Vielledent_M.pdf

Vielledent_M_pdf.txt

PAGE 1

SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE POST DIGITAL ERA : By MARC VIELLEDENT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2022

PAGE 2

© 2022 Marc Vielledent

PAGE 3

To the entire Vielledent Family, especially my wife and children But also, to CPT Scott ie Pace, MAJ Tom Kennedy, CSM Kevin Griffin, and all the other heroes whose memory reminds me how I ought to be and what I can be.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I thank my dissertation committee and leadership team. My chair, Dr. Tom Kelleher, along with my program director, Dr. Robert Davis , both exemplify the professional I aspire to be. B oth of these men have served as standard bearers for me based on their humility, lead ership, and scholarship but I admire them more for the men they are . In addition, my co chair, Dr. Rita Linjuan Men is a remarkable scholar, sincere communicator, and flawless mentor, but an even better human being. Simply put, w ithout the combination of these three leaders, this outcome is different . I am so grateful. Moreover, Dr. Huan Chen and Dr. Stephen Craig trusted and offered me the space , yet steady council, to take this dissertation where I wanted it to go. Both were perfect compliments to an in credibly, open minded leadership team that championed and empowered me from start to finish . I would also like to thank Dr. Debbie Treise for telling me she hated me when I initially called from Hawaii to inquire about the program. Her personality i nstant ly piqued my interest and is what initially drew me to campus. In addition, Mrs. Jody Hedge, Mrs. Kim berly Dukes, Dr. Marcia DiStaso, Dr. Norm Lewis, Dr. Frank Waddell, Dr. Myiah Hutchens, Dr. Benjamin Johnson , and Dr. Wayne Wanta, all positively influence d me. Anne Taylor and Wendy Thornton, you are professional editing and polishing titans. I must thank the University of Florida. Three specific Gators who served as lifelines to me at various points throughout my dissertation were April Cen Yue, Vaughan J ames, and Naomi Parker. That said, I am so appreciative to so many people affiliated with this place. After being married to a Seminole for almost 15 years, n ot in a million years did I ever envision myself coming to Gainesville to pursue a terminal degree , let alone loving the people here as much as I do .

PAGE 5

5 From the diverse personalities and perspectives in my cohort to the consummate professionalism and support of the IRB Team and Gator Nation at large I can now confirm: I ator. There always seem to be those leaders in positions of influence who will legitimately sacrifice what they are doing in their lives and take a moment to invest someone else , despite it serving no tangible benefit to them. Sometimes , you do not realiz e their true impact until many years later. Among these leaders, mentors, and now friends: I am incredibly indebted to basketball coaches Jim Crews and Chris Hollender, General (retired) Bob Brown, Major General (retired) Ed Dorman, Major General Dan McDan iel, Dr. Michael Matheny, Anthony DeSanto, Colonels Jason Rosenstrauch and Jessica Grassetti, and my recurring phone a mentor , Colonel Chris Johnson. Also, I am so obliged to t he faculty and staffs who shaped and instilled grit into me at Our Mother of Sorrows Catholic School, Sahuaro High School, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the University of Southern California, and the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. To my aunt, Suzanne Gebhardt, who has been there every st ep of the way since I was born. Along with my high school AP U.S. History teacher, Barbara Macfarlane, these two honest brokers have never minced their words to me and always shot it to me straight which is no small thing . They both have invested so mu ch time, effort, and resources in to supporting and loving my family and I at every stop. Thank you . To my three sisters, Michelle, Shannon, Aimee, and my cousin Kevin who have all done their part in reminding me that I can be intolerable . And yet, they continue to tolerate me . E ven though they often mask it, I always feel their support.

PAGE 6

6 My in laws, Sir Roy and Nancy Shultz, have never wavered in their sta u nch preferenc e for Seminoles, yet they remained w illing to lend a helping hand or ear to this Gator. Without them, this endeavor would have been exponentially more difficult. I am also eternally grateful to my parents, Bob and Gail, mostly for staying together for over 50 years, raising and loving their four children, and having the wisdom as life long educators to reinforce the value s of faith, education , work ethic , and discipline throughout my entire life. I am sure that w ithout their love and guidance, I would lack the inspiration and drive to complete this journey . To Bella, know that I am hard on you because your limit is beyond my reach ; Robert, your happy go lucky approach to life inspires me every day; a nd Vivienne, at the time of publication, you are still pit ching a perfect game. This effort and anything that may spring from it belongs to the three of you; but always remember your mother is , undoubtedly, the smartest, toughest, most versatile and vital perso n in our house. Becky, you make me a smarter person a nd better man each day . this to be true ever since your request for a Phillips head screwdriver. I thank God for the ultimatum you served me at Tucson International . You will forever have my heart. I close these acknowledgments by tipping my hat to Ted Lasso , who reminded me throughout this journey to remain curious, but not judgmental which sounds easier than it is. I also genuinely thank anyone who is still reading this; and close by prais ing my Creator , who I place my full fait h in each and every day. It will never be lost on me to whom much is given, Go Gators, Fight On, and Beat Navy!

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS pag e ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 Statemen t of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 16 Leadership Communication and Social Media ................................ ................. 17 Leadership Communication and Perceived Risk ................................ .............. 19 Positioning the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 U.S. Army Mission and Background ................................ ................................ . 20 The Purpose and Structure of U.S. Army Communication ............................... 20 Leadership Communication in the U.S. Army ................................ ................... 22 U.S. Army Leadership Communication on Social Media ................................ .. 23 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 26 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 29 Defining Leadership Communication as a Function of Public Relations ................. 30 Relationship Management as a Paradigm ................................ ........................ 33 Context and Culturally Sensitive Approaches ................................ ................. 34 Leadership Communication Styles ................................ ................................ ......... 34 Ethical Leadership ................................ ................................ ............................ 36 Transformational Leadership ................................ ................................ ............ 38 Servan t Leadership ................................ ................................ .......................... 39 Leadership Communication and Social Media ................................ ........................ 40 Uses and Gratification Theory ................................ ................................ .......... 42 Motivation for Uses and Gratification in the Social Media Context ................... 43 Leadership Communication and Social Media Strategies ................................ ....... 45 Defining Engagement ................................ ................................ ....................... 47 Dialogic Communication ................................ ................................ ................... 49 Spiral of Silence Theory ................................ ................................ ................... 51 Institut ional, Cultural, and Individual Influences ................................ ................ 52 Leadership Communication and Risk on Social Media ................................ ........... 53 Contingency Theory and Optimism Bias ................................ .......................... 55 Complexity Theory and Social Amplification ................................ ..................... 56

PAGE 8

8 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 59 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 59 Approach to Grounded Theory Methodology ................................ .......................... 60 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 63 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 64 Recruitment and Selection of Sample ................................ .............................. 65 Pilot testing ................................ ................................ ................................ 66 In depth interviews ................................ ................................ ..................... 67 Content analys is ................................ ................................ ........................ 70 Additional documents ................................ ................................ ................. 73 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 73 Coding and Memo writing ................................ ................................ ................. 74 Sorting and Diagramming ................................ ................................ ................. 78 Theoretical Sensitivity and Saturation ................................ .............................. 79 Trustworthiness and Validity ................................ ................................ ................... 81 Ethics, Confidentiality, and Human Subject Participation ................................ ....... 83 Role of the Researcher and Self Reflexivity ................................ ............................ 84 4 PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ............ 92 Sequencing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 92 Theoretical Categories ................................ ................................ ............................ 94 Category 1 : Leadership ................................ ................................ ........................... 94 Leadership Role ................................ ................................ ............................... 95 Individual Attributes ................................ ................................ .......................... 98 Leadership Style ................................ ................................ ............................... 99 Category 2: Approaches to Social Media ................................ .............................. 103 Classifying Army Senior Leaders on Social Media ................................ ......... 103 Social Media Motivations ................................ ................................ ................ 104 Social Media Platform Preferences and Patterns ................................ ........... 108 Benefits of Social Media Use ................................ ................................ .......... 111 Category 3: Engagement Strategies ................................ ................................ ..... 113 Social Presence ................................ ................................ ............................. 114 Dialogic Principles ................................ ................................ .......................... 115 Message Appe als, Functionality, and Vividness ................................ ............. 116 Public Engagement ................................ ................................ ........................ 117 Category 4: Risk Communication ................................ ................................ ......... 119 Perceived Risks ................................ ................................ .............................. 120 Mitigation Measu res ................................ ................................ ....................... 126 Emergent Themes ................................ ................................ ................................ 129 5 DISCUSSION AND THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTION ................................ ....... 141 Constructed Theory ................................ ................................ .............................. 141 Theoretical Im plications ................................ ................................ ........................ 148 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ........................ 156

PAGE 9

9 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 161 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 161 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 164 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 167 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ............. 170 B SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................. 172 C MILITARY SENIOR LEADER CODE BOOK FOR TWITTER ............................... 176 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 180 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 203

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1. Demographics of Senior Army Leader Interview Sample vs. Total Army ........... 90 3 2. Account information of senior military leaders on Twitter sample ....................... 91 4 1. Frequency of coding for categories and themes ................................ ............... 133 4 2. Extent of theme data ................................ ................................ ........................ 134 4 3. Case classification matrix ................................ ................................ ................. 135 4 4. Coding book for military leader social media posts ................................ ........... 136 4 5. Account information of senior military leaders on Twitter sample ..................... 138

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1. .............. 139 4 2. Continuum of Findings ................................ ................................ ...................... 140 5 1. Media ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 160 5 2. Venn Diagram of Army Senior Leader Classifications ................................ ...... 160 C 1. Example of Analyzed Tweet from Army Senior Leader ................................ .... 179

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AHPO ASL Army Human Protections Office Army Senior Leader BOLC CCO CEO CITI CSA CSM DMDC DOD GO KPI OPR PAO PME SEA SM SOP Basic Officer Leader Course Chief Communication Officer Chief Executive Officer Collaborative Instititional Training Initative Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Command Sergeant Major Defense Manpower Data Center Department of Defense General Officer Knowledge Performance Indicator Organization Public Relationships Public Affairs Officer Professional Military Education Senior Enli sted Advisor Social Media Standard Operating Procedure

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE POST DIGITAL ERA : By Marc Vielledent May 2022 Chair: Tom Kelleher Co c hair: Rita Linjuan Men Major: Mass Communication As a crucial component of leadership communication, social media continues to transform engagement, relationships, and behavior. With the unpredictability that accompanies any social interaction, understanding associated risks remains prudent for senior leaders as they consider appropriate st rategies, systems, and policies to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts. In traditionally hierarchical organizations, such as the U.S. military, identifying, understanding, and reassessing associated risks is vitally important given the speed of toda Scholarship over last decade in communication and public relations has established the role of senior leaders as engagement officers and relationship builders who use social media to connect with publics on behalf o f their organizations. The U.S. military differs from private industry in the sense that operational security concerns and public expectations often prevent military leaders from providing in depth, substantive discussions about advocacy or mission related communication on social media. T his dissertation examine d three distinct classifications of social media users embracers, observers, and abstainers a cross U.S. Army senior leadership and considered how

PAGE 14

14 each classification relate d to leadership style, communication and engagement pr e ferences, perce ived benefits of social media , and subsequent mitigation strategies. This study incorporates a mixed methodology of in depth qualitative interviews with 20 Army senior leaders, an a dditional analysis of 10 pu blications and panels, and a content analysis of 600 tweets from 20 military senior leaders who possess an active Twittter presence. Findings showed that Army senior leaders generally perceive risks of social media based on their individual leadership dyna mics, communication preferences, engagement strategies, and overall approaches toward various social media platforms. Results suggest Army senior leader s incorporat e two way asymmetric models and public information in their communication, with dialogic com munication positively influencing public engagement. Further, numerous mitigation strategies are identified by Army senior leaders as recommendations to combat risk perceptions. The theoretical implications include ethical considerations and contribute to the growing canon of literature in public relations, leadership communication, social media, and risk. From a practical perspective, these findings offer important implications for senior leaders and their organizations to incorporate various contingencies in to their respective approaches regarding public communication.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION I t is a tool that can be used responsibly or recklessly. General (retired) Martin Dempsey 1 8th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff The military remains the most respected institution in America (Pew Research, 2019), despite a recent 17% drop in public trust and confidence in the military (Reagan National Defense Sur vey, 2021). These findings come as the Pentagon grapples with sensitive issues includ ing politicization of the military, greater awareness o f sexual assault, and concerns about extremism within the force (Cammarata, 2021). Mixed messaging and conflicting c ommunication from an organization can quickly erode public trust and confidence (Sohn & Edwards, 2018). Likewise, service members freedom to opine in the social media space without any formal policing or oversight can quickly damage relationships and create reputational risk. Military service members, regardless of rank, must comply with specific rules and regulations tied to social media use, and therefore, military leadership may not necessarily possess the same motivations or approach to social media as compared to civilian counterparts, such as CEOs. While previous research suggests service members use social media at similar rates to their civilian counterparts, based on the nonpartisan nature and expectations for the U.S. military, there is a significant disparity in partisan political communication on social media (Urben, 2017). In 2015, as a values based organization, the U.S. Army initiated its first, formalized internal communication campaign related to soldier conduct and behavior on soci Think, Type, Post .

PAGE 16

16 equip soldiers with an online philosophy to mitigate risk. In short, this campaign strategy delivers the following guidance: Think y type post P erceptions drive behavior, and the behavior of service members, and more specifically, military senior leaders on social media often takes place in the public sphere, whether those in uniform realize it or not. Operating in public view is accompanied by increased risk. Hence, this study introduces perceived risk as a driver for exploring and understanding how military senior leaders approach social media , their leadership styles and motivations, engagement strategies, and risk perceptions. This study further aimed to understand the relationship of perceived risks and social media. Statement o f the Problem The ubiquitous nature of social media has revolutionized our world, our language, and our relationships. In recent years, scholars (Golby, 2012; Spears, 2019; Urben, 2017; Vielledent, 2021) have begun to research how service members use socia l media and how their behavior may influence external perceptions of the military. While fairly similar, each of the different military services (U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Space Force) maintain a separate social media policy to gove rn th Congress, 2017). However, these policies and practices require updated analysis to further standardize and fortify against potential missteps which could degrade internal trust within the organization and external trust with the American people these organizations serve.

PAGE 17

17 S ocial media enables a greater volume and speed of publicly shared information . W hen used effectively, it also presents opportunities to communicate in an authentic, transparent, and rapid manner to build stronger, substantive relationships across a distributed environment (Kang, 2014; Kelleher, 2009; Men & Tsai, 2016; 2014; Taylor & K ent, 2014; U.S. Navy Social Media Handbook, 2019; Zhong et al., 2011). Conversely , when communicated poorly, such content diminishes core military tenets of honor, selflessness, and duty. While crafting and preserving strong individual, cultural, and inst itutional reputations may take years to build, they can be damaged in seconds by a single misstep from a senior military leader or influencer communicating on social media. Herein lies the problem and phenomenon of interest: How do military senior leaders apply their various communication styles and approaches to mitigate risk while improving relationships through their practices and strategies on social media? Leadership C ommunication and S ocial M edia As social media blurs the boundaries between mass a nd personal media, there is an increased presence of leaders engaging publics in a personal, intimate way to positively impact their organization (Brandfog, 2013; Kelleher, 2009). Publics now possess an increased expectation for access to leader insights a nd perspectives, as well as engaging in open dialogue via social media (Men & Tsai, 2016). Findings show leaders can cultivate relationships with their publics on social media, as these platforms provide opportunities to share information in a genuine, fri endly manner (Sweetser & Kelleher, 2016). With increasing regularity, leaders in the post digital era are trending and aspiring toward being more visible, sociable, and approachable; as a highly interactive platform for humanizing leaders and fostering eng agement, social media enables direct interaction with publics (Men & Tsai, 2016).

PAGE 18

18 There is minimal research on the intersection of social media and military leadership communication . Although most outspokenness on social media has traditionally occur red by retired leaders as opposed to those on active duty (Urben, 2017 ) , in recent years, specifically senior leaders in the U.S. Army have become much more active on social media. Existing U.S. military guidelines and directives emphasize the free expression afforded to service members, despite ambiguities related to political activity and risk communication. T he U.S. Office of Special Council (2015) s tipulated that r her own personal views on public issues or political cand i dates via social media platforms . . . much the same as they would be permitted to write a letter to the editor of a newspaper . Despite a common refrain seen on s ervicemembers social media accounts that any content associated with their account repre sents their own personal views and does not reflect the official views of the U.S. his mantra leaves space for interpretation by the service member and their respective audiences . A t the moment, there is little evidence of any standardized enfo rcement and objectivity across the force . I ndividual U.S. soldiers varies, as does oversight and accountability. However, a s less experienced soldiers engage in their own individual online communication, senior leaders and the valu es based military culture provide the last line of defense to protect the institution and serve as a guidepost for social media. T ypi ng and posting in a consistent manner from a set of core values may offer a tangible parameter for individuals across the organization to use . However, the thinking aspect of this Army campaign remains situational, individualized, and highly subjective in framing how senior leaders in the military communicate on social

PAGE 19

19 platforms. Thus, my study examines how Army senior leaders consider their communication on social media based on the associated risks and interpretations. Leadership C ommunication and P erceived R isk Soc ial leadership is transformational in nature . S ocial media helps transform the challenges of transformational leaders, which include s leading change, maintaining visibility, motivating, and communicating consistently with publics (Girard & Girard, 2010). T ransformational leaders of lower military rank can help promulgate social media into the military culture (Walinski, 2015), yet due to the seriousness of core military missions, legitimate concerns remain about risks associated with advocating for social m edia use as a sta b le, secure platform. While social media may offer advantages to military members, their families, their respective headquarters, and the American public there is no empirical evidence to suggest it offsets associated risk and potential (Walinski, 2015). As the presence of military leadership on social media continues to increase ( Golby, 2021 ; Urben, 2017), various aspects of risk in crease all types of communication . Risks are typically conceptualized in terms of outcomes or potential harm (Fox & Tannenbaum, 2011; Schonberg et al., 2011). My study specifically examine d how senior leaders in the most prevalent branc h of service operating on social media p erceive, accept, and mitigate risks on social media. Positioning the Study To better frame my study, the following section offers a background on the United States Army and explores U.S. Army structure, communication, public relations, and relevant polic ies .

PAGE 20

20 U.S. Army Mission and Background The U.S. Army is one of eight uniformed services in the U.S. Armed Forces , and remains the oldest and largest branch of the U.S. military. The mission of the U.S. Army y providing ready, prompt, and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the Joint and security, support national policies , implement n ational objectives , and o vercome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the U.S. (Section 3062, Title 10, U.S. Code). The Secretary of the Army is the senior civilian appointee, and the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army is the senior milita ry officer . B oth wor k together to lead the overall direction of the organization. The P urpose and S tructure of U.S. Army C ommunication The U.S. government and military has historically emphasi zed on the importance of information management. In the post digital era, information dissemination in the Department of Defense and the U.S. Army has become increasingly complex with increased capabilities welded by individual communicators across an array o f different modes. Maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people takes an entire Army (Army Communication Guidebook, 2018). Davis (2009) highlighted Abraham With the development of interconnected, globalized societies operating in a post digital era, armies now consider how wars in the future may be fought and influenced differently. Social media has gained p rimacy among new media technologies, but is growing more challenging for standardizing content, maintaining operational security,

PAGE 21

21 remains foundational in building, maintaini ng, and enabling effectiveness, whether in combat or at home station. As such, U.S. Army senior leaders must be exceptional communicators through clear, articulate written and oral communication to inspire their troops. The art and science of how military leaders inform and influence the populations they serve will occur o n new communication channel s and expedited timelines. In 1935, the first service wide designated communicator in the U.S. Army was the Chief of Public Relations (Stephens, 1978). G overnme nt communicators have transitioned from the term public relations to the term public affairs More than 60 years ago, f ormer U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower ( 1967 ) understood the importance of public relations in the U.S. military : Among all the contemporary skills with which a soldier these days must concern himself, not the least important is public relations a phrase almost unknown to the Army and a profession little practiced by it until World War II. That ignorance or negligence may be one reason why at the end of every war the Army was a budgetary stepchild. Chief of Staff might present and even argue their views that appropriations were inadequate but they did it to their civilian supe riors or to congressional committees. The general public, either as an interested audience or as a support, was largely ignored because of a long run tradition, accepted by the Army, that soldiers should be seen and not heard. The purpose of the public affairs community within the U.S. Army is to inform the American public regarding the current state and activities of their army. The public affairs officer (PAO) in each Army organization serves as the chief communication officer (CCO) to connect t he leadership and publics. Similar to the corporate world, military leaders establish the culture of the organization. As leaders or commanders establish their vision, identify objectives, and deliver intent, PAOs are expected to

PAGE 22

22 develop empirically based approaches to reinforce and further communicate their said that in the U.S. Army culture, restrictions, misperceptions, and an overall lack of emphasis on public affairs manning and training significantly hinder the PAOs ability to remain competitive in the post digital environment. Due to both routine turnover and varying leadership styles, it is not uncommon for PAOs to perceive different cultures within the same unit. Many leaders mischaracterize the role of t Current public affairs officer and public relations scholar, Major Chase Spears, summarized the state of public affairs in the Army (2019): The largest service is also the l e ast media sa v vy (Freedberg, 2015) and historically, it does not disseminate public information very well. Spears (2019) also noted former Secretary of Defense Mark service to respond when they have questions. Comparatively, Spears (2019) also noted ed to news queries from Reuters correspondents working in Kabul, Afghanistan , within an hour (Sediqi & Jain 2019). As a result, modernizing the practice of public relations remains an ongoing struggle for both senior leaders and organizations within the U.S. Army. Leadership Communication in the U.S. Army In the U.S. Army, every leader is expected to be a lifelong profes sional dedicated to their own education and development. Within the profession, it is the norm to face complex situations and problems; as such, there is an increased expectation for military leaders to create a range of options for senior decision makers. As members of the profession of arms, Army soldiers serve in a professional culture founded on doctrine,

PAGE 23

23 values, codes, and service (Ingesson, 2018). Despite its hierarchical reputation, the Army is comp o sed of leadership that emphasizes divers e, bottom up feedback to achieve operational success and to prevent reinforcing silo chambers. Commanders in the Army may have tremendous influence, but their authority has limits. For this reason among others , senior leaders communicate with clarity in their intent on various channel s while personally invest ing themselves to foster logical and emotional appeal for tasks, missions, and sustained influence (Ryan & Thompson, 2017). While generals and senior enlisted leaders routinely and thoroughly prepare in a responsible manner on a public topic, question, or concern, many of these same leaders will not speak in public without prior preparation (Welch, 2016). While such a decision might logically be based on perceived risks, it does not alleviate the requiremen t or expectation for sound leadership and communication in certain scenarios. Building cohesive teams through mutual trust , and creating shared understanding , are two of the six principles of mission command (HQDA 2012, pp. 2 1), and both derive from leade rship communication (Spears, 2019). Thus, military leaders are not unlike CEOs: As the chief communication officer (CCO) assists the CEO to communicate across different echelons and channel s within the organization, in many instances, Army senior leaders r ely on their PAO to do the same. U.S. Army strategic communicators and PAO s are designed to assist the commander in utilizing communication as a tool in leading their units. U.S. Army L eadership C ommunication on S ocial M edia T he content that military members generate or release on social media has a social and political value. Based on the transmission speed of information on social media, Army senior leaders may unintentionally communicate controversial information

PAGE 24

24 on their in dividual accounts in a way that has both organizational and individual impacts. Based on its extensive range and minimal geographic limitations, social media enable Army senior leaders to share their thoughts and viewpoints on a specific topic without rely ing on any external media resources . While it is perfectly acceptable and common for all soldiers to possess social media accounts as a convenient way to maintain contact with distant family and friends , over prolonged distances, current policy does not ac count for how quickly information moves on social media. While military policy may regulate how soldiers communicate on social media about specific topics, especially political issues, it does not account for how the public may interpret, engage, and inte ract with social or political content from service members in the post digital era. Such content, especially from senior military leaders, contributes to shaping civil military relations, public opinion, morale, and resources attributed to the military (Le venshus, 2012). H ow service members interact with the public through official and unofficial social media accounts could be framed by the risks associated with reputatio n , operational security, partisan activity, and unprofessionalism. The uniform may tie communication from any soldier to the entire Army, but ultimately, how Army senior leaders communicate impacts the overall culture of the formation . Absent specific guidance, s enior leader behavior on social media, ve rsus behavior of the rank and file, is more likely to set and shape expectations across the DOD. Army senior leaders risk crafting communication on social media in a way that audience in an inclusive manner , while also remaining vigilant about operational

PAGE 25

25 messages on social media as a direct result of accessibility to a given channel , they communicate more to broader audiences than originally intended. While the public may value transparency and authenticity from military leaders hip , two way communication between the military and the public builds trust. As Army leaders prioritize building dialogic relationships and consider t heir rationale for increasing or decreasing social media presence, th e space remains both a risk and an opportunity for leaders. At the macro level, U.S. Army senior leaders appear to approach social media in three fundamentally different ways. For framing my study, these approaches can be classified as embracers, observers , and abstain ers. Both literature and practice provide these broad classifications or descriptions for social media users (Al Menayes, 2014; Brandtzaeg, 2010; Nielsen, 2006; Ortega Egea, 2007). Embracers engage in all kinds of activities in the social media environment , producing user generated content . As described by an Army senior leader (ASL) in my study, I think social media is a part of the environment that we are leading in. I actively choose to engage on social media where many of our soldiers are, many of our influencers are, many of our detractors are. I feel i f I don't engage in that space failing to lead (ASL #14) . O bserver s remain car eful, reserved spectators who rarely contribute on social media A bstain ers do not participate in any social media activities for var ying reasons (Heim & Brandtzaeg, 2007). As described by an other senior leader in my study, I'm not a resistor. I'm not a hater, but I'm a non participant. I don't post on it. I don't read it. I don't check it. I don't read the thread s . The only other thing I touch that is social media is YouTube, but I don't post comments or any of that other crap (ASL #13).

PAGE 26

26 E xamin ing these classifications and examining leadership communication at the top of an organization can inform and influence both leader decision mak ing and strategies related to social media. Any recommendations to modify or c onceptualize Army leadership communication on social media requires an identification, understanding, and assessment of how Army senior leaders perceive risks in this space. Purpose of the Study Practical efforts help accomplish something, whereas intellectual efforts help to understand something (Maxwell, 2012, p. 28). Recent intellectual efforts spearheaded by communication scholars have established the role of executive leaders as engagement officers and relationship builders (Men et al., 2019; Yue et al., 2019, 2020). Recent empirical findings also show that corporate leaders u se social media to achieve individual and organizational outcomes, such as public engagement with organizations, relationship building, and personal branding (Huang & Yeo, 2018; Men et al., 2019). However, when considering the unstable n ature of current reputational impacts and operational security concerns, do associated risks and potential for unintended consequences outweigh potential benefits for leaders in high stakes organizations? As organizations design their own strategies and p olicies, it is becoming increasingly difficult for organizations to reassure predict ability in how they control conversations about themselves . I n addition, leaders seem to increasingly possess less control over the dialogue, networking, and rapid, broad s pread of information in the open, minimal publishing threshold that is social media (Aula, 2010). The theoretical utility and importance of first hand, in depth interviews and supporting documents , as well as a supplementary content analysis on social medi a activity, offer s an information -

PAGE 27

27 rich contribution via qualitative research and inductive logic to inform both military and non military leaders alike, as they continue to contemplate their own risk calculus and strategies related to social media and publ ic communication . My study aim ed to explore and understand how military leaders approach social media and perceive risk to better explain the relationship and factors influencing those perceptions. The se findings esta blish a framework t hat can inform leade rs a bout perceived risks related to individual, cultural, and institutional concerns . Significance of the s tudy . By exploring a traditionally hierarchical organization characterized as illuminating and foundational . Most notably, as social media is becoming an everyday means of engagement for leaders, the interactive design of various platforms is also generating increased volatility and uncertainty. C onducting in depth , semi structured interviews with Army senior leadership allows a unique opportunity to better understand the relationship between leaders operating in highly sensitive environments and their publics via social media, while exploring how risk perceptions i nfluence their behavior and communication (Aula, 2010). By understanding both the disparity and alignment of perceived risks, my study delivers a succinct risk profile , or typology, for leaders to consider and use in their own social media strategies and leadership approaches. These findings make use of all relevant evidence, explore rival interpretations, and draw on prior knowledge in a reflexive way in the military environment. In addition, these findings can ai d future messaging, approaches, and policies for other traditionally hierarchical organizations,

PAGE 28

28 while advancing current theory related to leadership communication, social media , and perceived risk .

PAGE 29

29 C HAP T ER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE P rincipal arguments in grounded theory scholarship ( Glaser and Strauss , 1967) recommend postponing a literature review until after data collection is complete, yet this approach is impractical for topics possessing a scarcity of knowledge (Payne, 2007; Glas er, 1998; Glaser et al., 1998). It is common for grounded theory researchers to complete at least a partial overview of relevant literature tied to a specific research topic because how can paucity of knowledge be ascertained unless an initial review of literature is undertaken? (McGhee et al., 2007, p. 339 340). Yet, a partial overview can fall victim to generic, ill defined literature reviews with minimal preparation and in sufficient detail to justify the research endeavor (Bryant, 2009). The literatur e review for my study was conducted in two phases: a foundational review of focused literature (Chapter 2); and a revision of those extant concepts ( Chapter 5 ) to explain findings and conclusions , and to articulate the resulting place in the scholar ship. Charmaz (2006) said researchers conduct a precise literature review to prepare for their analysis , and then revisit literature to build on or revise their previous literature review. Both Schreiber and Stern (2001) and Charmaz (2006) support g enerating a portion of the literature review before data collection and analysis on the research topic , to locate connections and contributions as a result of prior analysis. Supporting these suggestions, my study aimed to develop a better baseline for rel evance by advanc ing a theoretical understanding of leadership communication in relation to public relations, social media, and risk . This could provide research based insights for leaders to effectively use in a rapidly evolving, complex world.

