Cultural Fluidity: Weekly Newspaper Editors’ Strategies for Building Knowledge and Managing Change

Cultural Fluidity: Weekly Newspaper Editors’ Strategies for Building Knowledge and Managing Change Presented to: Media Management and Economics Division Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Chicago, August 2008 François P. Nel University of Central Lancashire Jane B. Singer University of Central Lancashire / University of Iowa Lead author contact information: fpnel@uclan.ac.uk (44) 1772 894 758 (UK office) / (44) 7951 521 636 (UK mobile) (27) 21 434 9421 (South Africa office) / (27) 84 494 3411 (South Africa mobile) GR237 Greenbank Department of Journalism University of Central Lancashire Preston PR1 2HE United Kingdom Second author contact information: jbsinger@uclan.ac.uk Cultural Fluidity: Weekly Newspaper Editors’ Strategies for Building Knowledge and Managing Change ABSTRACT: This study examines how British weekly newspaper editors, an understudied group with long-standing ties to “hyperlocal” communities, regard the challenges of building, transforming, and managing knowledge in the midst of sweeping media change. Drawing on literature from media sociology and knowledge management, it suggests that these veteran editors are profoundly uncertain about how to translate what they believe about journalism, and know about creating it, into successful delivery of new products to new audiences. Cultural Fluidity: Weekly Newspaper Editors’ Strategies for Building Knowledge and Managing Change It has never been easy to run a newsroom, but it may never have been harder than it is today. Technological changes and challenges that have been rocking the newspaper industry and reshaping its culture on both sides of the north Atlantic for a decade and more have combined with increasingly dire financial prognoses. In the United States, the industry’s health continued to worsen in 2007, with circulation, advertising revenues, and profit margins all falling – and, in a spreading number of markets, taking staff size down with them (Project for Excellence, 2008a). A majority of American journalists say financial issues are the biggest problem in journalism, overtaking concerns about news quality and credibility (Pew Research Center, 2008). In Britain, the picture is not quite so dark, but circulation and earnings statements show trends also pointing in a downward direction (MediaGuardian.co.uk, 2008). Amid this escalating crisis, however, smaller newspapers continue to do relatively well. In the United States, many small papers are weathering the decline, and some are even gaining readers (Ahrens, 2007); in Britain, more than 80% of adults still say they read a regional paper (Newspaper Society, 2006). The other industry bright – or at least not quite so dim – spot glows from the computer screen. Online audiences and revenues are up substantially in both the United States and United Kingdom, and newspaper websites have dramatically improved their design and multimedia offerings (Project for Excellence, 2008a). That said, the industry is not noticeably closer to turning the internet into a successful advertising medium; on the contrary, the trend seems to be a decoupling of news and advertising, which is not migrating to online newspapers along with readers (Project for Excellence, 2008b). A rich body of literature has examined the media’s role in producing public knowledge, yet how news organizations translate their own knowledge into business performance is only beginning to be explored (Nel, 2006). This paper examines how veteran newsroom managers in a relatively buffered corner of the industry – the British weekly regional press – conceptualize and cope with the challenge of building, transforming, and managing knowledge in the midst of sweeping change. How do they translate experience and know-how that has long guided production of a once-a-week printed publication into management strategies for producing a 24/7 website -- and do it in an industry with contracting rather than expanding resources to draw on? In addressing this question, the present study relies on two related strands of scholarship concerning knowledge, its transfer, and its application. One comes from the sociology of news literature and relates to newsroom socialization, or the way that journalists come to know how they are to do their jobs. The other comes from the fields of knowledge management and organizational communication, focusing in particular on how tacit knowledge, based largely on experiential learning, is created, shared, and enacted within the workplace. Although it incorporates and seeks to extend understanding of the ongoing newsroom transition to a digital environment, this work situates that transition within a broadly fluid news culture, one undergoing transformations that affect the smallest papers at least as dramatically as the more frequently studied largest. In focusing on editors of weekly papers, it offers insights into an understudied population of newsroom managers, particularly within the UK, where most scholarly attention has been devoted to the national press. Moreover, despite their historic stability, media outlets serving geographically small communities are of particular contemporary interest in light of the growth of hyperlocal “citizen journalism” sites seeking to fill similar community niches (Schaffer, 2007). We begin with a look at the UK industry context. BACKGROUND: UK WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS The community press in Britain is overwhelmingly dominated by paid and free weeklies, which account for nearly 1,200 of the nation’s 1,308 local and regional newspapers (Newspaper Society, 2007). Still discernible is the England described by Samuel Johnson in 1758: “Almost every large town has its weekly historian, who regularly circulates his periodical intelligence” (Murphy, 1846, p. 385). However, although some small publishers survive, the industry today is heavily consolidated, with the top 20 regional publishers accounting for 89% of all titles and 97% of total weekly circulation (Newspaper Society, 2008). In the 1990s and into the 2000s, not only small publishers but also organizations with strong cross-media interests sold their local press assets to regional newspaper groups; these have sought economies of scale by sharing resources within geographical clusters and, in some cases, by paring staffs (Williams, 2006; Williams and Franklin, 2007). There are indications that the strategy has been successful in economic terms. Over the past decade, weeklies have been the most resilient sector of the regional UK press, managing to hold their circulation nearly steady and consistently outperforming the evening dailies (Smith, 2008), with the very smallest newspapers among those doing the best (Kiss, 2007). Indeed, they have been the closest thing to good news for the local press. Between 1995 and 2005, most of the large regional dailies saw double-digit circulation declines (Franklin, 2006), a trend that seems to be continuing apace; every regional a.m. daily in the UK saw sales fall in the second half of 2007, in some cases again by double-digit percentages (Kiss, 2008a, 2008b). The local British newspaper editor’s job is a hands-on one. Most are central to the content and design of every edition, as well as making broader decisions about the paper’s civic role in a media culture where the local press routinely instigates and leads community improvement campaigns (Hadwin, 2006). However, observers inside and outside the industry say investigative or critical local journalism is becoming harder to find or to finance as new owners bring renewed attention to cost controls in an increasingly difficult UK media environment (Franklin, 2006). Adding to the pressure on weeklies has been their transition from publishing once in seven days to publishing all day every day – and adding audio and video storytelling that, while still largely rudimentary (Bradshaw, 2008), now regularly appears on local newspaper websites. Over the past year, regional UK papers have rapidly accelerated their digital activities, and traffic has grown substantially. Resulting revenue has not been enough to offset print losses, but the losses would be deeper without website gains such as the 24% increase reported in mid-2007 by Trinity Mirror, the circulation leader among Britain’s regional publishers (Press Gazette, 2007b). One observer said recent financial reports would be a “suicide note” for the regional UK press – were it not for the fact that the web is strengthening their community role (Wainwright, 2008). The newspapers whose editors participated in the current study all are part of Johnston Press plc, which owns more titles than any other UK publisher and is the third-largest publisher by circulation of local and regional papers in Britain. Johnston Press (JP) was founded in 1767 as a family business; in recent years, it has been a leader in the acquisition strategy described above. JP publishes 309 local and regional papers, 291 of them weeklies, in the UK and Ireland (Johnston Press, 2008a; 2008b). These range in size from the Northallerton, Thirsk and Bedale Times, circulation 511, to the Edinburgh Herald and Post at nearly 134,000 (ABC, 2008). Print and online properties have a combined audience of roughly 16 million (Johnston Press, 2008c). Like most newspaper companies, JP has had a difficult