Fluent Essays

Compose quick Email to CEO See attachment for details  No plagarism  APA citing  24 hours return Compose Email to CEO Bob Frost Crisis communication is a critical component of an organization’s communication strategy. The event requires leaders and managers to effectively communicate with both internal and external stakeholders. Along similar lines of communication are bad news messages. In both scenarios, the news being communicated does not change. A potentially negative event is occurring or has occurred. However, the delivery of the message determines how the audience responds. To prepare for this Assignment: Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially: · Bies, R. (2012). The 10 commandments for delivering bad news [Post]. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/05/30/10-commandments-for-delivering-bad-news/#6e3c8a052169 · Dortok, A. (2006). A managerial look at the interaction between internal communication and corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(4), 322–338, 265. · Nätti, S., Rahkolin, S., & Saraniemi, S. (2014). Crisis communication in key account relationships. Corporate Communications, 19(3), 234–246. · Thiessen, A., & Ingenhoff, D. (2011). Safeguarding reputation through strategic, integrated and situational crisis communication management. Corporate Communications, 16(1), 8–26. doi:10.1108/13563281111100944 · Anthonys Orchard (laureate-media.com) Assignment: Compose a quick e-mail based on your analysis of the learning resources and your Be sure to discuss the following: In this week’s scenario, you are a member of the executive team for Anthony’s Orchard, and you just learned that two of the company’s patrons have been diagnosed with food poisoning. This is the extent of the information that is known right now. You will compose a quick e-mail to CEO Bob Frost, advising him on how to manage this crisis. Your post should include the following: · Provide advice on how to construct an effective and responsible crisis message. · Identify the internal and external stakeholders with whom the CEO will need to engage. · Discuss which types of information will need to be shared and with whom. What strategies do you suggest to combat rumors? · No plagiarism · APA citing In Practice A Managerial Look at the Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation Arin Dortok Kesisim Publication and Communication Services, Istanbul, Turkey ABSTRACT This paper is based on the hypothesis that there is a correlation between corporate reputation and internal communication. Qualitative research has been conducted based on the hypothesis that com- panies with high reputation and companies with lower reputation differ in their attitudes towards the ‘relation between corporate reputation and internal communication’. This study is based on research called the ‘Most Admired Companies’ conducted annually over the past three years by one of Turkey’s leading business magazines, Capital. In this research, for comparative pur- poses, only the top 10 and the bottom 10 compa- nies listed in the above-mentioned ‘Most Admired Companies’ research have been taken into consid- eration. The research method that was used in this study for the purposes of determining the attitude of senior communication managers toward inter- nal communication was the ‘survey method’. Although the sample size of the survey was limited to the numbers noted above, statistically significant results have been obtained. These include the following: the top 10 companies give weight to internal communication; they consider measurement a significant factor in their activities and believe that ‘commitment’ is a major contribu- tion towards business results; they develop and put into effect internal communication plans more often than the bottom 10 companies; and they believe in the impact of internal communication on corporate reputation. This study states that an interaction between corporate reputation and internal communication is in effect. The purpose of this paper is to provide a new perspective on the discussions about the subject. KEYWORDS: business objectives, business results, corporate reputation, employee, internal communication INTRODUCTION Today people find themselves in a market environment, where the conditions are con- tinuously changing. The competition is heating up, information is being dissemi- nated faster than ever — thanks to develop- ing technology — and emotional factors are given priority over material values, as pro- ducts and services look more and more alike. Given the changing conditions of the market, it is now a must that not only pro- duction, finance and business processes, but also communication processes are managed strategically. There is now an awareness of the possibility that, with increasing compe- tition, stakeholders — such as shareholders, investors, customers, consumers, suppliers, employees and the general public who can influence the company or be influenced by its operations — can change their decisions anytime. On the other hand, the assumption that a company’s interaction with its stake- holders is what makes up its corporate repu- Corporate Reputation Review Volume 8 Number 4 Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2006, pp. 322–338 # Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 1479–1889/06 $30.00 Page 322 tation and that this interaction has an impact on the company’s business results, has been discussed and confirmed as compelling. Companies are now confronted by a need to measure the expectations of their stakeholders and to express clearly their own vision, on the one hand, a need to ‘manage the future’ by establishing a con- nection between the two, on the other. ‘It is possible to compare reputation with a monetary value, but it is not easy’, says Charles J. Fombrun (1996), the Executive Director of the Reputation Institute. His approach towards ‘corporate reputation’ is rather solid: reputation affects how a com- pany gains the support of people and in return is influential on the degree of their willingness to contribute to the company. For listed companies, the only simple mea- sure is to analyze the ‘book value’ and the market value and the difference between them. The result is the ‘intangible assets’ gained by the company from the market and that makes up an average of 55 per cent of the company value. Intangible values consist of two different assets: intellectual capital and reputation capital. The latter is gaining importance as a source of financial value. 1 Corporate Reputation in the Eyes of Employees Corporate reputation, which has become a major concern for companies, is now a value that is hard to achieve and yet easy to lose. In order to accurately manage cor- porate reputation, it is necessary to identify and analyze the stakeholders’ expectations and the role they play in a corporate repu- tation. Among the stakeholders who influ- ence corporate reputation and are influenced by it, employees are a significant factor and their significant role becomes increasingly effective every day. Paula M. Angelo’s statement supports this assertion: ‘The reputation of the company is always important in the eyes of its employees. The employees serve as the perfect source and they are a competitive advantage when sharing the corporate brand with potential customers, existing ones and with other stakeholders.’ (Angelo, 2000) Employees play a key role in helping companies achieve their business results. The relation of the employees with their company is gaining more importance in the achievement of business results such as increasing company profit and in achieving a competitive standing in the market. ‘Companies with good reputations attract good employees, who produce new and innovative products and serve customers well. Earnings grow, employees and customers stay happy, and the strong reputation continues. On the other hand, companies at the bottom of the reputation list with low reputation ratings have their own reasoning. Bad performance causes financial problems. Both the Company and its employees and the customers lose, which makes the bad performance even worse.’ (Vergin, 2003) The Corporate Communications Survey conducted by Strateji/GfK research in December 2003 among stakeholders from the ‘general public’ sets forth that in the trust/frequency index, the employee ranks in the top three as an information source. (Figure 1) 2 Employees have an influence on other stakeholders. One other survey in support of this assertion was conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide Research for Burson–Marstel- ler. The survey results provided a ranking of five groups of stakeholders with influence on corporate reputation (Burson–Marsteller and Wirthlin Worldwide, 1998: 1). The collective perception of all stake- holders noted in Table 1 is what deter- Page 323 Dortok mines whether the corporate reputation is good or bad. Therefore it is crucial for employees to identify themselves with their companies. ‘The reputation of a company is a mirror reflecting what is going on inside the company. If employees identify themselves with their company, they can work better, pay more attention on their products and this in turn strengthens the corporate culture. Given the opportunity, they can act as ambassadors of the company. Therefore, receiving the support of employees is crucial for sustaining a strong reputa- tion.’ (Fombrun, 1996: 14) Table 1: Collective Perception of Stakeholders Determining Corporate Reputation Ask executives Ask CEOs Ask media Ask board members Ask consumers Ask Wall Street Ask government Customers Customers Customers Customers Customers Customers Customers Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees The Media The Media The Media The Media General public CEO Community Wall Street CEO Community Wall Street The Media Wall Street General public CEO Wall Street General public CEO Community The Media The Media Figure 1: Information sources about the benchmark company Page 324 The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation The Influence of Intangible Values on Employees Having a good corporate reputation and maintaining it is impossible without the sup- port of employees. ‘Without a good internal reputation, your external reputation will not be good either. If your employees do not trust you, they can openly voice their feelings and thoughts to everybody, hence brutally damaging your reputation and invalidating your successes’ (Young, 1996: 11–12). Today, one often comes across literature expressions such as ‘employees’ commit- ment to the company’ and ‘employees’ pride in being part of the company’ Expres- sions like ‘employee satisfaction’ and ‘custo- mer satisfaction’ are used and ‘reputation’ and ‘employee’ are often used together. ‘The behavior that supports a corporate reputation or brand needs to be more deeply rooted, it needs to rest in the organization’s identity. Employees must feel the message they are sending with their behavior, not just go through motions. Thus, increasingly organiza- tions compete based on their ability to express who they are and what they stand for.’ (Schultz et al., 2000: 80) The perception of other stakeholders is influenced by the perception of employees about their own company. Therefore it is of great significance that the employees embrace and internalize the company cul- ture, which is only possible through fully embracing and internalizing the intangible and emotional values, and not only the functional and tangible ones. The necessity for employees to act as their companies’ advocates in order to create a change in the perceptions and behavior of other stakeholders becomes evident. The extent of employees’ relations to their companies can be seen in the Mori Excellence Model (Figure 2). The attitudes laid out in Figure 2 are valid for all stakeholders and they consti- tute the main subjects of both internal communication and corporate reputation. Various research on reputation points out the possibility of a negative impact created by corporate members on their company’s reputation and in this connection research- ers draw attention to the significance of emotional factors. ‘Since beliefs about organizational identity affect members’ motivation and commitment, protecting and enhancing Figure 2: The Mori Excellence Model Dortok Page 325 the organization’s reputation affect its ability to manage its employees.’ (Schultz et al., 2000: 80) Employees are in need of a feeling of trust for their companies; they want to acquire company related information directly, to contribute to the future decisions of their company and to be proud of the company they work for. In their paper: ‘Gaps between the internal and external percep- tions of the corporate brand,’ Gary Davis and Rosa Chun of the Manchester Business School explain employee satisfaction as follows: ‘Employee satisfaction here refers to the degree which an employee has posi- tive emotions towards the ‘‘organization’’, not towards the ‘‘specific work role’’, which is relevant to ‘‘job satisfaction’’ ’ (Davies and Chun, 2002). In that paper, the authors assert that while satisfaction has two aspects — rational and emotional — during the study branding activity was focused on the emotional aspect. The emotional aspect is described by such concepts as ‘happy’, ‘pleased’ and ‘proud’. Among the most significant factors that help employees perceive their companies and act as the company’s advocates are the intangible values. Today, tangible factors such as salary and bonus that can be described as functional are considered ‘default’. ‘There is increasing evidence that the good employees demand more from their place of employment than a competitive wage, professional develop- ment, and a career path. Bright, dynamic, independent, and creative employees want to feel that the corporate values, that the organization provides them with an arena for meaningful work and personal develop- ment and that they can be proud of their place of work.’ (Pruzan, 2002) Figure 3 provides examples of significant intangible values that are influential in encouraging employees to be proud of their company and to become their compa- ny’s advocates. 3 Intangible factors that can help employ- ees become advocates of their companies and affect other stakeholders can be mana- ged by internal communication, which in turn is related to corporate reputation. When the studies are examined about employees and corporate reputation in an attempt to analyze the interaction between internal communication and corporate reputation, it is seen that employees are important stakeholders in corporate reputa- tion and influence the business results. Employees, on the other hand, are them- selves positively influenced by good corpo- rate reputation. Below is a summary of Capital’s ‘Most Admired Companies’ research which has been an inspiration for this study on the interaction of internal communication with corporate reputation. While this study pre- sents an outlook on general opinion, a sub- sequent study, ‘A Managerial Look at the Interaction between Internal Communica- tion and Corporate Reputation Research’, reveals the correlation and the interaction between corporate reputation and internal communication. CAPITAL’S ‘MOST ADMIRED COMPANIES’ RESEARCH 4 The methodology that the Capital maga- zine applied in its ‘Most Admired Com- panies’ research, which has been used as a source for this research on the relation between corporate reputation and internal communication, is as follows: — Turkey’s most admired companies of 2002 as well as the most admired companies from 38 different industries were identified — In total 550 of the companies listed Page 326 The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation under the 38 most admired industries, including their 1,329 senior and junior managers, were contacted via tele- phone, e-mail, fax, mail and the internet — First, the managers evaluated 18 criteria that can potentially generate admira- tion for a company, over a scale of ten. Following this, without differentiating the industry in which a given company operates, they identified the company they admired most and provided their reasons — After identifying the ‘Most Admired Company of Turkey’, leading figures from 38 different industries were asked to identify the three companies they admired most, on the conditions that they exclude their own companies, choose companies in their own industry and state their reasons for their choice — Managers were allowed, however, to evaluate the companies they work for within the same 18 criteria — The field study took place between August 2002 and September 2002; the data analysis and reporting were done in October 2002. Research criteria were as follows: 1 Information and technology invest- ments 2 Quality of service or product 3 Financial reliability 4 New product development, innovation 5 Quality of management 6 Social benefits and rights of employees 7 Payment policy and wage ranges 8 Improvement of employee qualifica- tions 9 Marketing and sales strategies 16.3 88.5 90.4 79.0 62.9 89.7 85.3 94.2 1 .7 1 .2 3 .1 0 .9 2 .0 2 .8 4 .9 7.5 19.9 9.6 8.4 17.7 12.7 0 .9 0 .2 0 .3 0\% 10\% 20\% 30\% 40\% 50\% 60\% 70\% 80\% 90\% 100\% I would purchase its products/ services in new areas Is a company I trust Is a company I am proud of I would buy shares for the long term if/ when I have money Is a company I would like to work for/ I would want my child to work for I would support every kind of social activity I would support every kind of commercial activity Do not agree Neither agree nor disagree Agree No opinion Figure 3: Business results (\%) — Benchmark Dortok Page 327 10 Communications and PR 11 Employee qualifications 12 Ethics in competitive behavior 13 Employee satisfaction 14 Customer satisfaction 15 Management and company transpar- ency 16 Creating value for the investor 17 Social liability 18 Integration into international markets. The Scope and Course of the ‘Most Admired Companies’ Research — Ranking of the criteria (18 criteria that can potentially generate admiration for a company) — The most admired company of Turkey and their reasons for their choice — The top three most admired companies in the industry with reasons (according to the degree of fondness) — Evaluation of the most admired company in the industry he/she oper- ates within in each criteria on a scale of 10 (18 criteria that can potentially generate admiration for a company) — Evaluation of his/her own company in each criteria on a scale of 10 (18 criteria that can potentially generate admira- tion for a company) — Profile: age, gender, degree of educa- tion, title, years spent in the company, favorite magazines and papers, ISP, cell phone make and model, favorite soccer team, favorite commercials and promo- tional campaigns. ‘A MANAGERIAL LOOK AT THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND CORPORATE REPUTATION’ — THE RESEARCH The Subject of the Research and the Problem The interaction between corporate reputa- tion and internal communication has been identified by several studies undertaken throughout the world. The subject of this research is the approach of managers responsible for communication towards the interaction between corporate reputation and internal communication. The question for the research was as follows: ‘In compa- nies with high and relatively low reputa- tion, what is the extent of the weight given by senior managers in charge of communication to the interaction between corporate reputation and internal commu- nication; and what is their attitude when facing this interaction?’