Developing creative management practices for public service media:

The importance of culture change

Micha Gowacki
University of Warsaw, Poland
(Draft, please do not quote)

ABSTRACT: New ecosystems of media, characterized by the growing role of participatory

networks, wikis and sociallyengaged mediamaking call traditional public service media
(PSM) enterprises to adapt to the dynamic and fastchanging digital environments. Studies
which have already identified a need for largescale organizational restructuring and
adaptation to technological and societal changes mostly look at challenges for PSM enterprise
in relation to its external relationships without considering internal economic, industrial, and
cultural structures. The latter can boost creativity and encourage a can do climate and thus
might contribute to the companys growth, effectiveness and innovation. This paper is to take
a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to apply the concept of organizational culture to
contemporary studies on PSM. The goal is to present framework for organizational culture
analysis, with the special emphasis on the role of values, structures and leaders. In a
mediascape increasingly characterized by multiplatform projects and transmedia forms it is of
high importance to ask whether traditional corporate structures remain relevant and ask what
institutional, leadership, and managerial models would be more relevant in order to maintain
the public media project for the 21st century. All of this when maintaining shifts and change of
PSM organizational culture, in which creative ideas from employees and the public can
flourish.
Keywords: public service media, organizational culture, values, norms, organizational
structures, leadership, management
Introduction
New ecosystems of media, characterized by the growing role of participatory networks
(Facebook, YouTube, Twitter), wikis (Wikipedia), online gaming, the rise of mobile devices,
sociallyengaged mediamaking and the effects of distributed innovation call traditional
media outlets (including broadcasting organizations) to adapt to the dynamic and fast
changing digital environment. On the surface public service media (PSM) would seem ideally
placed to thrive in the online and digital mediascapes which privilege open production
systems, accountability, responsiveness, transparency and collaboration with publics who
have become more active in terms of content production and distribution. One of the
challenges faced by supporters of the PSM enterprise is therefore how public service media
outlets might adapt into forwardlooking structures able to offer media and any associated
information or activities to suit the diversified reception preferences of audiences and
engagers. In addition, competitive media markets require public service media to keep pace
with commercial firms, as well as changes in the overall relationship between producers and
users; specifically greater consideration of the inclusion of publics in governance issues and
the potential harvesting of ideas from creative individuals.

However, in many countries public service media have been criticized for a lack of
independence from government, bias and the fact that PSM firms see websites as a bolt on
to television and radio, or as a means of marketing what is increasingly referred to broadcast
media. PSMs which originated in the preInternet era of the early 20th Century were
organized as rigid structures and traditionally separated genres of media (television from radio
for example); different departments were responsible for their own respective budgets, and
discipline skills were compartmentalized. This approach fails to address deeper
organizational, managerial and cultural shifts which may be necessary to retain relevancy in
the era of collaborative media (Lowgren and Reimer, 2013), creative publics (Anderson,
2012) and the culture of connectivity (Van Dijck, 2013), where making is connecting
(Gauntlett, 2011).
Several policymaking initiatives and studies have recently identified a need for large
scale organizational restructuring and openingup PSM to the publics (see for instance
Nissen, 2006; Clark and Aufderheide, 2009; Jakubowicz, 2008, 2010; Council of Europe,
2012a; 2012b; Bennett et al., 2012). Although there have been studies by Kng (2008), Lowe
(2010), Nissen (2013; 2014), Gowacki and Jackson (2014), EBU (2014) and Krichels
(2014),), who have looked at emerging approaches to creativity, identity, innovation and/or
management structures, there have been few attempts to examine challenges for PSM
enterprise in line with its organizational culture. With the exception of a longitudinal
production study by Born (2005) conducted in relation to daily activity within a small range
of BBC departments, the organizational culture of European PSMs has not been the subject of
a systemic investigation. Since organizational culture might be framed as a part of
organizational DNA (Govindarajan and Trimble, 2005) and a system of social control which
orchestrates and coordinates the performance of every enterprise (Tushman and OReilly,
1997), its examination in the everyday running of a PSM outlet becomes crucial.
This paper is to take a holistic and multidisciplinary approach in order to look at
challenges currently faced by public service media organizations in Europe from the
perspective of their organizational cultures. The study aims to underline the importance of
organizational culture in the evolution of public service media going forward and to propose
multilayered analytical prism based on embedded cultural norms and practices as well as the
role of leadership and organizational structures. Discussions presented here are likely to
indicate how evolved public service media might be, and how their organizational cultures
compare with other organizations such as Google, Wikipedia and YouTube. Given the
complexity of approaches and specific organizational characteristics of PSM enterprise
(structure, size of organization, span of control, history, etc.) the salient questions to be
addressed are: What are the main factors for the analysis of PSM organizational culture?
What are the role existing values, traditions, norms and patterns of behavior in contemporary
public service media enterprise? Does the current corporate structures of PSM are capable to
foster change and evolution of PSM towards more competitive and result-oriented? What are
the ways to improve performance of public service media outlets in the fast-changing media
and society? What are the challenges for PSM managers and leaders when maintaining
organizational culture today? Is there anything that public service media could learn from
examples from other industries (participatory and user-generated media)? What are the
current barriers to change?
The hypothesis is that the current corporate structures of European public service
media are less likely to be suitable for a networked society. However, the prognosis is
optimistic as technological developments and changing audience behaviors provide
opportunities if organizational cultures of public media also evolve in order to become fit for
the digital era.