year (Press Gazette, 2007a). Although overall revenues were up slightly, both earnings and pre-tax profits declined more than 6% in 2007, mostly because of what its chairman calls “reduced advertising demand” (Johnston Press, 2008c, p. 2), and its stock price has plummeted (McNally, 2008). Its websites, however, have been a positive development. Industry observers have praised the company for its skill in integrating web and print operations for local markets (Stafford, 2008) and for adapting “with more enthusiasm than most” to prospects of a digital future (Greenslade, 2008). JP says its digital revenue was up 34% in 2007, while online user numbers were up 24% and page impressions 54% over 2006. Its stated strategy includes restructuring the organization “to ensure that it is equipped to deliver on our digital aspirations” (Johnston Press, 2008c, p. 5). LITERATURE: NEWSROOM SOCIALIZATION and CHANGE In this uncertain industry climate, an understanding of how journalists deal with both stability and change is important. Socialization into both the newsroom and the broader profession plays a central role. Socialization into any occupation is understood to involve several stages. These include vocational socialization, influenced by education, the media, and personal acquaintances; anticipatory socialization, or development of impressions of future work environments through communication with current employees; initiation into the work group; and finally, adjustment to group norms, values, and practices (Kramer & Miller, 1999). The newsroom has long been recognized as a powerful socializing force (Breed, 1955). Journalistic norms and values tend to be broadly shared (McLeod & Hawley, 1964), and organizational cultures create patterns of meaning that define appropriate behavior (Bantz, 1985). Articulating norms such as a commitment to objective reporting serves both as a form of ritual solidarity and as a way of socializing practitioners to how things are or should be done (Schudson, 2001). Deuze (2005) suggests the result is the creation of an ideology of journalism, one that emphasizes a particular set of values, such as immediacy and objectivity, and ultimately is used by practitioners to legitimize their own position in society. Although the socializing role of newsroom culture provides journalists with defenses to withstand pressure for change (Fee, 2002) and the inevitable loss of routines, relationships, and traditions that it brings (Giles, 2005), ongoing technological shifts are disrupting newsroom organization and communication patterns, as well as creating new pressures for a coherent notion of “who we are” (de Bruin, 2000; Pavlik, 2000). Studies of converged newsrooms suggest print journalists may be undergoing a process of resocialization (Singer, 2004) as existing values and beliefs about the role of journalists and what they do are challenged. Studies conducted in other organizational contexts have suggested that the resocialization process plays an important role during periods of change (Hart, Miller, & Johnson, 2003). Experts stress that planned change must be understood as encompassing new roles, values, rewards, and ways of doing work, not merely new procedures (Lewis, 1999). Similarly, communication about the vision and purpose behind organizational change has been identified as a key theme in both the popular and scholarly literature (Lewis et al., 2006); communication about vision helps in reducing uncertainty about change and creating new organizational social structures (Fairhurst, 1993). Philosophers say that change is a constant. It certainly has been for journalists working in a contemporary newspaper environment that is both unsettled and unsettling (Gade & Perry, 2003), presenting newsroom managers with the task of creating “balance in chaos” (Killebrew, 2005, p. 184). The task is far from an easy one. Gade (2004) found that even editors trained in change management had trouble; managers believed they had sought employee input and effectively communicated about vision and outcomes, but their staffs saw editors as authoritarian and felt left out and confused. A study by Daniels and Hollifield (2002) of change at CNN Headline News suggested staff reacted especially negatively to changes that they felt threatened the intrinsic professional rewards they derived from their work, notably their ability to respond effectively to breaking news; this finding is in line with earlier work that has suggested higher job satisfaction is tied to the pursuit of journalistic, rather than business, goals (see Pollard, 1995). McLellan and Porter begin their 2007 exploration of newsroom change by declaring: The reinvention of newspapers in the digital age requires the reinvention of newsroom leadership. Editors are discovering that the traditional, top-down ‘I-paid-my-dues-and-now-it’s-your-turn’ style of management fails to foster the nimble thinking, collaboration and risk-taking newspapers need to overcome the changes in economics, demographics and technology that are transforming the news industry. They are discovering they need to change (p. 1). In other words, editors need to think about what they know and how to communicate it, as well as what they don’t know and how to learn it. The next section of this paper considers the role of two kinds of knowledge in management style and structure. LITERATURE: TACIT and EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE The growth of knowledge has been central to human history, yet social scientists, cognitive psychologists, and even philosophers have struggled to understand how people learn and communicate the results of that learning. Little consensus has emerged (Moykr, 2002). However, management scholars in post-industrial society generally agree that the knowledge within a company is the primary source of competitive advantage (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Jasimuddin, Klein, & Connell, 2005). In a knowledge economy (Drucker, 1969; Toffler, 1990), the ability to manage human intellect and convert it into useful products and services is seen as central to success (Smith, 2001; Goffee & Jones, 2006). Drucker (1993) argued that traditional primary resources of production – land, labor, and capital – are secondary to knowledge for growing knowledge-based economies. Echoing this perspective, Nonaka (1994) contends that knowledge is the single most important production factor in terms of an organization’s capacity to survive and then successfully compete. There thus is a growing interest in understanding key aspects of managing knowledge. These include knowledge creation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), transfer (Smith & McKeen, 2003), and storage (Huber, 1991; Walsh & Ungson, 1991), as well as its social aspects (Brown & Duguid, 1991). Categorization of knowledge as tacit or explicit is part of this enterprise (Polanyi, 1967; Nonaka, 1994; Jasimuddin, 2004; Jasimuddin, Klein, & Connell, 2005). Knowledge can be seen as existing on a spectrum. At one extreme, it is almost wholly tacit – the semiconscious and subconscious knowledge held in our heads and bodies. Some forms of tacit knowledge rest in cognitive skills learned through experience, then internalized; such knowledge is hard to formalize or communicate, and a person may be unable to fully articulate what he or she knows. Polanyi famously proposed four decades ago that “we can know more than we can tell” (1967: 4). At the other end of the spectrum is knowledge that is almost wholly explicit; it is codified, structured, and accessible to those who did not originate it. Most of what we know lies between the extremes (Leonard & Sensiper, 2000), though the relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge is widely debated (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Hall & Andriani, 2003; Jasimuddin, Klein, & Connell, 2005). The current work draws on Polanyi and, more directly, on Nonaka’s extension of his ideas. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) hold that it is individuals who create and maintain what an organization collectively knows: Knowledge is created only by individuals. An organization cannot create knowledge on its own without individuals. Organizational knowledge creation should be understood as a process that organizationally amplifies the knowledge created by individuals and crystallizes it at the group level through dialogue, experience sharing or observation (p. 239). Nonaka and his colleagues (2001) identify different levels of social interaction at which individually created knowledge is transformed and legitimized: informal and formal, within the organization and intra-organizational. These epistemological and ontological dimensions of knowledge creation are then brought together in a “spiral” model that involves four modes of knowledge conversion. The first of these is from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge – that is, socialization. Successive modes are from tacit to explicit knowledge, called externalization; explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge, which occurs in the combinations of bodies of explicit knowledge through social processes such as meetings, which foster new knowledge; and finally, from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, called internalization. The latter is similar to the traditional notion of learning (pp. 494-497). The