. The Purpose of the Research The purpose of this study’s research was to obtain the opinions of senior managers in charge of communication in companies with high and relatively low reputations about ‘the interaction between corporate reputation and internal communication’ and to use this data for concluding whether such an interaction exists or not. Main hypotheses H1: There is an interaction between corpo- rate reputation and internal communica- tion. H2: The approach of the top and bottom 10 companies to internal communication differs from one another. The sub-hypotheses tested in the study — Companies with a high reputation give more importance to internal communi- cation compared with companies with lower reputation — Companies with a lower reputation have a stronger belief in the necessity for an ideal company to have an internal communication plan than companies with a high reputation — The possibility of maintaining an internal communication plan in a company is greater in companies with Page 328 The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation a high reputation than it is with com- panies with a lower reputation — The top 10 companies assign greater significance to communication plans as an impact on company reputation than the bottom 10 companies — Companies with a higher reputation consider measurement of internal communication plans with greater significance than companies with a lower reputation — The rate of measurement of internal communication activities that actually take place is greater in companies with a high reputation than it is in compa- nies with a lower reputation — The belief that a company should main- tain a permanent team exclusively responsible for internal communication is a belief more commonly shared in companies with a high reputation than it is in companies with a lower reputation — The possibility of maintaining a perma- nent team exclusively responsible for internal communication is greater in companies with a high reputation than it is in companies with a lower reputa- tion. The t-tests and w-square tests were used to see the statistical differences between the top 10 and bottom 10 companies using a 90 per cent confidentiality level. The Methodology Because the question of interaction between corporate reputation and internal communication in companies — and parti- cularly in companies that are included on the reputation list — has hitherto been overlooked in the literature, this paper aims to lay out a framework for a discus- sion. Based on the ‘Most Admired Com- panies’ research of Capital magazine, this research is limited in its scope to a compar- ison of only the top and the bottom 10 companies on Capital’s list and is also lim- ited in its field study of Turkey. Despite its relatively small sample size, tests were applied to prove that the results are statisti- cally significant. Any evaluation apart from this is the author’s personal qualita- tive comment. The following headlines have been used to prepare the questions: — Importance of internal communication — Measuring the internal communication activities and the frequency of measure- ment — Contribution of internal communication towards reaching the business objectives — Contribution of internal communica- tion to the business results of the company (which also affect the reputa- tion) — Contribution of internal communica- tion to corporate reputation — Priorities of internal communication tools — Existence of an internal communication team — Communication revenues — The share of internal communication within communication revenues. The survey consists of three main parts. First, demographic information of partici- pants: title, age, gender, years spent in the company and the industry of the company. Secondly, participants’ definition of an ideal company: their opinion about the concept of ‘interaction between internal communi- cation and corporate reputation’ for an ideal company. Thirdly, participants’ description of the current situation in their companies: their remarks about ‘interaction between internal communication and corporate reputation’ in their company. Questions for the survey were prepared in a way suitable for comparative evalua- tion. A scale of 5 (1: not important at all; 5: very important) has been preferred over a scale of 10 or 7 in order to make the Dortok Page 329 comparison easier. The answers given to the questions have been evaluated in per- centages. Two questions that were aimed at finding out the communication budgets have been prepared with open ends. The survey was carried out both face-to-face and through e-mail/fax. The report of Capital’s ‘Most Admired Companies’ survey lists only the companies in top 20 positions. Table 2 gives informa- tion about the top 10 and bottom 10 com- panies with which the survey was conducted. The Research Calendar and its Application The questions of the survey used in the research have been prepared after the com- pletion of the first two chapters, which include the literature study, relevant studies made in the world as well as Capital’s ‘Most Admired Companies’ research. The research was completed between March 1, 2003 and August 31st, 2003, a period of five months. Table 2: List of Participants in the Survey ‘A Managerial Look at the Interaction between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation’ Title Age (years) Sex Industry Years spent at the company Top 10 or bottom 10 Communication coordinator 35–40 Male Food 8 Top 10 Deputy general manager responsible for HR 35–40 Male Banking 6 Top 10 General manager 40–45 Male Durable consumer goods 4 Top 10 Head of corporate communication department 35–40 Female GSM 1.5 Top 10 Director of advertisement and PR 35–40 Female Conglomerate 12 Top 10 Director of corporate communication 50–55 Male Durable consumer goods 6 Top 10 President responsible for corporate communication and external relations 50–55 Male Conglomerate 28 Top 10 Deputy coordinator of corporate communication 35–40 Male Medicine and health services, construction materials, consumer goods, finance, information technologies 15 Top 10 Director of HR and administration 35–40 Male Food 3 Bottom 10 Director of PR 35–40 Female Textile 8 Bottom 10 HR officer 25–30 Female Construction 3 Bottom 10 Sales manager 35–40 Male Import 5 Bottom 10 Director of HR and personnel 40–45 Male Food 1 Bottom 10 HR officer 40–45 Female Finance 8 Bottom 10 Page 330 The Interaction Between Internal Communication and Corporate Reputation Evaluating the Findings One of the most remarkable findings is that companies with high reputations attached more importance to internal com- munication compared with companies with lower reputations (independent sample t-test and w-square test; 90 per cent confidence level). Ideally, both the top 10 and the bottom 10 companies shared the idea that internal communication is impor- tant. Both groups, however, stated that the importance given to internal communica- tion in their company was lower than it should be. Also, the importance attached to internal communication by the bottom 10 companies was relatively lower compared with the top 10 companies (Figure 4). Another finding supporting this is that all of the top 10 companies had an internal communication plan. Both the top and the bottom 10 companies shared the idea that an ideal company should have an internal communication plan. Nevertheless, whereas all of the top 10 companies had such a plan, the ratio is not higher than 66.7 per cent for the bottom 10 companies (independent sample t-test and w-square test; 90 per cent confidence level). Another result is that the top 10 companies matched the definition of an ‘ideal company’ (Figure 5). The question that was posed only to those companies with an internal commu- nication plan leads to the conclusion that, although this difference is not statistically significantly different, the bottom 10 com- panies considered their plans sufficient, which is not the case for the top 10 compa- nies (Figure 6). Companies with high corporate reputa- tions paid more attention to the measure- ment of internal communication activities compared to companies with lower reputa- tions (independent sample t-test and w- square test; 90 per cent confidence level) (Figure 7). Companies with high corporate reputa- tions stated that internal communication was playing an important role in achieving their business objectives and they had per- 4.63 4.25 5.00 4.17 Top 10 Bottom 10 Ideal Present Average Figure 4: Importance of internal communication Question 1: How much importance do you think should be given by companies to internal communication? Question 13: Generally, how much importance does your company give to internal communication? 5. Should give highest amount of importance 4. Should give high importance 3. Neutral 2. Should give low importance 1. Should give lowest amount of importance 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.7 Top 10 Bottom 10 Necessity Present Figure 5: Necessity/importance of internal communication plans Question 2: How necessary do you think are the internal communication plans for companies? 