Defining organizational culture

The complexity of approaches possible in examining organizational culture has been
underlined for years. The concept that first emerged in the 1970s and 1980s became one of the
most influential and controversial in management research and practice. The problems with
operationalizing and examining organizational culture relate to the fact that there are different
perceptions of culture and the ways on how it might be manifested. Bearing in mind the
complexity of approaches no fit-to-all conceptualization has been or can be applied.
In the literature on management and theoretical orientations connected with
organizational culture it is clear the phenomenon is sociallyconstructed, and can be
understood as the philosophy and way of doing things in a given enterprise; it might be
understood as a social context that affects the way people behave (Albrecht, 1987: 50). The
concept of organizational culture includes artifacts (visible organizational structures and
processes), values, beliefs, assumptions and perceptions shared by people in a given
organization as well as norms standards and behaviors (Ott, 1989; Schein, 2004; Luecke,
2013). Additional dimensions for organizational culture analysis often include critical
decisions of funding members, guiding ideas (directions for thinking and behavior), heroes,
practices as well as remembered history and symbolism (Hofstede, 1991; Smith and Vecchio,
2007: 493). Organizational culture cannot exist independently from people who create it;
people and relationships are the essence of culture (Haasen and Shea, 2003).
Difficulties when elaborating on universal approach to organizational culture often
derived from different culture determinants, the existence of subcultures, and different
contextual factors, including national culture, gender distribution, power distance (Hofstede,
1991; Luecke, 2013). Organizational cultures might be visible and non-visible (Andriopolous
and Dawson, 2009), strong and weak (Ott, 1989), adaptive vs. unadaptive (Schein, 1999).
Organizational culture relates to both formal and informal power structures, but also formal
and informal relationships. In addition to informal processes is often created by
institutionalized management systems (rewards, information systems, planning system,
training system) as well as written policies, mission statements, codes of professional
conducts, and so on (Smith and Veccio, 2007; Gowacki, 2014). Each organizational culture is
unique, deep and broad (Schein, 1999). In line with this, there is no agreement whether
organizational culture is something that organization has or is (Hofstede, 1991). More
controversies appear when asking about the extent to which organizational culture can be
managed and/or changed.
The purpose of organizational culture is to provide members with a sense of identity,
and to generate the commitment to beliefs and values that are larger than themselves (Daft,
1989: 503); culture provides an effective way of controlling and coordinating people without
elaborate and rigid formal control systems (Tushman and OReilly: 28). It has an impact on
abilities, skills and behaviors in a given enterprise (Govindarajan and Trimble, 2005). In this
way organizational culture reflects the everyday life and practices inherent with a company.
Overall, organizational culture has a profound impact on organizational behavior which can
be both negative or positive. Organizational culture together with organizational strategy
can boost creativity, encourage a can do climate, and thus contribute to companys growth,
effectiveness and innovation (Deschamps, 2008). As argued by Andriopolous and Dawson
(2009: 257): If sustained creativity and innovation is to occur in organizations, it has to
happen at the cultural level.
In the era of post-industrial businesses, new participatory and resultoriented
structures (typified by the increasing re-distribution of power with a blending of professional
production) are beginning to be foregrounded. Open, democratized and bottom-up innovation
(Chesbrough, 2006; Von Hippel, 2006; Anderson, 2012) based on participation, co-creation

