exclusive, and that issue construction can shift between labels. One example is the issue of metrics at The Courier, which suggests that members of an organisation can recognise some opportunities within a certain issue as well as some threats. At The Courier, metrics was initially labelled as a threat to the editorial standards of the organisation. However, organisation members also explained that there were benefits from metrics, such as getting to know audiences better. Overall, immediacy was constructed as an ambivalent issue, as organisational members seemed to fluctuate between opportunity and threat. There were clearly underlying opportunities in metrics, but it was a delicate balance to exploit those opportunities without giving way to a potential threat.

The issue of immediacy did not fit into the opportunity, threat, or ambivalent issue category. It presented an issue that organisational members could not clearly define. Organisation members at The West initially perceived an issue with digitisation, as the increased work pace did not allow adequate time to digest and create in-depth analytical content, resulting in superficiality. However, organisational members also explained that this was helping the organisation by providing breaking news instantly, which they could not do prior to the advent of digitisation and social media. The issue was ill-defined, and moved from being an opportunity to publish content faster to a threat to the journalistic quality of the organisation. Moreover, as the organisation learned more about the issue, they recognised that there were several other issues connected to immediacy. Therefore, this study suggests categorising these types of issues as amorphous issues. Compared to ambivalent issues (e.g. Plambeck & Weber, 2010), amorphous issues are difficult to define and organisation members need more information to construct them. As organisation members continue the process of construction, amorphous issues may branch off in several additional issues.

Findings from this study demonstrate that issue construction and labelling is more fluid and flexible than previously theorised, as illustrated in Figure 2. In some cases, issue construction will stop at one label, as in the case of the Finkelstein Inquiry in which organisation members did not change their construction. However, for the other issues discussed above, organisation members needed to change their construction. In the metrics issue, for example, members knew positive and negative aspects of metrics, and their construction shifted back and forth. However, the immediacy issue was ill-defined and difficult to label opportunity, threat, or ambivalent. The amorphous label represents issues that continue to develop and shift between the existing labels (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The changes of issue labels.

This new framework addresses criticism of the limits of opportunity and threat labels, and extends the scholarly work on ambivalent issues (e.g. Yuan et al., 2017). Additionally, this framework overcomes the static diagnosis of strategic issues, and responds to the call that the construction of issues should be fluid and complex. In doing so, from the two case studies presented here, this study does not disregard the importance of OT labels but rather expands the framework.

The scholarly work on perceiving and labelling issues as either a threat or an opportunity (Jackson & Dutton, 1988; Melander, 1997) is reinforced here, as the organisation members identified and labelled certain issues as an opportunity and/or a threat. Certainly, some organisation issues fit squarely inside the threat label or the opportunity label. Findings here do suggest, however, that not all issues fit into such a binary categorisation. There is a need for a broader categorisation to perceive and label issues. Constructing issues is clarified by highlighting the antecedents and comprehension of issues. Whereas the search for improvement has a positive connotation, enforced change is associated with uncertainty and a negative view of the issue at hand. Previous research delineates issues as either being threats or opportunities, and draws a clear distinction between these labels. However, this was not the case in this study, as some issues were perceived as both (ambivalent), or neither (amorphous). By introducing amorphous issues, and thereby a better understanding of how issue labels can change after their initial construction, this paper aims to help organisations perceive issues and not overlook potential gains or threats, which is an important conceptual extension in the current disruptive environment.

In the context of the newspaper industry, the issues in this study were mainly constructed from technological pressures that are legitimate and well-known. (Franklin, 2008; Kagermann, 2015; McDowell, 2011). The findings of this paper suggest organisations that are experiencing transformation (Oliver, 2018) cannot necessarily fit issues into only one distinctive category of opportunity or threat, but could view some issues as both. Some scholars suggest that organisations do not perceive opportunities related to radical change until the situation is critical, and by then the issues is usually only seen as a threat (Gilbert, 2006). This notion runs contrary to the findings here, as it was not that enforced change turned into opportunities for newspaper organisations, but rather that organisation members perceived some benefits alongside a threat, which made the opportunity worth pursuing. On the other hand, when the issue is initially perceived as an opportunity, the response to the issue could become opportunistic (Selznick, 1957), which suggests that the organisation becomes distracted by short-term goals, which changes the construction of the issue from an opportunity to a threat. Thus, this study proposes that future research on organisation issues should focus on the fluidity and ambiguity of issue characteristics rather than the distinction of threat or opportunity. This approach helps further explain the uncertainty and complexity that organisations face when responding to issues.

