Department of Business
LEADERSHIP IN TWITTER
Master’s thesis, Innovation Management Jatta Pitkänen (245866) 6.12.2018
ABSTRACT
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School
Master’s Degree Program in Innovation Management PITKÄNEN, JATTA: Leadership in Twitter
Master’s Thesis: 71 pages
Supervisor: Professor Hanna Lehtimäki December 2018
Key concepts: Social media, performative leadership, complexity
The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of leadership in social media.
The media scene has changed rapidly due to the introduction of social media. Before social media, the traditional communication means had mostly been newspapers, television, and radio. The traditional media was more predictable in a sense, that the companies had the possibility to control the information available about them and the content and applications were created and published by individuals whereas in social media, the content and applications are continuously modified in a participatory and collaborative fashion. This change in the media scene has brought along both opportunities and threats to leadership communication.
The theoretical framework of this study concentrates on creating an understanding of social media as a communication environment and how the leaders could communicate in a way that would respond to the audiences’ needs while at the same maintaining their own credibility.
Furthermore, this study focuses on exploring what performative leadership is and how complexity affects on the success of the leadership performances. Drawing on the theoretical framework, empirical research was conducted in order to discover what kind of leadership performances could be observed in social media.
The approach of this qualitative study was abductive. The empirical data for this study was collected from Twitter. Twitter was a suitable social media platform for the purposes of this study as the content published in Twitter is public. In this research, it was of interest to study the leaders’ leadership performances in social media. Thus, the CEOs of the biggest Finnish companies were chosen as the study object. Ten CEOs were chosen for a more detailed analysis. The tweets were analyzed by using an exploratory data analysis. Examples of successful leadership performances were included in the discussion of the results.
Empirical results of this study indicate that Finnish CEOs perform leadership in Twitter in several different ways. What is common to the successful leadership performances is that the communication is focused on active interaction with the audience and both recognizes but also utilizes the complex features of social media for enhancing the message. This study provides new insights especially to performative leadership in social media by offering examples of successful leadership performances on Twitter and a discussion about how they relate to the existing literature on performative leadership. This is a topic that has not been studied extensively before. Practical implications are also discussed based on the theoretical framework and empirical evidence.
TIIVISTELMÄ
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Kauppatieteiden laitos
Innovaatiojohtaminen
PITKÄNEN, JATTA: Johtajuus Twitterissä Pro gradu –tutkielma: 71 sivua
Tutkielman ohjaaja: Professori Hanna Lehtimäki Joulukuu 2018
Avainsanat: Sosiaalinen media, performatiivinen johtajuus, kompleksisuus
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on lisätä ymmärrystä johtajuudesta sosiaalisessa mediassa.
Medianäyttämö on muuttunut nopeasti sosiaalisen median myötä. Ennen sosiaalista mediaa perinteinen kommunikaatio tapahtui pääosin sanomalehtien, television ja radion välityksellä.
Perinteinen media oli ennustettavampi siinä mielessä, että yritysten oli mahdollista kontrolloida sitä minkälaista tietoa niistä julkaistiin ja sisällöistä ja sovelluksista vastasivat tietyt yksilöt. Sosiaalisessa mediassa sen sijaan sisältöjä ja sovelluksia muokataan jatkuvasti osallistavalla ja yhteistyöllisellä tavalla. Tämä medianäyttämön muutos on tuonut mukanaan niin mahdollisuuksia kuin uhkiakin johtajuusviestinnälle.
Tämän tutkimuksen teoreettisessa viitekehyksessä keskitytään luomaan ymmärrystä sosiaalisesta mediasta viestintäympäristönä sekä siitä kuinka johtajat voisivat viestiä siten, että viestintä vastaisi yleisön tarpeisiin ja samalla ylläpitäisi johtajan uskottavuutta. Lisäksi tämä tutkimus keskittyy tutkimaan mitä performatiivinen johtajuus on ja kuinka kompleksisuus vaikuttaa johtajuusperformanssien onnistumiseen. Tutkimuksen teoreettiseen viitekehykseen pohjaten tehtiin empiirinen tutkimus, jotta voitaisiin tunnistaa minkälaisia johtajuusperformansseja sosiaalisessa mediassa on havaittavissa.
Tämän laadullisen tutkimuksen lähestymistapa on abduktiivinen. Tutkimuksen empiirinen aineisto kerättiin Twitteristä. Twitter soveltui tähän tutkimukseen hyvin sen vuoksi, että siellä julkaistut sisällöt ovat julkisia. Koska tässä tutkimuksessa oltiin kiinnostuneita johtajien johtajuusperformansseista sosiaalisessa mediassa, tutkimuskohteeksi valittiin suurimpien suomalaisten yritysten toimitusjohtajia. Näistä johtajista kymmenen valittiin tarkemman analyysin kohteeksi. Tviitit analysoitiin eksploratiivista data-analyysia käyttäen.
Keskusteluun tutkimustuloksista sisällytettiin esimerkkejä onnistuneista johtajuusperformansseista.
Tämän tutkimuksen empiiriset tulokset osoittavat, että suomalaiset toimitusjohtajat performoivat johtajuutta Twitterissä useilla eri tavoilla. Onnistuneille johtajuusperformansseille on yhteistä se että johtaja on keskittynyt viestinnässään aktiiviseen vuorovaikutukseen yleisön kanssa ja sekä tunnistaa, että hyödyntää sosiaalisen median komplekseja piirteitä viestinsä vahvistamiseen. Tämä tutkimus tarjoaa uusia näkemyksiä erityisesti performatiiviseen johtajuuteen sosiaalisessa mediassa tarjoamalla esimerkkejä onnistuneista johtajuusperformansseista Twitterissä sekä keskustelua siitä kuinka ne liittyvät aiempaan kirjallisuuteen performatiivisesta johtajuudesta. Tätä aihetta ei ole tutkittu laajasti aiemmin. Myös käytännön suosituksista keskustellaan tutkimuksen teoreettiseen viitekehykseen sekä empiirisiin havaintoihin pohjaten.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank my supervisor, Professor Hanna Lehtimäki, for guiding and supporting me throughout the writing process and encouraging me to keep going.
I would also like to thank Harri Jalonen for introducing me to the intriguing world of complexity. Furthermore, it has been a pleasure and an honor to work with you Harri,
Hanna, and Sanna Ketonen-Oksi, on our writing project.