creates an ongoing need for creativity, is more likely to happen in organic structures and often
requires new skills and competencies for staff working in a given enterprise. Whether the
organization is open or closed, accepting of new ideas, or risk averse, likely to indicate the
nature of the organizational culture at play. According to Haasen and Shea (2003), nowadays
there is a need to maintain new organizational cultures, which shall be based on people and
human relationships and shall further develop entrepreneurial spirit, a sense of ownership and
managerial skills that motivate employees and lead to the personal growth; A new or
enhanced organizational culture must be organic in nature-simple, basic and close to human
values (Haasen and Shea: 3).
This has been clearly the case in digital ecosystems of media, where making things has
become interactive, user-centric, fragmented and individualized. As noted by Anderson
(2012: 66): The rise of Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, and all the others like them is nothing
less than a massive attention shift from the commercial content companies of the twentieth
century to the amateur content companies of the twenty-first. Several online media
companies, including Wikipedia, Google and YouTube have demonstrated successful
examples of strategies strategies and processes likely to foster development, effectiveness,
and risktaking. Google is a private company which promotes high motivation, alongside a
culture that embraces both youth and an acceptance of failure as being a developmental stage
towards eventual success. Due to several innovations in human resources, customers relations
and production Google has been regarded as a new enterprise archetype in which there is
a room for experimentation (Girard, 2009). Much can be said about Googles key factors for
cusses and approaches for being innovation machine starting from 20 per cent rule which
allows employees to take one day a week to work on side project to the development of
infrastructure, business strategies, atmosphere at work and lifestyle. Flat structures and group
culture cultivated in Mountain View-based Googleplex further support specific decision
making, where there are almost no individual decisions and leaders and managers are actively
involved in the daily work on the projects. The question is, of course, how far the Silicon
Valley model for innovation can travel and whether existing media companies could learn
lessons from the experience of one of the most successful media organizations today?
(Gowacki, 2014).
Implications for public service media
Culture matters; it is of critical importance for public service media enterprise which is tasked
to deliver culture as a part of its remit. In fact, PSM might be treated as cultural institution
serving artistic achievements and cultural needs of national (and local) communities as well as
building and sustaining proper relationships with other cultural institutions (such as theatres,
museums, galleries) and independent producers. Above all, in order to fill society with culture
it is important that PSMs cultivate and maintain it from the organizational point of view.
Public service media organizations exist in very different, national circumstances.
Thus, speaking about organizational cultures in PSMs is difficult due to different traditions,
national regulatory frameworks, history (including age of company), funding schemes, and
conditions under which public service media enterprises were created. The complexity of
approaches might be also observed when taking into account the size of a company, the level
of formalization, span of control and accountability structures. However, organizational
cultures of PSM are currently being exposed to a number of profound and similar features in
different social architectures. This includes, above all, commitment to professional standards
and values, age of a company as well as characteristics of the 20th Century enterprise.
Firstly then, public service media outlets have evolved highly entrenched traditions,
values, norms, and assumptions. These can be identified in formal arrangements, such as