PAGE 30

30 First, address leadership communication as a function of public relations . Next we focus on relationship management , and outline various leader communication approaches , includ ing ethical, transformational, and servant leadership styles . A ll of these appro aches overlap : servant leadership being most encompassing. T his review of leadership styles reveals identified leadership approaches to social media usage . Next, a review of studies on communication strategies, specifically on soc ial media and its various platforms, coupled with the theoretical underpinnings associated with social media are highlighted in their respective contexts. Finally, an overview of how perceived risk intersects with leadership communication on social media i s presented to augment the research questions and to better articulate the conceptual relationship s in these areas of study. Defining Leadership Communication as a Function of Public Relations Organizations are effective when they achieve their goals . H owever, publics mission (Grunig et al., 2002). Building relationships enables more freedom to achieve objectives, but still requires balanc ing the interests of the or ganization and strategic publics. Leaders are uniquely positioned to manage this balance and bridge the gap between organization and publics, which my study also considers. As an influence process, Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) de fine g the people . . . groups . . . In many ways, effective leadership and effective communication, as inherently human endeavors, remain synonymous. Effective communication and leadership can be a learned behavior a nd professional skill, requiring deliberate practice, commitment, and consistency to master (Crosby, 2021). Effective leadership communication fosters

PAGE 31

31 stronger, mutually beneficial relationships with a variety of stakeholders (Men et al., 2018; Men & Tsai, 2016). Additionally, subordinates routinely expect their leaders to communicate insights, ideas, and information across different media with greater frequency and regularity (Men et al., 2020). In this vein, Luthra and Dahiya (2015) found that communicat By championing communication, leaders can unite and inspire others to work toward the same objective . Traditionally, leadership has been defined as a combination of traits, skills, and styles (Zaccaro, 20 07). However, Hackman and Johnson (2013) described this combination in terms of influence, offering a communication based definition, stating that leadership is human communication that influences the attitudes and behaviors of followers to better meet sha red objectives. The value of public relations comes from the relationships that communicators develop and maintain with publics (Grunig, 2002). Power, purpose, and relationships remain critical measures of effectiveness in leadership communication (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2017). Traditionally, leadership communication was classified as a one way, transmission process with a single sender and a single receiver. However , relationships develop more effectively when communicators use two way, symmetrical : as oppo sed to one way, asymmetrical communication with publics (Grunig, 2002). W ith leadership communication becoming more interactive , however , it is also becoming more complex . It is thus more challenging to identify misalignment in the two way communication en vironment (Barrett, 2006). In recent years, public relations scholarship has highlighted the role of corporate leaders as primary communicators, engagement officers, and relationship builders (Men

PAGE 32

32 et al, 2019, Yue et al., 2020). There is an increased exp serve as ambassadors and spokespeople for their organization, provide guidance in crisis, and foster positive relationships and reputations (Lucero et al., 2009). Barrett (2006) found that as leaders encounter stress and com plexity within their organizations, there is a greater expectation for fluid, competent communication. Leaders influence the overall culture within their organizations in how they communicate their organizational vision and values (Newsom et al., 2012). M en and Bowen (2017) suggest leadership communication system and plays a defining role in the efficacy of internal communication (Men, 2014). Additional findings in leadership commun ication research determined that effective communication leads to employee advocacy, enhances reputation, and cultivates positive organizational relationships and culture all of which further organizational end states (Men, 2015; Men & Yue, 2019; Yue et al ., 2019). The most common definition of public relations (Pasadeos et al., 1999) describes & Hunt, 1984, p. 4). Heath and Coombs (2006) s aid that as a management functi on, relies on the assumption that relationships can truly be mutually beneficial (Bowe n, 2013). As a function of public relations, leadership communication is foundational. My study align ed leadership communication in public relations as fundamental to the pos

PAGE 33

33 (Cameron et al., 2008, p. xv). C haos and ambiguity in leadership communication result in scholars adopting an integrative perspective that combines transmissional and re lational approaches (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017; Ruben & Gigliotti, 2016). My study adopts this philosophy by conducting relational (in depth interviews) and transmissional (content analysis) data collection with a mindfulness toward relationship management . Relationship Management as a Paradigm Relationships, instead of communication, is the proper focal point of public relations (Ferguson, 1984). As such, organization publics re lationships (OPR) remained a center of gravity in public relations literature for the better part of four decades (Huang & Zhang, 2015). Most of the substantial OPR research emphasizes the importance of organizations building successful relationships amid competing require ments and constraints (Ferguson, 1984; Grunig & Grunig, 1995). Kuhn (1970) described a paradigm as a shared theory or set of theories (p. 182). Notably, OPR serves as a critical paradigm for linking PR strategies, practices, and effectiveness (Huang & Zhan g, 2015) through key elements, relational outcomes, and application. Grunig et al. (1992) identified reciprocity, credibility, openness, mutual legitimacy, satisfaction, and trust as key elements of OPR. Hon and Grunig (1999) later identified relational ou tcomes of OPR as trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, exchange , and communal relationships. Nevertheless, a crucial ste p in future research is examining the distinction between interpersonal relationships and OPR at the organizational level (Huang & Zhang, 2015). This aforementioned literature carries over into how relationships are formed and maintained in the post digital era, when social media is ubiquitous and individual members of organizations possess the capability to cultivate relati onships with individual s within publics in various contexts (Kelleher, 2015).

PAGE 34

34 Context and Culturally Sensitive Approaches A context or cultur ally sensitive approach to OPR, such as within the U.S. military, which investigates organizational or leader shi p perspectives as opposed to the publics heavy perspective, remains sparse within the field of study (Choi & Cameron, 2005). The effectiveness of OPR a t the individual level focuse s on attitudes, behavioral intention, and behavioral outcomes (Kang & Yang, 2010) . E ffectiveness at the institutional or organizational level focuses on conflict resolution, crisis management, cost reduction, and economic input (Hong & Yang, 2009). Within the paradigm, as a value adding feature, effective public relations consist s public relationships around common interests and shared goals over time to generate the organization, effective management starts by identifying a nd leveraging different leadership communication styles and strategies in various contextual environments. Leadership Communication Styles Successful leaders recognize and apply a flexible, appropriate socio (Richmond, 2002). When using a socio communicative style, leaders facilitate optimal outcomes through strong relationships and conflict avoidance. Care and approachability foster mutual understanding for multiple parties to reach a common ground; whereas discord and dissent decrease satisfaction, constrain progress, and hinder solutions (Men & Bowen, 2017). Thomas, Richmond, and McCroskey (1994) define socio communicative style as the different skills individuals use in initiating, adapting, and responding to interpersonal communicat ion situations based on assertive and responsive communication styles

PAGE 35

35 (Men, 2015; Thomas et al., 1994). Each categorical style and application depend s on the specific social structure and contextual environment. Men and Bowen (2017) framed assertive leader ship communication as dominant, forceful, aggressive, and competitive where leaders speak for themselves and are more likely to react decisively. Assertive communicators are often task oriented and take initiative to achieve their interpersonal goals (Men, 2015; Thomas et al., 1994). Porter, Wrench, and Hoskinson (2007) define a responsive leader as a quality listener who is empathetic, compassionate, understanding, friendly, warm, sincere, and interested. Men (2015) found that those leaders who demonstrat e responsive communication characteristics are more likely to be perceived as better communicators. Responsive leadership communication is based on the relational dimension of relationships , where strong, task oriented leaders position themselves to be mor e voice and contributions of employees lead s to positive employee attitudinal and The ability for an Army leader to app ly different communication styles based on the organization, personalities, and conditions can strengthen trust and increase production. Categorizing communication styles requires an assessment and subsequent classification based on the type, tone, and lev el of trust associated with the specific leader. Previous scholarship (Aylor & Opplinger, 2003; Men, 2015; Norton & Warnick, 1976; Wooten & McCroskey, 1996) examining the im p act of both assertive and responsive communication has proven that each style is beneficial based on the context and objective. Assertiveness positively associates with identifying emerging leaders

PAGE 36

36 within the organization; responsiveness positively associates with increased frequency of communication; and both styles positively relate to perceptions of leader trustworthiness. Both are necessary in the military. As a result, Army senior leaders may consider developing both assertive and responsive communication styles and make use of each as appropriate point to achieve their optimal out comes. C lassifying specific Army senior leaders in the assertive responsive typology may prove more feasible . However, my study aimed to operationalize various leadership styles through a qualitative approach to determine any associated impacts based on so cial media usage. Ethical Leadership In recent years it seems, ethical concerns have gained greater scrutiny and interest across professions, to include the profession of arms. As a result, many researchers have examined ethical leadership and its implic ations with greater frequency (Cheng et al., 2019; Thiel et al., 2018). Johnson (2018) said that professions suffer when members fail to uphold their ethical obligations (p. 87). ate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two way communication, reinforcement, and decision command climate (Bowen, et al. 2012, 4). Ethical leaders now consider the effects of their actions beyond their own self interest and the scope of the organization, especially if they care about supporting their followers and serving the welfare of societ y at large directional engagement between an organization and its publics in an ethical manner, despite the potential for competing agendas (Spears, 2019).

PAGE 37

37 The military enviro nment presents an ideal context for examining ethical leadership based on its foundational values, its ethical codes of conduct, and the sustained professionalism expected for ethical organizations to operate amid chaotic, complex environments and conditio ns (Mayer, 2013). Ingesson (2018) found that loyalty Commanders, or military leaders, must fulfill certain duties, ethical responsibilities, and professional expectations to maintain the trust of the American he e U.S. Department of Defense (D O D) recognizes the importance of ethics, truth, and accountability and recognizes that its governmental agencies must preserve legitimacy and credibility. As a result, DOD, as an institution, does not support its leaders devi ating from pre established ethical codes of conduct based on the potential risks of unintentionally fostering a hostile climate through varying interpretations of ethical standards and behavior (Brown & Mitchell, 2010; Palanski et al., 2019). Ultimately, leaders promote ethical behaviors and professionalism to protect organizational interests and values (K. Lee, 2018). Bandura (2000) said leaders persuade followers to achieve ethical outcomes and generate moral efficacy beliefs by example. It is becoming m ore commonplace for ethical leaders to routinely communicate about ethics, to justify controversial actions, and to reward ethical conduct from followers to promote future ethical behaviors (Men & Bowen, 2017) . My study

PAGE 38

38 considers whether this type of persu asion and communication extends to military leader approaches on social media . Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership align s organizations and their members through inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Men , 2014). Universally recognized as an espoused concept from Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), transformational leaders motivate followers by appealing to their higher order needs . They encourage individuals to transcend self interest for the sake of the larger organization (Men, 2014). Transformational leaders can be directive or participative, but always encourage followers to exceed expectations and to socially identify with the group (Tsai et al., 2009). The role of the transformational leader is to establish a strategic vision, objectives, and corresponding approach while exemplifying the qualities of a confident, determined leader (Men & Bowen, 2017). Transformational leaders focu s their efforts on participation, empowerment, and developing relationships (Yukl, 200 8 ). Army senior leaders with transformational leaders hip share a strong sense of purpose ; and a shared mission, vision, and high expectations for the organization, often resulting in an emotional attachment between leaders and followers. This requires continual interaction between leaders and followers to strengthen relationships, as leaders often empower their followers and delegate significant authority to followers to m ake them less dependent on the leader (Men & Stacks, 2013). It is common i n military settings , for leaders to maintain the initiative through assessing, delegating, and empowering followers based on the situational environment and threat estimate s (Eid et al., 2004).

PAGE 39

39 Research in transformational leadership differs from ethical and servant leadership in the sense that it centers effective relationship building, attitude, and behavior (DeGroot et al., 2000; Dumdum et al., 2002; Men, 2014; Podsakoff et al., 19 96). As a point of departure in my study, t ransformational leadership remain s relevant based on its emphasis on interpersonal communication in organizations. More recent studies suggest that transformational leadership has a direct positive relationship w ith task performance and affective organizational commitment via social media (Khan et al., 2019) . W hether this holds true for military organizations i s unknown. Servant Leadership Often classified as the most encompassing leadership style (Men & Jiang, 2 016; Men & Stacks, 2014), servant leadership is an ethical approach for leaders to operate , (Men & Bowen, 2017, p. 70). In the 1970s, Robert Greenleaf established servant leadership based on the concept that servant leaders privilege the needs of their followers in relation to all other priorities in the organization. Servant leadership differs from transformational leadership based on the center of focus from the specific leader on followers based on an ethical investment and drive to meet follower needs (Robinson, 2020; Sendjaya, 2015). As a result, followers become more invested in the leader follower relationship as a byproduct of leadership style (van Dierendoc k, 2011). The link between servant leadership and the U.S. military ha s roots in the core values shared across the U.S. armed services, and also in recent research from Udani and Lorenzo Molo (2013) which suggested practical credibility in the U.S. Marine Corps has increased as leaders within the organization have become more service oriented. In addition, the authors found greater investment and commitment to mission success

PAGE 40

40 own. Servant leaders emphasize caring, commonalities, and ethics as central to well being in the organization (Walumbw a & Weber, 2009). In addition, servant leadership improves commitment, trust, and satisfaction in the organization (Eva et al., 2019; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2018). Therefore, how leaders incorporate servant leadership into their approach on social media can serve as personal expressions of knowledge sharing and relationship building in their organizations (Luu, 2015; Men & Bowen, 2017; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). There is a gap in the literature regard ing how servant leaders in the military might leverage social media to influence their followers in spreading cohesion, citizenship, and cooperation within their formations. As a result of these varying communication and leadership styles, my study pose d the following research q uestion related to social media: RQ1: How d oes leadership style influence how Army senior leaders approach and use social media? Leadership Communication and Social Media In the post eve become one of the dominant topics in communication research (Smith, 2015). Weinberg and Pehlivan (2011) defined social media as platforms, applications, and tools that take plac e via an interactive computer network . T he tools include social networking sites (SNS), peer to peer sharing sites, blogs . These other like communities enable the creation, distribution, and response to content in an interpersonal, timely manner.

PAGE 41

41 Social m edia possesses unique characteristics compared to traditional media channels, based on its nature as a mobile, interactive platform to create, share, discuss, and modify content generated and selected by the user in private and public venues (Barker, 2008; Kelleher, 2009; Matthews Jaurez et al., 2013; Men 2015). Through real time communication platforms, social media enables relationship building in professional and personal ways for professional leade r s (Kelleher, 2009; Men & Tsai, 2016; Paek et al., 2013; Yue et al., 2019). Social media is also a different type of conduit for leadership communication based on its digital storytelling and content sharing capability optimized for mobile display and timely delivery (Allagui & Breslow, aders recognize that their job is as much about developing strategies as it is about communicating strategies through effective channels to reach their intended publics (Men & Bowen, 2017). In total, social media equips strategic leaders with resources to pursue organizational objectives in a direct and targeted way, despite its personal nature with . . . tion through social media fosters relationships, promotes interaction, and encourages engagement from publics. Despite the benefits social media offers for leadership communication and engagement, critics of social media (Barlett & Barlett, 2012) continue to doubt its empirical benefits, based on its unpredictability and potential adverse impact s . . . or via an unpredictable media space offers a unique opportunity for res earchers and public relations practitioners. Thus, investigating the different motivations for Army senior

PAGE 42

42 use is the first step in understanding the current impact and influence of social media on leadership communication. Uses and Gratification Theory Humans possess a need for belonging (Maslow, 1943). The Uses and Gratification theory posits that individuals seek out a distinct form of media to meet their individual needs (Ballard, 2011). As uses and gratification research has evolved, its focus on aud ience motivation and consumption in various contexts, includ ing social media, has become commonplace (Quan Haase, 2012). At its inception in the 1940s, researchers ( Herzog , 1940 ; Lazarsfeld, 1940 ) studied why individuals gravitated toward certain media con tent, such as radio, prioritizing audience motivation more than media effects. Moving this inquiry forward, Berelson (1949) investigated individual motivations for reading the newspaper , and drew conclusions related to information seeking, escapism, and so cial connectedness. By the 1950s, a model for determining the most gratification emphasize d how the media a ffects individuals . However, by the 1970s, researchers shifted toward understanding motivation and selection of media as a way to satisfy needs (Katz et al., 1973). ul use of media to strengthen relationships with people, society, and culture. As uses and gratifications research turned toward what people do with media, and with the audience actively selecting and us ing media to satisfy specific needs, the ability for individuals to gain greater control of content enabled new examinations (Ballard, 2011; Lin, 2001) into gratifications associated with social media compared to traditional, mass media. This

PAGE 43

43 subsequent research raised new questions about the motivations, co nsequences, and risks of social media use. It is necessary to investigate any salient individual motivations to better understand, explain, and explore questions related to individual Army senior leader characteristics , motivations, and social media effect s. Motivation for U ses and G ratification in the S ocial M edia C ontext Nearly all behavior is partly determined by some form of motivation , and all individuals maintain different levels of needs (Maslow, 1943) . Common themes from motivational research ident if y behavior as goal directed, with goals hierarchically arranged, and approach ing or avoid ing the motivation. In mass communication, early theoretical concepts sai d that mass media had an immediate, universal impact on individuals who remained disposed to influence and incapable of developing their own thoughts and ideas (McQuail & Windail, 1993). T u ses and g ratification theory is as appropriate as in identifying how social media influences human behavior (Swanson, 2016; Floren thal, 2015) . Motivation, with respect to social media, informs understanding of how and why individuals transition from one communication channel to another. Florenthal (2015) recently examined how u ses and g ratification t heory became one of the most applied theories in social media research. Findings by Swanson (2016) suggest significant interest in the link between gratification and social media use. Social media use is motivated by a sense of belonging and self presenta tion ( Florenthal , 201 5 ). While belonging relates to a desire for connection and acceptance by others (Hall, 2014), self presentation relates to controlling individual representations to optimally influence judgment or perceptions from others (Seidman, 201 4). The interactive nature of social media generates perceived gains in reputation, as well as

PAGE 44

44 generate a motivational process for Army senior leaders to potentially increas e , decreas e , or maintain rates of usage on social media. As social media has become ubiquitous, new insight into uses and gratification research continues to emerge (Ballard, 2011; Seidman, 2013; Soat, 2015). As escapism creeps into individuals, th ere is an increased motivation to gratify this desire . S ocial media provides a satisfactory outlet for such relief. Soat (2015) found that as users post, like, or share on various platforms, they incur greater feelings of happiness and satisfaction through an acquired sense of belonging and self worth. D ispute continues in uses and gratifications research about the benefits and risks of social media. Kim et al. (2014) found that social media usage increases individual happiness, while Whiteman et al. (2013) suggested social media usage increases individual depression. Ultimately, individual feelings likely depend on the message and the strength of association to the individual who delivers it (Lasswell, 1948; Lin & Utz, 2015). Herein lies another gap where p revious theoretical research c ould be advanced or modified. Individual gratification preferences can predict later social media habits. Individual leaders who use social media to socialize will use social media more often, whereas those leaders who rely on social media to be contemporary are less likely to use social media (Leung, 2001). The relationship between the channel and the individual is based on environmental or contextual resources, such as companionship, behavior, or to facilitate communication (Lull, 1980). The uses and gratifications sought and obtained may not be synonymous across various platforms (Ballard, 2011). For example, Facebook us e is primarily motivated by social gratification (Boyd et al., 2007)

PAGE 45

45 to maintain social ties and connecti ons to previous relationships. Such connections include social searching, to maintain offline connections, and surveillance, to observe previous acquaintances (Johnson, 2008). However, Seidman (2013) suggested primary motivations for Facebook usage as more specifically related to attention seeking. On Twitter, individuals seek gratification via entertainment and expression, but obtain relational maintenance and information seeking (Ballard, 2011). Finally, gratification usage on LinkedIn trends toward inte rpersonal communication, online identity, and career advancement (Florenthal, 2015). Individuals tend to reciprocate the actions of those with whom they most identify (LaRose et al., 2001). As gratification meets or exceeds expectations, social media user s are motivated by a developed expectation that future social media usage will result in a comparable outcome. Uses and Gratification Theory then, as an explanation for social media use, creates vulnerabilities for Army senior leaders in the potential expl oitation of their individual identity and motivation. This discussion and review of the literature contribute s to the construction of the next research question s in the study . RQ2: What are the motivations for RQ 3 : How do Army senior leaders perceive benefits related to social media? Leadership Communication and Social Media Strategies In the social media landscape, the relationship between leaders and publics is being challenged based on questions related to how and why a relationship is being to many) into dialog ue (many to way, decentralized nature of social media allows stakeholders to engage in interact ive, dialogic conversations where individuals can share opinions and competing views. For leaders, social media presents

PAGE 46

46 a personal way to connect with publics and garner reputations for possessing authenticity and transparency, which in turn, builds deepe r connections with lower level control (Men & Tsai, 2014). In addition, Huang et al. (2012) found that many organizations only selectively adopt certain aspects of the tool s and features available with social media, raising questions about how these finding s might apply to military leaders and their organizations. overwhelming mass mediated approach to a more conversational, relationship building relational maintenance strategies focus on dialogic communication and social presence applications to foster relationship building with publics. Canary and Stafford (1992) focused on interpersonal approaches, whereas Grunig and Huang (2000) took more organization public relational approaches and operationalizing relational maintenance strategies, to ultimately settle on Ki a cultivation strategies (access, positivity, openness, sharing of tasks, networking, and assurances). The effectiveness of these strategies relies on practitioners placing emphasis on relationship building and offer ing the potential for real dialogue (Kelleher, 2009). Relationship building and dialogue are further examined via in depth interviews using questions about social media to address the social structure of the U.S. military. Different social media platforms requ ire different skills, and different platforms et al., 2011, p. 12). Men and Bowen (2017) said

PAGE 47

47 employees and democratize the workplace in a sense that leaders can no longer consider, and subsequently, select from an array of social media platforms based on selection criteria should consider the preference of the receiver, coupled with the bjectives, message attributes, and individual Some Army senior , may adopt certain features of a specific platform that do not guarantee further dial ogue or public engagement. For example, the senior leader may choose to make their account private , which allows more tailored messaging to a selected audience chosen by the user. In instances where accounts are public, there is greater access for wider au diences to consider the dialogic orientation and purpose of the senior engagement on social media. Defining Engagement Engagement has been defined in many fields ( Dolan et al., 2015) , to includ e education (Baron & Corbin, 2012) , management (Saks, 2006) , and psychology (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006) communication practices, processes, and actions that an organization or individual must ng their Engagement is key to organizational outcomes because it increases commitment to leaders and reduces absenteeism and turnover (Robison, 2012). Previous p ublic relations research also suggests that engagement

PAGE 48

48 in corporates dialogic principles as a way to assess organizational outcomes via social media communication (Navarro, et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017). My study focuse d squarely on social media , or digital engagement. As one of the more prevalent channels fo r leaders to actively engage, social media remains a space where current and potential publics are now paying most attention in the post digital age (Baird & Parasnis, 2011). Dessart the state that reflects individual dispositions towards the community and the focal brand as expressed through varying levels of affective, cognitive and behavioral manifestations that go beyond exchange situatio Publics commonly demonstrate their engagement on social media through their interaction and transparency in conversations with leaders. On most social media platforms, engagement is measured through the reactions, responses, interactions, and impressions from any given message, image, or video that is disseminated from the leader or organization. Previous leadership communication studies involving social media (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Lee & Kwak, 2012; Lim et al., 2015; Men & Tsai, 2011; 2014 ; 2016; expressions of warmth, friendliness, sincerity, empathy and listening, reinforce key components of organization n and Tsai (2013) reviewed social media engagement as a hierarchical behavioral construct with varied activity levels, from passive message consumption (e.g., viewing social media posts) to the active contribution of user generated content. Social media o ffers the capability for senders and receivers to post public messages that researchers can examine through the viewpoint of leader public

PAGE 49

49 media messages from another s takeholder requires proactivity, which in turn, reflects engagement (Men et al., 2018). Dialogic communication, social presence strategies, message tactics, and functions can reveal how various communication strategies impact individual and organizational outcomes (Yue et al., 2020; Men et al., 2018; Tsai & Men, 2017). As a result, the next research question is proposed . R Q4 : What engagement strategies do Army senior leaders use on social media? Dialogic Communication As a theoretical framework, leadership communication should assume the role of human communication instead of organizational communication, and dialogic theory e xplains how leaders can cultivate relationships with key audiences. C onsistent findings show that organizations fail to fully u se the dialogic potential of social media (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Wang & Yang, 2020). These findings could be based on organiza tional culture (Zhou & Xu, 2019) or on the expectations and design of organizations. Dialogue as a concept is based on person to person communication that normatively requires the sender of messages to be a person. Therefore, Army senior leaders are more e quipped to take on the role of dialogic communicator , as opposed to the organization itself. av enue for this exchange as a two way communication and interaction between parties . C ontemporary research reinforces these principles in guiding effective communication through social networking platforms (Men et al., 2018; Sundstrom & Levenshus, 2017). In tended for organizations to incorporate interpersonal, mediated, and organizational relationships with their publics, dialogic communication generates trust,

PAGE 50

50 mutuality, and empathy (Yang et al., 2015). The five dialogic principles outlined by Kent and Tay way, dialogic relationships with their publics through dialogic loops, ease of interface, conservation of visitors, Wan commenting and responding; conservation as additional links to their websites and social networking sites; generation of return visits as organizations providing regularly updated i nformation or return visits, and usefulness of information as social media as conveniences for visitors to understand. Public relations scholars have continued to adap t and apply the five principles in an array of studies with various social media platforms based on interests in how such tools can build relationships through public engagement (Sommefeldt & Yang, 2018). Recent scholarship (Men & Tsai, 2016; Yue et al., 2019) examined dialogical theory through the lens of CEOs on Twitter and their corresponding communication, Information Community Action framework applies to my study as a way t o assess Army senior leadership communication , emphasi zing engagement, as well as message function, appeal, and vividness. Albers Miller & Stafford (1999) offer a rational framework for assessing such message appeals with associated emotional factors and c onsiderations, typically classified in a positive or negative context. Finally, vividness relates to the visual content of the message and its ability to generate a stronger relationship in effectiveness and persuasiveness (Ji et al., 2019). Findings relat ed to this

PAGE 51

51 framework can assist in illuminating, inform ing, and understand ing how Army senior e on social media. Considering this intersection of leadership communication, dialogic communication, social presence, and social media, my stu dy addressed the following question . RQ 5 : How, if at all, is dialogic communication used by Army senior leaders in their social media communication ? A ccounting for the original foundation of dialogic communication in interpersonal communication and relational orientation, my study consider ed how the spiral of silence may also conceptually play a role in muting leadership communication on social media. Spiral of Silence Theory Introduced by Noelle Neumann (1974), the Spiral of Silence Theory asserts that individuals continuously monitor their environments to assess whether their beliefs align with or contradict majority opinion. This individual assessm ent is motivated by fear and isolation (Noelle Neumann, 1993) through the idea that speaking out will generate negative outcomes or backfire effects ; and therefore, threaten an honest discourse (Matthes, 2015). While the social media space enables an array of opinions and judgments, online networks are more likely to offer decentralized networks with distant connections amid the larger landscape. The larger and more diverse the social network ion of the opinion opinion on social media is much less likely to be challenged ; and in theory , may facilitate a suppression of minority opinion on select issues. Climates in which similar opinions reside are conducive to speaking out, whereas incompatible opinion climates foster silence. Metzger (2009) concluded that the internet empowers individuals with

PAGE 52

52 access to a vast range of media content and selectivity, which raises questions about sustainability of the theory in social media studies. Institutional, Cultural, and Individual Influences C ontingent conditions at the institutional, cultural, and individual level can inform behaviors related to spiral of silence effects (Gearhart & Zhang, 2015). At the institutional level, the U.S. Army, maintain s an active influence in shaping and developing the professionalization of its force through training and policy. While social media training is neither standardized nor widespre ad across military organizations, policy related to social media activity primarily falls under rules and regulations that police service enables government surveillance of misconduct and sen sitive content communicated via social media. These institutional norms may suppress service member activity. T he U.S. Army is a values based organization, where the culture may indirectly and unintentionally cause personnel to be motivated by fear of repe rcussion and accountability. At the individual level, specific influences vary, but findings suggest that individuals with larger social networks are less likely to publicly state their opinions (Jang et al., 2014) . T he opinion climate of online users is r epresentative of the public at large (Kim et al., 2014). Conversely, Pew Research (2012) said the more time spent on social media , the more individuals take a more active role in communication and activity. Individual avoidance strategies tied to opinio n sharing is another emerging aspect of leadership communication on social media. Previous research suggests that expressing ambivalence is a strategic form of opinion avoidance (Hayes, 2007) . S ilencing strategies include leaders refraining from posting content for fear of