A huge thank you to my family and friends for understanding and standing by me throughout my studies, both in good and bad times.
And most importantly, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my family for their love and support throughout these years.
My beloved daughters Sini, Pinja, Vilma, and Helmi and husband Timo, you have provided me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not
have been possible without you. Thank you.
Jatta
TITLE PAGE SUMMARY TIIVISTELMÄ
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1 Topic of the research ... 7
1.2 The purpose of the study ... 9
1.3 Key concepts and structure of the study ... 10
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 13
2.1 Social media and leadership communication ... 13
2.2 Performative leadership ... 20
2.3 Complexity of social media ... 23
2.4 How does complexity manifest itself in social media? ... 27
2.5 Theoretical framework of the study ... 29
2.6 Twitter and its main elements ... 30
3 METHODOLOGY ... 34
3.1 Methodological approach ... 34
3.2 Data collection ... 36
3.3 Analysis of the data ... 38
3.4 Evaluation of the methodology and ethical considerations ... 40
4 LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCES IN TWITTER ... 42
4.1 Proactive framing ... 42
4.2 Improvising ... 44
4.3 Increasing connectivity ... 46
4.4 Meaning making ... 48
4.5 Building dialogue ... 50
4.6 Showing support ... 52
4.7 Summary of the key results ... 54
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 56
5.1 Summary of the study ... 56
5.2 Key findings and theoretical implications of the findings ... 57
5.3 Evaluation of the study ... 62
REFERENCES ... 65
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Topic of the research
The whole media scene was revolutionized in the beginning of 21st century when social media evolved. Behind this development was so-called Web 2.0 that acted as a platform and thus, a facilitator for social media. Until then, the traditional communication means had mostly been newspapers, television, and radio. The traditional media was more predictable in a sense, that the companies had the possibility to control the information available about them and the content and applications were created and published by individuals. Suddenly, communication happened through videos, blogs, and different social media platforms where people continuously modify the content and applications in a participatory and collaborative fashion. (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010.) This has blurred the line that has been between producers and consumers of content, thus making us all “prosumers” (Quan-Haase & Young, 2010) and companies’ mere observers (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Social media comes in many different formats and examples of these are social networks (e.g.
Facebook), microblogs (e.g. Twitter), collaborative projects (e.g. Wikipedia), content communities (e.g. YouTube), virtual worlds (e.g. Second Life), and games (e.g. World of Warcraft) (Baumöl et al. 2016). There are certain practices of social media that tend to persist as time goes by. Firstly, social media facilitates many-to-many interaction instead of one-way or two-way interaction. Secondly, online and offline worlds are not separate entities but social media refers to and reflects the offline world. Thirdly, social media practice is oriented more towards the shared present where the present moment unfolds from the different cultural, environmental, and political events and people’s everyday lives. (Hogan & Quan-Haase, 2010.) These practices make social media a complex combination of different users and audiences where online and offline worlds mix together and the present moment emerges from different current events.
The introduction of social media has changed the way leaders can or should communicate with their employees, peers, customers, and the wider audience in general. There is a whole new generation of people that has reached their adulthood side to side with social media.
Using social media comes naturally to them. Although younger generations tend to be more active in social media, amongst the 3 billion social media users there are users from all age
groups (Statista, 2018). There are many reasons why people use social media, one might be simply spending time or seeking for information for some specific problem. But behind all these obvious reasons for using social media, there is a basic human need that one might not always think about; the need for gratification (e.g. Quan-Haase & Young, 2010; Chen, 2011;
Han et al. 2015). Social media fulfills the need to be socially connected to others (Han et al.
2015). This is where the potential of social media for leaders emerges.
But while social media provides many opportunities for leaders to tap into the potential of fulfilling the basic needs of their audience, it does not come without risks and many issues that should be considered before engaging in social media. While the major advantages of social media are that it facilitates rapid information flows and that the message sent can reach a substantial audience, the same advantages have the potential for turning into threats in an instant. Thus, it is even more important for leaders to consider carefully what, where, and how to post. Leaders should not only think about which social media platforms they use, how they can reach their audience most effectively and offer them interesting content, and how often they post but they should also consider where the boundaries between their private and public lives should be placed. What emerges as the product of this thinking process is a leadership performance.
From the “Goffmanian perspective”, social media can be viewed as the frontstage where the leadership performances take place. According to Goffman (1956), a performance is “the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants.” Goffman (1956) divides performances into frontstage and backstage performances where the frontstage performance is a more rehearsed one and the backstage performance is a more intuitive one. Many times the performances can be pre-planned and rehearsed, for example, when the leader posts an official announcement related to his/her organization. However, social media has changed and brought along new elements to the stages where the leadership performances happen. As a frontstage, social media is a very complex environment where new meanings emerge in a constant interaction between the leader and the audience. Thus, it is important to view the leadership performances through a complexity theoretical lens in order to gain a better understanding of the current nature of the frontstage of leadership performances and how leadership is, in fact, performed in social media. Guliciuc (2014) even argues that “as social media has all the characteristics of a social
network and of a complex system it should be analyzed from the complexity science before all.”
1.2 The purpose of the study
The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of leadership in social media.
The aim of the study is to identify what kind of environment social media forms for leadership performances by drawing on previous literature and then empirically studying how leadership is performed in the studied context. The guiding principle of this research is that the leaders perform leadership in social media. This guiding principle directs the construction of the theoretical framework of the study and the collection and analysis of the data.
The empirical data for this research is collected from Twitter. Twitter is a suitable social media platform for the purposes of this study as it is open, meaning that the content published in Twitter is public (unless the user has restricted the access to his/her data). According to the weekly Talouselämä, only one fifth of the CEOs of the biggest companies in Finland are Twitter users and only ten of them had tweeted more than a thousand times by August 2018 (TE500-toimitusjohtajat, 2018). The activity is, however, increasing when compared to Talouselämä’s statement from 2015. Due to the CEOs’ growing interest in using Twitter, it is an interesting platform for observing leadership performances. As my interest is to study leadership performances, those CEOs of the biggest companies in Finland who are Twitter users were chosen as the study object. Based on the purpose and aim of the study, and the source of the empirical data, the research question is as follows:
“How do Finnish CEOs perform leadership in Twitter?”