mission statements, professional standards, written policies, in-house codes of ethics, and so
on. Principles and self-regulatory mechanisms attached to public service media are rather
universal; a need for independence, autonomy and openness contribute to the holistic picture
of cultural norms, values, structures and interactions that may have emerged within the
company over time (habits, routines, unwritten understandings of the roles and behaviors in
organizations). Study conducted within international research project Media Accountability
and Transparency (MediaAcT) in twelve European countries has recently proven that media
professionals from public service media attached relatively high attention to being responsible
towards professional standards and values. In addition, they expressed more positive attitude
to transparency of professional codes and mission statements than their colleagues from
private media. At the same time the role of managers in supporting high standards and media
responsiveness (responding to users comments and criticism, collaboration with the public in
news production) in different journalism cultures were assessed as being moderate and/or low
(Gowacki, forthcoming).
Secondly, although many PSM firms have been successful in the extension and
modernization of operations mobile devices and HD TV, the ability to communicate and
engage with the active online users has not always proven to be the case (Gowacki and
Jackson, 2014). One of the reasons for this has been connected to management structures and
outdated systems of governance. In fact, public service media today is an entity which is
between two models; the broadcast/ industrial and network/ postindustrial paradigm
sometimes successfully blending both, but often finding adjustment to such potential
hybridity problematic. Although there is a willingness to embrace emerging postindustrial
opportunities demonstrated by strategic reorganizations, prototyping and collaborations
with independent producers the concept of PSM is still rooted in ideas from the past, having
the characteristics of a typical industrialized enterprise, that is being based on mass
production, the mechanization of production, a pyramid of power, mechanistic structure and
related hierarchy of management (Gowacki and Jackson, 2013).
In addition to this, Christian Nissen (2014), a former Director General of the Danish
public service media enterprise, has recently acknowledged the existence of two separate
cultures in public service media, firstly that of contentmakers and secondly that of managers.
Nissen argues (2014: 81) that for many years PSMs have encountered a cultural dichotomy, in
which managers and creative content makers have been living in separate worlds, very often
with conflicting goals and values, making it difficult to establish unifying strategies and
operational clarity. By underlining the shift power balance from the monopoly to market
competition in the history of PSM, Nissen (2014) further calls for the development of a new
organizational culture, suitable for the digital age.
In the discussions on organizational culture of PSM in a mediascape increasingly
characterized by multiplatform projects and transmedia forms one might ask what
institutional, leadership, and managerial models would be more relevant in order to maintain
the fabric of the PSM project for the 21st century. The goal is to find a balance between
novelty and tradition and to further maintain those elements of the culture that continue to be
adaptive and relate to the organizations success and effectiveness. For mature companies,
such as PSM firms, the goal is to identify those cultural elements that might be increasingly
dysfunctional as external environmental conditions change. As noted by Schein (1999: 143)
The culture that the organization acquired during its early years is now taken for granted.
Any change shall be related to structures, people and processes; the overall goal is to maintain
organic culture that motivates (Haasen and Shea, 2003).

PSM culture in change

There is no doubt that solutions at Google or Wikipedia might not be adopted everywhere; it
might be even more harder to make them fully transmitted to the functioning of public media
enterprises. Searching for culture in flow or in change for PSMs requires a holistic
approach, underlining possible shifts, opportunities and obstacles.
A need for transformation of organizational culture and leadership style in public
service media has been recently noted by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU, 2014).
One of the recommendations of the Vision2020 report on adaptation of public service
media to a networked society calls PSM enterprises to [d]evelop a corporate culture that
supports public values, interaction, and partnerships. Invest in changing mindsets and training
your [public service media MG] employees to become more flexible, agile, communicative
and service-oriented (EBU, 2014: 26). By underlining the importance of culture change EBU
(2014) underlines a need for establishing mechanisms supporting staff motivation as well as
changes in the managerial processes from top-down approaches to inspiration, delegation,
diversity in the process of managing PSMs. In the same vein Krichels (2014) notes the
critical importance of organizational culture when analyzing challenges for public service
media in the United States. In a report entitled Public Media Models of the Future he
stresses that [o]rganizational culture is about creating the right environment to successfully
implement new initiatives, make shifts in direction, and positively impact the local
community (Krichels, 2014: 18). This recommendation goes in line with other challenges
facing public service media today, including strategy and planning, governance and
leadership, resource allocation as well as organizational capabilities (Krichels, 2014).
Although it would be worth exploring the meaning and usage of all these approaches
in the context of PSM, this is not the place to engage in such an inspiring exercise. The focus
must remain organizational culture and its interplay with organizational conditions, such as
structures, leadership style and understanding of a need for change.
(Re)shaping structures of PSM
Interplay between organizational culture and structure has been examined by studies on
management for years. In addition to conceptualizations making attempts to identify key
issues of organizational structures, such as work specialization, departamentalization, span of
control, centralization vs. decentralization and formalization (Andriopolous and Dawson,
2009), researchers have created several typologies. In addition to groundbreaking studies by
Mintzberg (1983) structures have been analyzed as being flat, tall or (most recently) also fluid
(Hargadon, 2003). Govindarajan and Trimble (2010: 121) refer to traditional
conceptualization of mechanistic systems (bureaucracies) based on mass production and
organic ones, defined in line with network structure of control, authority and communication.
They claim that, although organic structures are still stratified, hierarchy does not play
important role; the emphasis is on people.
Public service media, which were created as bureaucratic organizations in the previous
century, are now being challenged by new ways to organize a company in order to make it
more agile, flexible, adaptable and organic. The questions are whether the current
organizations are committed to systematically redesigning its structures and processes and
make PSM innovation-friendly and what kind of solutions could be addressed to explore the
value of networked organizational structure? Perhaps one of the biggest challenges for public
service media is the aggregation of previously autonomous departments and offering a room
for collaboration between different PSM units and disciplines. The other goal is to delegate

decision-making and to limit a vertical hierarchy with a command structure which is less
open to or capable of change (Gowacki and Jackson, 2014: 282).