model is commonly referred to as the SECI model, an acronym of the labels for each of the four modes. Organizational knowledge creation, as distinct from individual knowledge creation, occurs when dynamic interactions between all four modes are managed so that a continuous cycle is formed, driven by “triggers” facilitated by the organization (Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosière, 2001). The first mode, socialization, typically starts through building a team or interaction space where participants can share experiences and perspectives. The externalization mode is triggered by successive rounds of dialogue, which enable participants to articulate ideas and experiences, revealing the tacit knowledge that otherwise can be difficult to communicate. Next, concepts formed by teams can be combined with existing data and external knowledge, producing greater clarity. An iterative process of trial and error then helps participants develop and articulate concepts that can be internalized through experimentation or learning by doing. In due course, participants in a team, or what Nonaka calls a “field of action” (1991, p. 14), who share explicit knowledge and participate in a process of trial and error, are able to translate the explicit knowledge into various forms of tacit knowledge (Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosière, 2001). While not without its critics (see Gourlay, 2006), this SECI model – applicable at both the individual and organizational levels -- has been widely cited and captures the idea that tacit and explicit knowledge are complementary and can grow over time through interaction. Individuals can accrue tacit knowledge without language, such as apprentices who learn craftsmanship from mentors by observation, imitation, and practice. This is similar to what sociologists see as the socialization process outlined briefly above. Although relatively few media scholars have directly applied a knowledge management framework to explore what journalists know, a number have referenced it, and it is implicit in much of the newsroom socialization literature. In advocating a cultural approach to studying journalism, Zelizer points out that while journalists employ collective and often tacit knowledge to initiate and maintain group membership, what is explicitly articulated as that knowledge “does not reflect the whole picture of what journalism is and tries to be” (2004, p. 176). Sveiby (1996) suggests that newsrooms are open spaces because the arrangement facilitates the rapid transfer of tacit knowledge of “all you need to know to function as a journalist.” He describes this work space arrangement as “the office version of the cave” in that it mimics the energy-efficient way human knowledge has long been passed from generation to generation, neither consciously nor deliberately (p. 382). Quinn (2002) urges managers of digital newsrooms to create rules and guidelines for specific editorial processes, such as a central database for commonly used contacts, so that staffers “come to expect that tacit knowledge will be recorded” (p. 182). For knowledge management scholars, employees in middle management – such as the editors who are the subject of the present study – play a key role in the creation of organizational knowledge. They argue that traditional top-down or bottom-up management models are not appropriate in companies where information is an outcome of productivity and not simply a tool for generating such productivity (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosière, 2001). Instead, they suggest that a new middle-up-down model of management is most appropriate for such organizations. Unlike the traditional models, this one views all members of the organization as important actors who should work together both horizontally and vertically (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The success of the process hinges on middle managers: Whereas top management articulate the dreams of the firm, frontline employees and low-level middle managers look at its reality. The gap between these two perspectives is narrowed by and through middle managers. In other words, top management’s role is to create a grand theory, whereas middle management, as knowledge producers, create a mid-range theory that can be empirically tested within the company with the help of frontline employees. Knowledge is created through such interactions, and then disseminated throughout the company (Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosière, 2001, p. 505). Before turning to the current study, it is worth quickly noting that considerable recent work in the area of knowledge management has focused on adaptations to communication technologies and their effects on organizational culture. McDermott (2000) points out that although companies imagine a new world of leveraged knowledge facilitated by technology, the tools generally reinforce existing norms about documenting, sharing, and utilizing information rather than creating new cultural realities. Roberts (2000) says the limitations of communication technology are “particularly acute in the case of tacit knowledge transfer, which often requires co-location and co-presence … the transfer of know-how requires a process of show-how” (p. 439). In general, radical changes are too often initiated without sufficient attention to the need to change organizational culture, including its tacit knowledge, to accommodate them; new techniques, processes, or ideas are simply overlaid on an existing belief structure without adequate mechanisms for facilitating their absorption (Hale & Whitlam, 1997; Sviokla, 2000). This study draws on ideas about both socialization and knowledge management processes to examine a group of editors, at middle management levels within their umbrella organization, facing just such a radical and inherently cultural shift. The associated changes are both external, such as those related to news audiences, and internal, such as those related to news products and production practices, as outlined at the start of this paper. To explore how they think about managing their newsrooms in this environment, it addresses the following research questions: RQ1: How does the tacit knowledge of weekly newspaper editors, particularly regarding their audiences and news products, affect their perceptions about managing change in local newsrooms? RQ2: What existing aspects of socialization or of cultural practice are potential barriers to the success of these editors in managing change in local newsrooms? METHOD A total of 57 weekly newspaper editors, all from different Johnston Press papers in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but not Wales) and the Republic of Ireland were given an online questionnaire The questionnaire included questions posed to participants in a Poynter Institute ‘Leadership for Online News Managers’ seminar in May 2006. Results are not publicly available. in advance of weeklong newsroom management training sessions provided at the authors’ university between May and November 2007. This data collection followed a pre-test in November 2006 on a comparable group of incoming trainees and subsequent questionnaire modification. The questionnaire, which was informed by a survey that one of the authors completed as part of a Poynter Institute (2006) seminar, included both open- and closed-ended questions. Valid responses to all of the questions were obtained from 47 respondents; another eight answered all or most of the closed-ended questions but did not respond to one or more of the open-ended ones. Confidentiality was promised to the respondents, in line with the university’s human subjects research policies, and no names or other identifying information is used here. The closed-ended questions were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics; as the respondent pool was small and the sample was not random, more sophisticated statistical measurements were not viable here. In addition to calculating overall percentages, responses from editors with smaller and larger staffs – 15 journalists or fewer, and 16 or more, respectively -- were calculated separately in order to highlight the perceptions of managers tasked with supervising change in the very smallest news organizations. Textual analysis was used to analyze responses to the open-ended questions; one of the researchers and a research assistant carefully reviewed the responses and identified key themes relevant to the literature and research questions. Individual responses can and frequently did reference multiple themes; the findings indicate the number of times a particular theme was cited as a means of suggesting its relative importance to respondents, but a more formal quantitative assessment would be inappropriate. Therefore, percentages are provided with numbers of respondents but not with themes identified in their responses. Typographical errors in editors’ responses have been corrected in order to make them easier to read. British colloquialisms, as well as British spellings, have been retained. FINDINGS The respondents: Almost all who indicated their job title (49 of 55, or 89.1%) were editors of individual weekly newspapers; the other six were group editors, overseeing several papers in a geographical area. Respondents’ staffs were generally small; only two editors (both group editors) indicated staff sizes