PAGE 53

53 misinterpretation or even ignoring controversial topics and opinions (Gearhart & Zhang, 2015). At the early stages of theoretical development Noelle Neumann (1977) sai d that i ndividuals desire to appear favorable in an effort to manage impressions. This concept may reinforce why leaders actively avoid posting original content or responses in specific instances. Recent studies also found that the effects of a computer mediated s piral of silence can be as prevalent as face to face effects (Liu & Fahmy, 2011). Ultimately, leaders expressing opinions and communicating on social media may produce dual effects of silencing and liberating communication from respective stakeholders (Gea rhart & Zhang, 2015). As a result, Army senior leaders must consider the effects of the content, style, timing, and context within which they disseminate messages on social media across their personal, professional, and organizational accounts. How leaders implement these considerations into their strategic calculus and alter approaches raises questions about disparity between personal and professional accounts. My study then took the research question even f u rther . RQ 6 : What c ontributes to the silencing of some Army senior leaders on social media? Leadership Communication and Risk on Social Media Individual leaders take individual approaches to communicating on social media based on their situational positioning, experience, and values. Kent (2010) sai d, media revolves around what is essentially a central tenet of dialogue: the value of the help explor e and al., 2009, p. 53). Risk is the absence of certainty (Sellnow et al., 2009) and is commonly perceived as a tradeoff of costs and rewards (Palenchar et al., 2005). Ri sk

PAGE 54

54 lead ers and organizations (Levenshus, 2012; Palenchar et al., 2005). Trust and credibility in the leadership exceeds all other aspects of meaning making when it comes to risk communication for publics (Sellnow et. al, 2009). Trust correlates with risk because trust i s connected to uncertainty . I n the absence of trust, from publics (Levenshus, 2012; Williams & Olaniran, 1998). While my study does not examine risk communication spe cifically, the ultimate purpose of risk communication is to avoid mistrust and subsequent crisis (Sellnow et al. 2009). Many organizations believe risks can be controlled or contained (Seeger et al., 2003), yet leaders commonly assess acceptable levels of risks very differently. As individuals perceive more control, they become more willing to accept risks (Levenshus, 2012). Most approaches from leaders remain contextually and situationally dependent. For example, in my study , A rmy senior leaders fit int o three c ategories of self identified social media use: embracers, observer s, or abstain ers. As an embracer, Army senior leaders are increasingly engaging on social media (Byerly, 2019; Urben, 2017) to meet their soldiers in publ ic spaces as an additional way to inform, influence, and connect on an interpersonal level with subordinates, peers, and key publics. In contrast, o ften leading in widely distributed environments, Army senior leaders may abstain from partaking in social me dia activity. The motivation for this decision currently lacks empirical support but may be based on concern about the sensitivity and public nature of social media discourse and the increased potential for public controversies related to service members. Finally, in between these two

PAGE 55

55 classifications are the Army senior leader s who operate as a n observe r on social media . T hese leaders have access and profiles on social media platform(s), but rarely engage or offer any user generated content, serving primari ly as an observer and information gather er . These classifications ma y evolve from differing risk calculations, experiences, and communication among Army senior leaders . This accentuates the need to further investigate this disparity in the institution and what it means for strategy and influence in specific situations. There is a gap in research related to use and perceptions regarding social media risks and adoption (Kelleher, 2008; Sweetser, 2011). Examining this gap generate s learning for Army senior leaders and organizations to realign risk mitigation approaches on social media , in an effort to avoid future conflict or crisis (Seeger & Reynolds, 2009). Contingency Theory and Optimism Bias In good public relations, both management and publics should behave in ways that minimize conflict and manage conflict effectively (Grunig, 2008). On the continuum of cooperation to conflict, success in public relations depends on identifying the point on the continuum w here the situation is accurately positi oned (Murphy,1991) and who is best positioned to respond in that situation. This identification is important as a point of departure in recognizing the factors associated with leaders communicating in a manner that drives toward mutual gains. Contingency theory offers an approach that explains why specific public relations tactics fit into specific situations, to both recognize and mitigate risks, while negotiating the increased likelihood of win win outcomes (Kelleher, 2003). Contingency theor y maintains significant empirical support (Peters et al., 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981) as a

PAGE 56

56 predictive way to understand how specific leaders may impact specific situations through their subsequent leadership communication (Northouse, 2007). Contingency th eorists also suggest associations between leadership styles in specific scenarios (Northouse, 2007) and risk mitigation based on the predictive nature of specific leader actions and communication. n, my study examine d those perceived risks identified by Army senior leaders. The likelihood of optimism bias in various contexts and situations from leaders has generated much research over the last three decades. This bias considers social perceptions an d the tendency for individuals to report that they are less likely to experience a negative result and more likely to experience a positive experience in relation to others (Klein, 1997). Those leaders who maintain unrealistic expectations of optimism, ris k greater disappointment and endangerment, as optimism bias interferes with preventive behaviors (Helweg Larsen & Shepperd, 2001). As a result, contingency theory and an overoptimistic attitude could lead to unrealistic expectations and may particularly in fluence how Army leaders misperceive such risks in their different approaches to social media. Complexity Theory and Social Amplification The grounded theory methodology in my study approache d social media as a fragmented contemporary environment (McGee, 1990) where varying perspectives related to risk can make greater meaning of the online discourse. Social media may s , Waldrop (1993) defines as complexity (p.1). The characteristics of complexity are self organized, chaotic, and adaptive interactions (Holland, 2014), each of which present themselves on social media. Complexity theory considers the combination of multiple

PAGE 57

57 contingencies in how a leader communicates on social media and assumes risk. Complexity theory also assists in explaining and accepting uncertainty (Holtzhausen & Roberts, 2009). Communication scholars (McLean et al., 2021) suggest it provides a theoretical framework for understanding identity formation in organizations (Gilpin & Miller, 2013) and managing reputations (Murphy, 2010). By acknowledging social media as a complex system, future communication strategies would be further informed by un derstanding how leaders view emergency, nonlinearity, and networked interdependence on social media, as fundamental principles of complexity (Gilpin & Murphy, 2008). Any emergence in the data of complexity theory may offer greater insight into how leaders should strategically use social media in an interdependent, boundary fluid manner (McLean et al., 2021). Finally, i n leadership communication, a higher social amplification is placed on the cost order impact : messages may only have a mean ing for the receiver within a sociocultural context (Kasperson et al., 1988). As an information and communication system, social media can intensify risks through amplification stations such as other Army senior leaders, the Army as an organization, extern al media, activist social organizations, opinion leaders, personal networks, and government agencies (Kasperson et al., 1988). My study consider ed that amplification through the lens of the Army senior leader and how such amplification may be accompanied impacts, such as motivations, attitudes, political and social pressure, changes in With changing workplace dynamics, interconnectedness, and growing emphasis on the information environme nt, Army senior leaders and communication scholars can gain from collective insights and

PAGE 58

58 findings related to risk perceptions associated with these platforms in the post digital age. Considering that the origin of individual social amplification resides in the social experience of the specific senior leader, the following questions are central to this study: RQ 7 : How do Army senior leaders perceive risks with social media? RQ 8 : What causes such risk perceptions?

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Q ualitative approaches provide knowledge that helps people to better understand and interpret the world, their culture, and its institutions in theoretically compelling and practically significant ways (Tracy, 2020). My study identifie d grounded theory as t he foundational methodology to address the proposed research questions , social interactions , and processes. G rounded theory based on previous research, specifically in mass communication, i s the most suitable and acceptable approach for articulating its ad vantages in providing abstract, conceptual understandings of the studied phenomena through an explanatory theoretical framework (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Since its inception, grounded theory has been clouded by multiple meanings, riddled with numerous misu nderstandings, and complicated by competing versions . D iscourse on My study addresse d those impressions and outline d their construction in mass communication based on sample specifics, selection, data collection procedures, analysis, trustworthiness, validity, ethics, and the fundamental role of the researcher. Research Design My study first develop ed a criterion for cla ssifying Army senior leaders. Next, my study position ed itself within U.S. Army culture and identifie d how these Army senior leaders adopt different approaches related to social media. Then , research questions a ddressed how and why different senior leaders use different approaches. An in depth, open ended semi structured interview protocol (Appendix C) was developed for participants to provide data for follow up analysis related to the specific questions abou t

PAGE 60

60 leadership styles, communication preferences, e ngagement strategies, and risk perceptions . In addition, ten influential documents were analyzed as additional data . D ocuments included senior leader editorial publications, policy memos, and one critical panel and lecture on the topic. S everal a pplicable theories were identified in previous literature to serve as a point of departure for analyzing the intersection of leadership communication, social media, and perceived risks (Chapter 2) . With respectful consideration and critique of these theoretical fra meworks, grounded theory methodology w as applied, followed by analysis of social media content from one specific platform, Twitter. The purpose of the content analysis was to compare and contrast Army leader communication on an accessible , widely used soci al media platform to reflect on feedback and insights provided during the in depth interview. Content analysis streamlines data through a systematic, flexible process (Schrier, 2014). Although Twitter represents a singular social media platform, this design offers a valuable step toward understanding how Army senior leaders view the role of social media in their communication . Ultimately, the overall intent is to organize any significant findings into a potential typology , or playbook , for risk mitigation . This playbook would address how Army senior leaders consider and approach communication on social media, a nd how communication could advance or detract from the vision and objectives of military organizations . Approach to Grounded Theory Methodology In my study, grounded theory was app roached G rounded theory begins with a researcher interested in understanding a social interaction, action, or process. For this specific phenomenon, the resea rcher uses grounded theory to seek new data

PAGE 61

61 and conduct constant comparison with subsequent collection, coding, and analysis of the data and information (Strauss & Glaser, 1967). My study incorporate d the fundamental aspects of grounded theory in mass comm unication via immersion and constructivist view toward data collection to enable adaptability in terms of the patterns that may emerge from the data through deep interaction and con stant comparison, coupled with a distinctive self reflexivity statement. With respect to the grounded theory method, research design decisions and participant selection are open to critique and modification. A key consideration in selection is based on th e type of data the researcher intends to collect . I n this instance, dialogic interviews present the most appropriate approach for co creating meaning and participant to justify their opinions and clarify their understan 32). meaning making as the foundation for understanding multiple social realities . It places the mutual responsibility of knowledge building as a process b etween the researcher and participants. She later identified in depth interviews as an ideal tool to conduct deep exploration and achieve thick descriptions for interpretation of the topic (Charmaz, 2006) . While my study adhere d 7) constant comparative approach, my study was willing to adjust questions based on new data and additional sources that may alter interpretations, categories, and relationships to move the research from exploration toward explanation and understanding (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019; Charmaz, 2000; 2006). The researcher also acknowledge d that social science

PAGE 62

62 and mass communication research allows a different researcher to approach the same data set differently and construct different meanings and patterns through an alternative process. However, this point is discussed further in the validity and trustworthiness section of this chap ter . As a process, grounded theory transition ed from coding to memoing, with subsequent analysis and conceptualization, followed by construction. Data collection continue d until theoretical saturation wa s achieved, with the coding process encompassing bot h categorization and comparison via any observed patterns or relationships (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Memoing relates to describing these categories or identified relationships as they develop ed from emerging theory. Strauss and Corbin (1998) said the value of reviewing pertinent literature during various stages of analysis made it highly unlikely that researchers would omit any gained knowledge from their process. Glaser (1992) and Strauss (1987) ultimately developed divergent views in the structuring and v formal way with open, axial, and selective approaches . Glaser believed that induction required complete autonomy and flexibility to craft malleable theory. Strauss and revised approach called for a more comprehensive, detailed process that aims toward building useful descriptions and explanations of a phenomenon, to generate theory. My study aligns with that more comprehensive coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). Finally, for my study , considering that in depth interviews serve as the primary data collection tool, identifying key informants as selected participants is critical . It was necessary to design a semi structured interview protocol based on appreciative in quiry

PAGE 63

63 to probe for additional information. Appreciative inquiry might typically apply in coaching or to develop a more team oriented strategic approach . I n the military hierarchical construct, appreciative inquiry directed at participants is used to find c ommon ground on sensitive, vulnerable topics to offset any individual insecurities regarding personal candor . Current research identifies social media as a necessary means to speak out, engage employees, and dispel fear of reprisals or negative outcomes (M en & Bowen, 2017). The explanation building in my study construct ed a typology o n a set of relationships that emerged from consolidated data . Any identified relationships, themes, and subsequent meaning making may advance public relations scholarship and practice , showing senior leaders can mitigate their own perceived risks. Based on my study risk contributes to the growi ng interest in risk calculus and communication in the public space. Data Collection The best instrument for rich data collection is inquiry via in depth interviews (McCracken, 1988). As a center of gravity for data collection in my study, the way Army s enior leaders construct a presentation of self, articulate risks, and then narrate their approach to social media is fundamental. Qualitative interview research shows (Tracy, 2020, p. 156). Rubin and Rubin (2011) liken research interviewing to using night vision goggles and stumbl ing on to complex phenomena or data that might be otherwise unseen. As a complete participant (Spradley, 1980), the researcher in my study examin ed a context in which he is already affiliated as a member. The advantage of collecting data as a complete participant offers the researcher convenient access to a

PAGE 64

64 depth and breadth of a culture to make connections a nd available data, while gaining keen insights into meanings, motivations, and implicit Population The U.S. has approximately 332 million citizens (U.S. 2020 Census). At present, 2 .4 million Ameri cans serve in the military, which is less than 1 % of the total U.S. citizen population. T here are currently 1.1 million soldiers in the total U.S. Army, or a ctive duty, National G uard , and Reserve s (DMDC , 2021). As mentioned, senior leaders in the U.S. Arm y main tain the most active social media p resence compared to other military services (Urben, 2017). Urben sai d approximately 71% of military leaders had more than one social media account, with less than 10% of military leaders reporting no social media ac counts. For my study , the Army senior leader population w as define d by two factors: years of experience and level of leadership. D ifferent classifications in the U.S. military are often defined by professional specialty areas . However, th e most common classification is the distinction between enlisted soldiers and officers: Enlisted soldiers, comprising approximately 8 2% of the U.S. Army, serve as the backbone of the military and a re responsible for completing missions and executing orders . O fficers act as managers for those soldiers and plan mission, disseminate orders, and assign tasks to soldiers (Congressional Research Service, 2020). My study encapsulate d senior leaders from bo th th e se Army populations in the form of command sergeant majors or senior enlisted advisors, and general officers or brigade commanders. Brigade commanders, as senior leaders of roughly 5,000 soldiers in their respective organization, comprise less than 1 % of the force as of March 2021 . I n

PAGE 65

65 addition, there are roughly only 200 Army general officers and 2,000 senior enlisted advisors (DMDC, 2021). This population of brigade commanders, general officers, and senior enlisted advisors comprise the entirety of Army senior leaders with which the selected sample was taken for my study. As a n Army senior leader , these individuals serve most representatives (Top 1%) and all have more than 20 years of experience. T his sample may also include a senior general or enlisted advisor who retired within the past 12 months , as a result of the time gap between data collection and publication . Recruitment and Selection of Sample R ecruitment of leaders occur red though a non probability sampling techniq ue, where the participants we re professional judgment, via purposive or judgmental sampling. Selected from the total Army population at large, participants comprised active duty, R eserv ists , and National Guard soldiers. General Officers , Senior Enlisted Advisor s , or Command Sergeant Major s comprise the top 0.5% of the total Army organization . E ach individual in this population possesses significant experience in the military , typically serv ing mor e than 25 years. In the selection process, the researcher also consider ed the individual level of influence, access ibility , social media presence , and previous risk behavior s of the participants. For recruitment, invitations were sent to the official mili tary email addresses of Army senior leaders , along with their senior aide or executive officer , to request their level of interest and cooperation in research participation. Theoretical sampling serves as a process for data collection to generate theory . T he researcher can collect codes and analyze data to determine where to proceed next with data collection , in an effort to develop theory as the data emerges (Glaser, 1978).

PAGE 66

66 ely Selecting participants in qualitative research begins with designing a sampling plan at the onset of a project , to best determine the interesting foc i and how the sampling plan w ill connect emerging data and adequately account for inherent assumptions (Morse & Niehaus, 2014). Continuity in t he (1) longevity of the individual leaders, (2) values based military culture, and (3) hierarchical structure of the institution is likely to provide a sufficient representation of findings for similar organizations and also increase reliability with the proposed sample . Purposeful sampling is a technique used to identify and select information rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources (Palinkas et al., 2015; Patton, 2002). A key aspect of purposeful sampling, aside from knowledge and experience, includes availability and a willingness to participate despite competing requirements (Bernard, 2002; Palinkas et al., 2015). This is an especially significant consideration for this sample. T h is purposeful sample with in the U.S. Army w as geographically disperse d and comprise d both combat specific leadership roles and support oriented leadership roles. P urposeful sampling involv es identifying or selecting participants who exhibit knowledge or experience in an area of the phenomenon of interest (Creswell et al., 2011) . I n this instance, the anticipated categories required the researcher to identify participants who best reflected the total Army from a demographic population, the purposeful sampling technique best fit this research design. Pilot t esting Pilot testing offers the necessary information , content, and detail to solidify transcription software and analysis (Rowley, 2012). Pilot testing began i mmediately

PAGE 67

67 after and Army Human Protection Office approval . A s part of a design to refine my nd data collection process, three pilot interviews were conducted via video and audio enabled software on Microsoft Teams , as an approved DOD platform. The three pilot interviews provided an appropriate set based on the professional representation of each of the anticipated classification groups (embracer, observer, abstainer ) in the targeted population . This created a way to offer feedback on clarity, flow, timing, and instrumentation , to then adjust the protocol accordingly. Pi lot participants w ere identified through convenient sampling via word of mouth and organizational reputation , based on specific Army senior leaders who fall within one of the clas sification groups. This process further reassure d the design of the study to best mitigate any construct While pilot data is typically not included in the final data set , it was, in this instance, based on (1 ) institutional constraints on the sample size, (2) the rich data collected , and (3) only minor refinements made to the semi structured interview format . My study includes the pilot data in the study sample as an initial thematic framework (Roulston, 2010) . In d epth i nterview s I nitially , 12 to 20 in depth interviews w ere thought necessary to analyze data and deliver findings that meet the marginal limits of construction according to grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). T he DOD set a limitation of 20 in depth interviews for this specific study. Traditionally, as each participant addre sses the phenomenon of interest and its context individually, theoretical saturation becomes more attainable , but there is no set limit on the number of interviews to be included in a study .

PAGE 68

68 , reflective, and The researcher acknowledges initial judgmental sampling include d Army senior leaders who (1) currently abstain from social media; or (2) currently embrace social media; or k , spectate, or primarily observe on social media. Lurking is associated with nonparticipation, non posting behavior, or those who post infrequently (Edelmann, 2013), but for the purpose of my study , is classified as ob serv ing. A final aspect of interview selection relies on participants receptiveness in stating their own viewpoints and communicating their experience s with candor and detail. Based on the experience and variety of senior leaders at every echelon of the A rmy, the sample was appropriate for seeking substantial and relevant data . Data collection for in depth interviews commence d in Ju ne 2021 with three pilot interviews that further refine d the interview protocol (Appendix C). Once the University of Florida and the U.S. Department of Defense approve d th e research, most of participant interviews occurred between July 15, 2021 and Octo ber 1 , 2021. The researcher contact ed interviewees via emai l or phone to coordinate and set expectations related to the purpose of the research . Next, the researcher ensured each participant agreed to the use of a recording capability for follow on transcription and data analysis. T he COVID 19 p andemic increased the risk to subjects for in person interviews . Therefore, the researcher us e d conferencing platforms as the primary means of data collection based on safety, ease, access, cost, and feasibility given the time and eted population. A dvantages of this alternative

PAGE 69

69 were further supported by Gray et al. (2020) wh o identified the strengths of video conferencing platforms, including convenience and ease of use, enhanced personal interface, accessibility, and time saving wi th no travel requirements to participate. Specifically, for Army senior leaders, the accessibility and time saving benefits of videoconferencing provide d a more realistic, practical opportunity for cooperation and increased participation. D isadvantages of conducting videoconference interviews include d a sense of displacement or dislocation between participants and research er; a gap in rapport building , self disclosure, convention breaching ; and an increased ability to be evasive in responses (Nehls et al., 2015). Acknowledging these disadvantages, th e researcher determined that the pros outweighed the cons . I ncreased participation and accessibility of Army senior leaders was based on the commonplace nature of computer mediated communication as a data collection method for contemporary research. While in person interviews afford richer insights, recent research indicates that videoconferencing is gaining increased scholarly at tention as an alternate, viable mode of qualitative interviewing based on its ability to replicate an environment that best resembles an in person interview (Janghorban et al., 2014; Robinson, 2020; Tuttas, 2015). Before starting the interview, all partici pants receive d the IRB informed consent document and were notified they could withdraw from the study at any time. Further, the researcher ask ed each participant to describe their understanding of the study to as sure expectations and to ensure accuracy of . As an initial frame for the participant, the researcher establish ed professional experience, current duties, and responsibilities , before transitioning to

PAGE 70

70 more focused questions related to leadership style, social media , and perceived risk. With the open ended questions, the researcher ensured that each question was appropriately topic specific , in an effort to enable appropriate responses from the interviewee (Roulston, 2010). Each intervie w w as transcribed using NVivo software and the transcripts w ere then verified against the audio recordings. Upon completion of the analytical process, each participant receive d an initial copy of the findings. This interaction enables interviewees an oppo rtunity to evaluate, affirm, and share feedback to ensure accuracy and validity related to the analytical expressions and experiences (Creswell, 2012). This process , which is also referred to as member checking, improves accuracy by bringing the researcher closer process, this approach to in depth interviews need not be viewed as opposites, where objectivity is desired and subjectivity is Roulston, 2010, p. 119). Content a nalysis Additionally, my study us ed a content analysis to compare active public posts or content from a selected social media platform, Twitter . Parti cipants exhibit ed or report ed their own activity during in depth interview s . They did this by consolidating, classifying, and coding messages through analysis from multiple coders with an established intercoder reliability. Twitter was selected because it was previously identified as military leaders and influencers most frequently used and publicly accessible social media platform (Urben, 2017 ).

PAGE 71

71 C ontent analysis adopt ed the Saxton and Waters (2014) and Yue et al. (2021) approach through an established criterion for a non probability sample of those interviewed Army senior leaders who maintain an active, public presence on Twitter. The senior l eader must possess a publicly verified Twitter account as designated by the commonly known blue checkmark verification and have at least 1,000 followers. The process of verifying Twitter accounts requires triangulation by (1) their profile descriptions, (2 associated twitter contacts will remain confidential . Next, through a customized software com pilation of specific code words and language, data w ere collected from embracers and spectators who previously participated in the in depth interview. As shown ( Zhou & Xu , 2019 ; Yue et al. , 2021), this process replicates a similar collection methodology pr eviously performed on larger samples to consolidate digital public engagement data. The Twitter Public API collects and provides information on the number of retweets and likes, while the Octoparse software script collects the content and number of likes, retweets, and public comments. This approach w as useful in comparing words with actions on social media. The critic might reflect on this method as lacking rigor and credibility based on a pre determined, specific social media platform , Twitter; however, t his selection is legitimized through accessibility and previous research (Urben, 2017; Vielledent, 2021) and the timeframe removes any presence of recency bias from participants skewing their own data by adjusting their style or communication strategies on social media after the interview.

PAGE 72

72 Though debate remains on the appropriate sample size for social media data, Tumasjan et al. (2010) highlighted two primary areas of concern : a rbitrary selection of parties and selection of the sampling time frame. As just ification for my study and in line with previous research (Adams & McCorkindale, 2013; Waters & Jamal, 2011), the researcher use d a convenience sample based on accessible content that fit the criteria for the purpose and participants of my study . Those Arm y senior leaders who interviewed and possess ed public social media accounts had their communication and messaging analyzed. During the timeframe of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, there were 6 000 + tweets available for analysis from selected senior leaders. This sample omitted any content that was posted during the 15 day period before and after the national general election ( 4 November 2020) ; along with the 15 day period before and after the 6 Janu ary 2021 Capitol attack. This decision was made in an effort to assure the greatest chance of discounting outlying, non partisan communication that might otherwise contaminate the sample due to external influences or major events that occurred. Upon random selection of approximately 3 0 posts per senior leader, 600 qualified posts, as a 10% overall composite, w ere selected for later sentiment analysis. O f these posts , 300 came from 10 of the interviewees, while the other 300 posts were selected from addition a l military leaders, who were not interviewed, but were identified reputationally as embracers o f social media activity . The social presenc e of military senior leaders on Twitter w as analyzed using three strategies (affective, interactive, and cohesive) a dopted from Rourke et al. (1999) and Men et al. (2019). E valuation of military senior leader message strategies, functions, appeals, and vividness derived from the coding book used in previous studies

PAGE 73

73 (Men, 2015; Rybalko and Seltzer, 2010; Yue et al., 2018 ) to identify any potential disparity in leadership styles and communication strategies. Finally, public engagement coding require d a confirm ation of the number of comments, likes, and retweets assoc Additional documents Lastl y, additional primary and secondary sources inc luded in th e sample w ere a collection of editorials and publications from Army senior leaders related to the topic, as well as formal panels and leader presentations conducted in recent years that address ed the benefits and risks associated with social media use in the military. These serve as additional supplementary streams of cont ent to analyze and compare data with findings from the in depth interviews and content analysis . The ten additional documents were collected through three key performance indicators ( KPIs ) : views, recirculation, and the number of publications on topics. Ul timately, six editorials from Army senior leaders published between 2019 and 2022, two policy documents, one lecture, and one Association of United States Army panel w ere identified, collected, and added to the sample as supplementary data to be analyzed . Data Analysis At the onset of applying grounded theory, data analysis is a time consuming, deliberate process, resulting in data reduction becoming a fundamental part of qualitative analysis (Miles & Huberman 1994). The in depth interviews were grouped and coded using q ualitative d ata a nalysis ( QDA ) software, NVivo . As a powerful, versatile tool , this better support s research development and subsequent refinement of common themes through a process that isolate s the most prominent patterns observe d in the data. Miles and Huberman (1994) advocate d member checking and transcription

PAGE 74

74 as a fundamental element of in depth interviews analysis. Participant data w ere analyzed individually and collectively for the researcher to inductively generate conceptua l and categorical codes (Table 3 1) . Additionally, axial coding present ed an option for condensing codes and concepts based on related actions, events, perceptions, and interactions (Yin, 2017). As the data accumulated and aggregated, open, selective analy sis conducted line by line provide d the foundation necessary to establish validity (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In terms of content analysis, specific content over a set duration of time ( 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021) collected from Twitter through a Public API and Octoparse webscraping software secure d specific engagement metrics, compile d language, and classif ied code words (Zhou & Xu, 2019). This coding, combined with the collected in depth interview data , enable d enhanced comparative analysis via memo writing, trends, and developed categories (Charmaz et al., 2014). Coding and Memo W riting The r esearcher distinguish ed between the analysis of qua ntit ative data and qualitative data analysis, whereby grounded theory is a form of the latter, to avoid false conclusions. Inductive analysis beg an with the data and call ed on the researcher to systematically form concepts and categories by elevating the most prominent information into patterns (Fries e, 2019) . Patterns w ere driven by codes, which w ere generated, reviewed, and modified by u s ing the constant comparative method for examining different participant's views, their social media activity, and analysis of supporting documented experiences and p olicies. Coding the collected data for my study occurred in two fundamentally different ways for the interviews and additional documents , compared to the content analysis

PAGE 75

75 portion. First, each interview transcript or additional document text was reviewed a nd then coded. The justification for coding e ach portion of the data as it was collected was to facilitate theoretical integration (Charmaz, 2006) . The interviews were transcribed immediately and coded in Nvivo , with the researcher listening to every audio file and scrubbing each transcript for accuracy, before destroying any of the audio files to fulfill commitments made to each participant. Since the researcher was the lone reviewer of these audio files, any error or nuance in various aspects of the inter views ( su ch as acronyms, sentiment, tone, sarcasm, or humor ) was the responsibility of the researcher alone . This coding process also required labeling to account and summarize the emergent data through constant comparison in an effort to identify relatio nshups and organize categories to better develop a theory (Charmaz, 2006). While the initial coding phase review ed each segment of text line by line, more focused coding was streamline d to pull the most significant codes. More than 120 codes were identified and organized in Nvivo , after the initial coding phase. After initial coding, note taking in the form of memoing commenced. Memo writing provide up ideas about codes and their relationships as they st Analytical memos contribute to the analytical process and outcomes by allowing the researcher to write first, and understand later (Tracy, 2020, p. 228). These memos help ed to define codes as carefully as possible, explicate their properties, provide examples of raw data, specify conditions for change, describe consequences, articulate their relation to other codes, serve as ra

PAGE 76

76 The preconceived socially constructed categories tied to my study encompasse d embracers, abstainer s, and observer s. Th e memo writing process deepen ed n analysis by aiding in conceptualization. This technique prioritize d frequencies and gaps in the data to generate categories. More focused coding reduced these codes to just under 66, ultimately enabling better organization for theoretical categories and sub categories . Sorting and diagramming of these categories occur red through theoretical saturation . This aspect is discussed in greater detail in the next section. In terms of coding the content analysis, t he measurement items were taken from previous literature (Men et al., 2019; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010) and modified to fit my current study. In sum, dialogic principles w ere coded into four sub categories: conservation of visitors, generation of return visits, dialogic loop, and inf ormation of interest to stakeholders. S enior miitary as examined through the lens of affective, interactive, and cohesive strategies adopted from previous research (Men et al., 2019; Rourke et al.,1999). To evaluate sen ior military message vividness (text only, picture/video), my study also measure d message functions (i.e., information, community, and action) from Lovejoy and Saxton (2012) and Yue et al. (2019). To operationalize public engagement, the number of likes, retweets, and comments of each post w ere collected, and the sentiment (positive, negative, neutral) of comments was coded. All items were coded as 1 = = ipt for the top public comment w as retrieved to avoid any sampling bias t h at might accompany

PAGE 77

77 in users. To investigate original content creation, retweets without comments we re discarde d, limiting the study to original posts, retweets with comments (i.e., quote tweets), and replies. Ad option and minor modification of a coding book from previous literature (Men, 2015; Rybalko & Seltzer, ,2010; Yue et al., 2018; 2021) enabled the evaluatio n of senior military leader message strategies, functions, appeals, and vividness ; and identif ied any potential disparity in self identified leadership styles and communication strategies. Finally, public engagement coding require d sentiment analysis (1 = y ; a nd confirm i n g the number of comments, likes, and retweets associated with each C oding units for my study include Twitter posts and the top comment of each post, as a way to mitigate user login and sampling bias. Through a design that uses a st andardized coding book finalized after coding training, two experienced coders analyzed the coding units of mil itary of each post. Both coders were familiarized and knowledgeable about the purpose of my study and the research questions before conducting the content analysis. The rationale for only coding approximate ly 10% of the total sample of tweets consolidated from the Python script during the selected time period was based on feasibility, suitability, and acceptability. Based on the impact to the coders, coding 10% was deemed an acceptable dedication of time gi ven the training and inter reliability sessions. Additionally, the supplementary nature of this content analysis in this study resulted in prioritizing reliability through verification that the content analysis provided reproducible coding

PAGE 78

78 instructions (Kr ippendorf, 2009). Coders received training to address potential coders interchangeably and yields higher agreement measures when coders disagree on the distribution of t he categories in the data. Finally, the pretest consisted of 10% of the analyzed sample to perform a reliability check and establish intercoder reliability via the coding instructions prior to embarking on the content analysis. The pretest included rev iewing numeric and descriptive data together to conceptually refine coding for any discrepancies before each coder then cod ed calculated to determine a satisfactory intercod er reliability by chance of 0.84 (Popping, 1988). Finally, before drafting a conceptual model or theoretical propositions, my study considered previous literature b oth prior to data collection and as data emerged , to remain reflexive and relational ( (Hall & Callery, 2001 ; Charmaz, 2006). Sorting and Diagramming The sorting and diagramming techniques in grounded theory help to link theoretical sampling and comparative analysis into properties, categories, and relationships. As stated previously, m emo ing helps to illuminate the sorting, r eview , and subsequent selecti on of codes to further advance the data analysis process. Strauss & Corbin (1998) emphasized organizing codes as a way to create visual d iagrams with emergent data , to spearhead pattern ana lysis. In my study , the researcher benefitted from p attern analysis by sorting and diagramming categories and sub categories to link potential relationships. G rounded theory methodology reinforces that any patterns represented visually advance the conceptu alization of terms, presence of relationships, and relevance of theoretical claims (Charmaz, 2006). Additionally, c onceptual map ping

PAGE 79

79 offer ed a point of departure to posit and develop a more structured, theoretical framework. Theoretical Sensitivity and Saturation My study addressed the debate in grounded theory methodology regarding the impact of revi ewing prior literature on the research topic (Chapter 2) . Avoiding manipulation or predetermined biases within the research setting is refer red to as theoretical sensitivity (Glaser, 1978). While most qualitative research begins broadly, previous research is almost impossible to entirely dismiss. In mass communications research, sensitizing concepts can offer background ideas t h at meworks (Tracy, 2020, p. 29). Glaser and Strauss (1967) said prior knowledge impact s the existing can facilitate the comparison and memoing process , as a way to maintain openness toward data collection and pattern construction. The criterion established for evaluatin g this grounded theory study occurs , theory is remembered, how the categories of the theory fit the data, and whether the theory allows for interpretation, application, an d explanation of what is occurring within the realm of leadership communication. As a guidepost for refining analytical approaches, this latter criterion can facilitate patterns and reinforce recurring themes. Glaser (1978) said researchers should familia rize themselves with theoretical codes in a way that facilitates greater sensitivity to conceptual relationships and the data as a whole . This is ultimately the approach taken in my study.