By answering this question, I will provide new insights into performative leadership in this particular research context. The theoretical framework of the study builds an understanding of social media as an environment for leadership communication by considering the opportunities and threats that are related to it. The empirical part of the research is focused on identifying different leadership performances in Twitter and how they relate to the theoretical discussion.
This study contributes to existing literature by giving real-life examples of how leaders can enhance their interaction with the audience in social media by answering to their need to connect while at the same time coping with the complexity of the environment. The study provides practical implications for leaders in their day-to-day communication efforts, as well as possibilities for future research.
This study is part of the DEEVA project that utilizes the opportunities of digitalization to create value from data and to develop new, customer driven service products and methods which support value co-creation and are based on deep understanding of customer experience (Deeva, 2018) and of which a book chapter will be published in 2019 (Jalonen, Ketonen-Oksi, Pitkänen & Lehtimäki, forthcoming).
1.3 Key concepts and structure of the study Key concepts
The key concepts of this study are social media, performative leadership, and complexity.
These key concepts are explained below.
Social media is a new class of information technologies that support interpersonal communication and collaboration using Internet-based platforms (Kane & Alavi, 2014).
Social media offers potential for sharing information, generating ideas, solving problems, and building relationships (Agerdal-Hjermind, 2014). The different forms of social media include, e.g., social networks (e.g. Facebook), microblogs (e.g. Twitter), collaborative projects (e.g.
Wikipedia), content communities (e.g. YouTube), virtual worlds (e.g. Second Life), and games (e.g. World of Warcraft) (Baumöl et al. 2016). In this study, social media is in a central position as the stage where the leadership performances happen.
Performative leadership, in a Goffmanian perspective, performances can be divided into frontstage and backstage performances where the frontstage performance is a more rehearsed one and the backstage performance is a more intuitive one (Goffman, 1956). Taking the Goffmanian perspective into a social media context, identity can be viewed within the context of surveillance (by spectators) and interaction with others within a social network. This means
that the performers are aware of the impressions that the others in their network may get.
(Cover, 2012). If leaders act self-consciously when performing leadership and are aware of the outcomes of these performances, it is of interest to study how the leaders actually perform leadership in social media.
Complexity is strongly present in social media. Complexity is composed by elements that are difficult to separate because of the relevant interactions that take place between components (Gershenson, 2011). A phenomenon or a turn of events can be considered complex when it is composed of many interconnected elements and where the interactions between the elements can produce surprises (Jalonen, 2006). The key concepts of complexity applied in this research are emergence, self-organization, non-linearity, feedback processes, connectivity and interdependency, diversity, attractors, and dissipative structures. Although social media is a very turbulent environment due to this complexity, by recognizing these concepts the leaders can better plan for their leadership performances.
The structure of the thesis
The thesis begins with an introduction where the research topic, the purpose of the research, and the key concepts and the structure of the thesis are described. The introduction provides information of the studied phenomenon and justification for the choice of the research topic.
The introduction also elucidates the purpose and aims of the study and how those aims will be reached. The key concepts and structure of the thesis are also explained.
After the introduction, the theoretical framework of the study is presented. The first part provides insights about social media as a communication environment and the possibilities and threats it poses for leadership performances. The second part discusses the different aspects of performative leadership, mainly based on the Goffmanian perspective of performing leadership. The third part introduces complexity, the key concepts of complexity related to this research, and how complexity manifests itself in social media.
In chapter three, the methodological approach of this study is introduced. This includes the explanation of the methodological choices made and how the methods have been used in this research. The data collection and analysis and a critical evaluation of the methodology are also provided.
The next chapter demonstrates the empirical results of the research. A discussion of the different kinds of leadership performances observed during this study is carried out with authentic examples of the performances.
The last chapter includes an evaluation of the study, limitations in the theoretical and methodological approach, future research potential on the topic, and managerial implications of the results.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Social media and leadership communication
Social media as an environment for leadership communication
Social media’s potential for leadership communication lies in the fact that it is a very interactive environment and based on the previous studies, interaction is what people mostly seek when they engage in social media. There are, of course, many reasons why someone would want to use social media, such as spending time, sharing problems or social information (Quan-Haase & Young, 2010). However, if we think about this more profoundly, behind all this there are the basic needs of human beings. Several studies (e.g. Quan-Haase &
Young, 2010; Chen, 2011; Han et al. 2015) have shown that the premises for someone to start using social media and continue to use social media lies in the gratification that the person gets from it. The primary gratification that social media provides is that it fulfills our need to be socially connected to other people (Han et al. 2015). The need to be socially connected to others include several aspects, such as the need to affiliate and feel a sense of belonging (Chen, 2011) and being socially present (Han et al. 2015). The sense of social presence depends largely on immediacy (the psychological distance from communication partners and directness of the interaction) and intimacy (the level of closeness between the communication partners). In the social media context, immediacy means that the time that the mediated communication takes decreases. Thus, the communication is rapid and effective and the feedback is immediate. Intimacy, on the other hand, constructs of the feelings of privacy and responsiveness. (Han et al. 2015.) Another aspect of the need to connect with others is related to how we are seen through the eyes of other people and how we see ourselves as a member of a certain group.
How we are seen by other people and how we see ourselves as a member of a group forms the basis of what is called the intentional social action. In their study of Facebook users, Cheung and Lee (2010) discovered that the main drivers behind intentional social action are subjective norm and social identity. The subjective norm means that there are certain expectations that one experiences from others. This subjective norm influences on the adoption of a social medium. The subjective norm is one mode of social influence. Social influence is related to the self-awareness of one’s membership in a group and how significant the belonging to the
group feels to the one participating in it. Social identity, on the other hand, has three components, which are cognitive social identity, evaluative social identity, and affective social identity. Social identity is something that emerges from interaction with other users and groups in social media. (Cheung & Lee, 2010.) These findings suggest that by joining a social medium, the users want to connect with others that share their values and have common goals in a meaningful way. These basic needs to connect with other people and be a member of a group of “like-minded” people have implications for the leaders, as well.
In order for the leader to be able to engage with other people in social media in a meaningful way, there are certain issues that to consider. First of all, it is useful for the practitioners to understand why people want to engage in a social medium in the first place. People have certain basic needs and managers can tap into this potential by understanding these needs.