5. Very necessary 4. Necessary 3. Neutral 2. Less necessary 1. Not necessary at all Question 14: Does your company have an internal communication plan? 1. Yes 2. No Dortok Page 331 sonally experienced this in their companies (Figure 8). When asked about which business results were influenced by internal communication, the top 10 companies rated themselves lower than the ideal, whereas the bottom 10 companies rated themselves higher than the ideal, which is a remarkable result. It can be seen, however, that the concepts of ‘com- mitment’ and ‘pride’, which were men- tioned by the top 10 companies as important business results for them and the ideal company, can also be found in the foreground of research on corporate reputa- tion. These business results match with some components of corporate reputation, ie ‘employees’ commitment’, ‘a good place to work’ and ‘value attached to employees by the company’. When this connection is taken into consideration, answers given by the top 10 companies can be evaluated more realistically. Another important finding from this question is that internal communi- cation was mentioned to be important for the ‘commitment’ business result more by the top 10 companies than it was mentioned by the bottom 10 companies (Figure 9). Although there was a perfect consensus about the contribution of internal commu- nication to corporate reputation, the degree of perceived efficiency of the com- panies’ own internal communication activ- ities affecting their reputation was greater for the top 10 companies compared with those in the bottom 10 (independent sample t-test and w-square test; 90 per … Crisis communication in key account relationships Satu Nätti, Suvi Rahkolin and Saila Saraniemi Oulu Business School, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland Abstract Purpose – A deliberate and planned crisis communication strategy is an important part of key account management. The purpose of this paper is to draw links between key account managers (KAM) and crisis communication and explore the elements critical to crisis communication in key account relationships. Design/methodology/approach – The approach is qualitative. Data were gathered from people experienced in crisis communication and responsible for strategic accounts. The paper analysed managers’ stories of crisis processes and related communication in relationships. Findings – Successful crisis communication requires an open and active crisis communicator, one willing to solve problems, and also the company being a partner worth trusting and the retention of the relationship being worthwhile for the customer. Research limitations/implications – The present study focuses on the managerial view, and therefore a dyadic approach is suggested for future studies. Practical implications – The role of the KAM as a crisis communicator and primary identifier of the crisis is emphasized. Originality/value – Existing crisis communication discussions have been very media focused. This study focuses on the key account relationship and the related crisis communication. In addition, although earlier studies examine the influences of crises on business relationships (e.g. Salo et al., 2009; Thiessen and Ingenhoff, 2010; Tähtinen and Vaaland, 2006), research on crisis communication in business-to-business key account relationships is still scarce. The results will help to understand the characteristics of crisis communication in key account relationships and enhance communication with strategic accounts. Keywords Crisis communication, Key account management, Strategic account Paper type Research paper Introduction A crisis is an unexpected, negative and serious instance or a process that threatens the physical and/or immaterial value of an organization. If a company is perceived to be responsible for the crisis, its reputation might be damaged and/or customer views of the company in question might change radically. Efficient crisis communication can compensate for negative feelings towards the company and decrease the number of undesirable messages in the network (Coombs et al., 2010, p. 338). The literature on crisis communication offers numerous viewpoints, for example image restoration strategies (e.g. Benoit, 1995), and situational crisis communication theory that defines a variety of crisis types based on attributed crisis responsibility eliciting different types of suitable response (e.g. Coombs, 2007). However, research on crisis communication to date has largely relied on a relatively small number of well- known incidents connected to communicative, controllable, media-related actions taken by companies (see Carrol, 2009, pp. 64-67; Eriksson and Eriksson, 2010, pp. 203-204; Veil and Husted, 2012) although, for example Coombs (2007) states that perhaps the biggest threat of all is the breakdown of customer relationships. This is pronounced in business-to-business (B2B) relationships because losing a long-term strategic customer relationship is often a major blow for a company, causing it to lose all the investments made in the relationship in the past too (e.g. Ford et al., 2003). The high level of The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm Received 10 August 2012 Revised 4 February 2013 9 August 2013 9 September 2013 15 December 2013 Accepted 6 January 2014 Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 19 No. 3, 2014 pp. 234-246 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1356-3289 DOI 10.1108/CCIJ-08-2012-0056 234 CCIJ 19,3 interdependence and cooperation characteristic of strategic customer relationships potentially means a high level of conflicts too, and accordingly conflict management is an important part of relationship-related studies (e.g. Holmlund-Rytkönen and Strandvik, 2005). Thus, there is a well-argued need to find a link between strategic customer relationships and crisis communication, because while communication in general gets faster and easier, maintaining those relationships in crisis situations calls for quick reactions. In addition, there are many contingencies to consider in communicating with strategic accounts: level of reciprocity and responsibility in the relationship, likewise a need to provide open and accurate information to partners to nurture the relationship (Waters, 2013). Key account management systems are designed to manage strategic accounts consciously and intensively (Nätti and Palo, 2012) and to increase the value of the relationships (Pardo et al., 2005). KAM systems provide a structured way to maintain and develop strategic customer relationships. In addition to specifying a key account manager (KAM) (the person responsible for specific relationships and the primary contact for the partner), the system may hold details of a key account team and other relevant actors from the seller organization that combine to form an effective interface with the partner (Rehme, 2001). KAM systems are more complex and coordinated in their buyer-seller interactions than routine selling controls (Wotruba and Castleberry, 1993), creating added value in customer relationships (Pardo et al., 2005). A KAM system may be used in a relationship with a strategic partner because the relationship merits the investment of material and human resources, and can spur many development activities that benefit the long-term functionality of the cooperative relationship (Pardo et al., 2005). In this paper we aim to comprehensively describe and define meaningful elements of crisis communication in key account relationships from a KAM’s perspective. There is only limited research on crisis communication in the context of key account management (e.g. Guesalaga and Johnston, 2010), and that gap is the motivation for this study. KAM can hold an important boundary spanner role in a customer relationship which motivates us to further focus on KAMs role especially. We first focus on discussions of strategic B2B customer relationships and then proceed to examine key account management itself. The empirical part of the study further highlights the phenomenon. Crisis communication and B2B key account relationships Changes in technology, networked business environments and the related cultural changes to business practices have created a tendency for B2B firms to rely on forging closer relationships with fewer suppliers (Cannon and Perreault, 1999). Despite that shift, there is no uniform picture of B2B relationships. Those can be everything from basic buying and selling to highly collaborative and mutually adaptive relationships like key account relationships that typically involve a high level of information exchange, mutual adaptations, dependency, reciprocity and trust (Cannon and Perreault, 1999, p. 450). The elements of every unique relationship vary: the life cycle of the relationship, the level of information exchange, investments and operational adaptations needed, to mention but a few. In addition, there are “softer” issues to look at: the level of commitment, trust, mutuality, distance and/or dependence between organizations (e.g. Ford et al., 2003, p. 76). Consequently, organizational stance towards the partner, and willingness to either insisting on one’s own stance or accommodate to other’s, is based on these relationship-specific factors and also other contingency 235 Crisis communication in key account