The newspaper industry is currently experiencing an extended period of disruption (e.g., Franklin, 2008; Kagermann, 2015; Lewis, 2012; Oliver, 2018). This study highlights some of the current issues facing newspaper organisations, contributing to the ongoing discussion on digitization and other challenges. This study targets the specificities of issues facing newspaper organisations to enhance and challenge the existing framework of strategic issues. Thus, this paper extends the current focus on strategy in media management because, to date, there has been a strong focus on dynamic capabilities (Hasenpusch & Baumann, 2017; Maijanen & Virta, 2017; Oliver, 2018, 2014). In doing so, this study sheds new light on the challenges newspapers face, and provides a new framework to identify issues for organisations in disruptive business environments. Also, this paper shows the potential for media management to extend and refine frameworks and concepts from strategy.

Even though this paper makes several important contributions to the clarification of strategic issue labels and to media management, it also has several limitations. First, one methodological limitation is the difference in access to the two case organisations. The aim was to use a similar sampling logic when collecting data; however, there are some differences in the data collected, as the observations differ in type and length between the two cases. The same level of access was not achieved at The Courier as at The West. At The West, this project was granted several weeks in the newsroom and interviewed over twenty people, while at The Courier twelve interviews were conducted and the observations were mostly made at industry meetings and short visits to the newsroom. Regardless, data collection did not stop until sufficient information from both organisations was reached, and conceptual data saturation was thus attained. Second, the findings mainly apply to organisations with strong professional standards and values, as this is a defining aspect of newspaper organisations (Deuze, 2005). The organisations in this study were very focussed on issues that were related the profession of journalism, and thus journalistic values. This emphasis on professional standards and values is not necessarily in line with general strategic management (e.g., Drucker, 1973) and could limit the transferability of the findings. However, as the study of strategic issue continues, a beneficial route would be to study organisations with less emphasis on professional norms and values. Even though some aspects of the context are unique, scholars have noted that the media industry does share similarities with several other industries, particularly businesses experiencing digital disruptions (e.g., Hattke, Vogel, & Woiwode, 2016; Porter, 2001). Findings from this study are also relevant for these other industries in disruption.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is to assist organisations that are facing uncertainty by extending the strategic issue framework and develop a more dynamic view of strategic issues that includes both ill-defined and known issues. This study reinforces the three established labels – opportunity, threat, and ambivalent – and adds a new label to the framework that highlights ill-defined issues: amorphous issues. As the initial conceptualisation of strategic issues assumes that issues are known (Jackson & Dutton, 1988), this fourth label is introduced to overcome the shortcomings of the current framework to capture issues that are ill-defined and allow for a more uncertain interpretation. This label captures the uncertainties present when organisation members do not fully comprehend the implications of an issue. Additionally, this extended framework also highlights the dynamism and fluidity in the construction of strategic issues. This can help organisation members construct issues and avoid overlooking the concerns arising from strictly applying the opportunity or threat labels. It furthermore considers that the construction of issues can change over time and move between labels. As this new dynamic framework does not rely solely on opportunity and threat labels but also incorporates ambivalent and amorphous issues, it overcomes some shortcomings in strategic issue diagnosis wherein organisational members miss important opportunities or fail to detect threats due to the limitations of having only two labels. Lastly, this study further highlights the relevant and important role that concepts and theories from strategy can play in enhancing media management (Oliver, 2018; Hasenpusch & Baumann, 2017; Horst & Järventie-Thesleff, 2016; Küng, 2016), gaining a better understanding of contemporary issues facing newspaper organisations, and overcoming these organisations’ issues.

Acknowledgments

I appreciate the comments from my former colleagues at Jönköping International Business School. And of course, a big thank to the case organisations for allowing me access to their important work. Lastly, I would to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their help and guidance in shaping this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Carl-Olof and Jenz Hamrin Foundation .

Notes on contributors

Sara Ekberg

Sara Ekbergg is currently working as a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland Business School. Sara received her doctoral degree in Business Administration from Jönköping International Business School in Sweden. Her dissertation focused on how organizations manage technological change. Her dissertation was awarded the Oskar Sillén Award for the best doctoral thesis in Business Administration in Sweden during 2017. In addition, Sara has published research on the challenges that entrepreneurs experience as they develop their business.

Notes

1. There is a stream of research focusing on the management of issues, which captures a broader view of issues and how to overcome them. However, this research focusses on the interpretation of issues that to date mostly uses the static labeling of issues as either opportunity or threat.

2. sim-sat means “Simulated Satellite”, which is when a news anchor interviews and tapes a guest via satellite before the news is on air, and then asks the same questions on the live telecast while showing the video of the guest answering the question, making it appear to be happening live.