of more than 30 people, and most editors (37, or 68.5% of the 54 who answered the question) oversaw 15 people or fewer. Nearly half of the 55 editors answering the question (27, or 49.1%) had been in their jobs between one and five years; 11 (20%) had been the editor for more than 10 years; seven (12.7%) for six to 10 years, and 10 (18.2%) for less than a year. However, most (32 of 55, or 58.2%) had worked for JP for more than 10 years, 12 of those (21.8% of the total) for more than a quarter-century. Almost all (50 of 55, or 90.9%) had been journalists for at least a decade and thus had entered the profession before the internet became a widespread platform for weekly newspapers in the UK. Indeed, nearly two-thirds (35, or 63.6%) had been journalists since at least the 1980s. As is true for many long-time journalists in the UK, only a minority – 16 of 55 who answered the question, or 29.1% -- had higher education degrees. Most (42 of 55, or 76.4%) had some sort of formal certification in journalism, but only four (7.3%) had formal management training; another 16 had been through in-house management courses of one sort or another. Perceived Strengths: Before seeing questions related directly to managing change, editors were asked to identify what their own organization currently does best, a question intended to draw primarily on tacit knowledge of what they are all about. The 55 editors who answered this question highlighted a total of 70 things (not including the one who wrote “allows five weeks a year holiday”); some touched on two or more themes in their responses. Twenty-two editors (40%) identified providing information as a key strength, including four who specifically cited their local reporting. Eleven (20%) said that producing a newspaper was what they did best; another four broadened that to include the website or generic “news products.” Ten (18.2%) cited business practices, such as the editor who wrote that the organization was good at “assessing costs to ensure it gets the best possible financial return from its newspapers.” Other themes included serving the local community (six editors), working as a team (four), and optimizing limited resources (three). Six editors explicitly mentioned innovation, including the one who said the organization was good at “constantly rethinking what we do and trying to bring the best local coverage in whatever format is available to us.” Editors subsequently were asked what they thought journalism as an enterprise was doing especially well in the current changing media environment. Among the 47 who responded to this question, many highlighted strong and ongoing community public service, such as the editors who cited “fighting for the communities they serve” or “giving a voice to the concerns of communities who often feel that their opinions count for nothing.” But more than half the editors – 25 of those answering this question – cited some aspect of coping with change as a strength. “Oddly enough, at my level it's doing well at adapting to the digital challenges. Websites have brought a refreshing new dimension to my news organisation,” an editor wrote. Another said: “I think in terms of quality, the industry is in rude health. The flip side of increased audience choice has forced organisations to raise the bar. If you put a lazy paper/website together, people just won't bother looking at it.” Still, many felt journalism’s strengths lay in doing what it had always done: providing “quality local stories, highlighting important issues and campaigning for their readers’ rights,” as one editor wrote. Perceived Weaknesses: Asked what they perceived to be the “most important problem facing journalism today,” the open-ended responses of 47 editors fell into four broad categories. Three related to declines in quality, audiences, and resources; the fourth involved change itself, particularly change created by the shift to digital information delivery. Again, many provided multi-faceted answers that touched on two or more issues. In terms of knowledge management, this question sought to probe for the potential shortcomings that editors saw in applying the industry’s overall collective knowledge and standard practices to a fluid media environment. Although a majority of respondents saw coping with change as an industry strength, as described above, 17 editors (36.2%) cited change in general or the shift to a digital environment in particular as journalism’s biggest problem. They worried about a potential decline in quality, such as the editor who wrote of “maintaining a high-quality print product while developing digital” and the associated “danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” Additional concerns about change were addressed through other questions and are summarized below. Other quality issues were linked to a changing audience, one largely interested in “dumbed down” content. “Genocide in Darfur or a sexual encounter on `Big Brother’? Which would sell more, get more hits, produce more spin-offs? Which should people be more aware of?” one editor wrote. Editors also connected concerns about quality to resource issues involving time and/or money, such as the one who highlighted “maintaining the quality of products, be it digital or print, in the face of ever-tightening budgets.” Several had grave misgivings about their own staffs, suggesting industry newcomers did not possess an appropriate base of knowledge or skills. “Not enough people who call themselves journalists are really interested in finding out stuff and passing it on to other people, whatever obstacles are put in their way,” one editor wrote, adding that too many young journalists today “are more information packagers.” Such problems pose leadership issues for newsroom managers, and another open-ended question asked editors to identify key challenges and the obstacles to overcoming them. Perhaps because this question explicitly referenced their leadership role, many responses highlighted staff motivation. Twenty-five editors, more than half of the 47 who responded to this question, cited motivational issues, such as the editor who identified “getting staff excited and involved while at the same time more work and pressure is being put on them,” as a key challenge. Some characterized staffers as “too negative and set in their ways,” but others said that while the staff spirit was willing, the flesh was sometimes too tired to follow through. “Enthusiasm only lasts so long, then exhaustion sets in,” one editor wrote. As with the other open-ended questions, many editors cited multiple themes, including challenges related to inadequate resources (19 responses), revenue and/or circulation declines (10 responses), and inroads on quality (nine responses). For example, one editor wrote about the challenge of “motivating staff when they have the perception that the workload has increased without any related reward. I want to drive up editorial standards, but production pressures on a small team make it difficult to move beyond the weekly damage limitation exercise.” Nine respondents cited managing change as a challenge in and of itself, and another six explicitly cited technology hassles. While four editors complained about interference from others – “I’m the editor, I have brilliant, enthusiastic staff bursting with new ideas, yet I’m hamstrung by people who think they know better than me,” wrote one – two admitted doubt about their own tacit and explicit knowledge and thus their ability to lead in a changing media environment. “The best way to take people along the road with you is to have the personal knowledge (to) speak from a position of strength,” said one editor. “I don't have that hands-on knowledge.” Coping With Change: The questionnaire listed 20 potential concerns and asked editors to indicate how worried they were about each (see Table 1a). Only two items were a big or very big concern to a majority of respondents. Forty of the 54 editors who responded (74.1%) were worried about their ability to cope with a 24/7 world given their resource limits, a finding supported by their emphasis on resources outlined above and under “Time Constraints” below. Thirty-five editors (64.8%) worried that they did not know enough about the online audience to create a product that users would want. Among lesser but still substantive concerns, as indicated by more than a third of the respondents, were the adequacy of available technologies to support innovation (24 editors, 44.4%), their own ability to successfully manage ongoing waves of change (22 editors, 40.7%), fears about sacrificing the core print product to bolster the shakier online one (22 editors again), and the extent to which they were taking the audience into account when making news decisions (19 editors, 35.2%). A larger number of items worried respondents only minimally or not at all. Two-thirds of the editors were relatively unconcerned about making ethical decisions when public service and commercial goals collide (38 editors, 70.4%), being unable to lead their team when things do not go as planned (37 editors, 68.5%), or leading their staff in the desired direction (37 editors again). These findings suggest they were relatively confident of their tacit knowledge about their general leadership capabilities. A majority of respondents also were unconcerned or only minimally concerned about negative effects of competition and conflict on