relationships factors outside the relationship: the size and culture of the organization, dominant coalition, urgency of the situation and potential threat and cost, just to mention few (Pang et al., 2006). Characteristics of key individuals involved (like KAM or CEO of the company) may be critical, starting from leaders being either task or relationship oriented (Waters, 2013). In spite of these various influential contingency factors, strategic customer relationships call for a certain level of confidence in the relationship. Those relationships tend to be more resistant to adversity owing to higher levels of trust, mutuality and commitment (Salo et al., 2009), which act to mitigate crisis situations. On the other hand, such a high level of interdependence potentially means more conflicts (e.g. Vaaland and Håkansson, 2003). Those conflicts can be functional, causing development in the relationship, and when resolved in an atmosphere of mutual trust, can even strengthen the relationship (Vaaland and Håkansson, 2003). Conflicts can also be a dysfunctional, divisive force, and after such a crisis relationships should be repaired when there is strategic value in maintaining them, or when the cost of losing the partner is too high (Salo et al., 2009). There are many noteworthy viewpoints on crisis communication in strategic relationships. First, its practices and representations are linked to many elements or the relationship in question. For example, recognizing problems and even crises in the relationship is often easy, but seeing the underlying causes or recognizing problems in both organizations is far more difficult (see, e.g. Tähtinen and Vaaland, 2006). Second, effective communication is at the core of every strategic relationship (Cannon and Perreault, 1999), being a prerequisite for common learning processes (Doz and Hamel, 1998) and trust creation (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). For example, Jehn (1997) found that the more communication there is between individuals during the conflict, the less the conflict affects normal activities. Third, in complex and multi-layered relationships, it is important to recognize who is communicating with whom (e.g. Lucero et al., 2009); In addition to what is the issue, people seem to be concerned with whom is managing the process (Hwang and Cameron, 2009). Direct communication with the customer is crucial, preventing reports in the media precipitating the ending of the relationship (Salo et al., 2009). Thus, in crisis communication a KAM can hold a nodal position. Furthermore, it is important that both parties demonstrate their willingness to save the relationship (Tähtinen and Vaaland, 2006). In addition to sharing a common desire and making related investments in corrective actions, understanding the other party’s business, goals and challenges influence the success of recovery efforts (e.g. Doz and Hamel, 1998) and effective communication plays a salient role in that. The literature on crisis communication cites many issues that KAM systems may be applied to, such as recognizing and responding to a customer’s concerns (Carrol, 2009); guaranteeing customers’ ability to conduct their business activities unhindered (Lucero et al., 2009); swift and honest communication (White, 2009); and maintaining trust and recovering it should it be lost (Fombrun and Rindova, 2000). With the help of the system, a firm can maintain intensive communication with the customer (see, e.g. Nätti et al., 2006), and isolate potential seeds of crisis in the relationship. In relation to crisis communication, key account relationships are an important subset of interorganizational relationships. Research around crisis communication has to date been largely media focused, while the relationship literature has focused more on other relational aspects, resulting in a lack of detailed analysis of the crisis communication. In the context of KAM, such an understanding is certainly needed 236 CCIJ 19,3 to grasp the meaning and function of a system and of the people involved in a crisis situation (Guenzi et al., 2007), likewise influential situational factors. In this study, we aim to comprehensively define those elements that are meaningful in crisis communication; especially in key account relationships and from a KAMs viewpoint. We intend to answer the following questions: . How do KAMs explain the nature of crises in key account relationships? . How do KAMs explain the elements of successful crisis communication in KA relationships? . How do KAMs see different organizational roles manifesting themselves in crisis communication? Methodology This study examines stories of personal experiences by individual (KAMs). Following Rappaport (1995) we define stories and narratives as descriptions of events over time. The current research also focuses on characters or roles in the individual story (see Martin et al., 1983) for identifying the nuances of communication in key account relationships and related influential factors. Using narrative data is apt for the following reasons: the method offers informants the freedom to pass on narratives (Makkonen et al., 2012) and narratives allow interviewees to express their own view of reality (Polkinghorne, 2007) increasing the validity of the retrospective data (Miller et al., 1997). Furthermore, the method offers access to an often neglected but vital perspective in crisis communication literature, that of the KAMs. However, these stories provide an individual’s subjective perception of the crises in key account relationships (see Elliot, 2005) and other parties involved might have disputed the version of events had they been consulted (cf. Pentland, 1999). The data comprises of an expert-sample, where the informants were chosen based on their considerable experience of KAM. We were especially interested in the informant’s experiences in crisis situations, rather than with a particular organization. Each informant had coordinated international customer relationships that had exposed them to crisis situations, and where crisis communication had played a critical role in recovering the relationship. We selected managers representing various fields of business (IT-technology, healthcare, services and electronic production) to advance our aim of logging managerial experiences of crisis situations. Given the contextual nature of the studied phenomenon and acknowledging that context is an essential component influencing the narratives produced (Spector-Mersel, 2010), the variety of fields the informants worked in and their different career stages enriched the data. Four Finnish informants were interviewed in the autumn of 2011 and those interviews generated five stories. During the interviews, we explicitly requested narratives from the informants relating to crisis situations that had arisen during their careers (see Czarniawska, 2007). We also asked certain questions to confirm that the narratives were eliciting themes concerning the informant’s understanding of the concept of crisis, their views of the nature of crisis and what happened during the process. First, the transcripts were read through carefully with the main focus on the events and characters related to the crisis situation in question. That generated the emergent codes for the analysis. Then we compared the representative data extracts for 237 Crisis communication in key account relationships categorizing events and characters to reveal potential themes and form the initial thematic map (see Braun and Clarke, 2006). The main themes were then identified as the nature of crisis, elements of crisis communication and organizational roles in crisis communication. Finally, the themes were reorganized as subthemes. These themes supported by quotations were then refined in the process of data analysis and reporting until they assumed their final form (see Braun and Clarke, 2006; Mäläskä et al., 2011). To summarize, we primarily extracted the content of the story from the narratives to analyse (Polkinghorne, 2007), and did not focus on the structure of the narratives (Elliot, 2005). Thus, when classifying the extracts from the narratives and placing them into conceptual categories, our analysis resembled thematic coding (see Elliot, 2005). We were interested in what was related in the narratives, not how it was related (see Freeman, 2003). Thus, our approach can be defined as a qualitative enquiry with narrative data rather than a narrative analysis (see Georgakopoulou, 2006). Stories of crises in key account relationships In crisis situation, “the voice of outside stakeholders” (cf. Waters, 2013) is often a KAM. Our findings reveal several relationship-specific and other contingency factors outside the relationship explaining the vital perspective of KAM in crisis communication (Figure 1). These contextual factors are divided to nature of crisis, elements of crisis communication and different organizational roles in crisis communication. In the following, each of these factors are described in details. How do KAMs explain the nature of crises in key account relationships? As Salo et al. (2009) suggest, efforts at relationship recovery cannot start until the underlying problem is concrete and recognized by both parties. This is discernible in the stories analysed in this study: the seeds of crisis could already be sown, but a profound understanding of the situation does not necessarily emerge until its ACCOUNTCOMPANY External contextual elements Lack of commitment on the part of management Doubts