Practitioners can keep the potential customers and other stakeholders involved in their networking sites and answer their questions and create values in different communities and groups (Cheung & Lee, 2010). Secondly, it is also useful for practitioners to aim at making their interaction with other users fast, responsive, and private-feeling in order to make the communication feel more personal and interesting to the customers and other stakeholders (Han et al. 2015). Social media allows companies to keep up collaborative and personalized interactions that the consumers value these days and by doing this, offer superior consumer experiences that enhance consumer engagement and customer loyalty. As companies have access to consumers’ information, such as their user profiles, activities, and interests), as well as their networks of contacts, they have vast opportunities for customer relationship management in social media (this can be referred to as social CRM). (Baumöl et al. 2016.) Having said that it is advisable for the leaders to be active and responsive in social media, Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) recommend the leaders to make a plan for their social media presence.
Planning of the social media presence begins by deciding the right platform where it is worthwhile to be present i.e. where the target audience is and which platform provides the necessary features for conveying the message. It is also important to ensure that the message is consistent and activities well-aligned in all the platforms, if the leader chooses to use several social media platforms, as contradicting messages create ambiguity and confusion among the other users. This applies to using both social media and traditional media, as well.
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010.) Social media also has the potential for enhancing effectual
thinking and behavior. Social interaction is one of the key prerequisites of effectuation. By engaging in social media and interacting with other users, leaders can gain new insights and recognize opportunities. (Fischer & Reuber, 2011.) Thus, social media enhances serendipity.
Although social media has its advantages, there are also possible threats and downsides related to its use.
Balancing the leadership communication in social media
The introduction of social media brought along many possibilities as well as threats.
Communication became more fast-paced and instant; information flew rapidly from one source to many receivers. Communication became also more cost-efficient and easy. On the other hand, after this change it became even more important for leaders to think about transparency and their overall communication style. After you have posted something on the internet, you can never delete it. Messages sent on social media also spread to a wider audience. The leaders have less control over who sees the message. Sending a message on social media may have unexpected consequences, either in good or in bad. Social media is very unpredictable by nature and things can happen very quickly. Leaders need to be aware of this and take required actions as soon as possible when they notice that things start to go wrong. A simple apology and honest statement can save a lot when it comes to the future of the company. Being open and honest will cut the wings of rumors and help regain the trust of people. Thus, it is even more important to think about where and how to communicate.
Social media also poses a threat in so, that things can escalate very quickly and a
“Twitterstorm” can cause serious damage to a corporation in a trice. Therefore, it is even more important for the leaders to plan for their presence on the social media. (Hirsch, 2014.) Hirsch (2014) suggests that the leaders would consider the following aspects before engaging in social media:
Which social media platforms does my target audience frequent?
What kind of behaviors (online and offline) am I seeking?
What kind of content drives those behaviors?
What level of refreshment frequency do they seek and can I sustain?
Where the leader’s audience frequents depends on what kind of audience the leader is targeting (Hirsch, 2014). For leaders, I assume that it would be most useful to reach many different kind of audiences in order to gain as much as information and insights as possible.
Engaging in conversations with the customers would provide valuable information for the leader about their customers’ wants and needs. They would also have the possibility to react very quickly to e.g. customer complaints. This is very important considering, for example, the company image and trust. It would be useful for the leaders to also communicate with other leaders. This would provide them information about their competitors but also possibilities for co-operation and support from their peers. Social media can also provide finding potential recruits and investors (Hirsch, 2014). For the kind of behaviors that is sought, Hirsch (2014) recommends the leaders to consider how his/her social media presence, content, and activity persuades, increases awareness, and influences the potential audiences about the company’s potential and credibility. Crafting a strategy for the social media presence and the content of the messages ensures that the communication is, at least to some extent, predictable and includes the leader’s perspectives, passion, and personality. The most important things related to the frequency and timing of communication on social media is that the communication is consistent and predictable. (Hirsch, 2014.) Whether the leader would post three times a day, once a day or once a week, the followers will know what to expect. However, in order to communicate effectively, it is important to be active and provide interesting content.
Kaplan & Haenlein (2010) advice leaders to be active on social media. By this they mean posting fresh content and engaging in discussions with other users. Another thing for leaders to consider is how to make their messages interesting. This happens by listening to the customers or other stakeholders and finding out what they want to hear and talk about and then post content that fits those interests (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Kaplan & Haenlein (2010) also point out the importance of being humble, “unprofessional”, and honest when engaging with other users in social media. Being humble means not underestimating the other users and following the basic rules of the platform, being unprofessional means that the leader blending in with the other users and not be afraid of making mistakes, and being honest means being honest and respecting the rules of the game (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Being
“unprofessional” does not mean that the leaders should reveal everything about themselves, whether it is related to their private or professional lives. It is a question of boundary management and what is private and what is professional.
Social media tends to blur the boundaries between the private and professional lives of the users. Before social media, it was much easier for one to separate what kind of information was conveyed to private or professional contacts. Nowadays, boundary management is an ongoing process both in online and offline environments. Different professional online networks (such as Linkedin) may contain friends and family members in addition to professional contacts and on the other hand, professional contacts may friend us on platforms that have previously been viewed as platforms for more private communication (such as Facebook). (Batenburg & Bartels, 2017.) In their research, Batenburg and Bartels (2017) investigated how employees’ communication tactics affected on their perceived respect and likability in the professional context. They found out that employees who used an integrated strategy (i.e. both private and professional contacts had access to their social media profiles) and posted self-enhancing messages (instead of self-verification messages) gained more respect and were perceived more likable (Batenburg & Bartels, 2017). Based on these findings, the most suitable way to keep up online appearance is to integrate the private and professional lives to appear more personal and human but at the same time focus on the positive messages to keep a professional touch in the communication.
Colliander et al. (2017) came to same kind of conclusions in their research about politicians’
self-presentation strategies on Twitter. In the research, the researchers studied what kind of effects a balanced self-presentation strategy versus to a strictly professional self-presentation strategy would have on the users’ interest in the party and their voting intentions. They argue that as followers expect to know some details of the politician’s personal life, a so-called
“front-stage-only” communication style (where the politician sends strictly professional messages) would create an expectation gap between the followers’ expectations and what the politicians communicate. (Colliander et al. 2017.) The results of their study suggest that the followers expect more personalized communication where the politicians show glimpses of their private lives. On the other hand, being too emotional or personal may backfire and harm the leader’s credibility. While it may seem difficult to find the right balance between what is private and what is professional, and how to create interesting content, social media also has features that can be utilized for enhancing the message.