PAGE 80

80 Saturation is impossible to determine at the beginning of my research . T his marker depends on the quality of the data . H owever , narrowing the sampling criteria makes anticipating it more plausible. The researcher viewed saturation as comparable to roller coaster ride, with data collected in ways that lead to twists, turns, ups, and downs throughout the process of inquiry potential ly taking the research into little variance or change, the researcher can culminate this portion of the three tiered data collection process. While there may be no standa rdized limit on the number of in depth interviews, additional documents, or tweets that should be included in my study, justifying theoretical saturation did occur with 20 in depth interviews, 10 additional documents, and 600 coded tweets from Army Senior Leaders. In reality, these limits were determined as a result of no new insights from freshly collected data (Charmaz, 2006). Based on construction through grounded theory, logic supersedes sample size, as a small study with modest claims might generate sa turation earlier . However , the aim for grounded theorists is theoretical saturation in the thoroughness of the in depth interviews and subsequently collected data (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 2001). A total of 34 U.S. Army headquarter s were approached to parti cipate in my study . Twenty nine headquarter s responded to the interview request. T he researcher received no response from five of these headquarter s and had to turn away nine other willing headquarter s from participating or being represented based on sampl e size constraints implaced by the U.S. Army Human Protections Office . Only one headquarters that responded declined to participate in the study. Additionally, two of the interview

PAGE 81

81 participants each represented two distinct headquarter s ( Reserve and National Guard positions ). Therefore, th e bulk of my study comprised 20 interviewees representing 1 6 different headquarter s. In terms of saturation, additional data collected in an alternate context or modified timeframe might have generated different insi ghts and findings. Trustworthiness and Validity Several approaches were taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the study . Creswell (2007) highlights that improving trust requires triangulation, or a combination of data collection methods. Triangulation of data collection for my study included a combination of in depth interviews, social media posts, publications, lectures, and policy documents. The process of justifying validity and trustworthiness ensures findings and interpretations remain precise and cr edible, while also counter ing critiques about the subjectivity present in qualitative research. In addition, the presence of member checking, self reflexivity, and peer review as additional measures to ensure the validity of the study . R esearchers must weigh trustworthiness and validity to assess the potential for factors that (Hammersley, 2019 ) . In my study, follow on directives may include a peer review and external audit from the U. S. Army Command and General Staff College to further ensure the quality of the study. In addition, there is transferability in these findings in terms of its implications for other services or traditionally hierarchical organizations. It is also common fo r grounded theorists to continuously stress the impact of clearer basis for judging validity (Bryant, 2017, p. 477). Validity relies on judgments by the researcher that t he collected data does indeed, reflect what is said to be measured (Kerlinger, 1973). Guba and Lincoln (2005) sai

PAGE 82

82 objective they may seem, criteria are social products created by human beings in the course of an evolving T he social scientist evaluates the variables involved in the study based on their generalizability. Formal generalizability is often criticized in qualitative research and refers to the capacity o f findings to be transferred toward practical application, from one study to another in an effort to make predictions about how these findings relate to other contexts (Tracy, 2020). Tracy (2020) frame d it pred icts future behavior and takes knowledge generated in one context and applies it to D etailed descriptions of context, thorough explanations of assumptions, highlight trust interactions and power relationships between interviewers and interviewees enhance the rigor of grounded theory findings ( Bhattacherjee, 2012 ; Hall & Callery, 2001) . Reliability refers to the extent to which measurement yields data that are consistent, stable, and dependable ( Hocking et al., 2003, p. 129). Regardless of the researcher, when a study is replicated under the same conditions, the findings increase reliability. R eliability of interview responses depend s on the clarity and consistency of the questions used in the int erview , and the training of the interviewer . A s variations occur from the researcher , from one interview to the next, reliability decreases (Hocking et al., 2003; Roulston, 2010). While grounded theory offers a greater opportunity for flexibility in data c ollection techniques, stability and consistency of the researcher, tool, and method are essential for measurement, reliability, and validity.

PAGE 83

83 Ethics, Confidentialit y, and Human Subject Participation The researcher complete d all ethics, CITI, DOD operational security, and IRB training before conducting any form of human subject research. In addition, the researcher attended the NVivo Academy and certified as a Core Skills and Coding specialist. All of the aforementioned train ing wa s necessary to adequately disclose the background, purpose, and process for my study . Each participant w as notified in detail on the research process and purpose, without any equivocation or compromise (Fowler, 2009). There wa s no adverse impact to e nsuring that each interview participant remains full y informed on expectations and procedural elements of the research to better understand why the researcher wa s asking specific questions during the in depth interview. Although my study was acutely consci ous and sensitive to perceived risks, each participant serves as an independent adjudicator in their own participation. Despite securing a waiver of written informed consent, verbal informed consent was still obtained before each interview , to enable inter viewee s to affirm the ir own decision calculus to participate. The entirety of methodology required review, revision, and approval by the U.S. Army Human Protection Office and the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB). This appr oval occurred in April 2021. As per the agreement with all participants and th e reviewing authorities, all data related to participant identity w as discarded with the sole intent of protecting information. Dur ing data analysis, all collected data w ere stored on a secure network with adequate firewalls , to organize password protected transcripts and any remaining audio of the in depth interviews. Confidentialit y was an important, critical aspect of my study because of the sensitive nature of the circumstances involving the military and

PAGE 84

84 service members co mmunicating publicly in any official capacity . The focus on confidentiality and anonymity is an ethical practice designed to protect the privacy of human subjects throughout the data collection and analysis phase s . The central focus of my study wa s on the as opposed to the specific individual. Only the primary researcher maintain ed the appropriate access and requisite knowledge to review th ese data. While no personally identifiable information is associated with the collected data, all transcripts, recordings, and/or videos w ere immediately destroyed upon completion of data analysis. Based on the sensitive nature of Army senior leaders anonymously sharing their individual views related to perceived risks of social media, it is necessary to ensure minimal risk to these individuals and the institution through thorough sufficient organization, processes, and procedures related to their participation. The lone irregularity during the research period consisted of an aud it conducted on the data collection by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board in October 2021 . This audit originated as a direct result of the Army Human Protection Office requesting a review of the interview process es and compliance involvin g human subjects. Of note, aside from minor administrative revisions requested by the audit team, all data collection procedures were found to be fully compliant. Role of the Researcher and Self Reflexivity The role of the researcher in data collection depends on the question a researcher poses. In reflexive, qualitative research, the individual researcher plays the role of a tool or research instrument us ed to develop distinct interpretations of the results (Creswell, 2012; Day, 2012; Munkejo rd, 2009). Researchers are not neutral and

PAGE 85

85 Co construction and individual choices remain c ritical in this form of research (Bryant & Charmaz, 2020) ; as researchers can and should be visible, transparent, and open. Charmaz (2014) s aid how researchers complete their subsequent grounded theory methodology are constructions of reality (p. 10). Framing interviews as separate, individual accounts allows , justifying, describing . . . and finding orderliness in the various events, people, places, and courses of action that the researcher in my study wa s to approach each in depth interview in an informal, exploratory, flexible manner with open ended questions de signed to generate a free flowing conversation. , decisions, and interpretations . . . decision ion processes, while enabling a dependable and defensible design in the investigative approach (Robinson, 2020). Through their individual experience, the reflexive researcher strives to maintain awareness of their background, values, beliefs, and how those positions orient their approaches and thoughts about the world around them (Creswell, 2012). A s a contributor to rigor, a reflexive stance enhances credibility and the overall quality of

PAGE 86

86 osition transparent to inform participants and protect all involved from incurring unnecessary risk. The researcher in my study is an active duty, Army male in his late 30s, who has previously led up to 100 soldiers in various military organizations and formations. In addition, the researcher has previously advised select senior military leaders at the highest levels of the U.S. military. These previous experiences, coupled with a unique perspective gained through years of professional experience, is shaped from working in more than 20 different countries and distinctive cultures as a member of the military profession. This e xposure cultivated greater adaptability, endurance, and tolerance in building diverse, social relationships through increased awareness and situational understanding. In addition, it is worth noting that the researcher identifies as having fully internaliz ed the U.S. Army values and believes in the overall good of their mission. Consequently, the researcher does not believe in a one size fits all approach to problem solving, but rather contends most decision making involves ethical and moral dilemmas, alike set the conditions for open minded inquiry, but also the belief that one individual social researcher c ontends every individual must assess risks based on the bounded structures in which they exist. Further, the researcher is extremely sensitive and researcher and their own culture; (2) the researcher and the data; and (3) the researcher and the respondent. As a result, the researcher devot ed additional emphasis

PAGE 87

87 to acknowledging and identifying these relationships through specific positioning in my study. The reflexive proce ss enables a connection between theory and practice to generate new insights and a fuller appreciation of the vital role reflexivity plays in qualitative research to accomplish a project (Watt, 2007). Absent this transparent, articulate process, researche rs are more likely to elevate their own tacit assumptions (Charmaz, 2006; DeSouza, 2004). As a constructivist, the researcher understands that reality is bounded by and sustained through social processes and interactions (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Whether meaning making, developed through analyzing intentions, actions, and interpretations from interviews and results in a specifically reflexive position , researcher must consider his own p articipation and interaction in the research setting (Bryant, 2014, p. 125). Most notably, Glaser and Strauss (1967) emphasized that the application, impact, and outcome of a research endeavor overshadows and outweighs a al positioning. Without discrediting this emphasis, the researcher in my study better aligns with Charmaz (2006) who stressed that the assessments and judgments articulated in the findings ha ve some degree of indeterminacy ; and thus, the collected data are part of the world being studied. Any theoretical construction in my study identity shapes my study in both positive and negative ways. While uniquely positioned to investigate this phenomenon based on his

PAGE 88

88 learned behaviors and norms are likely to present themselve s within this specific context. However, without any prior context or experience, another researcher might analyze the collected data in a much different, more generalized way. Ultimately, the utual benefit and hindrance , but likely offer greater specificity and consequently, precision, in the findings . Finally, t he researcher acknowledge d and proceed ed with great caution and concern for the institution s involved, namely the University of Florid a, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Army, as well as those individuals wh o contributed to the data set . Upon commencing data analysis, the researcher re cogniz ed that over the past several months, he has ha d several informal conversatio ns with military communication professionals (active duty or retired) who have offered their own insights on this problem set. During these discussions, these professional peers and mentors shaped and influenced the researcher. Upon thoughtful review of the current data se t, before beginning data analysis, the researcher contacted the U.S. Army Human Protections Office and the University of Florida IRB to request clarification on inclusion of these individuals into the data set and as a way to disclose his own analytical bi as. Rather than speak in vague terms ab out how these conversations may have impacted him , the researcher inquired about these additional, informal perspectives shaping and influencing the questions he ultimately asked during the data collection phase. The aforementioned audit ensu ed from this request. As a result, in full transparency, the researcher initially request ed and later withdrew a modification to expand the sample size , once an official determination confirmed that such a modification was

PAGE 89

89 unneces sary. If anything, these conversations served as a pilot and further informed the semi structured interview protocol.

PAGE 90

90 Table 3 1. Demographics of Senior Army Leader Interview Sample vs. Total Army Characteristic n (20) % % of Total Army* Gender Female 4 20.0 18.0 Male 16 80.0 82.0 Duty Status Active Duty 16 80.0 47.8 Reserve/Guard 4 20.0 52.2 Ethnicity African American 4 20.0 17.5 Asian/Hispanic 4 20.0 19.2 White/Caucasian 11 55.0 60.2 Other 1 5.0 3.1 Age 30 39 years 1 5.0 40 49 years 7 35.0 50 59 years 9 45.0 60+ years 3 15.0 Experience 20 25 years 4 20.0 26 30 years 8 40.0 31 35 years 4 20.0 36+ 4 20.0 Largest Unit Led ( thousands ) 2 5 5 25.0 6 10 4 20.0 1 1 20 5 25.0 20 + 6 30.0 *Data acquired from Headquarters, Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G 1, Strength Analysis Division; current as of 30 Sep 2020

PAGE 91

91 T able 3 2 . Account i nformation of s enior m ilitary l eader s on Twitter s ample Senior Leader # Largest unit l ed (thousands) No. of F ollower s (thousands) No. following Tota l t weets 1* 11 20 8.4 232 264 2 2 5 63 41 944 3* 20+ 92 567 2351 4 20+ 57 127 2231 5 2 5 3.1 437 1667 6* 20+ 14 987 27 , 3 00 7 11 20 16 827 7910 8 11 20 8.3 1,052 3 ,200 9* 20+ 13 1,610 5927 10 20+ 32 1,894 2302 11* 11 20 7.3 2,582 7187 1 2* 2 5 2.9 512 1948 13 11 20 27 267 589 14* 6 10 1.1 725 390 15 2 5 1.5 398 689 16* 20+ 38 876 3166 17* 6 10 2 .2 393 3439 18 11 20 1 .8 425 820 19 6 10 2 .4 857 491 20* 6 1 0 2 . 3 138 458 *Leader also served as in depth interview participant for this research **Twitter account information retrieved in August 2021.

PAGE 92

92 CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION OF FINDING S The main purpose of my study was to better understand Army senior leaders communication styles, strategies, and perceived risks on social media. While fe w studies have evaluated th ese relationship s in the context of th e U.S. military, my research examines this gap in order to propose aligned recommendations for leaders and organizations to consider in their public communication and on social media. To i ved risks o n social media, t he researcher used constructivist grounded theory approach . While the theoretical framework and discussion for the proposed typology is presented in the following chapter, t his chapter presents participant demographic data, contextual detail, and specific findings from my study related to each of the research questions proposed in Chapter 2 . These findings derived from a three tiered approach to data collection and analysis, which included in depth interviews, textual analy sis of supplemental documents, and a content analysis o f leadership communication on Twitter. A deeper understanding of these results first requires a background on the sequenc ing of collection and analysis in my study. Once complete, each of the dominant themes revealed in these findings was detailed to address each research question. Sequencing Sequencing helps to organize data collection and analysis in a manner that recognizes patterns, determines cause and effect, and ultimately, best answers the research questions. Once IRB and DOD approval was secured, 52 Army senior leaders were contacted a bout their participation in the study between June and October 2021,

PAGE 93

93 40 of which responded. In all, 20 interviews were completed totaling 23.80 hours with an average length of 71.40 minutes and ranged from 36 minutes to one hour and forty four minutes. The analysis of the interview transcripts occurred between October and December 2021. Upon completion of the in depth interviews, more than 120 initial, unique coding options were identified in NVivo. Several of these initial codes included preserving decisi on space , digital natives , and policy influencing behaviors . Each of these initial codes were either subsequently discarded or combined into another similar code through focused coding . Focused, selective coding pared these codes down roughly 60 separate i tems to initiate a categorical, thematic framework. This framework consisted of four primary categories with 14 nodes or overall, dominant themes. Selective coding for these dominant themes included weighting specific codes based on their central placement across the study and systematic relationship to developing other categories (Bryman, 2012; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Ten selected, additional documents were then individually coded into 11 additional, unique coding options. Focused coding followed, with e ach of these additional codes either reinforcing or complementing existing items from the in depth interviews. In conjunction with the in depth interviews, the supplementary analysis augmented the existing thematic framework. The final aspect of the data c ollection and analysis was the compilation of the tweet sample. While approximately 50% of this consolidation began prior to in depth interview data collection, full analysis was not performed until after all in depth interviews had been completed. This ra

PAGE 94

94 confirm the social media classifications from the in depth interview participants in the content analysis sample. Until those interview participants were precisely identified and confirmed, tweets were unable to be consolidated. Ultimately, 6000 tweets were pulled from 20 military leaders, 600 were analyzed. The majority of the results from the content analysis were used to examine the frequency and engagement of senior leader communication. Theoretical Categ ories Using the comparative method during the memo writing process helped to elevate certain specific codes more than others. This distinction began to classify more dominant codes into themes, or even affirm overarching categories. But this evaluation req uired considering properties, specifying conditions, describing consequences, and relating each item to the other potential categories (Charmaz, 2006). As these conceptual categories became more saturated with data, sorting became more feasible to construc t emerging theory. In my study, each category is supported by evidence and Strauss, 1967, p. 23). This is discussed below as categories and themes appropriately correspon d to each research question in my study. Category 1 : Leadership My study first examined the role, style, and communication of Army senior leaders. Specifically, in RQ1, the influence of leadership communication style on Army use of social media was examined. An analysis of this roles , responsibilities , and individual attributes which contribute to shaping how these leaders approach social media.

PAGE 95

95 Leadership Role Findings indicate the role or position of the leader serves as a foundational aspect to examine how Army senior leaders (ASL) incorporate different styles and how they use accessible tools. Based on the leaders studied, level of leadership contribute s to the scope of duties and responsibilities , which enable s Army senior leaders to best classify their leadership style and approach for their respective organizations . Embracers , observers , and abstainers each expressed an awareness of how the public relations efforts. These leaders also communicated that they often weigh how much they should directly contribute to relationship management and public engagemen t on social media based on varying degrees of trusted spokespeople assigned to their organizations. Many participants reinforced that they have had a unique role and responsibility in each of their military assignments and it is the role that often moder ates their approach . Not surprisingly, s enior leaders who abstain from social media overwhelmingly communicated their preference for direct leadership roles which require face to face interaction and day to day involvement in the success of the team or organization. Similarly, Army senior leader (ASL) #4, who classified themselves as an open, direct conversation with someone face to . SL # 10 , a n embracer , furthered this point by tion is always preferred ; like actually have a real conversation with your people face to face .

PAGE 96

96 Direct leadership roles typically exist in organizations that have a smaller span of influence and are smaller in size and scope . The Army Doctrine Publicati on 6 22 on Leadership and the Profession (2019) describes direct leaders as understanding the context of their duties better by internalizing the mission two levels up, while overseeing all tasks. A total of 40% of the participants confirmed that their lea dership style, while often dependent on their specific role or mission, is highly contextual. leader for different positions. Or at least, I think you must be willing to modify your d based on the dynamics of your organization and the people in it said ASL # 18. As further summarized by ASL #8, also an observ er: leadership no longer applies . . . part of being a leader is really just are that platoon sergeant who thinks the twenty seven muldoons in front charge well, go work anymore. Leaders now have to adjust themselves based on their role within the organization to get the most out of their people. As expected, 100% of this n command teams, which explained the ir emphasis on organizational leadership. The role of organizational leaders in the Army calls for regular and personal interacti on with subordinates . This is to empower them to take decisive action when appropriate, in order to be successful in their organizational mission ( Army Doctrine Publication 6 22, 2019 ). Organizational leadership contributes to decreasing the number of decisions Army senior leaders must make themselves in order to synchronize the organization and maintain operational effectiveness. F indings show that 60% of the interviewees who identified themselves as serving in organizational leadership roles agreed that they

PAGE 97

97 often evaluate in which part of the organization they need t o spend the ir time and effort, and who they need to communicat e with , in order to generate the greatest efficiency for achieving successful results. Additionally , 60% of all interviewees characterized their current leadership role as strategic , in terms of how they g uide their personnel across multiple organizations, communicate their vision, and shape the culture through their directives, policies, and processes. Strategic level leadership roles were described as those that focus on transformation and long term resul ts . But again, participants emphasized their specific role primarily dictates how they incorporate their preferred style. ASL # 9 summarized this point : It makes it pretty hard to be a visionary leader if you approach things like you are still at the platoo n level (small unit), regardless of your personal preference. Right? I mean, I think strategic leadership is about where you are and how you put things in place to build relationships with peer commands and other organizations to fulfill the mission. Furth ermore, the current a pproach of these participants to social media is often based on the ir current role, with another embracer saying: Since I mainly operate at the strategic level, I think my role is listening to . . there is a lot of white noise and a lot of chatter . . . but my role at this level is to not necessarily action every little thing on social media that may impact my organization. A SL #15 , who classified themselves as an observer on social media, empha sized, role might cause me . . . as permitted . . .I might feel it necessary or appropriate to be But ASL #9 , an abstainer countered this point by saying:

PAGE 98

98 I say that i f you're a tactical brigade commander and you're always on social media , w hat are you doing? Because you don't really have a role in crafting a message that needs to be embraced by a community or by elected representative s . So , sometimes I see some of my peer s posting and it appears they are being a little provocative. And I feel like there's a little bit ego there. Individual A ttributes While each leadership level has different foci and responsibilit ies, 80% of the participants communicated that their personality or individual attributes complement their current leadership role or assignment. Despite these varying roles and responsibilities, a majority of these interviewees expressed that they do not shy away from incorporating their personality into how they approach and communicate with their publics. As individual attributes that senior leaders weave into their communication approaches , or ways that they reinforce d their leadership styles , the follo wing phrases, including openness , adaptability , empathy , and humor were referenced with the greatest frequency. Findings from participants also reinforced that Army senior leaders have found greater success across leadership roles when they remain true to who they are and when they stay mindful of where they came from. Said ASL #12, a being in the Army you represent something larger than yourself, but how you behave on Similarly, 40% of th e participants reinforced that their followership was positively impacted when they demonstrate d self effacing personality traits or attributes and communicate purpose , because soldiers perceive them as more approachable, likable, and identifiable. ASL # 9 further explained the value of communicating purpose, stating:

PAGE 99

99 I try my best to explain why things are happening or why we're doing certain things, because I think if people understand the big picture, they'll be on board and they'll want the organization to see as opposed to saying, hey, you have to do this because I told you to do so. And don't worry about why. Overall, the majority of participants agreed that they in ternalize their role and responsibilities within the organization prior to integrating their own, specific individual attribute s. From here, it was easier to identify and sort distinct, l eadership style s . Leadership S tyle Results showed that every Army s enior leader who identified themselves as an embracer on social media described their own leadership style to be either visionary, transformational, inspirational, or authentic. ASL #11 discussed their respective (ASL 11). Multiple embracers also referenced the importance of self awareness and relatability as a way to increase transparency and build trust to achieve a positive affect through engagement with their soldiers . the right thing the majority of the time , more likely to achieve desired effects as opposed to a punitive leader ( ASL #20 ) where the organization needs to go . . . to develop simple rules and themes to get us to as specified by ASL #14, e that values the organization we are aspiring to become . Social media was collectively reported as being highly advantageous in designing and delivering specific narratives based on its reach, influence, and speed. Embracers also described their overall leadership style as collaborative , in that it sets

PAGE 100

100 the conditions for people within the organization to do more on their own , in the absence of leader ship . S ocial media embracers who promoted transformational leadership , such as ASL #2, stated that they ideas can emerge (ASL #2) F inally, embracers also emphasized the value of investing in their people to demonstrate care, concern, and to provide a guidepost . ASL #11 framed this, stating, and in, it becomes more about giving back across organizations . . . and setting the example in personal appearance, physical fitness, and military bearing . Next, results showed that ASLs who identify as observers on social media interpret their leadership style to be either servant, mission focused, or transformational. Notably, transformation al leadership style ran across all three social media classifications via self reporting, however alignment was much more prominent among embracers. It is likely the rotational nature of assignments with senior leaders across different organizations every two to three years contributed to transformational Those servant leaders in this category identified their approach as being more capable of achiev ing a wide r range of outc omes. These interviewees also described servant leadership as removing any self appointed sense of entitlement and valuable based on its adaptability in various contexts . Another senior leader described servant leadership pointed out that this requir ed substantial time

PAGE 101

101 subordinates As a hands on leadership style, servant leadership calls on the leader to connect with the individual, or t he team, from start to finish. ASL # 6 pointed out, that w to get my hands dirty or do whatever it takes to get the job done to include being present in spaces where I might Two separate servant leaders mentioned internalizing and prioritizing the Army values of loyalty, duty, selfless service, integrity, personal courage, and commitment in how they approach individuals and their organizations. One obs erver , ASL #8 engage when it puts those values at risk . . . but that engagement requires me to follow Another observer specifically referenced mission focused leadership , as ASL #16 emphasized that it requires a high level of discipline to consistently restrain emotion: So, you know, we talk about Mission First: People Always very hard theory and concept fo r folks to get their heads wrapped around, need to be their friend. Your job, you know, in the military, is to accomplish your assigned mission. . . or implied mission. And how to do you do that? about how you, you know, conduct yourself when you are going to danger. And that often means lea ving the emotion out of it. So, in my experience, I think the safest space for military leaders on social media is to keep things mission focused above all else. As for describing transformational style, ASL #16 also emphasized that gaining a platform as one progresses in rank and responsibility advances their ability to directly

PAGE 102

102 listening and learning to gain a greater understanding for where the organization needs to go . Finally, results showed that those ASLs who identify as abstainers on social media interpret their leadership style to be more transactional, mission focused, and transformational. Overall, these abstainers, such as ASL # 7 , mission and organization supersedes that adaptation: W e're all in a glass bubble right now. Everybody operates within it . So , in the old days, I mean, you may be able to say something just between you and someone else and it stays right there. But those days are gone. And that's just something that that we have to accept. So, I think you will see a shift back toward leaders needing to incorporate more trans actional styles to avoid misinterpretation . As a leader, i f you're not worried about what other people would take from a more public exchange, then then you're doing it wrong. You should be worried about it . If you do not cater your interaction to invest i n structure, results, and accountability across the organization, yo putting your efforts into fool s gold (ASL # 7 ) Abstainers who championed transformational leadership stated their belief that ideas should still flow freely, and subordinates should collaborate on solutions, just not through social media. Instead, abstainers expressed an avoidance toward ad hoc decision making schemes that lack appropriate structure, influence, and certainty. If nothing else, communication on s ocial media is uncertain in terms of its source, content, and interpretation . Despite this uncertainty, ASL #19 stated that you can be a transformational leader, and engaging in the social media aby s s Additionally, ASL #7 and ASL #13 also emphasized that trying to be inspirational via social media just for the sake of connecting with soldiers is inauthentic. One of these leaders stressed that there is a difference between being approachable and a ccessible.