The role of leaders and managers
Literature on management and organizational culture is full of ideas and recommendations on
the roles leaders might play. Although, no agreement has been made to what extend
organizational culture might be managed, leaders and managers influence culture, structure
and resources that are likely to affect the generation and implementation of ideas within an
organization (Andriopolous and Dawson, 2009: 198). Maintaining the culture is one of the
best things a leader can do to encourage serendipity (Brafman and Pollack, 2013: 189). As
further noted by Ashby (1999: 93): culture change starts at the top; by demonstrating the
vision of the future, setting the directions, celebrating achievements and motivating people,
leaders and managers of public service media can actively contribute to the development of
highly supportive culture and working environment where creative activities both from staff
and individuals from the outside of PSM company can flourish.
In the context of change management techniques and the fostering of an innovation
culture in public service media one of the biggest goals for leaders and managers is to prepare
organization for change. This might require the diagnosis of current leadership styles,
recruitment procedures as well as learning of new skills, improvement of internal
communication systems and evolution from traditional leadership towards more collaborative.
All of this when supporting stakeholder engagement and entrepreneurial culture of the
organization, which encourages initiatives, experimentation and risk taking (Deschamps,
2008: 18). The aim would be to identify bottomup approaches to management, and
practices which proactively develop a supportive innovation culture in addition to top
down activities which are more likely to be initiated by management in response to
strategies.
Understanding a need for change
Luecke (2003: 117) argues that Cultural change is the most difficult type of change []To
change the organizations culture people must be motivated and induced to think and act
differently. Thus, all the challenges and proposals for organizational cultures of PSM
dependent on the willingness of PSMs to evolve, which is in turn dependent on having a
suitable organizational culture to support such moves. The aim is therefore to stimulate a
willingness to evolve, identify possible barriers for change and assist leaders of public media
firms to develop skills and competencies connected with change management. Still question is
how to move from an understanding of a need to change into implementing company change?
Conclusions
Current changes in the media market and society call public service media enterprise to adapt
to new conditions. Strategies, recommendation and future models for PSMs put the emphasis
on adaptation to societal and technological change, often neglecting the micro-level
perspective and the role of leadership and organizational culture. Since the latter might be
understood as organizational DNA and way of doing things, it might contribute to public
medias growth, effectiveness and innovation. This in turn can help to deliver traditional
PSM obligations in the times when production and consumption blends.

