Finding the Tipping Point: When Heterogeneous Evaluations in Social Media Converge and Influence Organizational Legitimacy

Abstract

Can citizens impact the broader discourse about an organization and its legitimacy? While social media have empowered citizens to publicly question firms through large volumes of online evaluations, the high heterogeneity of their evaluations dilutes their impact. Our empirical study applying a threshold vector autoregressive model (TVAR) analysis of 2.5 million tweets and 1,786 news media articles tests the condition by which the heterogeneity of online evaluations converges and influences the broader media discourse. Although social media evaluations do not initially influence media legitimacy, they become influential after reaching a tipping point of refracted attention, which is created by high volume and convergence of individual evaluations around few aggregative frames. Thus, social media storms may influence the broader discourse about an organization when this discourse converges and reaches a tipping point, rather than merely through the massive participation of citizens.

Theorizing the Grey Area between Legitimacy and Illegitimacy

“…This is particularly important in today's media landscape, in which an increasing number of opinions are expressed by an increasing number of (often self-proclaimed) legitimacy-conferring actors. This makes it more challenging for SL and dissenting evaluators alike to effectively convey a meaningful message (Barnett, Henriques, & Husted, 2020;Illia, Colleoni, Etter, & Meggiorin, 2022). Future research could focus on how legitimation and power struggles result in moving from one legitimacy state to another.…”

Everyday Talk on Twitter: Informal Deliberation About (Ir-)responsible Business Conduct in Social Media Arenas

“…Scholars have furthermore argued that social media not only empowers the voice of previously disenfranchised actors but also creates direct and less hierarchical connections to corporations to negotiate agendas about corporate social responsibility (CSR; e.g., Castelló et al, 2016; Colleoni, 2013). Efforts to share such concerns and oppose irresponsible business conduct were, indeed, found to draw attention to certain issues and shape the way they are discussed in the public arena (Etter & Vestergaard, 2015; Illia et al, 2022; Lyon & Montgomery, 2013; van Den Broek et al, 2017). Given these developments, scholars have suggested that social media may constitute arenas for deliberation (Etter et al, 2018; Scherer et al, 2016) that are “potentially more democratic” than traditional communication arenas (Whelan et al, 2013, p. 782).…”

“…However, while social media may occasionally provide arenas for focused conflict and highly interactive engagement among stakeholders, citizens, and corporations, research shows that communication in social media is typically low in terms of reciprocal interaction (Boyd et al, 2016; Etter, 2014; Inauen & Schoeneborn, 2014; van Den Broek et al, 2017); that such engagement is dispersed, unfocused, and scattered (Barnett et al, 2020; Illia et al, 2022); and that it is often without the involvement, influence, or even knowledge of corporations (Albu & Etter, 2016; Etter & Nielsen, 2015; Schultz et al, 2013; Vogler & Eisenegger, 2020; Whelan et al, 2013). Accordingly, we argue that agonistic communicative practices are only one way through which social media may contribute to deliberation beyond traditional ideals.…”

“…Whereas this study focuses on everyday talk in social media, the outcomes of everyday talk (i.e., “outcome,” Friess & Eilders, 2015), for example, on individual opinion formation, increased engagement in the democratic process, impact on debates in other arenas, and ultimately decisions, are also areas of great interest. Indeed, studies have shown that social media interact dynamically with, for example, traditional news media and NGOs (Etter & Vestergaard, 2015; Illia et al, 2022) and that everyday talk online can lead to participation in offline arenas (Schmitt-Beck & Grill, 2020). A central part of the deliberative system approach is that it “allows us to think about deliberations that develop among and between the sites over time” (Mansbridge et al, 2012, p. 2).…”

“…In contrast to traditional deliberation, everyday talk is much less formalized and structured (Graham, 2015;Wright et al, 2015), and "tends to be fragmented, anecdotal, messy, incomplete, and less formally deliberative" (Wright et al, 2015). Thus, instead of narrow expectations of reciprocal interactions, the lens of everyday talk allows embracing other forms of interactions on social media, such as retweeting and propagating opinions (Albu & Etter, 2016) and interactions with broader discussions or networks rather than directly with other participants (Arvidsson & Caliandro, 2015;Illia et al, 2022;Mascheroni & Murru, 2017). As such, everyday talk acknowledges that participants express opinions, contribute to ongoing discussions, and become informed without the requirement of an aspired outcome, like consensus or decision finding (Graham, 2015;Mansbridge, 1999).…”