their newsroom (35 editors, 64.8%), loss of the “basic journalistic mission” along the path to change (30 editors, 55.6%), or an inability to effectively communicate (29 editors, 53.7%). Another six statements were similarly dismissed by at least a third of the editors. Eight statements were of “medium concern” to a third of the editors or more. However, there were differences between editors with relatively large staffs (16 or more, 18 editors) and those with smaller staffs (15 or fewer, 36 editors on this question). Although the nature of the data prevents calculations of statistical significance, Table 1b offers preliminary insights into concerns of the smallest news organizations. By far the greatest of these was that their newsroom would be unable to handle demands of a 24/7 media environment, “given our resource limits.” Thirty of the 36 editors with smaller staffs (83.3%) indicated this was a big or very big concern, compared with just over half of the 18 editors with larger staffs. A similar concern, the ability to manage and successfully integrate ongoing waves of innovation, was cited by half of the editors with smaller staffs but only four (22.2%) of those in larger organizations. Those with larger staffs highlighted lack of understanding of their online audience as their greatest concern (13 of 18 editors, or 72.2%), followed by concerns about inadequate technology (11 editors, 61.1%); editors in smaller newsrooms ranked audience understanding as their second-biggest concern, with technological issues further down their list. Two items that not a single editors of a larger organization indicated were big or very big concerns – fears about loss of the basic journalistic mission and uncertainty about how to lead into uncharted territory – were cited by nine (25%) and eight (22.2%) of the editors with smaller staffs, respectively. Nearly half of the editors in smaller newsrooms also worried about sacrificing the core print product to bolster the shakier one, a concern for only about a quarter of those with larger staffs. Conversely, nearly half of those with more people reporting to them worried about future revenue opportunities, compared with about a quarter of their counterparts in smaller newsrooms. Editors also were asked what they would change in relation to digital media if they “ran the company.” Although two of the 47 editors who answered this open-ended question indicated concerns about an over-emphasis on digital products at the potential expense of the printed paper or the overall mission “to investigate and to report the truth,” most indicated their concerns were with the execution of the digital strategy rather than the strategy itself. A majority of the answers indicated a perceived need for enhanced support in the form of human and/or technical resources. Sixteen editors (34%) said they would provide dedicated digital journalists to support the affiliated websites, people “who think digital 24 hours a day and do not have the worry of simultaneously producing a newspaper,” as one editor wrote. Another called for employing “skilled digital staff to work alongside traditional print journalists. At the moment, the print side is suffering, and digital is not being done as well as it might.” Another 15 editors (31.9%) said they would invest more in human resources: providing more training, supporting journalists’ strengths and/or increasing staff sizes. As one editor wrote, “I would seek to put investment into people, rather than solely in technology.” In general, all these responses suggest a sentiment that the existing knowledge base within their organization was not an optimum fit for demands of a changing media environment. However, eight editors (17%) singled out investment in technology as key; if they ran the company, they would improve both the tools and the technical staff to support them, “ensuring technology is more reliable and efficient,” as one editor wrote. This question elicited an especially wide range of other responses. For instance, two editors essentially said company executives should walk the talk, “follow up the fine words with action.” Three cited a need to get the advertising department on board, three wanted procedures for maintaining quality standards – and three actually said they had no complaints! Four editors said they didn’t feel they knew enough about digital media to be able to answer the question. Time Constraints: Editors were presented with a set of 10 tasks and asked to estimate the percentage of “a typical day” they spent on each, an attempt to assess existing work practices in the context of a changing environment. Their responses were aggregated and averages calculated. As a group, these editors reported that they spent a majority of their time developing and editing content (see Table 2). The second most time-consuming task was handling staff issues, though it was far behind content production at less than 10% of their time; wrestling with technology took about 6% of their time, while “managing up” was a relatively minor task, taking less than 3% of their time. In the aggregate, the editors estimated that less than 6% of their time was spent on planning, while barely 2% went to generating new knowledge: learning new skills or training. Meetings, both inside and outside the company, accounted for most of the rest of their time. Here, too, there were variations by staff size. Again, statistical significance cannot be calculated, so the percentages must be taken as only preliminary information subject to further data collection and testing. That said, they suggest that editors in smaller newsrooms spent a greater proportion of their time handling content and had less to spare for planning or personnel issues. They seemed, however, to be somewhat closer to their communities, indicated by a slightly greater percentage of time spent interacting with audience members. As a group, they reported more time lost to wrestling with technology than did their counterparts with larger staffs. An open-ended question asked the editors to describe what, if anything, could be changed to enable them to make better use of their time. Forty-eight editors responded with one or more suggestions, some of them facetious (“an extra day could be added to the week”) but most serious; some had multiple suggestions. A majority of the editors cited a need for more staff or for additional resources in general; a total of 34 comments highlighted resource issues. Ten editors (20.8%) specifically mentioned a desire to be freed from some of their day-to-day editing and content production duties in order to think more broadly or strategically. “As a manager, I would appreciate less pressure on my time to edit content in order to provide more time to develop staff, improve the product and research new technology/ideas,” said one. Eleven editors (22.9%) expressed frustration with the amount of time they spent trying to get technology, including digital production tools, to work properly; at the time of the study, JP’s technical staff was still working out bugs and struggling to meet the deadline-driven demands of hundreds of papers from one central office. Other suggestions indicated more endemic issues. Seven comments related to excessive bureaucracy and/or inadequate administrative support; “with no secretary, PA or even assistant editor, much of the time I spend on form-filling could be better spent in other areas,” one editor wrote. Three highlighted a need for better communication, and two for training so they could effectively use what one editor described as “£35,000 worth of hi-tech paper weight (a digi[tal] newsroom suite) sitting in my office.” Communication Channels: Finally, editors were asked what communication channels they used to interact with various people, from individual staff members to corporate executives (see Table 3), an issue of central importance in the context of sharing both tacit and explicit knowledge. Responses were non-exclusive: Multiple channels could be indicated for each contact category. For communicating with others in their own company – both inside and outside the newsroom – face-to-face communication was the most heavily used; well over 90% of the editors indicated they talked with colleagues in person. E-mail was the most widely used channel for communicating with JP employees in different locations, as well as the second most widely used for communication within the news outlet itself. Telephone communication also was popular, particularly for communicating with people in other departments and other parts of the organization. None of the respondents used videoconferencing or instant messaging at all, and only one editor communicated via a newsroom blog. Again acknowledging that comparisons can only be preliminary given the nature of the data, editors with relatively larger staffs appear to use more communication channels favorable to sharing explicit knowledge, including e-mail, print newsletters and bulletin boards. Those in larger organizations also had more face-to-face contact with people in other parts of the company, including executives, and they communicated more at events. CONCLUSIONS and DISCUSSION The first research question asked how tacit knowledge, particularly regarding audiences and news products, affects editors’ perceptions about their own abilities to lead local newsrooms in transition. The findings indicate that they