The concept of organization culture is complex; each company has its own
organizational culture, which is shaped by values, beliefs, artifacts, processes and behaviors.
In the case of public service media it was created and further developed in the 20th Century as
vertical, compartmentalized, corporate culture. Although PSMs operate in different social and
cultural architectures they are nowadays being exposed to a number of profound and similar
features, including the age of a company as well as characteristics of the industrial enterprise.
Traditional public media cultures are being challenged by network practices and successful
examples of organic cultures in the sector of participatory and user-generated media-making.
The aim is not to transmit directly the solutions observed at Google or Wikipedia; the goal is
to find a balance between novelty and tradition. Although no one is going to provide a clear
solution on how public media should be managed and/or organized, some shifts (and changes)
in organizational cultures might be of high importance here. This include, for instance,
making organizational structures more flexible, adaptable and agile, evolution from traditional
top-down leadership to more collaborative and, last but not least, the understanding of a need
for change. All of this when maintaining high standards, values and ethos of public service
media enterprise.
In-depth examination of evolving organizational cultures of PSM is critical but also of
high risk. The aim is to find a way to establish research approach, something of high potential
value also for leaders, managers and producers of PSM. The complexity of approaches
underlined here would require multiple research methodologies, clear definition of
organizational cultures parameters, understanding of embedded norms and practices as well
as study on relations between culture, resources, strategies, leadership styles and processes.
Research on organizational cultures in PSM could start with the examination of grey
literature associated with the everyday leadership, management, and production of PSM
(such as mission statements, inhouse codes of conducts, policy documents, and so son) as
well as organizational charts of a given public service media company. Bearing in mind that
looking at organizational charts of public media company does not create sufficient source to
look at culture (as they show formal patterns, not the real processes) the analysis of written
documents shall be followed by semistructured interviews at leader, manager, and producer
levels. Perhaps the best way to observe patterns of organizational culture (and its change)
would be to conduct participant- observation in order to fully understand the foundation of
PSM culture (language, myths, stories, legends) but also interplay between formal and
informal relationship in a given company. However, conducting research on organizations
that evolve is extremely difficult, as the PSM employees might be reluctant when speaking on
future directions and implications of change. Finally, a great challenge for researchers would
be to indicate how evolved public service media might be, and how their organizational
cultures compare with advanced digital organizations such as Google, NetFlix and
YouTube. The analysis of organizational public service media cultures would be also of high
value from the perspective of comparative analysis of PSM; posing questions on the impact of
societal, national and cultural structures to human relations, managerial approaches towards
staff motivation and fostering of participatory- and innovation-friendly culture could be of
high relevance here.
Bearing all of this mind there is a need to continue the discussions on the importance
of culture change and public service media in the digital ecosystems. As noted by Kng
(2010: 57): Culture is a closely allied topic. Strategic change programs are often frontloaded. Resourcesinternal and externalare poured into strategy development, but
implementation is overlooked. The result is that cultural resistance undermines necessary
strategic changes. We could make a real contribution heredemystifying culture and
explaining the link between corporate culture management and leadership.

References:
Albarran, A.B. (2006). Historical Trends and Patterns in Media Management Research. In:
A.B. Albarran, S.M. Chan-Olmsted, and M.O. Wirth (eds), Handbook of Media
Management and Economics. London, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishes.
Albrecht, K. (1987). The Creative Corporation. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Anderson, Ch. (2012). Makers. The New Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown Business.
Andriopolous, C., and Dawson, P. (2009). Managing Change, Creativity & Innovation. Los
Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC: SAGE.
Ashby, F.C. (1999). Revitalize Your Corporate Culture. Powerful ways to transform your
company into a high-performance organization. Houston: Cashman Dudley.
Bennett, J., Strange, N., Kerr, P., and Medrado, A. (2012). Multiplatforming Public Service
Broadcasting: The Economic and Cultural Rose of UK Digital and TV Independents,
London: Royal Holloway, University of London, University of Sussex, London
Metropolitan University.
Born, G. (2005). Uncertain Vision. Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC. London:
Vintage.
Brafman, O., and Pollack, J. (2013). The Chaos Imperative. New York: Crown Business.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2006). Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting
from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clark, J., and Aufderheide, P. (2009). Public Media 2.0. Dynamic, Engaged Publics.
American University: Center for Social Media. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/future-public-media.
Council of Europe (2012a). Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on public service
media governance. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 February 2012 at
the 1134th meeting of the Ministers Deputies. Retrieved May 28, 2014 from
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1908241.
Council of Europe (2012b). Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 of the Committee of Ministers
to member States on public service media governance. Adopted by the Committee of
Ministers on 15 February 2012 at the 1134th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies.
Retrieved May 28, 204 from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1908265.
Daft, R.L. (1989). Organization Theory and Design. Third Edition. St Paul, New York, Los
Angeles, San Francisco: West Publishing Company.
Deschamps, J.P. (2008). Innovation Leaders. How Senior Executives Stimulate, Steer and
Sustain Innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
EBU (2014). Vision2020. Connecting to a Networked Society. Continuous Improvement of
Trust and Return on Society.
Retrieved
July
16,
2014
from
http://vision2020.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/vision2020/files/DocFeed/2013.12.06Networked-Society_EN.pdf.
Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is Connecting. The Social Meaning of Creativity, from DIY and
knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Cambridge, UK, Malden, USA: Polity.
Girard, B. (2009). The Google Way. How One Company is Revolutionizing Management as
We Know It. San Francisco: No Starch Press.
Gowacki, M., and Jackson, L. (2013). Public Service Media Management. In Search for New
Models of Public Service Media in the Era of Social Change and New Technologies.
Scientific Report from the ESF Exploratory Workshop (Warsaw, May 12-14, 2013).
Retrieved
June
30,
2014
from
http://www.id.uw.edu.pl/zasoby/pliki/Badania/Workshop%202013/Scientific_report_1
.10.2013.pdf.