Huang & Yeo (2018) found out in their research that combining interesting content with hashtags or URLs had an effect on the leader’s influence online. They argue that the leader’s influence correlates to the number of retweets the leader gains. In their research, they found
out that those leaders who had certainty and vision in their communication, attracted more followers in Twitter. There were several factors that affected to the number of retweets the leaders gained, such as the CEO’s industry (CEOs from information industry, arts, entertainment, and recreation sectors gained the most retweets while CEOs from heavy industries received less retweets) and whether the CEO used hashtags or URLs in their tweets.
(Huang & Yeo, 2018.) Despite the industry background being a defining factor in the leader’s success in social media communication, Huang & Yeo (2018) confirmed that the leader has the possibility to become an online influencer by creating interesting and relevant content and enhancing the message by using hashtags or URLs in the messages. Huang & Yeo’s (2018) research shows, however, that sending too personal or emotional messages do not impact a CEO’s retweetability. This infers that it is important for a CEO to have a balanced self- presentation strategy where the communication includes interesting and insightful messages but at the same time, overly emotional and personal messages should be avoided. In Huang &
Yeo’s (2018) words: “When it comes to online communication, the hashtag-happy leader with certainty and a vision is the one who will attract the most engaged clicks”. Given the importance of having a balanced self-presentation strategy in social media, it is no wonder that many leaders still feel reluctant to engaging in social media. This is understandable especially if the leader considers the effort to be disproportionate with the possible positive outcomes of the social media presence.
Although being present and active in social media has many advantages, CEOs continue to have doubts about whether it would be useful for them to engage in it. Porter et al. (2015) discovered in their research that only 3,2 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs and 17 percent of the Inc. 500 CEOs had Twitter accounts. In addition, many of the CEOs’ Twitter accounts were quite inactive; approximately one third of the CEOs (from both groups) did not tweet at all during the three-month time frame. There are many reasons for the CEOs’ low level of engagement on Twitter. These reasons include e.g. lack of time in the busy CEOs lives, seeing no clear connection between social media presence and financial outcomes or the possible risks for organizations (e.g. unfavorable comments from other users or predisposing the organization and its issues for public “bathing”). In addition, much of the communication between the CEOs and consumers in Twitter still tends to be one-sided and the CEOs generally use more formal language than the average users in Twitter. (Porter et al. 2015.) Porter et al. (2015) ponder whether a more genuine engagement in conversations would create more opportunities for CEOs. The hesitance to use social media and the reasons behind the
hesitation are quite similar between the leaders of the major companies in the US and in Finland.
Jukka Saksi (2016) studied the reasons behind the Finnish leaders’ reluctance to use social media is his book where he interviewed 70 Finnish leaders. The main reasons for the CEOs not to engage in social media were the lack of time, the feeling of not having something meaningful to post, reluctance for change, analytical leadership profile, the lack of examples, and the fear of reputational risks. Some leaders considered social media as a form of entertainment, did not recognize its strategic advantages or did not know how to use it. (Saksi, 2016.) These hesitations have affected the leaders’ willingness to adopt social media platforms. By August 2018, only fifth of the CEOs of the largest companies in Finland had Twitter accounts and only ten of them had tweeted more than thousand times (TE500- toimitusjohtajat, 2018). However, there are signs of an upturn in the Twitter usage of the Finnish CEOs. Compared to Talouselämä’s statement from 2015 (Talouselämä, 2015), the number of CEOs who had tweeted more than hundred times had tripled between May 2015 and June 2017 (Talouselämä, 2017). In fact, on the other end of the spectrum, there have been signs of the emergence of a whole new phenomenon; CEO activism. Although this is more the case in the US, it may have effects on the leadership communication here in Finland at some point as well.
CEO activism is not political activism in its own right, but more of actions that go beyond business issues. There are various reasons behind CEO activism. They can relate to the CEO’s own sense of responsibility for their company and all the different stakeholders, to their willingness to take a stand for what they believe in or as a response to follower expectations. The most common ways for CEOs’ to practice CEO activism are raising awareness (issuing statements or tweets, writing op-eds or seeking to spur public action via trade associations) or leveraging economic power (relocating business activities, pausing business expansion or funding political and activist groups). (Chatterji & Toffel, 2018.) Whether CEO activism will play a big role in shaping public opinions and changing political decision-making is yet to be seen. However, Chatterji & Toffel (2018) remind that CEO activists should be careful in choosing the issues they stand for and how and when to take their stand. While activism has the potential of polishing the CEOs reputation, there is a risk to be viewed as hypocritical in the eyes of the followers (Chatterji & Toffel, 2018).
2.2 Performative leadership
If the purpose of the leadership communication in social media is to answer to the needs of the audiences and this is done intentionally in a self-conscious and meaningful way, the communication can be described as performative leadership. In this research context, Twitter acts as the stage for these leadership performances. In that sense, this research takes a
“Goffmanian perspective” on leadership performances but at the same time considers the changes that have happened to the stages of leadership performances since the introduction of social media.
Goffman (1956) defines a performance as “the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants”. He divides performances to frontstage and backstage performances where the frontstage performance is a more rehearsed one and the backstage performance is something that is more intuitive (Goffman, 1956). As Goffman (1956) puts it:
“The backstage language consists of reciprocal first-naming, co-operative decision-making, profanity, open sexual remarks, elaborate griping, smoking, rough informal dress, “sloppy” sitting and standing posture, use of dialect or sub-standard speech, mumbling and shouting, playful aggressivity and
“kidding”, inconsiderateness for the other in minor but potentially symbolic acts, minor physical self-involvements such as humming, whistling, chewing, nibbling, belching, and flatulence. The frontstage behavior language can be taken as the absence (and in some sense the opposite) of this. In general, then, backstage conduct is one which allows minor acts which might easily be taken as symbolic of intimacy and disrespect for others present and for the region, while front region conduct is one which disallows such potentially offensive behavior”.
Goffman (1956) gives an example of a radio announcer who thinks that he/she is at backstage but in fact is on the air and how his/her backstage conduct creates confusion about what is going on. Indeed, there are incidents (e.g. unmeant gestures, inopportune intrusions, faux pas, and scenes) that may hinder the impression that the performer would like to give (Goffman, 1956). In the modern times where the leader is increasingly on the frontstage, largely due to technological advancements and introduction of new media, the importance of impression
management and frontstage conduct has become even more crucial. Social media has increased the amount of interaction between the leaders and the audience but also sped up the communication. Due to the fast-paced environment, it has become more difficult for leaders to plan and control their frontstage conduct.