PAGE 103

103 Approachability was described as being obtained through trust building initiatives and relationship building endeavors, which could be augmented through social media . However, ation . . . and the beauty of the Army is that the chain of command is structurally operational and responsive 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (ASL #13). Category 2 : Approaches to Social Media Understanding the social media preferences and patterns of Army senior leaders became a critical component in organizing and sorting the data in my study. This analysis illuminated two specific research questions: What are the motivations of Army senior le benefits related to social media (RQ3)? While the results from the perceived benefits of social media might seem more appropriately placed within the later findings related to percei ved risks, the researcher determined that reporting these results earlier in the sequence correlated with senior leader preferences. Therefore, this decision should also help the reader to better understand subsequent findings related to engagement strateg ies. The data supporting these results came directly from the primary instrument used in this study. Classifying Army Senior Leaders on Social Media A significant aspect of organizing the findings were reliant on the classification of Army senior leaders in terms of their social media use. After discussing individual attributes, roles, responsibilities, and styles of each leader, participants were interviewed about their preferred communication styles, followed by their overall thoughts about social media . As a qualifying aspect of this study, each interviewee was provided with a description of three potential classifications to describe their own social

PAGE 104

104 media use as an embracer, observer, or abstainer. The researcher maintained continuity in the descripti on of each of these classifications prior to requesting the senior leader to self identify where they would classify themselves. All participants were asked to self identify their social media approach based on the aforementioned classifications of embrac er, observer, and abstainer. Embracers were defined as senior leaders who engage in all kinds of activities in the social media environment and produce user generated content weekly (Al Menayes, 2014; Brandtzaeg, 2010). Observers were defined to participan ts as senior leaders who log into a platform, view content, blogs, and discussions, but rarely participate; their behavior is associated with silence, inactivity, passivity, invisibility, or bystanding (Edelmann, 2013). Abstainers were defined to participa nts as senior leaders who actively prefer and choose not to participate in any social media activities for varying reasons (Heim & Brandtzaeg, 2007). Based on their initial self identification and the subsequent questioning, the breakdown of i nterviewees in my study confirmed that there were twelve embracers, six observers, and four abstainers, which is representative of recent data collected reflecting the demographics of social media users in the military, (Urben 2017; 2021). Social Media Mo tivations Interviewees were asked to describe what motivates their approach to social media (RQ2). The results varied significantly based on where they fall on the embracer observer abstainer continuum. Approach aside, almost every participant conceded th at social media has become ubiquitous in our culture and the social media represents a unique way to extend influence in a distributed environment. This phrase was later

PAGE 105

105 shortened to social media possess es widespread impact and affect. Often compressed on time, embracers emphasized the rapid exchange of information and ideas with Soldiers, families, and the American public. Other practical motivations noted by embracers and observers included being directed by my boss , or the expectati on that one should set an example in every way possible , to include how leaders communicate on social media. Fear seemed to play a key motivating role too, as several senior leaders communicated that they existed on social media purely because if they do not become fluent in the arena, some other ASL #4 expressed that he simultaneously led troops in 34 different locations in eight different coun I was using it to tell the story back home to military families. It [social media] served both internal and external Expanding on these p oints, ASL #16 stated: imagine shutting down their TikTok . . . It's a way of life. So, we need to embrace it. And quite frankly, in the operating environment, we need to be reco nnaissance officers by trade. We need to be out there and see what really my motivation on it. Other motivators from social media advocates included a desire for information, develop ing leaders , and building st ems from a powerful way to reach and message the formation, individually and collectively. This approach was supported by ASL #2, an embracer , who stated,

PAGE 106

106 The way I see it i media] a fairly new table. And this is a table where people are having conversations. Just because you ignore it, does that mean those as much to monitor the conversation as engage in the conversation. shuts up. But in the social media space, there's kind of a free flowing space to be able to observe and i nteract in that particular conversation. However, some A rmy senior leaders , who abstain from social media , directly refuted this as a falsehood. As ASL #7 explained: T bullshit. I wan t to say to that leader, you know where your soldiers are? They are in formation. They are in the barracks. They are out doing physical training. You want to go communicate with soldiers then go communicate with soldiers . B ut not on the global stage that is social media. I mean, a 1 Star General can say something that is perfectly reason to have Army conver sations on the broad, global stage when you like the U.S. Army. Abstainers ultimately communicat ed the vari ous motivation s for their approach to social media as but then , when they disagree with the m essage being put out, the social media culture coordinate a response on a contentious topic. For social media advocates, leader development and relationship building served as key motivators and also as a bridge toward theory development. ASL #16

PAGE 107

107 Similarly, the need to belong and the need for self perception were identified as complementary motivators in users, but both of these were later linked to relationship building and mentorship for Army senior leaders. ASL formation about up and out and dow n and in communication as they ascend through fundamental to any assignment for a senior leader. fre e and allows for critical thinking, two While the investment into building relationships and developing leaders might differ from building relationships and developing soldiers is necessary if for no other reason than the routine turnover of personnel that occurs regularly across military units and ty traits in shaping social media use (Correa et al., 2010; Hamburger & Vinitzky. 2010; Burke et al., 2011), mentorship and relationship building at the soldier level was identified as key drivers for senior leaders to engage on social media across militar y culture. As bolstered by ASL #6, We constantly say we are about our people, which is why at least once a quarter I just email and say, hey, you want to go for a run or do something where we just talk or I'll ask if they want to have breakfast together. That's how I kind of get down to mentoring them. Social media is not as effective, but it certainly presents another way to connect and build those relationships and cultivate some mentorship.

PAGE 108

108 as a key aspect motivating their approaches to social media. Interestingly, while some sought out interaction and expressed gratification when it occurred, other senior leaders expressed a desire to avoid interaction in the public eye. More simply , ASL #1 7 explained desire for interaction may be much different than yours . . . and often what separates ur privates and soldiers do not really want us on there? That thought has driven my To build on these findings, social media platform preferences and patterns were explored. Social Media Platform Preferences and Patterns vast majority communicated the greatest level of familiarity and comfortability with Twitter. Facebook was referenced by a majority of participants , with Instagra m, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, and Twitch all discussed to some degree by at least three separate Army senior leaders. In addition, while discussing preferences, multiple leaders highlighted the significance of distinguishing between personal and pr ofessional accounts. Seven interviewees reported that they do not have multiple accounts on the same platform because they do not distinguish between personal and professional accounts. Six interviewees reported that they do distinguish between their perso nal and professional accounts. Three reported mixed feelings an d reported that they were unsure where they stand on the distinction . All four abstainers confirmed they deliberately have no social media accounts.

PAGE 109

109 Embracers that distinguish between both soc ial media accounts described , d as running counter to the , continuity in messaging, values, and behavior. The perspective fro m Army senior leaders on personal and professional social media accounts offered additional insights for potential future research. As another senior leader put it: professional charade as long as you don't post things that would rock the boat. When it comes to senior military officers remaining non sometimes as not engaging. That means not commenting, not liking, and not sharing content that might be controversial in any w ay. However, ASL #19, an abstainer offered that in the post I t is becoming much harder to distinguish between what classifies social media content as In terms of frequency, Twitter was championed as a preferred social media Another Twitter advo cate , ASL #6 commented: I was deliberate about selecting Twitter because I was recognizing other Army senior leaders embracing Twitter and cultivating a steady presence . . . I started realizing you have all these big Army personalities that just use it actually tell other leaders at the newcomers briefs and command courses that they should not be afraid to interact on Twitter based on the other Army senior leaders who have fully embraced it.

PAGE 110

110 friend engagement organizations. A SL #18 added I really don't think many millennials or G en Z observe what I write on Facebook. Instag ram was perce i In addition, leaders relayed that, despite the many soldiers operating on Twitter, Facebook, and have curated their social media and want nothing to do with th e that but soldiers often do not even see the content of senior leaders due to their curated, personal feeds. A majority of ASLs agreed that Facebook has a high er rate of adoption and usage frequency based on its large community that has maintained over the years. ASLs cited Facebook as a heavy usage option for organizational accounts or for connecting and interacting with fami ly and friends. Twitter, was identified as the platform with the highest increase of usage and general, ASLs cite both Facebook and Twitter accounts as sharing similar risk in how they can potentially harm relationships and reputations. Both platforms have public and private features that were referenced, but ASLs acknowledged this decision to go public or private with their accounts generates an increase or reduction in opportunities for relationship building and two way communication. Additionally, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Snapchat were each mentioned during the in depth interviews by various ASLs. Each of

PAGE 111

111 these platforms were briefly described as providing different benefits and risks. In the case of LinkedIn, the lower usage frequency cited by ASLs on these three platforms he rationale for its usage, or lack thereof. Instagram was frequently referred to as a space that ASLs rarely operate on or monitor at the moment, however four ASLs cited Instagram as possessing the greatest potential and interest for future use in their l eadership communication. to any personal social media accounts that they previously cultivated to other public affairs professionals. Ultimately, platform preferences were contextually based and dependent on the interest and the specific content that leaders wanted to deliver. Benefits of S ocial M edia U se While the benefits of social media in leadership communication are well documented ( Saxton & Waters, 2014; Huang & Yeo, 201 8; Tsai & Men, 2017; Men et al., 2018; Yue et al., 2020 ), my study offers insights into how Army senior leaders view different advantages of using social media (RQ3). In short, the findings in my study suggest that the benefits of social media transition in their usage , and when they operate in the social media space to either , to whom they might not otherwise have access. As is that it gives me more freedom and a greater span of control to engage the way I want embrac er ,

PAGE 112

112 ASL #12 enjoy seeing what soldiers are doing. And so , it's kind of exciting to keep in touch with them in that way when we go Multiple Army senior leaders discuss ed how they tailored their feed on different platforms toward their interests and only engaged or became involved in discourse edia platform remains a distinct advantage, according to participants. Two different servant leaders in my study, ASL #3 and ASL #5, explicitly In terms of flattening the organization, ASL option for leaders to interact with soldiers, civilians, and external publics such as allies, adversaries, or the American public. Senior leaders in distributed environments benefit from social media use through more reliability in Regarding informational advantages, senior leaders expressed the opinion that y warning surprisingly, only 20% of participants found social media to be a bene ficial tool in

PAGE 113

113 collaboration, and radical candor. Social media does serve as a technical means to offer ally, the approachability and access to Army senior leaders via social media has resulted in last minute interventions that , in some cases, prevented soldier suicide or accidents. A bridge toward trust building for our Army that is reliable and av was shared by ASL #20 as another positive, social media dividend. My study also found responsiveness to be a clear benefit in social media use. ocial media can be effective in countering falsehoods and assisting senior leaders to communicate their positions or actions to a specific audience. The alternative is that the someone else starts running ia , saying : It has instantaneous exponential reach. When I put a Facebook Live 2 minute snippet on how and why we're doing C ovid vaccinations, if they choose to log on, the entire community can see me personally relaying how and why we're doing what we're doing. You can't call a formation and have all of Fort [confidential] come onto the parade field. But you can instantly put your face, your voice, and your emotion into a Facebook Live 2 minute video that conveys how and why you're making the decisions th Category 3 : Engagement Strategies My study also investigated the use of engagement strategies by those Army senior leaders who are active on social media (RQ4 ) and observed how dialogic communicatio n was incorporated into that activity (RQ5). Analyzing this data was a two fold process because it combined aspects from the overall instrument, in depth interviews, with a separate content analysis of additional publications and Twitter data

PAGE 114

114 taken from 20 military senio r leaders, 10 of whom were additional embracers from outside the interview sample. Social Presence Looking at the specific communication strategies that military senior leaders use can help to refine the value in which leadership communication strategies cultivate the greatest level of engagement and positive feedback in a computer mediated environment. Findings in additional documents from military senior leaders describe s ocial media a s a great way to understand, connect, and interact with a global community of military people and national security professionals, many of whom are eager to engage in pr ofessional discourse and Supplementary # 4). The findings also show that embracers and observers alike overwhelmingly communicate or F or example, a senior leader messaged, social media is a place you now have to be , for appeal and value for both one on one interaction and mass broadcast. T his is even more so for our natives that have grown up in a world shaped Supplementary # 3). After examining how senior leaders use social presence strategies on Twitter, the findings support that they build online presence by leveraging intera ctive (f = 482, 80.3%), affective (f = 409, 68.2%), and cohesive strategies (f = 287, 47.8%). Senior military leaders most frequently incorporated expressions of appreciation (f = 336, 56.0%) and agreement (f = 286, 47.7%) to facilitate mutual interaction.

PAGE 115

115 Military leaders also exhibited offering personal insights into their own lives at a high frequency (f = 365, 60.1%) , and they embraced emotional expressions (f = 279, 46.5%). Additionally, the use of inclusive pronouns such as we , our , and us (f = 229, 38.2%) was the cohesive strategy most frequently utilized by senior leaders in their communication s on Twitter. Dialogic Principles RQ5 specifically focused on how military senior leaders incorporated dialogic principles into their posts. The re sults (Table 4.1) show that these senior leaders employed all four dialogic principles to some extent, but primarily incorporated three of them: information of interest (f = 444, 74.0%), dialogic loop (f = 401, 66.8%), and generation of return visits (f = 383, 63.9%). Findings in an additional document from a senior leader reinforced this idea: duty to inform the requirement for basic transparency is independent from the outcome of the Supplementary # 8). For information of interest, senio r ultivate engagement, military leaders used dialogic loop solicit feedback (f = 72, 12%), c onduct surveys (f = 21, 3.5%), or encourage questions and comments (f = 50, 8.3%).

PAGE 116

116 Message Appeals, Functionality, and Vividness In terms of message appeals, the information community action framework (Saxton & Waters, 2014) was used to determine how thes e leaders utilized message vividness, message appeal, and message functionality. An embracer f rom the in depth interviews, ASL #10, discussed their approach to appeal, vividness, and engagement: I rarely post new or original content; I interact with other conversation . . . w hat I want to influence with is character and values, respectful and fun interaction, and cohesion in the social media space . There is no reason to lo se my professionalism or try to be something I am not . The content analysis found that most posts contained rational appeal (f = 500, 83.3%), which proved more likely to be delivered in a positive way (f = 477, 79.5%). In addition, with regard to functiona lity, military leaders published messages focused on information ( f = 444, 74% ), cultivating community (f = 373, 63.2%), and taking action (f = 268, 44.7%). The results showed that more than one fourth (f = 155, 25.8%) of the messages contained high vividness with either picture or video. ASL #15 discussed their strategic focus in terms of message appeal, stating: I think w ppeal . . . is positively influencing want to enlist or want to remain on the team. Most of the senior which was more likely to be delivered in a positive (f = 401, 80.2%) manner. In terms of functionality, leaders published messages focused on information (f = 444, 74.0%), cultivated community (f = 327, 65.3%), and action (f = 229, 45.8%). Of note, the leaders

PAGE 117

117 55.0%) as a comm greatest frequency for action. Public Engagement M ultiple senior leaders described the importance of real engagement between military leaders hip and the people in whose name they serve d and described the value in engagement of pecific attributes were emphasized to increase effectiveness with engagement on social media including an abstainer , ASL #19, communicated: To be effective, if I have to be one of those things, I m also taking on risk. To be vulnerable, you take on risk. To take on social issu es, which generally have a partisan slant to them, you take on risk. To be funny, you take on risk. To show my self as a senior leader on social media, you take on greater risk. When you read research about how social media is so great and effective... I wo nder if that stuff is becoming dated and used to be a very different place to reside. Our country used to be in a very different place to reside. We are in a much more partisan envi taking place on the public stage. So, when you dip your toe into social media, you are entering into a conversation which is already poisoned just by where it is. The content analysis also offered additional insights in terms of public comments analyzed in the sample, with a large majority either positive (f = 265, 59.8%) or neutr al (f = 121, 27.3%), while negative comments (f = 53, 11.9%) were much less common. In terms of public engagement, these findings show that on average, a military 123.11, S D = 23.74), and two comments (M = 1.76, SD = 5.48). Analysis from additional documents identified that while military, corporate, and political leaders may share many

PAGE 118

118 of the same tools and techniques on social media, the overall purpose for that engagement differs. The strategic purpose for corporate leaders might be to increase sales, while for political leaders it might be about winning elections but for military leaders, at its core, engagement is tied to accountability ( Supplementary # 8). To find out how dialogic communication and message tactics affected public engagement with military senior leaders on Twitter, it was necessary to run a series of either Poisson regressions or negative binomial regressions, controlling for senior ollowers. A n egative binomial regression was conducted because dependent variables (i.e., like, retweet, comment) in this study represented over dispersed count data that did not follow normal distribution. Exponentiated coefficients [Exp(B)] represent the change in a dependent variable for every unit increase in an independent variable. For instance, an Exp(B) of 1.123 implies that for each unit change in the predictor (in our case, from 0 = no to 1 = yes ), public engagement (i.e., like, retweet, or commen t) increases by [(1.186 1) * 100%] 18.6%. A summary of regression analyses results was presented in Table 3. The results showed that, among dialogic principles, likes (B = 1.61, Exp(B) = 5.02, p < .001) , retweets (B = 0.95, Exp(B) = 2.57, p < .001), and co mments (B = 0.54, Exp(B) = 1.71, p < .001) were positively correlated with conservation of visitors, and likes were positively correlated with the generation of return visits (B = 0.36, Exp(B) = 1.43, p < .05) . In terms of the effect of social presence str ategies on public engagement, affective strategies positively correlated with number of likes (B = 0.10, Exp(B) = 1.11, p < .001) and retweets (B = 0. 2 4, Exp(B) = 1. 2 7, p < .001), and cohesive strategies positively correlated with likes (B = 0. 12 , Exp(B) = 1.1 2 , p <

PAGE 119

119 .001) . Unexpectedly, interactive strategies were not associated with any public engagement indicators. This finding was especially surprising considering that additional documents analyzed from military senior leaders showed a recognitio n that interactive participation and open exchange in the leadership subordinate relationship are important ( Supplementary # 2). This finding correlated with comments from ASL #14 who stated: This exchange for leaders is important because if we retreat from the space, we cede it to people who don't know what we're doing. And I think that's an area ripe for, you know, conspiracy theories, et cetera, which could put military leadership in a very, very bad light. And I don't think it can be PAOs should be doing it [engaging with subordinates on social Regarding message tactics and public engagement, the information function positively affected the number of retweets (B = 0. 17 , Exp(B) = 1.1 9 , p < .0 5 ) , and the action function positively affected the number of likes (B = 0. 63 , Exp(B) = 0 . 53 , p < .001) . Additionally, rational appeal was positively related to the number of retweets (B = 0. 06 , Exp(B) = 1. 06 , p < .001) and comments (B = 0. 28 , Exp(B) = 1. 3 2 , p < .0 5 ), while negative emotional appeal was positively related to the number of likes (B = 2 .5 2 , Exp(B) = 8 . 4 1, p < .001) and retweets (B = 1 . 68 , Exp(B) = 5 . 35 , p < .001) . Finally, the study found that senior leaders who posted vivid messages (picture/video) were more likely to receive likes (B = 0. 81 , Exp(B) = 2 . 26 , p < .001) and comments (B = 0. 69 , Exp(B) = 1. 99 , p < .001) . Category 4: Risk Communication The internet is resistant to any form of command and control, but , as Dezenhall (2014) explains I phones , push a button, control or

PAGE 120

120 4 star Army General Robert Abrams penned an article about how senior leaders need t o overcome their lack of intellectual curiosity, discomfort with technology, its content, or According to the general consensus of embracers and observers , senior lead ers must be positioned to influence digital natives who have reshaped the ways we interact and communicate. My study specifically aims to identify the perceived risks of Army senior leaders (RQ7) that contribute to abstainers avoiding social media, deters direct engagement from observers on social media, and the red lines that exist, in terms of perceived risk, even for the embracers of social media. Upon doing so, the study then offers strategies which would contribute to offsetting or mitigating the risks (RQ8) associated with various approaches to social media from Army senior leaders. Perceived Risks In my study, results on perceived risks, as expected, differed most based on the where senior leaders aligned though, regardless of their individual approaches, included generalizing the term social media and communicating content related to operational security, partisanship, and service member safety. S enior leaders mostly agreed th at social platforms (such as Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook) are variance, senior leaders must be careful about generalizing how they refer to soci al media as a whole. Army senior leaders also collectively emphasized the risk in communicating any form of emotionally charged posts related to partisanship or a social topic, or even

PAGE 121

121 posting a response when a service member communicated something that m ay harm themselves or others on a platform. The perception is that risk immediately increases Impulsive responses on social platforms, which can become fodder for internal and external publics, were also no ted as a llies as an important factor that weighs into their overall calculus for their approach to social media ( Supplementary # 6). My study found that abstainers perceive risks of what is important , For any kind of senior leader to be transparent or authentic in anything public, already viewed as a biased representative of the United States military. Army senior leaders are paid to represent the Army. So as every general officer, or anybody communicating publicly on behalf of their organization, the paid representatives. And so , the idea of au thenticity and transparency that point of departure is already jacked up when surrounded by 150 soldiers in the company or Brigade area, with their voice cracking, looking into the eyes o f their soldiers after they just lost somebody in combat or getting ready to deploy? Is that authentic communication? Damn right it is. But putting a [explicative] tweet out viewed as bullshit

PAGE 122

122 Alternatively, ASL #13 reported an overall lack of education and training in the military as a primary deterrent to why leaders and service members should stay away from social media: At what PME [professional military education] do we teach social med ia? What curriculum is it in? Oh, wait. We don't. We don't teach it in precommissioning or BOLC [Basic Officer Leaders Course] or even the Career Course...and we sure as shit don't teach at the schoolhouse, t teach our folks how to deal with it, how to define it, or who owns it . everybody get out there and do indirect all ranks out there trying to get out there and do it . . . some people have n this information space but we see the risk. This reported lack of understanding as a perceived risk is challenged later in these results by embracers. Another perce i ved risk identified by abstainers, and later challenged by with which to engage the public view in the post digital era command . It also initiates an entire array of bigger questions that increase risk to the senior leader and the institution as a whole. As ASL #11 explained: The public has to implicitly trust us in or der for us to do our mission. And when they no longer trust the military as a neutral, nonbiased entity, we will run into trouble when we have junior troops questioning the decisions of senior leaders who have neither all the background information nor the facts at hand, which cannot be explained in any social media context. It becomes a challenge to lead through that. For example, senior leaders cited various examples where the social media between

PAGE 123

123 command and connect directly with the most senior leaders in a public way, abstainers reported this as unnecessary risk. These findings were complemented by su pplementary analysis on perce i percept ion of mutual followership was described as a two fraternization concerns, whether they are legitimate or not. ASL # 9 stated : est in remaining wary about who is following me and why . . . or how if I like ith leaving in the box. I can achieve the mission without all that. In addition to a lack of dedicated training, education, time, interest, and the other om context specific communication as another concern impacting their intention to abstain. risk centered on concern about maintain ing anonymous or inactive accounts. More per sonal accounts lead to greater risks for the senior leader. This prerogative is based on how the individual intends to use their platform or account. The concern from observers regarding anonymous accounts was the lack of certainty in terms of engagement a nd interactivity. Without knowing who a senior leader is interacting with, there is potential for misinformation or dangerous engagement. While observers agreed

PAGE 124

124 that identity, l eaders and soldiers can find themselves misled or on shaky ground. with others . For example, ing squad in a cone of silence, where everybody is just taking each other ASL # themselves professionally, live by the Army values, and stay i or even putting resources into analyzing such content, was said to derail any senior While there may be endless possibilities and limitless vulnerabilities on social media, ASL # 15 stated that the greate st risk lies with senior leaders who fail to understand and describe the threats to their organizations that reside in a post digital information environment. Embracer s Overall, this study found that embracers believe the risks and opera tional security challenges that exist on social media are overstated. The consensus from this segment of the sample was that content on social media is already in the public, open domain. Embracers also stated that they have a responsibility on social medi a to represent the most trusted institution in America and to ensure that online trolls and negative mobs do not incite Army senior leaders to engage in communication that might escalate in a negative way. An embracer, ASL #17 stated, ion requires leaders to meander outside our comfort zone to

PAGE 125

125 expose ourselves to feedback and critique that might otherwise be concealed in a the American public, includi ng regularly testifying to Congress, but: Connecting with the American public on social media is still a risky endeavor. Leaders could go on Tucker Carlson and ensure their message gets out because the show gets very high ratings, but the risks associated with that route is too high. Social media is the same. There are often other routes. As expected, in stark contrast to abstainers, these senior leaders perceived unfiltered content from their soldiers as fundamentally different because it allows them to thoughts their structural distance. ASL #5 emphasized that there are increasing risks on social media, but the more Army senior leaders come to understand and embrace those risks, the better situated we will be for the information environment of tomorrow. The participant also stated, ers are not always going to also reinforced the concept that additional risk lies in testing ideas and content with a wider audience on social media. This is a doubl e edge sword. However, ASL #14 with this. media was cited as potentially problematic in the post digital era.

PAGE 126

126 their concerns and complaints on social media due to a break in trus t with their chain of documents found that concerns related to personal risk, unnecessary competition with peers, and indirectly communicating policy via social media could negatively impact the organization and those individuals involved in the content ( Supplementary #9 ). Mi tigation Measures For risk mitigation, my study compiled various takeaways from Army senior leaders that could be applied to mitigate the aforementioned risks, or even better, curb the problems identified with senior leaders using social media. As a self policing profession successful in the information environment, senior leaders outlined measures below that they perceived could prevent engaging in a losing situation. With the greatest frequency, A rmy senior leaders emphasized education and training for mitigation measures. Collectively, senior leaders expressed that PME needs to begin dedicating time toward social media risks and privacy settings, at both the senior leader and at the organizational level. senior leaders about how social media can benefit their organization and how its value

PAGE 127

127 can be truly measured. Senior leade rs also expressed a need to publish best practices discussed the importance of communicating with purpose to educate the formation of unit policies and practices in the si mplest terms. This would go a long way toward curbing social media risks, as would weaving social media practices into tactical and operational level doctrine. My study also found that policy changes could mitigate perceived risks on social media. As summa rized by ASL #1: We've got to make your policy much more restrictive, much clearer, much easier to understand and much more punitive, and much, much easier to enforce. And the lawyers are going to hate that, but its jut moving so fast that we have to catc h like setting a speed limit in outer space . . . we have to find a way to curb this thing. In addition, leaders stated that addressing specific platforms within command policies could help clarify the appropriateness of professional and personal accounts at echelon. One ASL offered an example related to a door policies and whether or not instant messaging on social media should qualify as part of the policy. An additional policy recommendation included clearing the way to weaponize social media under the right conditions, to communicate wit h friendly and enemy forces, or the local population. audience internalizes the me ssage, then do not communicate it on social media because it only brings greater risk. In this instance, purpose driven aligns with the definition in management literature as communicating aim or reasoning as central to

PAGE 128

128 justifying leadership behavior (Cart on et al., 2014). Senior leaders also communicated that social media does not have to be entertaining to attract soldiers; while this is a bonus, it is much more critical that the messaging is accurate, reliable, and useful. Senior leaders also collective ly advised caution, prudence, and tolerance in all approaches to social media. While leaders mostly agreed it was prudent to defend their individual and institutional values, a hostile public could alter the context of the message and shift its intended di scourse. There will always be soldiers upset on social media, but ASL #13 believes thar there are plenty of other outlets for that soldier to address their issue: There's an open door policy. There is a chaplain. They could write their congressman. They could have their family write their congressman. We have just absolutely empowered insanity having to deal with every social media tiff. Now what we are doing is hard , and we are not a perfect organization, but we are extending too much organizational ener gy that should be spent getting ready for the next war. While having an approachable, honest dialogue with the American public is important, honest mistakes can be made in these instances on social media. Senior leaders agreed that ce for fights line that senior leaders should apologize, but not ration alize, publicly. lunacy, falsehoods, and overreactions In times of crisis, senior leaders supported res ponding to In terms of delivery

PAGE 129

129 mechanisms for senior leader communication, a menu of different options was ment ioned as alternative ways to connect with different audiences and ranks that did not include social media , with each option offering varying degrees of exposure, vulnerability, or risk. Official accounts were identified as an additional mitigation measure for social media use, when drafted, managed, and organized appropriately. Leaders or organizational social media account provides them with something they can or canno t get anywhere else, it demonstrates it member of the team manage social media accounts was cited as adding an additional layer of oversight, perspective, and engagement Finally, structural improvements were mentioned. These could be made within organize a standard operating procedure (SOP) that outlines how a senior leader or unit responds based on the conversation or circumstances. Em ergent Themes During the data collection process, there were t hree specific themes identified by later participants just prior to the researcher justifying an acceptable level of theoretical saturation. Although it was not a n intended focus of this study, the concept of ghostposting was discussed during the interview process and is identified in this research as an emergent theme for future study and exploration. As a topic area, ghost

PAGE 130

130 (Gallicano et al., 2013, p. 2). Two Army senior leaders referenced the utility of ghost While m ultiple senior leaders confirmed utilizing ghost posting by incorporating their staff to craft social media messages on their behalf or on the behalf of the headquarters , the participants expressed that ghostposting must be delivered in their voice to be effective. Ghostposting present s an additional li ne of inquiry , discussed further in Chapter 6, into Army senior leader risk perceptions and calculus. The second emerging theme identified later within this study was the use of the influencer to message or distribute senior leader communication. For example, Supplementary #8 highlighted prominent YouTube celebrity and Navy sailor Austen Alexande r. This notorious social media influencer maintains a channel that has 300,000 subscribers, which is just shy of the total subscribers on the official U . S . Army and the U . S . Navy accounts combined. ASL #17 emphasized, You've got a lot of service members who actually have thousands of people should try to leverage that. They're already in uniform and they have a huge following for a reason. Our leaders need to understand that, invest in it, and get on board with our virtual spa ce influencers who are very good at, you know, communicating a purposeful message to an audience that actually cares. Social media influencers within the organization were identified by three senior leaders individuals across the Army offer an opportunity to generate attention toward a topic or

PAGE 131

131 message important to the senior leader . Influencers were identified as potentially As added by ASL #2, trying to have every single sen ior leader trying to influence on social media. Maybe we should, in the Army, identify some select influencers who emerge in the environment as opposed to pushing our leaders to be out there doing everything. ASL #16 summarized the potential for incorporat ing both of these emerging why the water or post from their lens or account, as opposed to using my own Twitter account and expose myself on world stage. I just think we should use the resources that Finally, an interesting tread line of ethics in leadership communication appeared to emerge from the data once consolidated. While these extra findings were not proposed as research questions, their presence in ASL views toward social media engagement should be recognized as part of relational and organizational public research and were included as leadership communication ethical aspects presented in Figure 4 2 . Several abstainers described their approach toward engagement on social media as a multiple embracers who classified themselves as transformational leaders referenced diverse perspe observers cited their engagement

PAGE 132

132 Further discussion on the prospect of ghost posting , leveraging influencers , ethics a nd subsequent rela tional outcomes in organization public communication is discussed in Chapter 6 in recommendations for future research.