about untrust- worthiness Trust and commitment Identifying crisis and understanding the nature of it Fast responses Honesty Noticing customer’s concerns Tailoring communica- tion to the needs of a customer Status of the communicator Presence and taking responsibility for communication Openness, activeness and willingness to solve problems Conflicting interpretation of contracts Nature of crises Elements of crisis communication: Importance of key account manager Changes in social connections Figure 1. Crisis communication in the key account relationship from a perspective of the KAM 238 CCIJ 19,3 consequences are clearly visible. This is challenging for those managing communication, for they must assess when to initiate communication efforts and how harmful the inevitable, but perhaps not overt, dissatisfaction could be to their network: Suddenly the nature of the relationship changed so that it was difficult to arrange visits there [y] We understood well that something was wrong when we didn’t receive reports of activities as agreed (Interviewee A). Doubts about trustworthiness. The basis for most of the crises seemed to be suspicions of untrustworthy behaviour. The failure to meet conditions agreed upon was the central issue in three of the five stories. However, the accounts reveal it is not so much about failing to do something, but lack of communication in the crisis situation. Consequently, the customer sees only negligence rather than a viable reason for the issue, which makes it easy to doubt the trustworthiness of the partner. Behaviour that might cast doubt on trustworthiness would, for example include failure to submit scheduled reports or avoiding contact: When reports on the progress should have come, there was nothing. Uncertainty started to evolve about whether they had done what was agreed [y] First he did not answer the phone [y] Then I had to say that we’d reached the limit (Interviewee A). Conflicting interpretations of contracts. Insufficient communication during the contract formulation stage can also have long-lasting consequences for relationships. Interviewee D relates how one crisis was provoked by in conflicting interpretations of contracts. Vague disagreements had been noted before the crisis, but there was no awareness of their potential consequences at that stage. The dominant position of a big customer can also worsen the situation: A big company from the USA is a great chance for a small Finnish firm – the contracts were a bit vague and open to interpretation. We had been able to sell the system abroad once and we were just happy to maintain the contracts (Interviewee D). Lack of commitment on the part of management. Lack of commitment from management is one notable cause of an issue escalating to become a crisis. Interviewee D provided an example where an IT company tried to internationalize by undertaking projects with a big US company, but without the full support of its senior management. The special feature of this story is the relationship between a small and a large company; and the concurrent differences in business culture. The IT system was well integrated into the customer’s organization, and thus of strategic importance for the customer, but problems arose when it did not function as expected. The crisis developed around the interpretation of contractual terms, when the customer suspected a breach of contract and brought in an army of lawyers. It seemed the supplier company management did not even notice the crisis growing, and only the KAM appeared to care: For the customer, it appeared as though there was no commitment in the management for this. If we are not able to get our managers to meetings with the customer, how important is this customer relationship in the end? (Interviewee D). With regard to the issue of lack of commitment, interviewee C also brought up the important notion of handling customer complaints. Doing so offers an opportunity to diagnose potential crises before they erupt: If customer complaints are not taken care of they become crisis hot spots. Thus, dealing with recalls is critical (Interviewee C). 239 Crisis communication in key account relationships Changes in social connections. Interviewee C told of a customer relationship where the guiding principle was to follow pre-agreed rules. These rules were subject to change as contact people changed, and this could make the relationship complicated. Social connections and bonds between the companies are important and changes to them heighten the need for effective communication: We should be sensitive when people and organizations change [y] In that [change] communication acquires its meaning (Interviewee C). External contextual elements. A new market environment, different context and technological problems are elements external to the relationship and accordingly may cause problems and even give rise to a crisis if the real source of the problem is not recognized. For example, in one story from an IT business, the functionality of the product was questioned and consequently cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the supplier. The story culminated with the partners blaming each other for the failure of the system to function in different environments, although it was actually nobody’s fault: I noticed that there was a gloomy atmosphere. We pointed the finger at the customer, that they did not understand a thing, or could not use [our system] (Interviewee A). How do KAMs explain the elements of successful crisis communication in KA relationships? Presence and taking responsibility for communication. Crises can also highlight the real nature of the relationship, as commitment and trust are tested in every crisis. For example, a lack of responsibility and conflicting views about contracts may demand active communication from appropriate messengers. An active presence and the KAMs willingness to solve the problem seem to be key to salvaging the relationship, as is positive interaction at different levels of the organization: Being there and discussing things with people from different levels of the company helped a lot. If I tried to solve things from here, it would have been more than a catastrophe (Interviewee D). Openness, activeness and willingness to solve problems generate trust. A willingness to resolve the crisis from the outset will assist its resolution. The active pursuit of a solution will revitalize the customer’s perception of trust and belief in their partner’s commitment. Overcoming the crisis involves recognizing the reason for it and discreetly pointing it out to the customer. Crisis communication in strategic customer relationships requires openness, activeness and willingness to find a solution. In addition to transparency in activities, openness refers to admitting problems and communicating them openly. The customer is then aware of how things are and what will be done to correct the situation. Activeness is not only about solving the crisis and listening to the concerns of the customer, but also about honesty, tailored communications and fast responses and maintaining an active presence. Most of all, the customer has to feel important. The willingness to find a solution is visible in crisis communication when activeness and openness are present. Interviewee D illustrated the meaning of activeness: A lot was corrected by being there and seeing the problem with them – I could create a relationship with them there. We acted together and in that way trust was there – they saw that we were trying (Interviewee D). 240 CCIJ 19,3 Trust was seen as the basis of commitment. Interviewees regarded problems and crises as an inevitable constituent of developing mutual trust: without experience of resolving problems and crises together, the necessary trust would not develop. Interviewee A effectively illustrated how trust can also evolve during the crisis as long as the willingness to solve problems is made clear: Typically, crises in strategic account relationships are resolved. The openness and open discussion, and that we admit the problems – that creates the trust. If the company is willing to work things out, it means it’s trustworthy (Interviewee A). Each interviewee agreed that strategic account relationships would not be jeopardized by minor setbacks, and in most cases the problems are solved (see also Tähtinen and Vaaland, 2006). The activity of resolving crises offers an opportunity to bolster an account relationship and trust may even be strengthened. Crises can be regarded as an inevitable part of the evolution of a relationship. How do KAMs see different organizational roles manifesting themselves in crisis communication? The status of the communicator. In addition to communicating and interacting proactively, the contact people, the communicator and their status are significant. If the senior management of the supplier company is not involved in crisis resolution, customers may feel that their opinions are not being adequately taken into account. Listening to customer concerns and understanding the situation includes an ability to know when senior management should react: In that sense it went wrong – that our management never responded, and they got the vice president there for whom our company was only one small actor from far away [y] They lost their belief that this could mean something to us (Interviewee D). The involvement of the company’s senior management in discussions represents one important aspect of taking care of the customer, alongside admitting that