realized there was a lot they did not know, most notably about new audiences, resulting in considerable uncertainty about the best way to manage change. These veteran journalists had enormous individual and collective storehouses of tacit knowledge about what a community newspaper is and how to produce a good one for a particular kind of reader – knowledge that their responses suggest they were largely trying to apply more or less directly to a new media, social, and economic environment. But most also recognized that, in large measure, that strategy was not getting them where they or their company needed to go. How to constructively manage change is the crux of the problem they confront. Many thought an optimal approach would be simply to hire new staffers with different sorts of tacit knowledge to compensate for their own shortcomings; a wish for dedicated digital journalists to handle website content product clearly reflects this idea. However, they did not see such people as necessarily affecting newsroom socialization, as might occur if the different forms of tacit knowledge were actually shared (Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosière, 2001); rather, they seemed to see them as providing a complementary but distinct set of skills. In general, most editors did not envision the sort of resocialization that researchers have suggested can facilitate organizational change (Hart, Miller & Johnson, 2003). They were more likely to say they wanted more of the same kinds of resources they currently had – more people and more money, as well as more time to do the things they had long ago been socialized to see as journalistically important. The second research question asked about potential barriers to editors’ success in leading local newsrooms in transition. The findings again suggest these editors are strongly socialized to perceive their products, audiences, and social roles in traditional terms. They are focused on producing better journalism, defined as putting out a “good” news product – that is, a newspaper, which is what virtually all of their tacit knowledge enables them to do successfully. For the most part, they were cognitively willing to accept that the “newspaper” can be digital instead of printed on wood pulp. But they had not yet substantively begun the process of modifying their knowledge base to adapt to the change, at least as of the time of this study, which was conducted in advance of an intensive training workshop designed to help them do just that. As other scholars have suggested is commonly the case, cultural change had not accompanied the introduction of radical innovation (Hale & Whitlam, 1997; McDermott, 2000; Sviokla, 2000). Moreover, the findings suggest that, particularly in the smaller newsrooms, breaking out of the current strictures created by their own traditionally oriented tacit knowledge is going to require concerted effort. Most of their time goes into doing what they already know how to do, with little left over for building new knowledge -- and, in the open newsroom environments in which they work (Sveiby, 1996), passing what they know along to junior colleagues. Nor was there much evidence here that editors were enacting the middle-up-down model of management that researchers suggest is most appropriate for organizations in the business of producing information (Nonaka, 1988; 1990; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995); for instance, very little of their time was spent on “managing up.” Respondents’ reliance on face-to-face communication channels also suggests that tasks requiring new kinds of explicit knowledge, such as new technical know-how, may be difficult to integrate. Again, however, training such as the program on which respondents subsequently embarked are intended largely to enable them to create new know-how that can be translated into show-how (Roberts, 2000) in their own small organizations. Drawing on the SECI model described above, the sessions included discussion (the externalization mode of knowledge conversion, from tacit to explicit), presentation (explicit to explicit, the combination mode facilitated by such meetings) and hands-on training (explicit to tacit, the internalization mode; see Nonaka, Toyama, & Byosière, 2001). Follow-up work is needed to investigate how these newsroom managers’ views changed subsequent to the workshops and their return to their newsrooms to try to enact what they had learned. Also missing from the portrait presented here is information about staff perceptions of the ongoing changes. Other research has suggested that an emphasis on core journalistic concepts, such as the ones these editors expressed, may in fact be the best way to generate buy-in to change (Pollard, 1995; Daniels & Hollifield, 2002) and to avoid staff resentment (Gade, 2004) -- particularly as staffers typically are socialized to see their tasks and roles within a shared newsroom culture in the same way as their managers do (Breed, 1955). Further exploration is needed to broaden the perspectives highlighted here, which not only focus solely on editors but also are based on a small and non-random sample from within a single media company, with all the inherent shortcomings such research entails. In the meantime, we can say with certainty that change – and the uncertainty it brings -- is indeed a constant. The weekly editors studied here have conflicted views about the changes sweeping their industry, seeing them correctly as both an enormous opportunity and perhaps their biggest challenge. They know what they know -- and they know it is not enough to guarantee either their newsroom, where most of their attention is focused, or their company, of whose fortunes they were keenly aware, safe passage through the ongoing cultural upheavals and economic downturns. But that recognition is itself a vital step toward a future that is certain to look very different from the present. REFERENCES ABC. (2008). Newspaper data. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.abc.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5?runprog=nav/abc&noc=y Ahrens, F. (2007, 8 March). Big profits in small packages. Washington Post, p. D1. Retrieved 28 March 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/ AR2007030702408.html Bantz, C. R. (1985). News organizations: Conflict as a crafted cultural norm. Communication 8 (2): 225-244. Bradshaw, P. (2008, 13 February). Local online news is changing, but not fast enough. Online Journalism News (journalism.co.uk). Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.journalism.co.uk/6/articles/531022.php Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces 33 (December): 326-335. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organisational learning communities of practice: Towards a unified view of working, learning and organisation. Organisational Science 2 (1): 40-57. Daniels, G. L., & Hollifield, C. A. (2002). Times of turmoil: Short and long-term effects of organizational change on newsroom employees. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 79 (3): 661-680. de Bruin, M. (2000). Gender, organizational and professional identities in journalism. Journalism 1 (2): 217-238. Deuze, Mark. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism 6 (4): 442-464. Drucker, P. (1969). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines for our changing society. New York: Harpers & Row. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks Total Quality. Management Communication Quarterly 6 (4): 331-371. Fee, F. Jr. (2002, August). New(s) player and new(s) values? A test of convergence in the newsroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Miami Beach. Franklin, B. (2006). Attacking the devil? Local journalists and local newspapers in the UK. In Local journalism and local media: Making the local news (B. Franklin, ed.), pp. 3-15. London: Routledge. Gade, P. J. (2004). Newspapers and organizational development: Management and journalist perceptions of newsroom cultural change. Journalism & Communication Monographs 6 (1): 3-55. Gade, P. J., & Perry, E. L. (2003). Changing the newsroom culture: A four-year case study of organizational development at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80 (2): 327-347. Giles, R. (1995). Newsroom management: A guide to theory and practice. Detroit, MI: Media Management Books. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Why should anyone be led by you? What it takes to be an authentic leader. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Management Studies 43 (7): 1415-1436. Greenslade, R. (2008, 6 March). Learning the Johnston Press lessons. Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2008/03/ learning_the_johnston_press_le.html Hadwin, S. (2006). Real readers, real news: The work of a local newspaper editor. In Local journalism and local media: Making the local news (B. Franklin, ed.), pp. 140-161. London: Routledge. Hall, R., & Andriani, P. (2003). Managing knowledge associated with innovation. Journal of Business Research 56 (2): 145-152 Hale, R., & Whitlam, P. (1997). Towards the virtual organization. London: McGraw-Hill. Hart, Z. P., Miller, V. D., & Johnson, J. R. (2003). Socialization, resocialization and communication relationships in the context of an organizational change. Communication Studies 54 (winter): 483-495. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature. Organizational Science 2 (1): 88-115. Jasimuddin, S. M. (2004). Critical assessments of emerging theories of organizational knowledge. Paper presented at the 64th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans. Jasimuddin, S. M., Klein, J. H., & Connell, C. (2005). The paradox of using tacit and explicit knowledge: Strategies to face dilemmas. Management Decision 43 (1): 102-112. Johnston Press. (2008a). History. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.johnstonpress.co.uk/jpplc/aboutus/history/ Johnston Press. (2008b). Our business. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.johnstonpress.co.uk/jpplc/ourbusiness/ Johnston Press. (2008c, 5 March). Results for the year ended 31 December 2007. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.johnstonpress.co.uk/jpplc/uploads/ pressreleases/files/JP-Annual2007Final.pdf Killebrew, K. C. (2005). Managing media convergence: Pathways to journalistic cooperation. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing Professional. Kiss, J. (2008a, 28 February). Morning regionals all see sales fall. guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/28/ abcs.pressandpublishing Kiss, J. (2008b, 28 February). More ABC gloom outside England. guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/28/ abcs.pressandpublishing2 Kiss, J. (2007, 30 August). Local newspaper ABCs: Guess the trend … guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/ 2007/08/local_newspaper_abcs_guess_the.html Kramer, M. W., & Miller, V. D. (1999). A response to criticisms of organizational socialization research: In support of contemporary conceptualization of organization assimilation. Communication Monographs 66 (December): 358-367. Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (2000). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. In Knowledge, groupware and the Internet (D. E. Smith, ed.), pp. 281-301. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: Implementers’ targets, sources, and channels for communicating. Management Communication Quarterly 13 (1): 43-75. Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A. M., Stephens, K. K., & Weir, K. E. (2006). Advice on communicating during organizational change: The content of popular press books. Journal of Business Communication 43 (2): 113-137. McDermott, R. (2000). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. In Knowledge and communities (E. Lester, M. A. Fontaine, & J. A. Slusher, eds.): pp 21-35. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. McLellan, M., & Porter, T. (2007). News, improved: How America’s newsrooms are learning to change. Washington: CQ Press. McLeod, J. M., & Hawley, S. E. Jr. (1964). Professionalization among newsmen. Journalism Quarterly 41 (winter): 529-538. McNally, P. (2008, 5 March). Profit dip for regional press giant Johnston. pressgazette.co.uk. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=40487 MediaGuardian.co.uk. (2008, 7 March). ABCs at a glance. Retrieved 28 March 2008 from: http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/table/0,,2263387,00.html Mokyr, J. (2002). The gifts of Athena: Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Murphy, A. (1846). The works of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. New York: Alexander V. Blake. Nel, F. (2006, 27 October). Dive into digital exposes need for modern skills. Press Gazette Training Supplement, pp. 12-14. Newspaper Society. (2008, 1 January). Top 20 regional press publishers (circulation). Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=14 Newspaper Society. (2007, 1 October). Breakdown: Titles by type. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=1920 Newspaper Society. (2006). Readership & Coverage. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from: http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=897 Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96-104. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science 5: 14-37. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosière, P. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka, eds.): pp. 491-517. New York: Oxford University Press. Pavlik. J. (2000). The impact of technology on journalism. Journalism Studies 1 (2): 229-237. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2008, March 17). Financial woes now overshadow all other concerns for journalists. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=403 Pollard, G. (1995). Job satisfaction among newsworkers: The influence of professionalism, perceptions of organizational structure, and social attributes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72 (3): 682-697. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company. Poynter Institute. (2006, 16-19 May). Leadership for Online News Managers. St. Petersburg, FL: Poynter Institute. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review 68 (3): 79-91. Press Gazette. (2007a, 18 May). Hiding the heartbreak behind the regional revenue decline. Retrieved 20 March from: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=37563 Press Gazette. (2007b, 10 September). Online growth fails to offset print fall. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=38738 Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2008a). Newspapers: Intro. The State of the News Media 2008. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/ narrative_newspapers_intro.php?media=4 Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2008b). Overview: Intro. The State of the News Media 2008. Retrieved 23 March 2008 from: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/ narrative_overview_intro.php?media=1 Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 12 (4): 429-443. Quinn. S. (2002). Knowledge management in the digital newsroom. Oxford: Focal Press. Schaffer, J. (2007). Citizen media: Fad or the future of news? College Park, MD: J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism. Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism 2 (2): 149-170. Singer, J. B. (2004). More than ink-stained wretches: The resocialization of print journalists in converged newsrooms. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81 (4): 838-856. Smith, E. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge Management 5 (4): 311-321. Smith, H., & McKeen, J. D. (2003). Knowledge transfer: Can KM make it happen? WR 03-05, Queens Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises. Retrieved 24 March 2008 from: http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson_old/docs/working/working_03-05.pdf Smith, P. (2008, 28 February). Regional ABCs: Marginal 1.6 per cent drop in paid-for weekly sales. pressgazette.co.uk. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=40457&c=1 Stafford, P. (2008, 6 March). Johnston Press blames adverts decline on ‘economic adversity.’ Financial Times. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.ft.com/ cms/s/0/f0b1d29c-eb1f-11dc-a5f4-0000779fd2ac.html Sveiby, K-E. (1996). Transfer of knowledge and the information processing professions. European Management Journal 14 (4): 379-388. Sviokla, J. J. (2000). Knowledge workers and radically new technology. In Knowledge, groupware and the Internet (D. E. Smith, ed.), pp. 89-117. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift: Knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge of the 21st century. New York: Bantam Books. Wainwright, M. (2008, 3 March). Local heroes. Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2008 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/03/pressandpublishing.abcs Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review 16 (1): 57-91. Williams, A., & Franklin, B. (2007). Turning Around the Tanker: Implementing Trinity Mirror’s Online Strategy. Cardiff: Cardiff University. Retrieved 21 July 2008 from: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2007/03/13/Cardiff.Trinity.pdf Williams, G. (2006). Profits before product? Ownership and economics of the local press. In Local journalism and local media: Making the local news (B. Franklin, ed.), pp. 83-92. London: Routledge. Zelizer, B. (2004). Taking journalism seriously: News and the academy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Table 1a: “What’s Keeping You Up at Night?” Editors were asked to indicate what worried them about working in a changing media environment. A total of 54 editors responded to this question. The ‘n’ for each item and its percentage of the total for this question are indicated below. Issue Not a concern Small concern Medium concern Big concern Very big concern N/A Digital Immigrant: How do I learn to think ‘outside the box,’ and help my staff to do so, when everything is so new to most of us? 12 (22.2%) 7 (13%) 19 (35.2%) 10 (18.5%) 5 (9.3%) 1 (1.9%) Future Shock: Will I be able to manage and successful integrate the next wave of innovation, and the next, and the next… 6 (11.1%) 9 (16.7%) 16 (29.6%) 18 (33.3%) 4 (7.4%) 1 (1.9%) Change Mania: I’m not certain where we’re going, so how can I lead others there? 15 (27.8%) 12 (22.2%) 18 (33.3%) 5 (9.3%) 3 (5.6%) 1 (1.9%) Fear of Failing: Winning is great, but how can I lead a team when things don’t go to plan? 14 (25.9%) 23 (42.6%) 13 (24.1%) 2 (3.7%) 1 (1.9%) 1 (1.9%) Life in the Fast Lane: Can we realistically handle the 24/7 world, given our resource limits? 