PAGE 133

133 Table 4 1. Frequency of coding for categories and themes N ote: All numerical data was collected using NVivo Pro 12 *Some associated codes may overlap in different themes Category Cases That Include Category Categorical References Theme (n=30) Leadership 30 414 Role Attributes Style Social Media 29 362 Classification Motivation Benefits Preferences Engagement 28 329 Patterns Dialogic Social Presence Messaging Public Engagement Perceived Risk 25 375 Disadvantages Mitigation Emergent 6 76 Proxies I nfluencers

PAGE 134

134 Table 4 2. Extent of t heme d ata Theme Number of cases that include theme (n = 30) Codes References Role 24 5 217 Attributes 19 9 177 Style 23 4 72 Classification 21 4 161 Motivation 22 7 99 Benefits 20 11 178 Preferences 20 8 104 Patterns 17 5 124 Dialogic 18 4 111 Social Presence 16 3 66 Messaging 23 7 102 Public Engagement 20 7 89 D isadvantages 24 22 204 Mitigation 20 14 174 Proxies 4 2 54 I nfluencers 4 2 34

PAGE 135

135 Table 4 3 . Case c lassification m atrix Case Psuedonym Classification Role Gender In depth Interview ASL #1 Observer Operational M In depth Interview ASL #2 Embracer Strategic F In depth Interview ASL #3 Embracer Training F In depth Interview ASL #4 Observer Operational M In depth Interview ASL #5 Embracer Operational M In depth Interview ASL #6 Embracer Operational M In depth Interview ASL #7 Abstainer Training M In depth Interview ASL #8 Observer Administrative M In depth Interview ASL #9 Abstainer Training M In depth Interview ASL #10 Embracer Strategic M In depth Interview ASL #11 Embracer Administrative F In depth Interview ASL #12 Embracer Strategic F In depth Interview ASL #13 Abstainer Training M In depth Interview ASL #14 Embracer Training M In depth Interview ASL #15 Observer Garrison M In depth Interview ASL #16 Observer Operational M In depth Interview ASL #17 Embracer Administrative M In depth Interview ASL #18 Observer Garrison M In depth Interview ASL #19 Abstainer Training M In depth Interview ASL #20 Embracer Training M Publication Supplementary #1 N/A Operational M Publication Supplementary #2 N/A Operational M Publication Supplementary #3 N/A Operational M Publication Supplementary #4 N/A Administrative M Publication Supplementary #5 N/A Strategic F Publication Supplementary #6 N/A Administrative M Publication Supplementary #7 N/A Training F Publication Supplementary #8 N/A Operational M Lecture Supplementary #9 N/A Strategic M Panel Supplementary #10 N/A Strategic N/A

PAGE 136

136 Table 4 4 . Coding book for military leader social media posts Variable Frequency Percentage Intercoder reliability Conservation of visitors 51 8. 5 1 3 2.2 1.0 Link to other social networks sites in which the military leader or unit is present (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, blogs, Instagram) 3 8 6. 3 1.0 Generation of return visits 3 83 6 3 . 9 Links to websites where additional information can be obtained 74 12. 3 0.96 Links to news/opinion pieces related to the leader or uni t issued by ext. media 1 8 7 31. 1 0.76 Links to other Twitter pages: use of @ 27 1 45. 1 0.96 Option to request information 3 5 5 . 9 0.98 Dialogic loop 401 66 . 8 The provision of surveys or other channels for users to express opinions on the military organization 2 1 3. 5 1.0 The use of hashtags 227 37.8 0.98 Request to ask a question or leave a comment (request can be done via text/video) 50 8. 3 0.92 Questions posted by the leader to solicit feedback 72 1 2 . 0 0.88 Leader tagging /@ someone to engage in a conversation 3 6 6 61. 0 0.92 Information of interest to stakeholders 4 4 4 74 . 0 Events, activities, or services related to the unit or the military leader 2 53 42. 1 0.76 News, reports, opinion pieces, press release related to the unit, unit service members, or the field the unit is in 1 34 2 2 . 3 0.90 97 16. 2 0.96 opinions/thoughts/reflections on an issue/population relevant to the unit 3 65 6 0 . 1 0.88 Dialogic communication: S ocial aspect Affective strategies 409 68 . 2 Emotional expressions including descriptions, emoticons, repetitious punctuation, all cap 2 79 4 6 . 5 0.84 Humor including teasing, iron, sarcasm, joke (only if it is clearly meant to be funny) 131 2 1 . 8 0.96 Self disclosure, e.g., details of personal life, expressing personal opinion 2 84 4 7 . 3 0.78 Interactive strategies 4 8 2 8 0 . 3

PAGE 137

137 Table 4 4 . Continued . Variable Frequency Percentage Intercoder reliability messages 2 56 42 .6 0.84 Ask questions 40 6 . 7 0.98 Express appreciation/compliment 336 56.0 0.82 Express agreement 2 86 4 7 . 7 0.86 Cohesive strategies 2 87 4 7 . 8 Address publics by name/@ 1 8 3 . 0 Use inclusive pronouns: address the group as we, us, our, group, community, society, country 229 38.2 0.86 Phatic/salutations: communication that serves a purely social function, greetings, sharing what the leader is currently doing 90 1 5 . 0 0.98 Message function: Community function 37 3 6 2 . 2 Acknowledgement of current & local events a nd activities 333 5 5 . 5 0.80 Response solicitation 101 16.9 0.82 Message function: Action function 268 44.7 Promoting an event 209 34.8 0.78 Call for volunteers 7 1.1 1.0 Lobbying and advocacy 133 22.2 0.84 J oin another site or vote for org 57 9.6 0.92 Learn how to help 74 12.3 0.86 Message appeals Rational appeal 500 83.3 0.80 Positive appeal 477 79.5 0.92 Negative appeal 32 5.3 0.94 Message vividness Text 445 74.2 1.0 P i cture/video 155 25.8 1.0 Comments Positive comments 2 65 46.1 0.88 Neutral comments 1 21 19.7 0.94 Negative comments 6 9 10.5 0.96 Note: Proposed Measurement Instrument (replication of methodology from Yue et al, 2021)

PAGE 138

138 Table 4 5 . Account information of senior military leaders on Twitter sample * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001 Predictors DV: Likes DV: Retweets DV: Comments B(SE) Exp(B) B(SE) Exp(B) B(SE) Exp(B) Dialogic Principles Conservation of visitors 1.61***(.09) 5.02 .95***(.01) 2.57 .54***(.15) 1.71 Generation of return visits .36*(.15) 1.43 .03(.02) .97 .21(.24) 1.23 Dialogic loop .56(.10) .57 1.15(.02) .32 .05(.16) .96 Information of interest to stakeholders 1.08(.12) .34 .08(.02) .92 .24(.17) 1.27 Social Presence Strategies Interactive strategy .66(.01) .51 1.04(.02) .35 .02(.17) .98 Affective strategy .10***(.01) 1.11 .24***(.01) 1.27 .09(.14) 1.09 Cohesive strategy .12***(.02) 1.12 .11(.01) .90 .18(.13) 1.19 Message Functions Informational .34(.13) .71 .17*(.01) 1.19 .23(.18) 1.26 Community .32***(.10) .72 .48(.01) .62 .31(.14) 1.37 Action .63***(.10) .53 .22(.01) 1.25 .04(.14) .96 Message Appeals Rational .21(.13) .81 .06***(.01) 1.06 .28*(.18) 1.32 Positive .73(.19) .48 1.54(.03) .21 .01(.27) 1.01 Negative 2.52***(.37) 8.41 1.68***(.12) 5.35 .18(.51) 1.19 Message Vividness .81***(.10) 2.26 .63(.01) .53 .69***(.15) 1.99

PAGE 139

139 Figure 4 sk

PAGE 140

140 Figure 4 2. Continuum of Findings

PAGE 141

141 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTION Constructed Theor y As discussed in Chapter 3, grounded theory differs in that it does not adhere to a traditional, pre determined construct . Existing research does reinforce emerging concepts and findings in this data collection and analysis. The theory constructed in this study i s complemented by previous frameworks and acknowledges that existing frameworks may serve as useful alternatives to understand this phenomenon (Corbin & Strauss , 2008 ). In addition, a the ory exists for explanation and prediction , and it allows us to understand certain realities (Charmaz, 2006). My offers fresh contributions to the field and t his chapter outlines a proposed grounded theory of Army senior leaders perceived risk s o n social media in the post digital era by building upon existing public relations and leadership communication theories. This proposed construct builds upon relationship management theory (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham, 2003), dialogic communicatio n theory ( Kent & Taylor, 1998; Kent & Taylor, 2002; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Men et al., 2018; Wang & Yang, 2020 ), contingency theory ( Drazin & Van De Ven, 1985; Donaldson, 2001 ; Cancel et al., 2009) , public information theory (Saxton & Waters, 2014), and complexity theory ( Byrne, 2002; Sellnow & Seeger, 2021 ). The process for construct ing theory (Charmaz, 2006) in my study began with developing categories in the identity hierarchy for the research participants and analyz ing how they fit together based on their leadership style and role. Participants defined how they thought about and employed leadership communication , as well as how they approach ed social media. Then, conditions were specified for participants to

PAGE 142

142 self select their preferred identity based on their social media use. Next, participants established and clarified their preferred and potential risk calculations in different soc ial media contexts . This enabled the researcher to subsequently memo and draft the proposed theory and then draw supported conclusions regarding how different identity levels presuppose varying risk perceptions and mitigation strategies . Th is process directly contributed to the follow on construction of a theoretical framework (Figu re 5 1) which may serve different purposes in its precision, scope, generality, and applicability based on the individual leader and organization (Charmaz, 2006). As a constructivist, the researcher operate d with a reflexive stance in considering how theories evolve d through social construction and analysis that remain s contextually situated in a given time, place, culture, and situation. While p reconceived notions d id exist , they only serve d as initial the data. Based on identified relationships from these preestablished theories, the sorting, diagramming, and integrating of categories, themes , codes, and content analysis enabled the researc her to construct th is framework (Figure 5 1) : 1. Army senior leader s serve in distinct leadership roles and their communication preferences in those roles are influenc ed by leadership attributes and leadership style s . 2. Army senior leaders invest in social media b ased on their perceived benefits and advantages of it as a leadership communication tool . 3. Motivations driving social media use of Army senior leaders are based on varying desires to manage relationships, maintai n informational awareness, and enhance their influence in select spaces with specific audiences. 4. Social media strategies and engagement are influenc use of d ialogic principles and social presence in their communication on social media.

PAGE 143

143 5. The approach or usage classification (e.g., embracer, observer, abstainer) of Army senior leaders on social media impacts their perceived disadvantages and risk s to the mission , the organization, and their individual reputation. 6. Army senior leade rs identify mitigat ion strategies for perceived risks based on previously employed or observed tactics, techniques, and procedures , along with their accessible resources. The proposed theory derive d from the four core categories discovered during data analysis: leadership, approaches to social media, engagement strategies, and risk communication. Based on the evidence collected from this study, the following propositions are constructed : Proposition 1: A SL s operating in widely distributed formation s are less likely to abstain from social media. The Army senior leaders interviewed, a long with the supplementary documents analyzed , collectively reinforced that the DOD plays a significant determinant in their approaches to leadership communication. Specifically, senior leaders across the three social media classifications used in this study placed emphasis on the nature of their formations and organizations, in terms of distribution, centralization, administrative versus operational duties, and various key attributes critical to accomplishing their mission sets. In the absence of dedicated or adequate public relations profes sionals, senior leaders expressed an acknowledgment that they must execute public relations responsibilities , as necessary , to accomplish the mission. All in all, senior leaders in distributed settings communicat ed the need to use creative techniques in order to connect and engage with their personnel. Social media was highlighted as a necessary, or at the very least, available and pracitcal communication tool in distributed environments. Those senior leaders in more centralized, administrative type roles acknowledged that social media is useful, but not

PAGE 144

144 necessary for them to be efficient in their communication, effective in their mission, or essential in how they manag e relationship s or maintain awareness while serving in their position. Previous literat ure highlighted transformational leaders use information rich, two way and personalized face to face channels to communicate with followers (Men, 2014a) and gather feedback. Additionally, leaders who exhibit transformational leadership behaviors are more l ikely to exert their influence in organizations (Bono et al., 2005). While the different leadership styles identified by ASLs d id not possess a specific linkage to their corresponding social media use, transformational leadership has been previous linked to empathy, compassion, and relationship building (Jin, 2010). As military leaders assume transformational leadership styles, they encourage their follow ers to embrace knowledge sharing, learning and social media (Khan & Khan, 2019). Of note, while transactional leaders have been linked to mutual altruistic motives grounded in a teleological perspective (Kanungo, 2001), transformational leaders often acqui re and mobilize their voices as a result of staying attuned to discursive flows (Mitra, 2013). These findings linking public relations, leadership communication and ethics will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5. Those ASLs who identified as visi onary leaders and desire to communicate on social media have been linked to developing a sense of meaning for the organization in an inspirational, attainable way (Yukl, 2006). Similarly, servant leaders typically maintain close interactions with followers in an effort to better understand their needs. Finally, research supports transformational leaders as more likely to advocate, cooperate and embrace social media versus transactional leaders (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016).

PAGE 145

145 Interestingly, no abstainers identifie d themselves as having a servant or visionary leadership style, which was not the case for their observer and embracer counterparts. Proposition 2: ASLs who perceive greater advantages with using social media are more likely to invest additional time, en ergy, and personal resourc es in its use. Embracers who participated in the study perceived significantly more benefits and advantages with using social media as compared to their observer and abstainer counterparts. Many of the benefits identified have been previously supported by prior research, to include trust , relationship building, information awareness, and early warning. F rom the findings , this study contends that it is much more likely that those Army senior leaders who embrace social media will continue to invest significantly more time, energy, and personal resources into displaying and sustaining their presence across various platforms. On the contrary , ab stainers and observers relay ed their desire or commitment to invest in other communication methods and distribution tools based on feasibility and suitability. Proposition 3: There is alignment across the different ASL social media classification s regard ing the benefits of gaining and maintaining informational awareness through social media. The informational benefits and aspect s of social media w ere more frequently mentioned by participants than any other potential benefit, to include relationship buil ding. As reflected in the content analysis, the information al aspect of the ICA framework most frequently appeared in social media communication from military senior leaders. Abstainers agreed that an irreplaceable benefit of social media is in its utility as a n additional source of timely, relevant, continual information. As a result, the

PAGE 146

146 researcher believes any alignment in this study is most likely to manifest in the informational realm of communication, connection, and interaction via social media. Pro position 4: ASLs found authentic, purpose driven communication to be more effective in their engagement with audiences . An area of interest mentioned repeatedly by ASLs included the importance of delivering authentic, purpose drive n communication. Those ASLs who operate in the social media realm to merely observe, stated that they perceive their peers to be most effective when they incorporat e authentic, purpose driven communicatio n . S everal ASLs communicate d their sentimnt that demo nstrating authenticity on social media requires one to also exhibit vulnerabilit y. However, there was not enough data to determine if demonstrating those vulnerabilities is worth the potential reputational risk which may arise from missteps or misinterpret ations that occur on social media platforms. Proposition 5: In terms of perceived risk and vulnerability, A SLs who classify as observers on social media more closely align ed with abstainers versus embracers . While there was overlap in perspectives, insig hts, and attributes across the various designations of ASL social media users, there was clear alignment in responses from observers and abstainers related to risk perceptions related to displaying or demonstrating unnecessary vulnerability on a public for um . Both groups (observers and abstainers) appeared to acknowledge during the interviews that there is an incr eased risk of developing an audience and maintaining a public voice on these forums , and subsequently , they concluded that engagement may cause mo re harm than good in the post digital era . While observers more closely align with embracers in acknowledging

PAGE 147

147 the benefits of social media use as a whole , these Army senior leaders collectively behave and engage in accordance with their own risk perception s and precaution s . Pr o position 6: ASL s proactively pursue and execute mitigation strategies to protect their mission, their organization, and their reputation on social media. The participants and supplementary documents analyzed conveyed a substantial array of mitigation strategies and techniques to offset various risks that accompany leadership communication and engagement in the public sphere, to include social media. However, the applicability of these strategies varies based on the calculus of the specific senior leader and how they assess liability . For example, seve ral senior leaders stressed the importance of maintaining distance between the personal and professional details of their life on social media . As a result, their strategies to protect their own reputation requires different coping mechanisms and communica tion on social media as compared to those mechanisms and communication necessary to protect the organization as a whole. As a result, this study found that Army senior leaders apply their select mitigation strategies which best align with their own assesse d priorities, whether that is mission related or based on reputation. While there are levels of variance in these findings across the different data fields, deliberate analysis enable d meaning making directly from the dataset . Considering the variance in the approach and risk calculus of senior leaders communicating on social media, there were passionate and compelling justifications made by participants . Largely, ASLs seemed to weigh their decision based on how they perceive d the risks of engaging or abstaining from the free flowing conversations taking place in the social media space. Ulimately, the propositions detailed above could be

PAGE 148

148 tested and refined accordingly in subsequent studies and would benefit from a widened sample of military senior leaders from across the various branches and services. Theoretical Implications This dissertation review ed and considered existing theories in both mass communication and public relations to examine how Army senior leaders perceive risks on socia l media. While each established theory shed s light on the attitudes, motivations, and behaviors ti ed to leadership communication in th e military context , it was determined that they remain incomplete as a foundational examination for this exploratory story . Instead, as a collective framework, the constructed theory serves as a tangible point of departure for measur ing the relationship between various leaders and the outcomes from their soci al media approaches. Thus, the primary theoretical contribution of this study is its proposed (Figure 5 1) . This theory outline s that leadership role, leadership style, cost benefi t analysis, strategic engagement, and perceived risk each play a role in communication and public relations efforts . This research also contributes to constructing additional leadership identities in other traditionally, hierarchical o rganizatio n s. By exploring a traditionally hierarchical organization that has access theoretical significance can be characterized as illuminating. Most notably, as social media is becoming an everyday means of engagement for lead ers, the interactive design of various platforms is also generating increased volatility and uncertainty. Through the process of conducting in depth, semi structured interviews with Army senior leadership, th is study identified a unique opportunity to bett er understand the relationship between security leaders and their publics via social media,

PAGE 149

149 while exploring how risk perceptions influence leadership behavior and communication (Aula, 2010). Theoretical implications for public relations identified in this dissertation also include providing a baseline for how senior leaders build their foundation in creating a strategic mindset for their communication. T he findings detailed above could be used as a starting point to study similar organizations that face an array of publics a nd must remain mindful of numerous risks in how they communicate on social media. This study investigated how senior leaders define social media and how it has evolved in terms of their approaches to it as a personal and professional communication tool. In addition, the findings suggest that empirical research and analysis in social media influences the decision making for how senior leaders monitor, listen, and transmit information via social media in time and space. As this research investigated the creat ive and scientific approaches of different types of Army senior leaders, it also i ntroduced follow on situational environment, resources, and experience s contribute to their s trategic employment of social media. In Chapter 2, several theories were initially consider ed for this specific research , and it was implied that they were likely to play a role in the data analysis as this grounded research methodology further developed from the ground up . The theoretical implications in this study tied to r elationship management include recognizing the influence that leaders can have in leveraging social media to discover issues that pertain to their publics, as well as prepare for diffe rent scenarios and situations, distribute communication strategically, and evaluate the results of their communication

PAGE 150

150 in real time ( Men et al., 2020; Freberg, 2019 ; Yue et al., 2019; Men, 2015 ). However, relationship management did not encompass the theor etical findings from the participants. Similarly, organizational, cultural, and contextua l dynamics were introduced in this study to better perceptions tied to social media . Thus, the findings a ddress a research gap by further identifying how common practices, work life ethics, professional experience s , and individual beliefs characterize the way in which senior leaders interact and formulate relationships on social media (Hind et al., 2019) . Another theoretical implication in this study derives from the extension of how leadership styles impact leadership communication on social media. For example, transformational leadership runs across the different social media usage classifications . As a self identified leadership styles, transformational and mission focused were the most common descriptions annotated by Army senior leaders. While embracers and observers were more likely to favor visionary, servant, and authentic leadership styles, abstainers stated that they favored a more transactional, mission focused leadership style. These findings bolster aspects of extant literature highlighting that transformational, authentic, servant, and visionary leadership as promot ing two way symmetrica l communication climates (Men & Bowen, 2017). As interactive, and passionate leaders, transformational ASLs expressed a genuine interest in the well social media pres ence. Similarly, but also distinctively, several ASLs touted their alignment with a visionary leadership style.

PAGE 151

151 While focus on the mission was also mentioned here, these leaders expressed a willingness to take a more strategic approach in how they accomplish that given mission, which might or might not include social media. As a whole, these leaders classified as embracers, but did not specifically link social media as essential in how they approach their mission, but rather, embrac e a culture of co nstant improvement (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989) which augments previous literature (Men & Stacks, 2013; Jin, 2010). The leadership styles attributed to embracers in this research best align with dialogic communication (Figure 4 2), which has been described as most ethical because it gives a voice to all parties (Taylor & Kent, 2014). However, dialogic communication is accompanied by relational risks and rewards for all participants, as ent, 2014, p. 26). Alternatively, existing literature related to relationship management (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Cheng, 2018: Ferguson, 2018) emphasizes that public relations scholars and practitioners believe that ongoing and long term relationships are fund amental. ASLs who communicate and understand their publics are less likely to behave in ways that have negative consequences (Hon & Grunig, 2018). Those ASLs who identified themselves as authentic leaders expressed their desire to act according to their ow n value system and beliefs, as opposed to group or external pressures. These senior leaders, similar to previous studies (Cooper et al., 2005), expressed their approach to social media as an environment where they promote positive, ethical communication (I lies et al., 2005). Those ASLs who self identified as servant leaders expressed a high level of respect and reflexivity in how they approached social media use. Interestingly, these individuals overwhelmingly classified as observers expressed self awarenes s in

PAGE 152

152 how they might inadvertently sway their publics with an unintended effect through social media communication . This ethical based, servant leadership approach to social media is also supported in previous literature (Bowen & Gallicano, 2013; Men & Bowe n, 2017) and was found with the greatest prevalence in the observers of my research. Finally, those ASLs who identified themselves as possessing leadership styles that were mission focused expressed that their approach to social media is impacted by highe r priorities or time constraints. These leaders expressed a primary focus on achieving the task (De Vries et al., 2010) or objective facing their formation, to which social media was not deemed essential in that accomplishment. As a result, a majority of t hese leaders classifie d as abstainers. From a theoretical perspective, these senior leaders aligned with the model of public information , which relied on one way communication, often not reliant upon social media. In sum, a bstainers remain skeptical of soc that fails to strictly enforce a professional code of ethics. These senior leaders are likely to only take action on social media when it would be deemed appropriate by an objective panel of public relations practitioners. As a whole, these leaders classified as embracers, but did not specifically link social media as essential in how they approach their mission, but rather, embracing a culture of constant improvement ( Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). Collectively, these findings extend and support existing theoretical research in public relations by linking leadership styles and communication to dialogic, relationship management, and public information model s.

PAGE 153

153 While uses a nd gratification theory was discussed in Chapter 2, surprisingly, this research did not find any salient findings that individual Army senior leaders specifically seek out a distinct form of media to meet or satisfy their individual needs (Ballard, 2011). This is not to say that uses and gratification theory is not applicable in this research, as information seeking, escapism, and social connectedness were referenced in some form by participants as motivating factors ( Berelson , 1949) . The most significant link in this study to uses and gratification theory occurred in how Army senior leaders communicat ed a sense of belonging and self presentation in how they approach social media (Meshi et al., 2013; Winerman, 2013; S eidman, 2014). While uses and gratification theory is increasingly employed in social media research (Florenthal, 2015) , the linkage of this specific concept to the motivational process for Army senior leaders was not clearly obtained. Moreover, th e find ings in this study advances theoretical research in both dialogic communication and spiral of silence theories. S imilar to their civilian CEO counterparts, the content analysis confirmed that Army senior leaders employ dialogic principles and social presen ce in their engagement strategies on social media. In addition, several Army senior leaders acknowledged that they continue to monitor social media conversations to evaluate their own beliefs with the greater majority (Noelle Neumann, 1974). While these s pecific motivations could not be directly linked to fear or isolation, the awareness and subsequent perceived risks associated with negative outcomes from social media communication w ere mentioned as hinder ing a more candid discourse (Matthes, 2015). Thus, this research further suggests the presence of specific aspects within the spiral of silence theoretical framework.

PAGE 154

154 This dissertation also provides empirical findings that Army senior leaders use digital communication to bridge between their units and th eir publics. This study presents one of the first findings showing that military leaders embraced various communication objectives and strategies, such as interactive, affective, and cohesive approaches, with frequent expressions of appreciation and agreem ent to facilitate mutual interaction. This study reinforces recent findings in social media mediated leadership communication (Men et al., 2018; Yue et al., 2021) through the examination of , p. 1172) at the intersection of interpersonal and mass communication. Social presence remains a key relational dimension versus a more interpersonal approach with dialogic communication, as it remains tied to applications in organization level communication. personal communication in the social media space. In the post digi tal age, public yet personal mass personal communication directly impacts leadership communication and communication professionals must advise senior leaders regarding relationship management and engagement with online publics. Identifying timely topics, d esigning effective messaging campaigns, and measures of effectiveness on outcomes provides communicative value for organizations. Military leaders must weigh increasingly their two way, interactive communication with the online publics as a way to best dem informational and emotional needs (Yue et al., 2021). Previous literature also supports mitigation and management measures to offset risk, such as additional planning, controls, training, and consistent online messaging

PAGE 155

155 (Houghton et al., 2020). Critical comments and negative publicity on social media can harm the reputation of senior leaders and their organization through attractiveness to other publics, relationships with stakeh olders, and perceived legitimacy. As abstainers refrain from social media engagement and communication, previous literature notes that conversations about organizations and leadership occur constantly, without knowledge and without participation, which res (Solis, 2008; Beeline Labs, 2009). Existing literature also describes how timely, accurate information through authentic, transparent conversation in human voice presents a caring voice and is more l ikely to improve relationships with publics (Prentice & Huffman, 2008; Gonzalez Herrero & Smith, 20 10 ; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007). Most notably, the study broadened the theoretical influence and application of contingency theory (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985; Donaldson, 2001 ) as well as complexity theory in clarifying how Army senior leaders approach social media communication and perceive associated risks on a day to day basis . Grunig (2008) found that in public relations, both leaders and publics should behav e in ways that minimize conflict and manage conflict effectively (Grunig, 2008). However, there is a significant emphasis placed on understanding where true conflict exists in both time and space. It is suggest ed in this research that how Army senior leaders respond in crisis is often a direct result of situational determinants and considerations. Charting a course that increases the likelihood of win win outcomes (Kelleher, 2003) appear ed to summarize how a majority of the respondents perceive risks a nd employ mitigation tehcniques to address potential threats in the fragmented contemporary environment of social media (McGee, 1990). The findings in this dissertation also suggest that both

PAGE 156

156 contingency and complexity theory might be useful in explaining variance in leadership communication across different frameworks. Implications for Practice From a practical standpoint, this dissertation has several important implications for public relations and leadership communication. First, it is notable that Arm y senior leaders, regardless of their classification regarding social media use, distinguish risks that exist within the space. Next, the research suggests that senior leaders almost universally believe social media training at echelon is critical for the organization as it moves forward. Training at echelon for leaders at all levels of the U.S. Army would facilitate engagement through productive communication and dialogue to foster greater commitment toward the institution. A majority of ASLs agreed that F acebook has a high er rate of adoption and usage frequency based on its large community that has maintained over the years. ASLs cited Facebook as a heavy usage option for organizational accounts or for connecting and interacting with family and friends. Twitter, was identified as the platform with the highest in crease of usage and relevance in recent years based on what was accounts as sharing similar risk in how they can potentially harm relationships and reputations. Both platforms have public and private features that were referenced, but ASLs acknowledged this decision to go public or private with their accounts generates an increase or reduction in opportunities for relationship building and two way communication. Addit ionally, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Snapchat were each mentioned during the in depth interviews by various ASLs. Each of these platforms were briefly described as providing different benefits and risks. In the case of LinkedIn, the lower

PAGE 157

157 usage frequency cite d by ASLs on these three platforms were generalized as either frequently refer red to as a space that ASLs rarely operate on or monitor at the moment, however four ASLs cited Instagram as possessing the greatest potential and interest for future use in their leadership communication. A n interesting dichotomy was also observed betwee n Army senior leader approaches to personal and professional social media accounts. Senior leaders perceive associated risks on both sets of social media accounts, but they attribute greater institutional risk toward the ir professional accounts and greater reputational risk toward the ir personal accounts. While this finding is reinforced in leadership communication literature , it is also based o n traditional organizations , and thus, the confirmation in this study with Army senior leaders identifies and furt her solidifies symmetry in how leaders broadly approach social media. The study also s uggest s that senior leaders who practice candor and behave consistently both in person and on social media promote authentic and transparent communication. However, Arm y senior leaders also recognized that displaying emotional appeal and authentic communication requires a greater level of vulnerability. So, while demonstrating candor, collaboration, and inclusion on social media was reported as advantageous to the senior leader and the organization as a whole, embracers specifically communicated values such as truth and honesty promote trust and knowledge sharing , which solve s problems and better secures mission accomplishment. Embracers also communicated that building quality relationships,

PAGE 158

158 engag ing with publics , preserving reputation s , and having a two way dialogue with soldiers not only reinforces confidence within the organization, but also contributes to goal attainment. The findings in th is study imply that it is important to consider how anonymous users or bad actors on social media increasingly as a way to publicly trigger audiences. As a practice, participants relayed that blocking such accounts or disengaging altogether to prevent conflict is a preferred mitigation strategy. According to abstainers, t hese threats can facilitate m isinformation and creatively link the inaccurac ies As a way to hedge against these threats, the organizational structure within Army units could adjust at echelon to meet the needs of the user. In other words, Army senior leaders or commanders could either pre approved audiences. In addition, t hese leaders could also stand up a Public Affairs (or public relations) Information Cell designed to specifically address and counter these threats. Finally, Army senior leaders should employ their staffs when appropriate on select social media messaging and communication. Army senior leaders acknowledged that social media use is time consuming and therefore, it raises questions about how it aligns with traditional open door policies. This study raises important questions about new ways to update these outdated policies in a manner that better reflects the post genuine interest in communicating with soldiers and their families. Also, explicit and implicit activities on social media were identified by senior leaders as both impor tant and

PAGE 159

159 impactful because they reflect on the individual and the organization. For example, Army senior leaders recognized that who they follow, what they like or endorse, and how they leave a footprint on social media indirectly incurs risk and communica tes to key stakeholders. Lastl ly, as identified in emergent themes, both ghost posting and the strategic us e of influencers to craft and distribute messages on behalf of the senior leader builds on previous research and practice for public relations. This approach is further discussed in Chapter 6 as recommendations for future research. The aforementioned knowledge should be shared to other Army and DOD senior leaders, when, if not before, they begin establishing updated approach es, policies, and procedur es tied to the social media. In summary , this dissertation revealed the theoretical connections between social media use and risk perceptions from Army senior leaders using a comprehensive approach combining in depth interviews with a supplemental content analysis. By understanding both the disparity and alignment of perceived risks, this study illuminates a more succinct risk profile or playbook for different types of leaders to consider and employ in their own social media strategies and leaders hip approaches. These findings make use of all relevant evidence, explore rival interpretations, and draw upon prior knowledge in a reflexive way within the military environment. In addition, it is intended that these findings aid future messaging, approac hes, and policies for other traditionally hierarchical organizations, whil e also advancing current literature related to leadership communication, risk, and social media.