the problem exists and is serious, as interviewee C said. The CEO brings an atmosphere of seriousness to the handling of the problem. As already mentioned, maintaining trust requires a presence. On the other hand, if the problem is minor, it is not always necessary to involve senior management, which might only exacerbate the issue. However, roles and responsibilities have to be clear; both parties must know who is communicating with whom. In a crisis situation everyone has their own role but this seems to go unnoticed in many companies. Communication has to be coherent and integrated: He was responsible for communication right from the beginning – someone has to take care of it, not everybody can be involved (Interviewee B). The importance of the KAM. Preparation for crises is often inadequate and there seems to be a notable lack of management involvement. The unpleasant nature of crises makes managers reluctant to put in place any contingency plans. In those cases, crisis communication is more about firefighting than about utilizing planned communication to resolve the situation. Managers may assume that communication with the customer is direct, meaning that crisis management or a planned approach to crisis situation handling are ignored. However, anticipating problems can help to maintain trust and expedite management 241 Crisis communication in key account relationships involvement when it is essential. The KAM may then have a meaningful role in getting other managers involved: They tried to take care of it from the office, so they [senior management] could avoid the direct customer contact. I tried to say many times that, “Okay, now it is time to go! I can come with you, if you cannot do it alone” (Interviewee A). Lack of planning highlights the activity of the KAMs in the crisis situation and how sensitive to the situation they must be. In addition, KAMs have a notable role as crisis communicators because as the customer’s contact person they should have the strongest bonds with the customer, and are therefore often expected to work alongside the customer to resolve the crisis. Conclusions This study makes several theoretical contributions to discussions on key account management and crisis communication. First, the literature has so far neglected crisis communication in relation to key account management. The results of this study show that crisis communication is an essential element in the retention of strategic customer relationships. The vital role of KAM in crisis communication is manifested by several relationship and other … Safeguarding reputation through strategic, integrated and situational crisis communication management Development of the integrative model of crisis communication Ansgar Thiessen and Diana Ingenhoff Department of Mass Media and Communication Research, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the often missing theoretical foundation of crisis communication from an integrated perspective on the micro, meso and macro level. Based on the theory of structuration, a systematic, integrative framework is developed for safeguarding organizational legitimization and multidimensional reputation through communication during crisis situations which is applicable both for profit and non-profit organizations. Design/methodology/approach – Gidden’s theory of structuration was chosen as a basis to develop the integrative model of crisis communication that proposes a communicative impact on reputation on a situative level of message strategies (micro level), an organizational level (meso level) and a societal level (macro level). A well-organized crisis communication management on all of these levels is seen as the key communicative driver to safeguard long-term organizational reputation. Findings – The paper shows that successful crisis communication management must be conceptualized and addressed on distinctive levels of complexity. While on a message level (situative crisis communication) it creates meaning, crisis communication must be seen as management task on an organizational level (integrative crisis communication). However, in order to fully safeguard reputation in the long term and trustworthiness in the short term, crisis communication has also a societal component when addressing moral standards and norms (strategic crisis communication). Research limitations/implications – The paper is a conceptual contribution which build the basis of a follow-up empirical, experimental study where the proposed model is successfully tested. Practical implications – For PR managers, this paper gives reasons to conceptualize crisis communication management, not only on a message strategy level, but also to take into consideration the organizational and societal levels. Originality/value – The paper stands in line with the theoretical discourse of organizational crisis communication. So far, few approaches conceptualize organizational crisis communication thoroughly on an integrated level of different perspectives so that the paper provides an important input, pushing the discussion forward. Keywords Corporate communications, Public relations, Organizational processes, Organizational structures Paper type Conceptual paper Introduction and research question Reputation is an important intangible asset for organizations of any kind. A good reputation proves more resilient than a bad one and organizations with a good reputation The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm CCIJ 16,1 8 Received September 2009 Revised April 2010 Accepted October 2010 Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 16 No. 1, 2011 pp. 8-26 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1356-3289 DOI 10.1108/13563281111100944 are more likable (Lyon and Cameron, 2004, p. 226). Research shows that reputation has an impact on the perception of the management style as well as on purchasing decisions (Yoon et al., 1993, p. 226). It attracts qualified staff (Eccles et al., 2007, p. 104) and determines investor satisfaction and loyalty (Helm, 2007, p. 33 f.). As relational capital, it deepens relationships (de Castro et al., 2006, p. 576), it guides investors through investment decisions (Schütze and Rennhak, 2005, p. 11) or builds trust (Herger, 2006, p. 187; Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2010). Reputation ultimately becomes an essential criterion to differentiate between organizations. Since services, products or performances in general increasingly resemble each other, reputation is a significant competitive factor, too. Although the value of reputation has been widely discussed and analyzed for economic organizations, its positive impact may be transferred to non-economic organizations as well (Parks, 2008, p. 217). In today’s media society, mediated communication is the dominant mechanism in constituting reputation (Eisenegger, 2005; Seemann, 2008). In fact, without public opinion, reputation cannot be constituted (Herger, 2006) or fades significantly (Eisenegger, 2005). Consequently, public scandals are a major threat to reputation because they can bring organizations into “disrepute”, having an impact on profitability or even organizational survival (Lerbinger, 1997). Barely, a day goes by without some organizations facing assaults on their reputation. And research shows that reputational crises are on the rise. Crisis situations as an attack on reputation may prove to be either a threat or an opportunity, which depends largely on how an organization’s behavior is perceived by its key stakeholders (Gaultier-Gaillard and Louisot, 2006). In situations where reputation is threatened, one aspect of crisis management gains great importance: communication. Internal communication in a crisis enables an organization to stem rumors (Fearn-Banks, 2007), while external communication can result in favorable public perception (Penrose, 2000). Since the perception of crises depends upon the respective observer (Kohring et al., 1996), the role of communication is more than simply to inform about the crisis but to influence it (Köhler, 2006; Zerfaß, 2004). Consequently, the analysis of risks to reputation and its management has become an issue of growing attention and is increasingly being discussed in both scientific and business literature (Chun, 2005). A good reputation unquestionably serves as a reservoir of goodwill and supports organizations in times of crisis (Wiedmann and Buxel, 2005). However, the concept is also ubiquitous and therefore it is “seldom noticed until [. . .] threatened” (Fombrun and van Riel, 1997). Most literature on crisis communication remains on a case study basis and lacks a systematic understanding of its impact on reputation. Moreover, within empirical research, reputation is often one-dimensionally conceptualized in a functional way, which ignores the social and emotional aspects of reputation (Bromley, 2002; Chun, 2005; Ruth and York, 2000). Bearing these problems in mind, the article will address the following research question: RQ1. How can crisis communication be systematically conceptualized in order to safeguard reputation during crisis situations? We propose an integrative model of crisis communication, which is theoretically founded on the theory of structuration and consistently aims at safeguarding a multidimensional reputation. Crisis communication management 9 Literature review Organizational reputation The understanding of reputation varies according to the focus of research. In the field of marketing, it is characterized as the result of