Gowacki, M. (2014). Reflections on Culture and Public Media in the Digital Ecosystems,
ORF Public Value Report 2013/14 TEXTE: 89-92.
Gowacki, M. (forthcoming). Public Service Media Accountability in the Digital Era:
Mapping Journalistic Attitudes Towards Professional Standards, Media Stakeholders
and Responsiveness. In: P. Gross (ed.), Festschrift for Karol Jakubowicz. Peter Lang
Publishing.
Gowacki, M., and Jackson, L. (2014). Towards a Twenty-First Century Public Media:
Conclusions. In: M. Gowacki, L. Jackson (eds), Public Media Management for the
Twenty-First Century: Creativity, Innovation, and Interaction. London, New York:
Routledge.
Goodman, M., and Dingli, S. (2013). Creativity and Strategic Innovation Management.
London and New York: Routledge.
Govindarajan, V., and Trimble, Ch. (2005). 10 Rules for Strategic Innovators. From Idea to
Execution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Govindarajan, V., and Trimble, Ch. (2010). The other side of innovation. Solving the
execution challenge. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Haasen, A., and Shea, G.F. (2003). New Corporate Cultures that Motivate. Westport,
Connecticut. Praeger.
Hargadon, A. (2003). How Breakthroughs Happen. The Surprising Truth About How
Companies Innovate. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. New York: McGrawHill.
Jakubowicz, K. (2008). Participation and partnership: a Copernican revolution to reengineer public service media for the 21st century. Retrieved March 2010 from
http://ripeat.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Jakubowicz.pdf.
Jakubowicz, K. (2010). PSB 3.0: Reinventing European PSB. In: P. Iosifidis (ed.),
Reinventing Public Service Communication: European Broadcasters and Beyond,
London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Krichels, T. (2014). Public Media Models of the Future. Retrieved July 28, 2014 from
http://www.current.org/2014/02/pbs-examines-successes-in-public-service-amongstations/.
Kng, L. (2008). Strategic Management in the Media: Theory to Practice, London: Sage.
Kng, L. (2010). Why Media Managers Are Not Interested in Media Management And
What We Could Do About It?, International Journal on Media Management, Vol.
12:1: 55-57.
Lowe, G.F. (2010). Beyond Altruism. Why Public Participation in Public Service Media
Matters. In: G.F. Lowe (ed.), The Public in Public Service Media. Gteborg:
Nordicom.
Lowgren, J., and Reimer, B. (2013). Collaborative Media. Production, Consumption and
Design Interventions. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.
Luecke, R. (2003). Harvard Business Essentials: Managing Creativity and Innovation.
Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. New Jersey:
McGill University.
Nissen, Ch.S. (2006). Public service media in the information society. Report prepared for the
Council of Europes Group of Specialists on Public Service Broadcasting in the
Information Society (MC-S-PSB). Strasbourg: Media Division, Directorate General of
Human Rights, Council of Europe.
Nissen, Ch.S. (2013). Whats so Special about Public Service Media Management?,
International Journal on Media Management, Vol. 15: 2: 69-75.

10

Nissen, Ch.S. (2014). Organizational Culture and Structures in Public Media Management
In Search for a Model for the Digital Era? In: M. Gowacki, L. Jackson (eds), Public
Media Management for the Twenty-First Century: Creativity, Innovation, and
Interaction. London, New York: Routledge.
Ott, J.S. (1989). The Organizational Culture Perspective. Chicago: the Dorsey Press.
Schein, E.H. (1999). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. Sense and Nonsense about
culture change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Third Edition. San Fransisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Smith, C.G, and Vecchio, R.P. (2007). Organizational Culture and Strategic Leadership:
Issues in the Management of Strategic Change. In: R.P. Vecchio (ed.), Leadership.
Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Influence in Organizations. Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame.
Tushman, L.M., and OReilly, Ch.A. (1997). Winning through Innovation. A Practical Guide
to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston: Massachusetts: Harvard
Business School Press.
Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity. A critical History of Social Media. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

11