1 (1.9%) 4 (7.4%) 7 (13%) 20 (37%) 20 (37%) 2 (3.7%) Training Wheels: How can I help myself and my staff acquire the skills we need? 4 (7.4%) 12 (22.2%) 21 (38.9%) 12 (22.2%) 5 (9.3%) 0 Herding Cats: Journalists tend to want to go their own way. How can I lead them in the direction we want to go? 13 (24.1%) 24 (44.4%) 13 (24.1%) 1 (1.9%) 3 (5.6%) 0 Saying the Right Thing: We’re professional communicators, so how come we’re so lousy at communicating with one another? 12 (22.2%) 17 (31.5%) 15 (27.8%) 6 (11.1%) 3 (5.6%) 1 (1.9%) Playing Nicely: How can I help prevent our newsroom from being harmed by competition and conflict? 11 (20.4%) 24 (44.4%) 11 (20.4%) 4 (7.4%) 4 (7.4%) 0 Credibility Crunch: How do we make ethical decisions when public service and commercial goals collide? 18 (33.3%) 20 (37%) 11 (20.4%) 4 (7.4%) 1 (1.9%) 0 Managing Innovation: How do we successfully implement creative ideas? 9 (16.7%) 10 (18.5%) 27 (50%) 7 (13%) 1 (1.9%) 0 Telling the Story: Has the basic journalistic mission gotten lost along the path to change? 13 (24.1%) 17 (31.5%) 15 (27.8%) 5 (9.3%) 4 (7.4%) 0 Thinking Like a User: Are we adequately taking the audience into account when making news decisions? 1 (1.9%) 10 (18.5%) 23 (42.6%) 12 (22.2%) 7 (13%) 1 (1.9%) Minding the Market: Do I know enough about my online audience to create a product they’ll want? 0 3 (5.6%) 15 (27.8%) 21 (38.9%) 14 (25.9%) 1 (1.9%) One Size Fits All: How can I best serve my unique market within our large and diverse company? 4 (7.4%) 10 (18.5%) 27 (50%) 8 (14.8%) 5 (9.3%) 0 Technical Twists: Will our tools and technology be able to support our innovative ideas? 2 (3.7%) 7 (13%) 18 (33.3%) 11 (20.4%) 13 (24.1%) 3 (5.6%) Killing the Golden Goose: Are we sacrificing our core print product to bolster the shakier one? 6 (11.1%) 11 (20.4%) 15 (27.8%) 16 (29.6%) 6 (11.1%) 0 Show Me More Money: What are the future revenue opportunities – and how long do we have to realise them? 4 (7.4%) 14 (25.9%) 18 (33.3%) 12 (22.2%) 6 (11.1%) 0 Talk Is Cheap: how committed is the company to real change, even if it hurts the bottom line along the way? 4 (7.4%) 18 (33.3%) 14 (25.9%) 8 (14.8%) 10 (18.5%) 0 Strategic Thinking: Do we, as a company, really know where we are headed and how to get there? 5 (9.3%) 17 (31.5%) 17 (31.5%) 10 (18.5%) 4 (7.4%) 1 (1.9%) Table 1b: “What’s Keeping You Up at Night?” Big concerns by staff size Big or very big concerns for editors with small staffs (under 15 reporting to the editor) and larger staffs (16 or more reporting to the editor) are shown here. Issue Big or very big concern 15 or fewer staff (total n = 36) Big or very big concern 16 or more staff (total n = 18) Digital Immigrant: How do I learn to think ‘outside the box,’ and help my staff to do so, when everything is so new to most of us? 10 (27.8%) 5 (27.8%) Future Shock: Will I be able to manage and successful integrate the next wave of innovation, and the next, and the next… 18 (50%) 4 (22.2%) Change Mania: I’m not certain where we’re going, so how can I lead others there? 8 (22.2%) 0 Fear of Failing: Winning is great, but how can I lead a team when things don’t go to plan? 2 (5.6%) 1 (5.6%) Life in the Fast Lane: Can we realistically handle the 24/7 world, given our resource limits? 30 (83.3%) 10 (55.6%) Training Wheels: How can I help myself and my staff acquire the skills we need? 11 (30.6%) 6 (33.3%) Herding Cats: Journalists tend to want to go their own way. How can I lead them in the direction we want to go? 3 (8.3%) 1 (5.6%) Saying the Right Thing: We’re professional communicators, so how come we’re so lousy at communicating with one another? 7 (19.4%) 2 (11.1%) Playing Nicely: How can I help prevent our newsroom from being harmed by competition and conflict? 5 (13.9%) 3 (16.7%) Credibility Crunch: How do we make ethical decisions when public service and commercial goals collide? 3 (8.3%) 2 (11.1%) Managing Innovation: How do we successfully implement creative ideas? 6 (16.7%) 2 (11.1%) Telling the Story: Has the basic journalistic mission gotten lost along the path to change? 9 (25%) 0 Thinking Like a User: Are we adequately taking the audience into account when making news decisions? 14 (38.9%) 5 (27.8%) Minding the Market: Do I know enough about my online audience to create a product they’ll want? 22 (61.1%) 13 (72.2%) One Size Fits All: How can I best serve my unique market within our large and diverse company? 7 (19.4%) 6 (33.3%) Technical Twists: Will our tools and technology be able to support our innovative ideas? 13 (36.1%) 11 (61.1%) Killing the Golden Goose: Are we sacrificing our core print product to bolster the shakier one? 17 (47.2%) 5 (27.8%) Show Me More Money: What are the future revenue opportunities – and how long do we have to realise them? 10 (27.8%) 8 (44.4%) Talk Is Cheap: How committed is the company to real change, even if it hurts the bottom line along the way? 11 (30.6%) 7 (38.9%) Strategic Thinking: Do we, as a company, really know where we are headed and how to get there? 9 (25%) 5 (27.8%) Table 2: Time spent in “a typical day” A total of 52 editors responded to this question; all of them indicated the size of their newsroom staffs. Responses were aggregated and then averaged to produce the following collective portrait. The first column of percentages shows the overall average. The second column shows the average for editors with staffs of 15 journalists or fewer, and the third column shows the average for editors with staffs of 16 or more journalists. In a typical day, editors said they spend their time on … Overall (n = 52) Smaller staffs (n = 37) Larger staffs (n = 15) Developing and editing content 52.7% 55% 47.1% Dealing with staff and personnel issues 9.7% 7.4% 15.5% Meeting or talking with people in other company departments 9% 9% 9% Wrestling with technology 6.2% a 9.3% 5.1% Planning for the future 5.6% 4.7% 7.8% Meeting or talking with audience members (readers / users) 5.4% 5.8% 4.2% Meeting or talking with people outside the company 2.9% 3.2% 2.4% Managing up 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% Meeting or talking with people in other parts of Johnston Press 1.9% 1.8% 2.1% Learning new skills / training 2% 1.8% 2.5% Other 2.2% b 2.1% 2.4% Percentages add up to more than 100% due primarily to rounding. In addition, five math-challenged editors provided totals that added up to 95%, 98%, 105% or 110%; their responses are simply included in the total. a One editor indicated, we hope jokingly, that 100% of his time was spent wrestling with technology. As he also provided estimates for the other options – making his total time spent 200% -- his “technology” response has been omitted here but his other responses retained. b “Other” responses included resolving physical infrastructure issues, from toilets to lighting problems; filling in for absent co-workers; and coping with e-mail. One editor allocated precisely 6% of his time to “dealing with life in general.” Table 3: Communication channels Editors were asked to indicate how they communicated with other people within the company but at varying physical or organizational “distance.” They could choose multiple channels for each category of communication partners. Fifty-one editors responded to this question; 37 had 15 or fewer journalists reporting to them and 14 had 16 or more staffers. The top (non-italicized) line for each channel shows overall response; the two italicized lines below it indicate responses by newsroom size. The ‘n’ of respondents for each item and its percentage of the total of respondents for that item are shown. Channel Individual staff Your team Whole newsroom People in other departments of paper People in other parts of company Corporate personnel, including executives Face to face 50 (98%) 47 (92.2%) 49 (96.1%) 47 (92.2%) 21 (41.2%) 26 (51%) Small staff 37 (100%) 34 (91.9%) 36 (97.3%) 33 (89.2%) 13 (35.1%) 17 (45.9%) Large staff 13 (92.9%) 13 (92.9%) 13 (92.9%) 14 (100%) 8 (57.1%) 9 (64.3%) E-mail 40 (78.4%) 37 (72.5%) 39 (76.5%) 44 (86.3%) 51 (100%) 47 (92.2%) Small staff 27 (73%) 25 (67.6%) 28 (75.7%) 32 (86.5%) 37 (100%) 35 (94.6%) Large staff 13 (92.9%) 12 (85.7%) 11 (78.6%) 12 (85.7%) 14 (100%) 12 (85.7%) Telephone / teleconference 18 (35.3%) 10 (19.6%) 12 (23.5%) 27 (52.9%) 27 (52.9%) 19 (37.3%) Small staff 13 (35.1%) 8 (21.6%) 10 (27%) 20 (54%) 20 (54.1%) 15 (40.5%) Large staff 5 (35.7%) 2 (14.3%) 2 (14.3%) 7 (50%) 7 (50%) 4 (28.6%) Bulletin boards 7 (13.7%) 11 (21.6%) 13 (25.5%) 8 (15.7%) 5 (9.8%) 1 (2%) Small staff 3 (8.1%) 5 (13.5%) 5 (13.5) 1 (2.7%) 2 (5.4%) - Large staff 4 (28.6%) 6 (42.9%) 8 (57.1%) 7 (50%) 3 (21.4%) 1 (7.1%) Events 4 (7.8%) 6 (11.8%) 5 (9.8%) 5 (9.8%) 12 (23.5%) 13 (25.5%) Small staff 3 (8.1%) 3 (8.1%) 3 (8.1%) 3 (8.1%) 7 (18.9%) 8 (21.6%) Large staff 1 (7.1%) 3 (21.4%) 2 (14.3%) 2 (14.3%) 5 (35.7%) 5 (35.7%) E-newsletter 5 (9.8%) 4 (7.8%) 5 (9.8%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) Small staff 2 (5.4%) 2 (5.4%) 3 (8.1%) - - 1 (2.7%) Large staff 3 (21.4%) 2 (14.3%) 2 (14.3%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (7.1%) - Print newsletter 1 (2%) 3 (5.9%) 3 (5.9%) 3 (5.9%) - - Small staff - - - - - - Large staff 1 (7.1%) 3 (21.4%) 3 (21.4%) 3 (21.4%) - - Blog 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) - - - Small staff 1 (2.7%) 1 (2.7%) 1 (2.7%) - - - Large staff - - - - - - “Internet / videoconference” and “instant messaging” also were listed on the questionnaire as communication channel options. No editors indicated any use of these. Managing Change: 1