PAGE 160

160 Figure 5 Social Med ia Figure 5 2. Venn Diagram of Army Senior Leader Classifications

PAGE 161

161 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION L imitations While this dissertation fill s a research gap, it is not without several, notable limitations . Of particular significance, there are inherent flaws in generalizability and researcher subjectivity with its conceptual scope and mitigation measures . My study analyzed senior leaders from the same sponsoring organization, w hich generat ed objective role and introduc ed a conflict of interest dilemma based on the hierarchical nature of the organization. Leadership reflects influence, and as such, the qualitative nature of my study draws on in depth interviews with senior leaders in assignments that possess extended influence across the Army. My study does not include mid grade leaders operating at lower levels across the organization or profession, although this research ackn owledges these lower level leaders may possess equal or greater levels of influence on soldiers. In addition, the researcher did have previous familiarity with several of the participants, which eased the initial baseline of inquiry and may have contribute d to greater candor and the level of detail offered in those specific interviews and follow on analysis . However, these participants were necessary to represent the highest levels of the organization . W familiarity , this partic ipation may not have occurred . Ideally, i t is suggested that future research might ensure no prior familiarity exist s between the researcher and participant or senior leader. While seemingly problematic, my study gained compliance and participation from th e highest levels of the organization based on a desire and intent for empirical research to be conducted on this specific topic. A common criticism accompanying

PAGE 162

162 qualitative research is the lack of generalization based on an overly specific population . Alth ough, t he utility in this qualitative research centers on its unique design to elucidate behavior, and rationale . S econd , a total of 20 in depth interviews were conducted and this sample size present s a concer n in terms of methodological rigor and saturation . However, while the U.S. Army emplaced these constraints and limited any ability for expansio n , each of the in depth interviews provided a breadth of expertise across a multitude of areas within the organization . This sample also contained balanced perspectives toward social media in a representative nature in comparison with previous research in DOD. Yet, it is suggested that there are likely other categories outside of those labeled in this research as embracer , observer, and abstainer . These other potential classifications were either disregarded or overlooked . There may also be overlap in the designations selected for my study. The voice of the participant provided a significant aspect of primary data collecti on ; therefore, it should be noted that the researcher perceived three of the participants to have little desire to elaborate n or share their specific insights in greater detail during the in depth interviews . Thus, in hindsight, it might have better suited the study to have alternates participating in their place. Third, t he reality in this research is the presence of a retrospective view of recall bias influenc ed participant s and analysis regarding how senior leaders perceive c ommunication on social media as a direct reflection of their own lived experience. Based on the direction from D OD for identities , the depth to which the researcher c ould reveal specific disparities betwee n the different interviewees was limited . Additionally, to counter social desirability bias or

PAGE 163

163 any perceived pressure for leaders to provide the normatively correct response, the own behavior s but had an alternate option for participants to describe their observations of others within the organization. The supplemental review of documents, as well as the content analysis, collectively served as a check and balance on this specific limitation. Fourth, the worldview, background, and perspective of the researcher is fundamentally implicit in the application of an inductive theororetical framework. Similar to other grounded theory methodologies, as a hedge toward greater objectivity and impartial ity, the researcher articulated their own self reflexivity to account for assumptions, comparative analysis, and any additional dynamic s of the study . Finally, o rganizing and preparing the data prior to any formulaic coding wa s a creative and interpretive activity; but it is also designed for researchers to notice some comparisons while overlooking others. Preliminary analysis must reserve judgement (Tracy, 2020) prior to employing any constant comparative methodologies (Charmaz, 2014) to follow on data as it corresponds to themes and codes. After compiling questions or observatio 1998, p. 85). So , while the conceptual scope and varying mitigation strategies may not warrant broad generalizations for different contexts and organizational structures, in terms of external va lidity and transferability, these results do serve to inform and influence senior leaders as they consider their own social media approach in other hierarchical organizations.

PAGE 164

164 Recommendations for Future Research In ground ed theory research, theoretical co nstruction and development provides an initial point of departure for future research to refine and test the theory. Based on the insights drawn from the study and its data, it is suggested that the field of leadership communication and its respective scho lars move to consider the relation between various types of social media users and their risk perceptions. In an increasingly polarized landscape that is littered with potential protagonists exploiting missteps, t he in tersection of strategic communication and public communication serve s as a critical area of research for leaders and their organizations in both theory and practice . S ubstantial literature and research over the past decade highlight the benefits of social media, but scholarship moving forward might consider revisiting these benefits across asymmetric organizations and societ ies . In my study, t he researcher identified mo re than a dozen different avenues to build upon the findings in this exploratory study . First, future examinations might consider r evising or refining different aspects from the data analysi s and placing these results under the specific lens of relationshi p management, dialogic communication , uses and gratification, contingency, or spiral of silence theories . Replicating my study within the theoretical framework of a previously established construct could serve as a more concrete contribution to the public relations body of knowledge . Next, the content analysis in my study specifically incorporates the ICA communication on Twitter, but future studies could apply different models or frameworks on different social media platforms to explore the roles and expectations that leaders, organizations, and the public ha ve on one another. For example, the co orientation

PAGE 165

165 model (Cutlip, Center & Broom, 2000) could examine the inter organizational relationships that remain critical for the U.S. Army and DO D to fulfill its mission. In addition, expanding my study on a larger, contextual scale would be worthwhile and could be accomplished by including additional participants, different cultures, or even additional military services (U.S. Navy, Air Force, Mari nes, etc.) to examine the impact of associated dynamics in my study . There is also a significant opportunity to frame this research through the lens of lower level leaders at the mid grade or small er organizational level to identify any relationship betwe en their social media use and risk perceptions . Furthermore, this research would benefit from both an external evaluation of public perceptions of Army communication, as well as expan ding o n senior public and professional social media accounts. While this research collects data by categorizing senior leaders into three different classifications, it is also suggested that specifically evaluating the influence of transformational, transaction al, authentic, visionary, and servant leadership styles may augment current findings related to these three categories. In light of the emergent findings, two themes found in this research convey that leveraging ghost posting and established influencers p resent additional considerations for how Army senior leaders calculate risks with social media use. Previous research from Kelleher and Miller (2006) examined the distinction between conversational voice and traditional organizational communication. Kelleh er (2009) defined conversational

PAGE 166

166 specifically, have examined the linkage between con versational voice and trust, authenticity, or satisfaction (Sweetser, 2010; Sweetser & Kelleher, 2016; Kelleher et al., 2019). There is also an opportunity to expand my study in the areas of relational and organizational communication research. As referenc ed in Chapter 4, emergent findings in my study aligned leadership communication and ethics in public relations ethical with social media classifications (embracers, observers, abstainers) . Previous research in dialogic, teleological, and deonteological eth ics in public relations (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Kent & Taylor, 2014; Parsons, 2016) reflect specific aspects of the findings in my study and raises potential questions for further examination. Thus, future scholarship in academia and DOD alike, might conside r offering additional resources into pursuing these emerging areas of interest. Finally, the practice of public relations would greatly benefit from further investment into leadership communication, social media use, and the risk calculi within hierarchic al organizations. F uture research ers in this area c ould consider a more precise method ological approach to better or ganize these initial findings. A more distinctive quantitative or qualitative stud y may help to overcome inherent limitations within the generalization s and constraints of this research . Therefore, to achieve greater specificity in findings, it is suggested that any topics dealing with military leaders, social media, and perceived risk generally obta in higher institutional clearance and support to produce a more fruitful result . Ultimately, f uture research could consider apply ing the constructed theory in my study or use existing public relations theory to expand upon the knowledge of how leadership c ommunication contributes to the organization and the publics they serve.

PAGE 167

167 Conclusion On September 3, 2020, the 40 th Chief of Staff of the United States Army (CSA), General James McConville addressed multiple cohorts of Army officers who were selected to pursue doctoral resea r ch in a variety of disciplines. During his address, the highest ranking officer to serve in the Department of the Army was asked about a variety of challenges currently facing the U.S. Army. In a portion of his response, he information space , and navigate and communi cate within it, ( McConville, 2019 ). While this research wa s intended to be presented in a self effacing manner, its motivation and impetus was, in large part, driven by growing senior leader concerns and questions about how this topic exists within the military . S ince the inception of social media, DOD has provided guidelines relati ng to social media use while in the military. A ctive duty service members may express or post personal views on public issues via social media provided the service member clearly and prominently states the views expressed do not represent the official views of DOD in either their post or on their social media page (Sherman, 2012). While this common refrain has routinely been implemented by service members and leaders at all echelons over the past two decades, there are growing concerns that the social media universe has also d evolved into a place where select indivi treat 2014, if you have a profile picture of yourself in uniform and try to say something like these views are my own and retweets do not equal endorsement yeah , it may sound good , but it hold s

PAGE 168

168 Americans tend to trust their militaries much more than other national institutions (Pew Research, 201 8 ). Further, the American public gives higher scores to military leaders in empathy, transparency, and ethics than members of Congress, corporate, or technology leaders (Pew Research, 2019). In a different venue, General McConville he American people every single day, and we should never take that for granted. And if we hav e something that taints that , i t s not wh ere we want to be . So, in a strategic sense, as a public relations imperative, my study specifically attempted to examine the maintenance of relationships in the militar y through the lens of leadership communicatio n on social media ( Ignatius , 2021) . Where better to start in this examination then the top of the organization, with its senior leaders? T he g rounded t heory metho d ology may challenge the traditional scientific method, but it also generates lines of inquiry through data driven research processes instead of designed or tested predictions. All researchers make assumptions, and grounded theory simply demands the researcher be more deliberate in precisely identifying those assumptions . As a point of departure , my study is uniquely positioned to generate different paths toward exploration and explanation. For qualitative methods specifically, as Charmaz and Mit Therefore, my study was not designed with expected outcomes. It wa s not dogmatic, scripted, or linear. It wa s , in some ways, messy. Addressing problems often requires considering the establishment of policies, procedures, precedents, and philosophies. pivo tal.

PAGE 169

169 As discussed in Chapter 5 , this specific research suggests size fits to leadership communication in the post digital era . Individual leader behaviors, attitudes, messaging strategies, and digital skills may fluctuate, but so do social media tools and platforms. As a result, senior leaders should internalize creative and agile mindsets, coupled with analytical rigor to justify their decision calculus and communicative actions based on their leadership style and role . While social media is c leary a globally interactive community for knowledge sharing, relationship management, and engagement , the data in my study shows it is not without perceived risks. In a world where practical and theoretical solutions sold to problem solv ers may lack surefire effectiveness , this research is designed to awaken readers to the vary ing perspectives , approache s, and risk calculations from leaders operating amid the rapidly changi ng post digital environment . The first step in proposing an approa ch to this phenomen on requires i dentif ying the pathologies of those under study. While the risk perceptions of U.S. Army senior leader s on social media may differ, this research highlight s that even the experienced and powerful recognize areas where they are brittle and exposed in an unpredictable social media landscape in the post digital era . I n closing, while it might s eem like hyperbole, the risks are evident and relevant to Army senior leaders: to the chain of command; they go to social media. So, what keeps me up at night is that [our adversaries] are watching this [expletive] in the public forum . . . and as soon as something bad happens, they are going to troll the hell out of us. They are goi ng to get us to be like rats spinning on a wheel over something stupid . . . and then they are going to slip out at night on our flank and put a knife in our neck . . .and we are going to die. That's what keeps me up at night about using social media in th e military (ASL #13).

PAGE 170

170 A PPENDIX A I NFORMED CONSENT FORM Study ID:IRB202100608 Date Approved: 3/18/2021 Initial Statement about Voluntary Nature of Study: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or refuse to answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. Primary Investigator: Marc C. Vielledent, doctoral student Affiliation: University of Florida College of Journalism and Communication Protocol Title: Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: This qualitative study research aims to (1) understand why some leaders fully embrace social media while others remain fully resistant; (2) identify trends and continuum alignment in the risk profiles for military leaders and communication via social media; and (3) advance theor y and contribute new knowledge by proposing aligned recommendations for leaders and organizations to consider in their social media communication, guidance, and decision making. What you will be asked to do in the study: You are being asked to participate in this research study on this single occasion. If you agree to participate in this research, you will be asked to provide your perceptions on risks associated with your own approaches to social media communication and expand on your own thoughts and opin ions via a recorded, hour long Zoom (virtual software enabled) interview. Time required: 60 minutes Risks and Benefits: There is little risk to your participation as these will be reported as anonymous leaders identified based on their criteria matching within the research parameters. No responses will be linked to you individually and the benefits that should arise from this research is an advancement of theoretical approaches to social media communication for organizational leaders, as well as empirical evidence and data to inform future civil military relations, policy impacts, and reputational implications. IRB: IRB202100608 Study ID:IRB202100608 Date Approved: 3/18/2021

PAGE 171

171 Compensation: You will not be provided with any co mpensation. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned to a code number and your responses will not be identified with you personally. There is a marginal risk to your particip ation as these interviews will be stored on a local, secure server purely for transcription purposes and follow on analysis. This secure server uses strong encryption and other data security methods to protect your information. Upon transcription of the re cordings, which will delete any identifiable information, the initial recording will be erased. No identifying information will be collected or connected with your responses, which will be anonymous (i.e. other than No specific identifiable information will be linked with your responses, although the researcher may use any quotes or paraphrase in reporting this research, but the researcher will unequivocally strive to avoid inclusion of anything that might identify t he interviewee or anyone else mentioned or associated with the interview in the research report. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: For information regarding your rights as a research participant contact the University o f Florida IRB Office at 352 392 0433 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: (520) 975 3460 I have read and consent to the statement as listed above. Yes, I agree. No, I agree.

PAGE 172

172 APPENDIX B SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVI EW PROTOCOL Research Topic: Title of Research Study : These Views Are My Own? A Qualitative Study of U.S. Post Digital Era Framework for semi structured: Personal experiences and observations are central to identifying unanticipated factors; greater specificity can be explored after initial responses Introduction and Purpose of study Set Context: Brief Background / Foundational aspects of career and social structure Share current perceptions and approaches Explore motivations, experiences, and observations related to perceptions Offered Recommendation s Upon consent, script for pre interview : Hello agreeing to participate in this interview your views are paramount to this research and future practice. Your time is not taken for granted and neither is your wis dom as I humbly approach this work. As I mentioned previously, the information in this interview will be used to in a study to help how Army senior leaders perceive risks and approach social media communication through various leadership styles. The intent of this research is to identify any relationships and illuminate structural differences across leaders, audiences, and subpopulations in terms of their risk perceptions to provide a playbook for current and emerging leaders, as well as organizations. Toda time, I will ask you questions about your leadership style, thoughts about social media, preferred communication channels, associated strategies and perceived risks. Your prior consent for thi s interview acknowledges that this will be audio recorded and is necessary for this study, but does not include any personal identifying information as this interview is anonymous. However, the audio recording is necessary for me to later transcribe the in terview and conduct qualitative analysis, but it is important to note that your audio recording will not be stored on a server of any kind. Upon completion of confidential, non identifying transcription, the audio recording will be immediately deleted. Do you still agree to participate in the recorded interview? YES_ NO_ During the interview, I will ask you if you would like to stop or continue the interview. You can stop the interview at any time for any reason, so please do not hesitate to let me know if you want to do this. If this happens, I will ask you if any data collected up until that point may be used in the research to which you can fully determine and direct. You may also ask for a break at any given time during the interview and you may ask you if you have any questions about this research, and about your participation in this research.

PAGE 173

173 Opening | Interviewee Subject Orientation questions to understand your experience and perspective in leading organizations. What is your current role? How would you describe your leadership role with that organization? RQ1: Does leadership communication style influence how Army senior leaders approach and use of social media? perspective on leadership, responsibilities, and your preferred communication practices. How would you describe your own leadership style? What personal values do you feel are most important in how you engage with those service members your lead? If I were to shadow you in your role at work for a day, what types of responsibilities might I expect to see you fulfill? How you think social media either reinfo rces or erodes your own leadership What are your overall thoughts on social media as a communicatio n tool? Based on your own career and previous assignments, is there any assignment or situation you might feel compelled to shift your own personal approac h to social media communication? RQ 2B: How do Army senior leaders perceive benefits related to social media? The next set of questions focus on your overall perceptions about social media use related to the U.S. military (institution), as a whole. As we go through these, please feel free to share any varying experiences you may have had over the course of your career. Lead off question : Do you have any prefere nce or strong feelings about social media use in the workplace? How would you describe your own social media use? o Do you distinguish between your personal and professional social media accounts/usage? Why or why not? What do you think motivates or drives senior leaders to use social media use in the Army? How do you think leaders in the military communicate successfully on social media? o (e.g. Expand upon previous beneficial experiences or observations?) o Are any of these areas you either incorporate or str ive to incorporate into your own social media activity? How would you describe the role of social media as a communication tool within military culture and the daily management of headquarters? [Probe for why; examples, outcomes] o receptiveness of different generations or ranks with regard to social media?

PAGE 174

174 RQ3: What engagement strategies do Army senior leaders use on s ocial media? RQ3b: How, if at all, is dialogic communication used by Army senior leaders in their social media communication? RQ3c: What causes the silencing of some Army senior leaders on social media? The next set of questions focus on your views about U .S. Army senior leaders communication strategies and engagement via social media? Lead off question : What do you see as the most effective way to communicate and engage with your Soldiers in distributed environments? Do you have a preferred platform? Why or why not? Do you have any specific rules or maxims related to how you approach engagement related to sensitive topics or discussions on social media? Why or why not? engagi ng with or on behalf of their organizations? Are there any topics or scenarios you think senior leaders should stay away from, specifically on social media? How do you think senior leaders could be more effective in how they engage and communicate on behal f of their organizations? RQ4: How do Army senior leaders perceive risks with social media? RQ4b: What causes such risk perceptions? The last set of questions focus on your overall perceptions about risk with regard to social media use in the U.S. military. I acknowledge these perceptions will be different based on individual experiences, so please feel free to elaborate on them based on your unique experience and observations over the course of your Army career. Lead off question : What role, if any, does risk play in establishing your approach to social media communication? [Probe for consistency] What most concerns you about Soldiers communicating on social media? o Can you describe any type of communication or scenario on social media that you have witnessed that makes you uncomfortable or that you perceived to be risky? reinforces the organization to achieve its objectives? [Probe for ways it could be improved; too lenient/restrictive ; awareness and education of internal publics; should training be more intentional; role of service members on social media shaping culture of organization and influencing outsiders or external views (American public, adversaries, etc.] Would you have any recommendations to offset the risks you previously discussed? o How could institutional practices or policy be shifted to potentially further minimize the risk associated with social media communication in the US military? o How would these changes help lead ers? o Would these changes be suitable to addressing the problem? o Do you think these changes are feasible or possible?

PAGE 175

175 Closing | Follow Up, Follow On Sample, and Thank You any other information or share? Response: Intermediate | Follow up Two final items, First would you be available to answer possible follow up questions and if so, what would be t he best way for me to contact you with these to ask if you are aware of any other Army leaders who may be willing to participate in an interview and please no need to share their names with me at this time. If appreciate it. They should feel completely comfortable contacting me directly if interested agreed to be contacted Response: Thank you for your time and thoughtful answers.

PAGE 176

176 APPENDIX C MILITARY SENIOR LEADER CODE BOOK FOR TWITTER Dialogic Principles Conservation of visitors 1. 2. Link to other social networks sites in which the military leader or unit is present (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, blogs, Instagram; not Twitter page) Inf ormativeness (Previous name: Generation of return visits) 3. Links to (not necessarily military website) websites where additional information can be obtained 4. Links to news/opinion pieces related to the leader or the unit issued by external media/sou rce 5. Links to other Twitter pages: use of @ 6. Option to request information Dialogic loop 7. The provision of surveys or other channels for users to express opinions on the military 8. The use of hashtags 9. Request to ask a question or leave a comment (request can be done via text/video) 10. Questions po sted by the military leader to solicit feedback 11. Military leader tagging/calling/@ someone/organization to engage in a conversation Information of interest to stakeholders 12. Events, activities, or services related to the unit or military leader 13. News, reports, opinion pieces, press release related to the unit, employees (including the leader), or the military itself 14. 15. issue/population relevant to the organization Social Presence Affective strategies 1. Emotional expressions Yes___ No____ Emotional expressions including descriptions, emoticons : ), repetitious punctuation (!!!), all cap (HAPPY). Keywords: Sad, shocked, happy, angry, upset, disappointed, pleased, excited, love, fear,

PAGE 177

177 Not emotional expression: A B . Positive sentiment is not equal to emotional expression. C D. E 2. Humor Yes___ No____ Teasing, iron, sarcasm, joke, code only if it is clearly meant to be funny. Including LOL, haha 3. Self disclosure Yes___ No____ like that.) Ask yourself: Do I know this person better a fter this statement? Interactive strategies 4. Yes___ No____ sts; message 5. Ask questions Yes___ No 6. Express appreciation/compliment Yes___ No____ Complimenting others; showing appreciation of each other 7. Express agreement Yes___ No____ Cohesive Strategies 8. Use inclusive pronouns Yes___ No____ Address the group as we, us, our, group, community, society, country. E.g., The 9. Phatic/salutations Yes___ No____ Communication that serves a purely social function, g reetings, sharing what the military leader is up to at the very moment. E.g., 1) Happy Birthday to my rock so great to celebrate with you this year! 2) I will be traveling to 4 different states over block leave next month! Mask up!. 3) @DIA airport. On m y way to DC for AUSA! Examples of emotional expression: 1. Team Dempsey! 2. The closure of the Main Gate on JBLM will most certainly cause a significant impact to all those coming on base tomorrow morning. Plan ahead, Soldiers !

PAGE 178

178 Message Types Community 1. Giving recognition and thanks 2. Acknowledgement of current & local events 3. Response solicitation Action 4. Promote an event 5. Call for volunteers or recruiting 6. Lobbying and advocacy 7. Join another site or vote for organization 8. Learn how to help Message Strategies Messages Appeals Functional (Rational): 1_Yes 2_No o associated with rational processing. o emphasizes the utility, functions: best available or does a better job at meetings needs (informational ) feature appeal comparative appeal news appeal service popularity appeal Emotional: 1_Yes 2_No Positive 1_Yes 2_No Negative 1_Yes 2_No o o attempt to increase emotional arousal, which leads people to emotionally align their attitudes with the military leader or the organization. Congrats someone Comments Note: If there is no comment, just leave the box blank. Tone of the top comment on the military lea Positive___ Neutral___ Negative____ Number of likes, shares, comments Note: 1. All items are coded 1=yes, 2=no 2. For type of d the Psych Hub to collaborate on a free resource hub to help address mental health needs during t he COVID 19 pandemic. Watch to learn more, then visit the COVID National Guard account.

PAGE 179

179 Figure C 1. Example of Analyzed Tweet from Army Senior Leader Coding scheme based on: Sweetser, K . D., & Lariscy, R. W. (2008). Candidates Make Good Friends: An Analysis of Candidates' Uses of Facebook. International Journal Of Strategic Communication , 2 (3), 175 198.

PAGE 180

180 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, A., & McCorkindale, T. (2013). Dialogue and transparency: A content analysis of how the 2012 presidential candidates used Twitter. Public R elations R eview , 39 (4), 357 359. Albers Miller, N.D. and Royne Stafford, M. (1999), "An international analysis of emotional and rational appeals in services vs goods advertising", Journal of Consumer Marketing , Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 42 57. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769910250769 Amichai Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in human beh avior , 26 (6), 1289 1295. Aula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy & leadership , 38 no. 6, November 2010: 43 49 . Aylor, B., & Oppliger , P. (2003). Out of class communication and student perceptions of instructor humor orientation and socio communicative style. Communication E ducation , 52 (2), 122 134. Baker, Kathryn A. "Organizational communication." Retrieved June 7 (2002): 2009. Bal Approach. Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and S ocial P sychology R eview , 10 (1), 20 46. Basler, R., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. III (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 27. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational L eadership . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social s cience r esearch: Principles, m ethods, and p ractices. Berelson, B. (1949). . Columbia University Press. Bernard, H. R. (2002). Q ualitative d ata a nalysis I: te xt a nalysis. Research M ethods of A nthropology , 440448 . Berger, P. L., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . Anchor.

PAGE 181

181 Bono, J. E., & Anderson, M. H. (2005). The Advice and Influence Networks of Transformational Leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (6), 1306 1314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021 9010.90.6.1306 Bourne, L. (2016). Targeted communication: the key to effective stak eholder engagement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences , 226 , 431 438. Comprehensive Historical and Future Moral Approaches in the Excellence Theory. In Public relations and communication management (pp. 233 249). Routledge. Bowen, S. A., Rawlins, B., & Martin, T. (2012). Mastering public relations. Retrieved, November , 16 , 2016. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, hi story, and scholarship. Journal of C omputer M ediated Communication , 13 (1), 210 230. Bruning, S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2004). Building relationships between organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent. Communication Studies , 55 (3), 435 446. Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Socia l Research (Vol. 10, No. 3). Brandfog (2013), CEO, Social Media and Leadership Survey Report, Brandfog: Illuminate your way, USA. Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Busine ss Ethics Quarterly , 583 616. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational B ehavior and H uman D ecision P rocesses , 97 (2), 117 134. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2019). The SAGE H andbook of C urrent D evelopments in G rounded T heory . Sage. Byrne, D. S. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction . Psychology Press. Bryant, A. (2014). The grounded theory method. The Oxford H andbook of Q ualitative R esearch , 116 136.