Interaction is the focal point of performative leadership. Interaction happens between the leader and the followers but also between a wider audience. Leadership performances can happen in formal contexts and they can be calculated, practiced, and pre-planned (leadership
‘is’ performance) or they can happen in casual contexts when they are more improvised, one- time events by nature (leadership ‘as’ performance) (Peck et al. 2009). If we consider, e.g.
social media, it is a more casual context than a formal press conference or a general meeting.
Social media is also a context where things happen very rapidly and interaction is ongoing between several different actors. This makes social media a very dynamic and emergent environment where leader does not always have the possibility to pre-plan his/her performance. Even if the leader would plan his/her presence and actions in social media, there is a possibility that the response would be different from what was expected. Peck et al.
(2009) suggest that leadership ‘as’ performance should be studied by exploring the performative repertoires (speech, text, and action) that the leaders use for reciting and reiterating the images and stories used to maintain the commitment of those around them.
Simpson et al. (2017) differentiate the leadership as a set of practices and the leadership in the flow of practice in their research and how the different types of talk relate to different phases of leadership practice. From their point of view, leadership does not emerge as a result of one leader’s actions but from the conversational processes of interacting and relating. Leadership is an ongoing and emergent process that happens in a constant interaction; this provides answers to ‘how’ questions (how leadership is co-created, how it emerges, and how it is accomplished). In order to actually make things happen with words there needs to be a speaker and an audience, but that is not enough. The audience needs to be able to relate to what the speaker is saying. Changes happen and new meanings are created when the present moment unfolds from the past and the future. (Simpson et al. 2017.) In order for this to happen, the leader needs to provide a credible narrative.
Gaffney (2014) argues that leadership is performed through leadership rhetoric and that the rhetoric creates a privileged relationship between the speaker and the audience. Further, Gaffney (2014) suggests that leadership rhetoric is an act performed within an institutional
framework which is informed by a cultural context. Instead of focusing only on how the speaker can affect the outcomes (persuade the audience) with the rhetoric, Gaffney (2014) reminds that leadership rhetoric and its effectiveness consists of several different aspects.
These are related to the dynamics between the speaker and the audience (how the audience feels about the speaker and why, what kind of emotions the rhetoric invokes), the institutional context of leadership (the sites and practices where the performance takes place, e.g. physical places or different media), and culture (both institutional and wider notions of memory and identity, such as traditions, dispositions or even secrets shared by a community) (Gaffney, 2014). This implies that one should not think that it is only relevant what the speaker says but there are several issues that effect on how the message is viewed by the others. Hardy et al.
(2000) also highlight that one cannot expect their discourse to shape and construct action without connecting it to a meaningful context first. This causes complex relationships to emerge as the different actions of the participants shape the discourses, and on the other hand, discourses also affect the actions of the participants (Hardy et al. 2000). From these premises, Hardy et al. (2000) form a model of discourse as a strategic resource (Figure 1).
Figure 1: A model of discourse as a strategic resource (Modified from: Hardy et al. 2000, p.
1235).
1) Individual makes new discursive statements to manage meaning
2) Symbols, narratives, rhetoric, metaphors, etc.
are employed
3) Discursive statements attempt to associate relations/referents with a particular concept
4) Concept is embedded in discursive context
5) Subject position of the enunciator warrants voice
6) Symbols, narratives, rhetoric, metaphors, etc.
possess receptivity 7) Discursive statements
‘take’ connecting relations/material and concept in a specific situation 8) Subject positions and
practices emerge 9) Accumulation of statements/practices influences future discourse CIRCUIT OF
ACTIVITY
CIRCUIT OF PERFORMATIVITY
CIRCUIT OF CONNECTIVITY
The circuit of activity means the discursive activities of those who attempt to use discourse strategically, the circuit of performativity occurs when the concepts of the discursive activities are embedded in the discursive context in a meaningful way, and the circuit of connectivity emerges if activity and performativity intersect. These circuits show how discourse can move the statements from talk to action – but only if discourses are modified or changed and new concepts, objects, and subject positions are produced. (Hardy et al. 2000.)
Based on the literature, performative leadership is a complex combination of how the leader acts and speaks in front of the audience. And even if the behavior would be pre-planned, one cannot always predict the outcome. Especially the technological advancements and introduction of new media has placed the managers in a position where the boundaries between what is private and what is public are blurred. Leader is no longer an authoritative figure who commands from above; the audience expects the leader to be on the same level with them and the interaction between the leader and the audience has become intense and straightforward. And although language is the most visible part of a leadership performance in social media, one should not forget that what you say should be in line with what you do in other media or offline. If there is a gap between what is expected and what actually happens, the audience will be confused and cannot relate to the leader.
2.3 Complexity of social media
All of the characteristics and features of social media make it a very complex environment.
Complexity is composed by elements that are difficult to separate because of the relevant interactions that take place between components (Gershenson, 2011). Complexity is a phenomenon where the whole is more than the sum of its parts; the properties at a higher scale cannot be reduced to properties at a lower scale (Gershenson, 2011). In this holistic approach, complexity includes emergent features that do not occur alone in its parts (Jalonen, 2007). A phenomenon or a turn of events can be considered complex when it is composed of many interconnected elements and where the interactions between the elements can produce surprises (Jalonen, 2006). Due to this self-organization, a complex phenomenon cannot be known a priori (Gershenson, 2011). Social media is an environment where situations develop and new patterns emerge in a constant flux of interactions between the different participants.
Whenever one participates in a conversation, the end result cannot be predicted. Complexity
includes several different key concepts. The most important ones considering this research are presented below. It is important to notice that these key concepts are not separate from each other but they are related to each other and together they form a complex environment.
Emergence
Emergence happens when new, unexpected structures, patterns or processes arise (Jalonen, 2016). Emergence is a result of the interaction between elements at a local level (Cairney &
Geyer, 2015) transitioned to global principles or states (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003). This means that the emergence that happens at the “micro”-level occurs at the “macro”-level (Goldstein, 2008). Mitleton-Kelly (2003) provides an example of emergence in organizational context;
when new knowledge or innovative ideas are generated while a team works together, it can be considered as emergence as it happens in the interaction of different individuals and can be something new and unexpected. Goldstein (2008) points out that the leaders should facilitate emergent structures and take advantage of the emergence. Emergence occurs together with self-organization.