PAGE 182

182 Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice . Oxford University Press. Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Marlow, C. (2011, May). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 571 580). Byrne, D. (2002). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. Routledge. Cameron, G. T., Wilcox, D. L., Reber, B. H., & Shin, J. H. (2008). Public relations today: Managing competition and conflict. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communications Monographs , 59 (3), 243 267. Cancel, A., Cameron, G., Sallot, L., and Mitrook, M. (1997) It Depends: A Contingency Theory of Accommodation in Public Relations, Journal of Public Relations Research, 9:1, 31 63, DOI: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr0901_02 Carton, A. M., Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. (2014). A (blurry) vision of the future: How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (6), 1544 1570. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. Handbook of qualitative research , 2 , 509 535. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . sage. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory . sage. Charmaz, K., & Bryant, A. (2020). Twenty one. Qualitative Research , 375. Cheng, Y. (2018). Looking back, moving forward: A review and reflection of the organization public relationship (OPR) research. Cheng, J., Bai, H., & Yang, X. (2019). Ethical leadership and internal whistleblowing: A mediated moderation model. Journal of Business Ethics , 155 (1), 115 130. Choi, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2005). Overcoming ethnocentrism: The role of identity in conting ent practice of international public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research , 17 (2), 171 189. Clampitt, P. G., & Dekoch, R. J. (2001). Embracing uncertainty: The essence of leadership . ME Sharpe.

PAGE 183

183 Congressional Research Service. (2020, November 30). Summary: Defense Primer Military Enlisted Personnel . https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10684.pdf Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 3 . Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & De Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The Computers in human behavior , 26 (2), 247 253. Creswell, J. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research , 4 , 269 284. Crosby, R., (2021) Communicate like a boss. From the Green Notebook , January 8, 2021. Accessed 30 March 2021. https://fromthegreennotebook.com/2021/01/08/communicate like a boss/ Cutlip, S., Center, A. and Broom, G. (2000) Effective Public Relations, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Dav is, R. T. (2011). U. S. Army and the Media in the 20th Century. (n.p.): DIANE Publishing Company. Day, S. (2012). A reflexive lens: Exploring dilemmas of qualitative methodology through the concept of reflexivity. Qualitative Sociology Review , 8 (1). De Moya, M. (2011). A grounded theory of global public relations by diaspora organizations: Building relationships, communities, and group identity. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. De Vries, R. E., Bakker Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership= communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of business and psychology , 25 (3), 367 380. Dezenhall, E. (2014). Glass Jaw: A manifesto for defending fragile reputations in an age of instant scandal. Grand Central Publishing. Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations . SAGE. Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative science quarterly , 514 539. Dwight David Eisenhower, At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1967), 320 321.

PAGE 184

184 Eccles, J. S. (2007). Families, schools, and developing achievement related motivations and engagement. E delman, R. (2013, January 7). Paid media a change of heart. 6 AM Blog. Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/p/6 a m/paid media a change of heart/ E 645 649. Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C., Nyhus, J. K., & Larsson, G. (2004) . Situation awareness and transformational leadership in senior military leaders: An exploratory study. Military Psychology , 16 (3), 203 209. Esper, Mark. 2019. "SECARMY Remarks at the 2019 Public Affairs Forum." Conference Presentation. 2019 Public Affairs Forum, Mark Center, Washington, DC . 7 April 2021. Accessed 1 April 2021. https://www.dvidshub.net/video/678947/secarmy remarks 2019 Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Issue diversity and media: Nominal, attributive and field diversity as correlates of media exposure and diversity. In annual conference of the International Commu nication Association, San Francisco . Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Firestein, P. J. (2006). Building and protecting corporate reputation. Strategy & leadership . usage. Young Consumers . Fox, C. R., & Tannenbaum, D. (2011). The elusive search for stable risk preferences. Frontiers in psychology , 2 , 298. Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS. Sage. Fowler, F. J. (2009). Methods of data collection. In Survey research methods (Vol. 3, pp. 58 75). Sage Publications USA. Freberg, K. (2021). Social media for strategic communication: Creative strategie s and research based applications . Sage Publications. Freberg, K. (2019). Social media and emerging media. Public relations theory: Application and understanding , 97 111.

PAGE 185

185 Breaking Def ense . Gallicano, T. D. (2013). Relationship management with the Millennial generation of public relations agency employees. Public Relations Review , 39 (3), 222 225. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18 (4), 208 213. Girard, J. P., & Girard, J . L. (Eds.). (2010). Social Knowledge: Using Social Media to Know What You Know: Using Social Media to Know What You Know . IGI Global. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Advances in the methodology of grounded theory: Theoretical sensitivity . University of California . Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis (Vol. 386). Mill Valley, CA: Sociology press. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions (Vol. 254). Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description . sociology press. Gigliotti, R. A., & Ruben, B. D. (2017). Preparing higher education leaders: A conceptual, strategic, and operational approach. Journal of Leadership Educa tion , 16 (1), 96 114. Gilpin, D. R., & Miller, N. K. (2013). Exploring complex organizational communities: Identity as emergent perceptions, boundaries, and relationships. Communication Theory , 23 (2), 148 169. Gilpin, D. R., & Murphy, P. J. (2008). Crisis management in a complex world . Oxford University Press. Golby, J. T., Dropp, K., & Feaver, P. (2012). Military Campaigns: Veterans' Endorsements and Presidential Elections . Center for a New American Security. Golby, J., & Feaver, P. (202 0). Military Prestige During a Political Crisis: Use It and War on the Rocks , 5 . Gonzalez Herrero, A., & Smith, S. (2010). Crisis communications management 2.0: Organizational principles to manage crisis in an online world. 1. Organizat ion Development Journal , 28 (1), 97.

PAGE 186

186 Government Printing Office. 1947. United States Code Title 10. Washington, DC, 30 July. Accessed 3 March 2021. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE 2010 title10/pdf/USCODE 2010 title10 subtitleB partI chap307.pdf Gray, L. M., Wong Wylie, G., Rempel, G. R., & Cook, K. (2020). Expanding Qualitative Research Interviewing Strategies: Zoom Video Communications. The Qualitative Report, 25(5), 1292 1301. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2008). Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future. In Public relations research (pp. 327 347). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Grunig, J. E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships: Between organizations and publics. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig , L. A. (2008). Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future. In Public relations research (pp. 327 347). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Communication, public relations, and effective organizations: An over view of the book. Excellence in public relations and communication management , 1 28. Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., Sriramesh, K., Huang, Y. H., & Lyra, A. (1995). Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of public relations researc h , 7 (3), 163 186. Grunig J.E., & Hunt T. (1984). Managing public relations . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research , 2 (163 194), 105. Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective . Waveland press. Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the Rigor of Grounded Theory: Incorporating Reflexivity and Relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257 272. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in practice . Routledge. Hansen, D., Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2011). Government Policies on the Use of Social Media: Legisla ting for Change.

PAGE 187

187 Hayes A. Exploring the forms of self censorship: on the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication 2007; 57:785 802. Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). 2012. Army Doctri ne Reference Publication 6 0: Mission Command. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), Office of Public Affairs. (2018). Army Communication Guidebook 2018 accessed via: https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/publicaffairs/18toolkit/ready_resources_p a_communication_guidebook.pdf Heath, R. L., & Coombs, W. T. (2006). Today's public relations: An introduction . Sage. Heath, R. L., & Gay, C. D. (1997). Risk communication: Involvement, uncertainty, and control's effect on information scanning and monitoring by expert stakeholders. Management Communication Quarterly , 10 (3), 342 372. Helweg Larsen, M., & Shepperd, J. A. (2001). Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature. Personality and social psychology review , 5 (1), 74 95. Hind, P., Educatio n, A. E., & Holton, V. The Changing Nature of Leadership: An exploratory investigation into how the evolution of social media is changing what it means to be an effective leader. Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, au thentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta analysis. Journal of Management , 44 (2), 501 529. Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction . OUP Oxford. Holtzhausen , D., & Roberts, G., An investigation into the role of image repair theory in strategic conflict management Journal of Public Relations Research, 2 (2009), pp. 165 186, Hocking, J., McDermott, S., & Stacks, D. (2003). Qualitative methodology. Communica tion research , 193 214. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.

PAGE 188

188 Hong, S. Y., & Yang, S. U. (2011). Public engagement in supportive communication behaviors toward an organization: Effects of rel ational satisfaction and organizational reputation in public relations management. Journal of Public Relations Research , 23 (2), 191 217. House Hearing, H.A.S.C. No. 115 21 , Social Media Policies of the Military Services, 115 th Congress. p. 1 (2017), Testimony of the Honorable Mike Coffman. Houghton, D., Keenan, E. S., Edmonds, M., & Blix, L. H. (2020). Are You Managing Your Risks From Social Media? MIT Sloan Management Review , 61 (3), 1 5. Huang, L. V., & Yeo, T. E. D. (2018). Tweeting# Leaders. Internet Research . Huang, Y. H., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Revisiting organization public relationship research for the past decade. Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations , 3 27. Huffman, E., & Prentice, S. (2008). Social Media's New Role in Emergency Management (No. INL/CON 07 13552). Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States). Ignatius, D. (2021, April 12). The Path Forward: Modernizing the U.S. Army with Army Chief of Staff Gen. James C. McConville : The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington post live/2021/04/12 /path forward modernizing us army with army chief staff gen james c mcconville/ Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well being: Understanding leader follower outcomes. The leadership quarterly , 16 (3), 373 394. Ingesson, T., & Kimball, R. (2018). What Does It Mean to be a Military Professional? From the Green Notebook . Jang, S. M., Lee, H., & Park, Y. J. (2014). The more friends, the less political talk? Predictors of Facebook discussions among college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 17 (5), 271 275. Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghip our, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well being , 9 (1), 24152. Janoske McLean, M., Madden, S., & Pressgrove, G. (2021). C omplexity theory as a new lens for digital social advocacy. Public Relations Review , 47 (3), 102056.

PAGE 189

189 Ji, Y. G., Chen, Z. F., Tao, W., & Li, Z. C. (2019). Functional and emotional traits of corporate social media message strategies: Behavioral insights from S&P 500 Facebook data. Public relations review , 45 (1), 88 103. Johnson, S. R. (2017). A phenomenological study of cross gender mentoring among US Army officers. Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration , 18 (4), 257 265. Khan, N. A., & Khan, A. N. (2019). What followers are saying about transformational leaders fostering employee innovation via organisational learning, knowledge sharing and social media use in public organizations? Government Information Quarterly , 36 (4), 101391. Kang, M., & Yang, S. U. (2010). Mediation effects of organization public relationship outcomes on public intentions for organizational supports. Journal of Public Relations Research , 22 (4), 477 494. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown , H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., ... & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk analysis , 8 (2), 177 187. Kelleher, T. (2003). PR and conflict: A theoretical review and case study of the 2001 University of Hawaii faculty strike. Journal of Communication Management . Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of computer mediated communication , 11 (2), 395 414. Kelleh er, T. (2008). Organizational contingencies, organizational blogs and public relations practitioner stance toward publics. Public Relations Review , 34 (3), 300 302. Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of communication , 59 (1), 172 188. media. Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations , 281 305. Kelleher, Men, & Thelen (2019). CEO gh ost posting and voice: Effects on perceived authentic leadership, organizational transparency, and employee organization relationships. Public Relations Journal , 12, (4), 1 23.

PAGE 190

190 Kent, M. L. (2010). Directions in social media for professionals and scholars . The Sage handbook of public relations , 2 , 643 656. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public relations review , 24 (3), 321 334. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of pub lic relations. Public relations review , 28 (1), 21 37. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Multiple regression in behavioral research (No. 04; HA31. 3, K4.). Khan, A. N. (2021). A diary study of social media and performance in service sector: transformational leadership as cross level moderator. Current Psychology , 1 15. Khan, A. N., Ali, A., Khan, N. A., & Jehan, N. (2019). A study of relationship between t ransformational leadership and task performance: The role of social media and affective organisational commitment. International Journal of Business Information Systems , 31 (4), 499 516. Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. (2009). Causal linkages between relationship cultivation strategies and relationship quality outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communication , 3 (4), 242 263. Kim, H. J., Park, S. B., & Jo, G. S. (2014). Affective social net work happiness inducing social media platform. Multimedia tools and applications , 68 (2), 355 374. Kim, D., & Vandenberghe, C. (2020). Ethical Leadership and Team Ethical Voice and Citizenship Behavior in the Military: The Roles of Team Moral Efficacy an d Ethical Climate. Group & Organization Management , 45 (4), 514 555. Klein, W. M. (1997). Objective standards are not enough: affective, self evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information. Journal of personality and social psycho logy , 72 (4), 763. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Volume 4: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965 (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press. LaRose, R., Mastro, D., & Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding Internet usage: A social cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social science computer review , 19 (4), 395 413.

PAGE 191

191 Lasswell, Harold (1948). Bryson, L. (ed.). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. The Communication of Ideas . New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of pu blic relations research , 15 (2), 181 198. Leung, L. (2001). College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New media & society , 3 (4), 483 500. Levenshus, A. B. (2012). The Social Coast Guard: An Ethnographic Examination of the Intersection of Risk Communi cation, Social Media, and Government Public Relations (Doctoral dissertation). Liu, X., & Fahmy, S. (2011). Exploring the spiral of silence in the virtual world: lndividuals willingness to express personal opinions in online versus offline settings. Jo urnal of Media and Communication Studies , 3 (2), 45 57. Lin, R., & Utz, S. (2015). The emotional responses of browsing Facebook: Happiness, envy, and the role of tie strength. Computers in human behavior , 52 , 29 38. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of computer mediated communication , 17 (3), 337 353. Lucero, M., Kwang, A. T. T., & Pang, A. (2009). Crisis leadership: when should the CEO step up?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal . Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human communication research , 6 (3), 197 209. Luthra, A. , & Dahiya, R. (2015). Effective leadership is all about communicating effectively: Connecting leadership and communication. International Journal of Management & Business Studies , 5 (3), 43 48. : Two readings, and a third. Qualitative inquiry , 7 (1), 35 68. International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 27 (2), 155 176. Mayer, C. (2013). Military Ethics: An Introduction with Case Studies/The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction. Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2017). Leadership communication: Reflecting, engaging, and innovating.

PAGE 192

192 Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage publications. McConville, J. GEN., September 3, 2020. Addres s to ASP3 Goodpaster Scholars , Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview (Vol. 13). Sage. McGee, M. C. (1990). Text, context, and the fragmentation of contemporary culture. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports) , 54 (3), 274 289. McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of advanced nursing , 60 (3), 334 342. McGinnis, V. J. (1981). The Mission Statement A Key Step In Strategic Planning. Business , 31 (6), 39 43. Men, L. R. (2015). The internal communication role of the chief executive officer: Communication channels, style, and effectiveness. Public Relations Review , 41 (4), 461 471. charismatic executive leadership communication on employee trust and support for organizational change. Public Relations Review , 46 (3), 101927. Men, L., Yang, A., Song, B., and Kiousis, S. (2018) Examining the Impact of Public Engagement and Presidential Leadership Communication on Social Media in China: Implications for Government Public Relationship Cultivation, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12:3, 252 268, DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1445090 Men, R. L., & Bowen, S. A. (2016). Excellence in internal communication management . Business Expert Press. Men, L. R., & Jiang, H. (2016). Cul tivating quality employee organization relationships: The interplay among organizational leadership, culture, and communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication , 10 (5), 462 479. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of public relations research , 26 (5), 417 435.

PAGE 193

193 Men, L. R., Tsai, W. H. S., Chen, Z. F., & Ji, Y. G. (2018). Social presence and digital dialogic communication: Engagement lessons from top social CEOs. Journal of Public Relations Research , 30 (3), 83 99. Men, L. R., & Yue, C. A. (2019). Creating a positive emotional culture: Effect of internal communication and impact on employee supportive behaviors. Public relations review , 45 (3). Men, L. R. (2014a). Why leadership matters to internal communication: Li nking transformational leadership, symmetrical communication, and employee outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research , 26 (3), 256 279. Men, L. R. (2014b). Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership, communication channels, and emp loyee satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly , 28 (2), 264 284. Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal communication and employee organization relationships. Journal of public relations researc h , 26 (4), 301 324. Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). The impact of leadership style and employee empowerment on perceived organizational reputation. Journal of Communication Management . Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2016). Public engagement with CEOs on social media: Motivations and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review , 42 (5), 932 942. Meshi, D., Morawetz, C., & Heekeren, H. R. (2013). Nucleus accumbens response to gains in reputation for the self relative to gains for others predicts social media use. Frontiers in human neuroscience , 7 , 439. Metzger MJ. (2009) The study of media effects in the era of Internet communication. In Nabi RL, Oliver MB, eds. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook . sage. University Class of 2020 Graduates [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AKmmApwi0 M Mitra, R. (2013). From transformational leadership to leadership trans formations: A critical dialogic perspective. Communication Theory , 23 (4), 395 416. Morse, J. M. (1991). Strategies for sampling. Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue , 127 145.

PAGE 194

194 Munkejord, K. (2009). Methodological emotional reflexivity. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal Morse, J. M., Niehaus, L., Wolfe, R. R., & Wilkins, S. (2006). The role of the theoretical drive in maintaining validity in mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (4), 279 291. Murphy, P. (2010). The intractability of reputation: Med ia coverage as a complex system in the case of Martha Stewart. Journal of Public Relations Research , 22 (2), 209 237. Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research , 3 (1 4), 115 131. Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook?. Personality and i ndividual differences , 52 (3), 243 249. Navarro, C., Moreno, A., & Al Sumait, F. (2017). Social media expectations between public relations professionals and their stakeholders: Results of the ComGap study in Spain. Public Relations Review , 43 (4), 700 708. Nehls, K., Smith, B. D., & Schneider, H. A. (2014). Video conferencing interviews in qualitative research. In S. Hai Jew (Ed.). Enhancing qualitative and mixed methods research with technology , (pp. 140 157). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Newsom, D., Turk, J., & Kruckeberg, D. (2012). Cengage Advantage Books: This is PR: The Realities of Public Relations . Cengage Learning. Noelle Neumann E. (1977) Turbulences in the climate of opinion: methodolo gical applications of the spiral of silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly 1977; 41:143 158. Noelle Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion -Our social skin . University of Chicago Press. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Culture and leaders hip. Leadership: Theory and practice , 4 , 301 340. Norton, R., & Warnick, B. (1976). Assertiveness as an interpersonal construct. Human Communication Research , 3 , 62 66. ng the mass interpersonal divide. New media & society , 20 (3), 1161 1180.

PAGE 195

195 Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research , 42 (5), 533 544. Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, R. B., & Hanily, M. L. (1999). Influential authors and works of the public relations scholarly literatur e: A network of recent research. Journal of Public Relations Research , 11 (1), 29 52. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work , 1 (3), 261 283. Palanski , M., Newman, A., Leroy, H., Moore, C., Hannah, S., & Den Hartog, D. (2019). Quantitative research on leadership and business ethics: Examining the state of the field and an agenda for future research. Journal of Business Ethics , 1 11. Palenchar, M. J., Heath, R. L., & Orberton, E. M. (2005). Terrorism and industrial chemical production: A new era of risk communication. Communication Research Reports , 22 (1), 59 67. Parsons, P. J. (2016). Ethics in public relations: A guide to best practice . Kogan Page Publishers. Payne, S. (2007). Grounded theory. Analysing qualitative data in psychology , 2 , 119 146. Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership: An application of the meta analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological bulletin , 97 (2), 274. Pew Research (2018, September 4). Trust in the military exceeds trust in other institutions in western Europe and U.S: Pew Research Cen ter. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact tank/2018/09/04/trust in the military exceeds trust in other institu tions in western europe and u s/ positions of power and responsibility: Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/09/19/why americans dont fully trust many who hold positions of power and responsibility/ . https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_19 03 21_scienceconfidence_americans trust in military/

PAGE 196

196 Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2012) Search, social networks, and politics. http://www.pewinternet.org/ datasets/february 2012 search social networks and politics/ (accessed Apr. 21, 2021). Popping, R. (1988). On agreement indices for nominal data. In Sociometric research (pp. 90 105). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Porter, H., Wrench, J. S., & Hoskinson, C. (2007). The influence of supervisor temperament on subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommunicative orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly , 55 (1), 129 153. Powers, W. R. (2005). Transcription techniques for the spoken word . Rowman Altamira. Qualls, G. Jr., (2016). "NCO Writing Excellence Program Aims to Tune Up Communication Skills," Army News website, May 31, 2016, accessed January 9, 2018. https://www.army.mil/article/168879/nco_writing_excellence_program_aims_to_t une_up_communication_skills The Reagan Institute (2021). Reagan National Defense Survey, February 12, 2021 accessed on April 2, 2021 from https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan institute/centers/peace through strength/reaga n institute national defense survey/ Richmond, V. P. (2002). Teacher nonverbal immediacy. Communication for teachers , 65 , 82. Robinson, K. (2020). Says who? A qualitative study of the relationship between employee voice and strategic internal communication. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Robison, J. (2012). Boosting engagement at Stryker. Gallup Management Journal , 1 (1), 1 5. Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice . Sage. Rowley, J. (2012). Conducting research interviews. Management research review . Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data . sag e. Russell, G. M., & Kelly, N. H. (2002, September). Research as interacting dialogic processes: Implications for reflexivity. In Forum QualitativeSozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 3, No. 3).

PAGE 197

197 Ryan, M., & Thompson, M. (2017). Social media in the military: opportunities, perils and a safe middle path. Technology and leadership: international perspectives. Canadian Defence Academy Press, Ontario , 217 225. Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public relations review , 36 (4), 336 341. SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 561 576. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . SAGE. Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? and community building messages. Journal of public relations r esearch , 26 (3), 280 299. Schonberg, T., Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2011). Mind the gap: bridging economic and naturalistic risk taking with cognitive neuroscience. Trends in cognitive sciences , 15 (1), 11 19. Schreiber, R. S., & Stern, P. N. (Eds.). (2001). Using grounded theory in nursing . Springer Publishing Company. Seeger, M. W., Reynolds, B., & Sellnow, T. L. (2009). Crisis and emergency risk communication in health contexts: Applying the CDC model to pandemic influenza. Handbook of risk and crisis communication , 493 506. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis . Greenwood Publishing Group. Sediqi, Abdul Qadir, and Rupam Jain. 2019. "Taliban fighters double as reporters to wage Afghan digital war." Reuters. 10 May. Accessed 13 May 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us afghanistan taliban media/taliban fighters double as reporters to wage afghan digital war i dUSKCN1SH035?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eb b%2005.13.19&utm_term=Editorial%20 %20Early%20Bird%20Brief . Seidman, G. (2013). Self presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Per sonality and individual differences , 54 (3), 402 407. Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2021). Theorizing crisis communication . John Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 198

198 Sellnow , T. L., Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., & Littlefield, R. S. (2009). Best practices for risk communication. Effective Risk Communication: A message centered approach , 19 31. Smith, B. G. (2015). Situated ideals in strategic social media: Applying grounded practical theory in a case of successful social media management. International Journal of Strategic Communication , 9 (4), 272 292. Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Yang, A. (2018). Notes on a dialogue: Twenty years of digital dialogic communication research in public relations. Sohn, D., & Geidner, N. (2016). Collective dynamics of the spiral of silence: The role of ego network size. International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 28 (1), 25 45. Sohn, Y. J., & Edwards, H. H. (2018). Strategic ambiguity and crisis apologia: The impact of audiences' interpretations of mixed messages. International Journal of Strategic Communication , 12 (5), 552 570. Soat, M. (2015). Social Media Triggers a Dopamine High. Marketing News , 49 (11), 20 21. Solis, B. (2008). The essential guide to social media. Spears, C. (2019) Strategic Value of an Ethics Based Army Public Affairs Program Setting the Stage for Credibility in Large Scale Combat Operations. The Simon Center . Speer, R. (2017). Online Conduct of Members of the Army Team. U.S. Army. https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/socialmedia/sa_csa_and_sma_tri signed_letter_online_conduct_of_members_of_the_army_team.pdf Spradley, B. W. (1980). Managing change creatively. The Journal of nursing administration , 10 (5), 32 37. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists . Cambridge university press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Strauss, A. L., & Glaser, B. (1967). The Discovery of Grou nded Theory. New Brunswick. Stephens, L. F. (1978). The professional orientation of military public affairs officers. , 19 23.

PAGE 199

199 Stoycheff in the wake of NSA internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 93 (2), 296 311. Strube, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta analytic investigation of Fi edler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin , 90 (2), 307 Sundstrom, B., & Levenshus, A. B. (2017). The art of engagement: dialogic strategies on Twitter. Journal of Communication Management . Sweetser, K. D. (2010). A losing strategy: The impact of nondisclosure in social media on relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research , 22 (3), 288 312. Sweetser, K. D. (2011). Digital political public relations. Political public relations: Principles and applications , 293 313. Sweetser, K. D., & Kelleher, T. (2016). Communicated commitment and conversational voice: Abbreviated measures of communicative strategies for maintaining organization public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research , 28 (5/6), 217 231. Sweetser, K. D., & Lariscy, R. W. (2008). Candidates Make Good Friends: An Analysis of Candidates' Uses of Facebook. International Journal Of Strategic Communication, 2(3), 175 198. Sweetser, K. D ., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a relationship management tool. Public relations review , 33 (3), 340 342. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of public relations research , 26 (5), 384 398. Thiel, C. E., Hardy III, J. H., Peterson, D. R., Welsh, D. T., & Bonner, J. M. (2018). Too many sheep in the f lock? Span of control attenuates the influence of ethical leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology , 103 (12), 1324. Thelen, P. D., & Men, R. L. (2018). Strategic use of Facebook for public engagement in higher education institutions. Public Relations Jour nal , 12 (2), 1 27. Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The association between immediacy and socio communicative style. Communication Research Reports , 11 (1), 107 114. styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New media & society , 19 (11), 1848 1867.

PAGE 200

200 Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T., Sandner, P., & Welpe, I. (2010, May). P redicting elections with twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 4, No. 1). Tuttas , C. A. (2015). Lessons learned using web conference technology for online focus group interviews. Qualitative Health Research , 25 (1), 122 133. research. Qualitative inquiry , 16 (10), 837 851. Urben, H. A. (2017). Lcr, Like, Comment, Retweet: The State of the Military's Nonpartisan Ethic in the World of Social Media . Government Printing Office. U.S. Navy Social Media Handbook for Navy leaders, c ommunicators, Sailors, families, ombudsmen, and civilians, March 2019. U.S. Office of Special Council. Civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal govern ment are bound by the Hatch Act, which has similar provisions to DoDD 1344.10 and pro hibits employees from engaging in certain types of political ees and Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A work in p rocess literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication. Journal of contingencies and crisis management , 19 (2), 110 122. Vielledent, M. (2021, March 4 6)., Force Multiplier: An Analysis of How Military Leaders Communicate on Twitter . 24 th Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Orlando, FL, United States. Waldrop, M. M. (1993). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos . Simon and Schuster. Walinski, R. G. (2015). The US Military and Social Media . Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Wang, Y., & Dong, C. (2017). Applying social media in crisis communication: A quantitative review of social media related crisis communication research from 2009 to 2017. Internatio nal Journal of Crisis Communication , 1 (1), 29 37. Wang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2020). Dialogic communication on social media: How organizations use Twitter to build dialogic relationships with their publics. Computers in Human Behavior , 104 , 106183. Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of Public relations review , 37 (3), 321 324.

PAGE 201

201 Watt, D. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: the value of reflexivity. Qualitative Report , 12 (1), 82 101. Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal , 16( 4), 328 346. published on The Strategy Bridge accessed at https://thestrategybridge.org/the bridge/2016/4/7/on joint leadership the importance of communication Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic management journal , 10 (S1), 17 32. Whiteman, S. D., Barry, A. E., Mroczek, D. K., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. (2013). The development and implications of peer emotional support for student service members/veterans and civilian college students. Journal of counseling psychology , 60 (2), 265. Williams, D. E., & Olaniran, B. A. (1998). Expanding the crisis planning function: Introducing elements of risk communication to crisis communication pr actice. Public Relations Review , 24 (3), 387 400. Wooten, A. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Student trust of teacher as a function of socio communicative style of teacher and socio communicative orientation of student. Communication Research Reports , 13 (1 ), 94 100. Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature review. Journal of management development . Yang, S. U. (2007). An integrated model for organization public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research , 19 (2), 91 121. Yang, S. U., Kang, M., & Cha, H. (2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization public dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research , 27 (2), 175 192. Yin, R. K. (2017). Ca se study research and applications: Design and methods . Sage publications. Yue, C. A., Men, L. R., & Ferguson, M. A. (2019). Bridging transformational leadership, transparent communication, and employee openness to change: The mediating role of trust. P ublic relations review , 45 (3), 101779.

PAGE 202

202 Yue, C. A., Chung, Y. J., Kelleher, T., Bradshaw, A. S., & Ferguson, M. A. (2020). How CEO Social Media Disclosure and Gender Affect Perceived CEO Attributes, Relationship Investment, and Engagement Intention. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly . Yue, C.A., Qin, Y.S., Vielledent, M., Men, R.L., & Zhou, A. (2021). Leadership going social: How U.S. nonprofit executives engage publics on Twitter. Telematics Informatics, 65 , 101710. Yukl, G., & V an Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The leadership quarterly , 19 (6), 708 722. Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait based perspectives of leadership. American psychologist , 62 (1), 6. Zhou, A., & Xu, S. Digital Public Relations Through the Lens of Affordances: A Zhou, A., & Xu, S. (2019). Remaking dialogic principles for the digital age: The role of affordances in dialogue and engagement.

PAGE 203

203 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Marc Vielledent receiv ed his Ph.D. from the University of Florida in 2022. As a professional, he was selected as a U.S. Army Goodpaster Scholar and previously served overseas in multiple combat tours, as well as a strategic planner for special operations , speechwriter, and executive advisor to senior leadership and key U.S. a llies. He earned his bachelor's degree in American legal studies from the Un ited States Military Academy at West Point in 2005 , and a master's degree in strategic public relations from the University of Southern California in 2014. As a mass communications research interests include leadership communication, digita l communication, influence, risk articulation, strategy, plans, and policy through the lens of public relations.