Self-organization
Self-organization happens spontaneously when systems exchange information, take actions, and adapt to others’ actions (Jalonen, 2016). When emergence occurs without being externally controlled, it is called self-organization (Goldstein, 2008). If a team gathers together for some purpose (such as performing a task) and they decide about the details of the task (e.g. by whom, what, and how will be done) without someone telling them, it can be considered as self-organization (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003). Further, Mitleton-Kelly (2003) highlights the importance of the right kind of conditions (socio-cultural and technical) that facilitate self-organization.
Non-linearity
The behavior of the system is not always dependant of the initial conditions (Jalonen, 2016).
Also, the proportions of the effects of the actions are “skewed” as small actions can have large effects and large actions can have small effects (Cairney & Geyer, 2015). Jalonen (2014) describes non-linearity as a situation when the “molehill becomes a mountain”. An example of this can be e.g. a customer complaint situation where the wrong choice of words, too long
response time or some other factor can cause misunderstandings and exaggeration and quickly cause the situation to escalate (Jalonen, 2014).
Feedback processes
Positive and negative feedback do not mean “good” or “bad” when we talk about complexity (Jalonen, 2016). In complex systems, negative feedback dampens actions while positive feedback amplifies those (Cairney & Geyer, 2015). In other words, positive feedback stimulates the system’s capability while negative feedback balances it (Jalonen, 2016).
Feedback facilitates emergence and self-organization in complex systems (Richardson, 2008).
This is due to the flow of internal and external information into the system (Jalonen, 2007).
Nan and Lu (2014) give an example of positive and negative feedback in an online forum; if everyone would stay on topic, it would reduce the amount of digressive replies (negative feedback) whereas an off-topic reply could shift the whole discussion to a new direction (positive feedback). Feedback processes determine and shape a connected and interdependent system (Puustinen, 2017).
Connectivity and interdependency
Connectivity and interdependence refer to a notion that the actions of any individual may either constrain or enable the related individuals or systems (Jalonen, 2016). This is due to the fact that we are all connected to others either formally (e.g. organizations) or informally (e.g.
friendships). These connections form networks that enable information flows within the system and between the system and its environments. (Goldstein, 2008.) When for example strategy making is concerned, these information flows enhance the learning of the organization and in fact enable the strategic transformation (Lehtimäki, 2016). Social networks are very dynamic in the sense that the ties between the different actors of the network can be strong (e.g. between family members, friends or close colleagues) or weak (e.g. between acquaintances, hobby groups or work-related peers), symmetrical or asymmetrical (e.g. the level of affection or different power positions), multiplex (ties have many aspects to them) or in some cases homophile (interaction happens between similar others) (Lehtimäki, 2016). These dynamics may also change, which means that the networks are in a constant flux. It is the diversity within and between these networks that creates potential for self-organization and emergence (Goldstein, 2008).
Diversity
Self-organizing and emergence happens when there is diversity (Jalonen, 2016). The justification for this argument is logical as without the differences between the actors and the differences between the insights, knowledge, and experiences of those actors, everything propagated in and between those networks would be just a repetition of the “same old thing”
(Goldstein, 2008). “Without diversity there is no difference that makes a difference” (Jalonen, 2016). If we consider, for example, a group of students engaging in a discussion; could they learn anything new from each other if they would all have the same kind of background and similar views to the topic of discussion? What differs us from each other are our cognitions, emotions, behaviors, attitudes, and so forth. These attributes can act as attractors in complex systems.
Attractors
Attractors regulate the non-linearity of the system (Jalonen, 2016). They are states where things and people seem organized for a moment (Hakala, 2018). Attractor provides an understanding about the current actions and direction to the group surrounding it and it can be e.g. a vision, shared values or a defined strategy that combines the group. However, attractors are not always determined rationally; an example of this is the recent success of different populist movements. (Hakala, 2018.) How we react to these attractors depends on how they are communicated to us and what our premises are.
Dissipative structures
Dissipative structures refer to a change when the symmetry breaks and new possibilities arise (Jalonen, 2016). According to Mitleton-Kelly (2003), dissipative structures allow the exchange of energy, matter or information in an open system and this exchange pushes the system “far-from-equilibrium” which enables the emergence of new structures and order. In an organizational context, dissipative structures can create new ways of working and new forms of organizing (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003). An organization should ensure that it experiences sufficient instability; this can be done by reconfiguring its simple rules (MacIntosh &
MacLean, 2015). What is required is a shift from the need to control to an approach that enables the necessary conditions for the change to emerge (Hinson & Osborne, 2014).
2.4 How does complexity manifest itself in social media?
Connectivity is the core feature of social media. Connectivity emerges from the ties between the different actors within and between the system and its environment. In the social media context, the system can be understood as a network where the actors form connections with other actors within the network and outside of the network. Connectivity enhances the information flows through and by the network. For the leaders, social media offers the possibility to connect with the different stakeholders; their employees, other leaders, their current and potential future customers, and investors. Besides having the opportunity to connect with like-minded users, one can connect with users with different backgrounds and fresh insights and thus, enhance the diversity of the connections. This diversity is a prerequisite for self-organization and emergence as it brings new knowledge into the network and between the networks. Imagine if all of us would think alike; there would not be any new information available and the possibilities for learning would be severely hindered.
Emergence happens as the result of the information flows during the interactions; something new and unexpected arises. In social media, for example, new groups may be formed when the users exchange information and provide insights to one another. In Facebook, many mothers around Finland have gathered together in groups for the purposes of helping each other. The help can be something practical, such as helping around at the house or watching the kids, but also emotional, such as listening to each other and comforting them in a difficult situation. While this is an example of emergence, it is also an example of self-organization in social media.
Self-organization happens spontaneously in social media as an outcome of the information flows. Self-organization can be promoted through interaction by engaging in discussions instead of using a one-way communication strategy. Self-organization can be supported by encouraging the interaction. However, it should be noted that self-organization is something that happens without external control. A good example of self-organization can be found from Nan & Lu’s (2014) research about self-organization in an online community during an organizational crisis. In their study, they researched how self-organization occurred on a campus online forum during the aftermath of an 8.0-magnitude earthquake that had struck Wenchuan, Sichuan Province in China on May 12, 2008. They found out that the content of the messages changed as an effect of the information provided by feedback loops. On the first days after the crisis, the messages included a lot of negative emotions such as fear and anxiety, whereas on the following days the content of the messages moved from at first
making sense of the situation to making action plans and to finally evaluation of what had happened, how the situation had been managed, and a closure (Nan & Lu, 2014).
The story above is also a good example of the relevance of feedback processes in self- organization. Feedback can offer stimulation and seeing things from a new perspective.
Positive feedback is needed in order for change to happen. Different perspectives are needed because if all of us would think alike, nothing new would ever happen. Sometimes going off- topic may be the best thing that ever happened to a conversation. However, the positive and negative feedback should be in balance. Although change is constant, too much change can cause entropy and confusion. This is why also negative feedback is needed to balance the situation. Leaders can utilize social media for gaining feedback. In Twitter, the leaders can for example use mentions or hashtags to enhance the feedback processes by reaching out to a wider audience. It should, however, be kept in mind that the complexity of communication in social media cannot be fully controlled. This is due to the fact that the interaction in social media is non-linear. The input from the feedback processes are affected by the previous outputs and the current outputs will affect the future inputs (Complexity Labs, 2018). This non-linearity causes small actions to have large effects and large actions to have small effects.
The non-linearity also means that any event has the potential to trigger an unpredictable chain reaction regardless of the initial conditions. Different events and actions in social media can go viral very quickly. Many times this is not a bad thing and social media is used, e.g., for viral marketing. But this same non-linearity makes social media a forum where one post can have huge effects. In Twitter this is even more prominent when hashtags can be used to spread the message to audiences beyond one’s own followers. This phenomenon is referred to as “Twitterstorm”. There are several recent examples in Finland alone when a single tweet of a politician or some other social influencer has caused reputational damage, in some cases even a loss of a job. Even though social media is unpredictable by nature and it cannot fully be controlled, leaders can also tap into the potential of the change by utilizing the dissipative structures. It is, after all, the breaking of the symmetry where new possibilities arise. Change should be seen as a possibility more than a threat. In addition, leaders can set attractors through their communication. When the leader sets an attractor by sharing his/her vision or values, he/she can direct the discussion and the image of the company.
SOCIAL MEDIA
2.5 Theoretical framework of the study
The theoretical framework of this study, as illustrated in Figure 2, is built around the interaction between the leader and the audience in social media. Moreover, social media in this study can be seen as the frontstage where the leadership performances take place.
However, complexity is a predominant element of that stage and it is present in every interaction. Not only does complexity effect on how the audience perceives the leadership performances but also on what kind of outcomes those performances produce (how the audience responses to the performances).
Figure 2: Theoretical framework of this study
The previous literature suggests that social media is an auspicious environment for leadership communication if the leaders realize the audience’s basic need to connect with others (e.g.
Cheung & Lee, 2010; Quan-Haase & Young, 2010; Chen, 2011; Han et al, 2015).
Recognizing the audience’s needs opens up possibilities for meaningful interaction between
LEADER AUDIENCE
PERFORMANCE
RESPONSE
COMPLEXITY
the leader and the audience. However, in order to have a credible social media presence, a balance needs to be found between the personal and professional identity while at the same time offering content that is of interest to the audience (e.g. Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Fischer
& Reuber, 2011; Hirsch, 2014; Batenburg & Bartels, 2017; Colliander et al. 2017; Huang &
Yeo, 2018).
A self-conscious balancing of social media can be viewed as performative leadership. Based on the previous literature, performative leadership is not a new concept and already Goffman (1956) identified that the leaders’ behavior is different on the frontstage and backstage and that the leaders are self-conscious in their efforts to balance their behavior on those stages.
However, the stages of leadership performances have changed from Goffman’s time, giving the leaders less time to plan for their performances but also offering the possibilities for improvisation in a more casual context (Peck et al. 2009). Leadership can also be seen as an emergent process that happens during the interaction between the leader and the audience (Simpson et al. 2017) and through meaningful leadership rhetoric (Gaffney, 2014). Social media is, however, always a complex environment (Guliciuc, 2014) and the complexity effects on how the audience views the leadership performances and how they respond to them.
Based on the theoretical framework of this study, it is reasonable to expect that leaders do exhibit leadership performances in social media. In order to find out whether this conclusion is accurate, empirical data needs to be collected and leadership performances identified.
2.6 Twitter and its main elements
Twitter is a microblogging service that currently has 335 million monthly active users (Statista, 2018). In Twitter the users can post messages (tweets) that contain a maximum of 280 characters. Tweets can be sent publicly or to the users followers (tweets are also public and searchable unless the user makes his/her profile private). The users see the tweets in their stream in a reverse chronological order. Tweets may include e.g. videos, photos or URLs.
(Zappavigna, 2012). Isotalus et al. (2018) argue that the tweets’ character limit is both a strength and weakness of Twitter. As the amount of characters is limited it forces the writer to capsulize the main message in a very small space, which furthers a quick diffusion of the information to a wide set of users. On the other hand, a lot of important information about the
context of the message or mentions of all the relevant users can miss from the message as the space runs out. Partly because of the character limits there are certain elements of Twitter (based on the technical features and established rules) that help in organizing the communication. (Isotalus et al. 2018.) These are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: The main elements of Twitter (modified from: Isotalus, P., Jussila, J. & Markkanen, J. (2018), pp. 10-11.).
Hashtag (#) Hashtags are marked with a symbol #. A user
can make any word a hashtag by adding the symbol # in front of it. Hashtags make presenting and finding information easier as users can search for information by using hashtags and the searches based on them can be automated. Every word marked with a hashtag turns blue in color and typically describes the central theme of the message or something that the user wants to highlight specifically. Hashtags also function as a hyperlink; by clicking the hyperlink, the user sees a stream of all the messages that include the specific hashtag in a reverse chronological order. Hashtags can relate to almost anything, such as a place, a person, an event or a thing.
Twitter account (@) Twitter accounts are marked with a symbol
@. Every time a Twitter account is mentioned in a tweet, the user receives a notification that a message has been directed to him/her. There is a supposition that if a user replies to a message that is directed to him/her, all the accounts mentioned in the tweet are included in the beginning of the message so that all parties are aware of the discussion. Replying to another user starts a chain of messages that