a branding process, in principle agent theory as a signal of future behavior, in accounting as a kind of goodwill, in organization theory as the manifestation of corporate identity or as a potential market entry barrier in the field of management (Schwaiger, 2004, p. 48). Even more confusingly, researchers often do not take findings from other disciplines into account when discussing their concept of reputation (Mahon, 2002, p. 416). Generally, reputation is described as “the net perception of a company’s ability to meet the expectations of all its stakeholders” (Fombrun, 1996, p. 37). It is a synthesis of individual attitudes towards an organization’s past behavior and future prospects (Davies and Chun, 2002; Post and Griffin, 1998). While in literature some researchers equate image and reputation (Bromley, 1993), we make a distinction between the two concepts. An organization’s image can be seen as an individual attitude. It can be defined as the external view of an organization (Hatch and Schultz, 1997, p. 361). It is the reflection of an organization, which forms on the basis of individually and subjectively perceived attributes among stakeholders (Herger, 2006, p. 161). Reputation on the other hand is rather a synthesis of many images and therefore of many attitudes together (Fombrun, 1996, p. 72; Gray and Balmer, 1998; Helm, 2004). Following Gotsi and Wilson (2001), reputation is a common attitude towards a third party. Most approaches conceptualize reputation as an aggregated perception and the evaluation of a company by many different stakeholders (Davies et al., 2003; Fombrun et al., 2000). Consequently, different stakeholder groups perceive an organization’s reputation differently (Caruana et al., 2006, p. 430; Gotsi and Wilson, 2001, p. 24). The three research disciplines most relevant to our research are the studies of sociologic, economic and corporate communication. From a sociological viewpoint, reputation is seen as a social acceptance of an organization. It refers to (organizational or individual) actions in the past and “[. . .] emerges if an actor’s future partners are informed on his present behavior” (Raub and Weesie, 1990, p. 626). On a more abstract level, from this perspective, reputation becomes a legitimizing exchange process among agents (organization and stakeholder) and is gained either by the approval of a third party (e.g. through an NPO) or by cognitive processes, such as acting within a social framework. Reputation from this point of view thereby predominantly takes on an integrative function within society (Eisenegger and Imhof, 2008). From an economic point of view, reputation is seen as an intangible asset, helping to shape the financial value of a company (Ressel, 2008). Studying the precise impact reputation has on financial outcome still produces conflicting results (Eberl and Schwaiger, 2005). However, Schnietz and Epstein (2005, p. 341) show that a reputation for social responsibility yields a tangible financial benefit during a crisis situation. In terms of reputation management, business leaders indicate that it is harder to recover from reputation failure than it is to build or maintain it. Recovering from crises that hit reputation takes time – often many years, which is a long time to rebuild the trustworthiness one already had before (Milewicz and Herbig, 1994, p. 44). Recovering from a crisis is consequently more a marathon than a quick sprint, which underlines the necessity for sophisticated reputation management either long before (issues management) or right at the moment of threat (crisis and communication management). CCIJ 16,1 10 From the viewpoint of corporate communication scholars, reputation is seen as a resource to be protected, especially during crisis situations. Communication either has an impact on image restoration (Benoit, 1995) or the media agenda in which reputation is built (Eisenegger, 2005), in order to safeguard reputation in the long run (Coombs, 2006). Building good reputation among stakeholders can enhance benevolence and courtesy ( Jones et al., 2000, p. 27 f.) or serve as a resource in difficult situations, such as a crisis (Davies et al., 2003; Dowling, 2002). Most methods of measuring reputation follow a functional conceptualization (Bromley, 2002; Fombrun, 2001; Wartick, 2002). It is Hall (1992) who first introduced the interrelations between cognitive and affective aspects of reputation. Cognitive reputation refers to a rational third party perception. Its components may be distinguished between a more functional reputation deriving from an evaluation of competence, and a social reputation deriving from satisfying moral norms in society (de Castro et al., 2006). In contrast, affective reputation is based on emotions and sympathy, and is formed through sympathy and attractiveness (Caruana et al., 2006; Schwaiger, 2004). Eisenegger and Imhof (2008) conclude that reputation has a functional, social and emotional dimension – regardless of whether it is being perceived cognitive or affective. In this article, we propose a multidimensional concept of reputation (Table I) that consists of cognitive (functional and social) as well as affective (emotional) components (Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2007, 2010). We see functional reputation as the evaluation of competence, which is expressed by the achievement of an organization’s performance goals. Social reputation we propose as referring to social responsibility such as moral and ethical standards in society. Finally, we introduce emotional reputation as emerging from sympathy towards an organization and the appraisal of how favorably or unfavorably it is evaluated. Concluding, we propose the concept of reputation as a multidimensional construct, consisting of “three distinct but closely interrelated dimensions” (Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2010). It is being perceived differently among different groups of stakeholders (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001), being the overall perception of an organization and its ability to meet the expectations of all its stakeholders (Fombrun, 1996). Corporate crisis communication In order to address our research question, we identify two perspectives on crisis communication literature: a functional perspective, focusing on instruments and structures, and a symbolic perspective, analyzing the rhetorical impetus of message strategies. From a functional perspective, research in crisis communication analyzes structures and instruments and their impact on either trust or relational commitment. First, on a structural level, the efficiency of crisis plans have been discussed (Barton, 1991). Research indicates that pre-developed strategy plans help to create effective communication structures in the event of a crisis (Barton, 2001; Fearn-Banks, 2007; Lee et al., 2007). But not all organizational plans prepare effectively Reputational dimension Constitutive elements Cognitive-functional Evaluation of competence, achievements, reaching of (business) goals Cognitive-social Satisfying ethical and moral norms, corporate social responsibility Affective-emotional Sympathy and attractiveness, emotional evaluation Table I. Three dimensional reputation Crisis communication management 11 for crisis situations, because they can imply a false security. Second, on the subject of instruments, the leading question is what effect do communicative tools have on the perception of a crisis situation. Crisis literature indicates that audience orientation is often the key factor in influencing and building stakeholder relationships during a crisis (Falkheimer and Heide, 2006; Lee, 2004; Penrose, 2000). The symbolic perspective of crisis communication research analyzes rhetorical response strategies and their value, while the relationship between an organization and the media is of specific interest. Research shows that communication may repair a company’s image once threatened (Benoit, 1995, 1997). While the strategy of concession is most effective when organizations behave unethically (Bradford and Garrett, 1995), apologia in general has long been the main focus of crisis communication research (Benoit, 1995; Coombs, 1995; Hearit, 1995, 2006). Sturges (1994) shows that communication strategies are most effective when focusing on communication with the public. He proposes different communication strategies according to the severity of a crisis, but without testing his ideas empirically. A more recent approach is the situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) introduced by Coombs (Coombs, 2004, 2007; Coombs and Holladay, 1996). It suggests that rhetorical responses depend on attributed crisis responsibility. For victim crises (weak attribution of responsibility), he identifies a deny response option as most suitable, including response strategies such as attack or denial. For accident crises (moderate attribution of responsibility), the diminish response option is most suitable, including strategies such as excuse or justification. Finally, for preventable crises (strong attribution of responsibility), the deal response option is most appropriate, involving strategies such as ingratiation or concern. On the one hand, the analysis of Coomb’s message strategies has recently been transferred to a variety of crisis situations: for instance, Stephens et al. (2005) adapt them to explain technical translation strategies, which are deployed in order to provide messages that are specifically difficult to explain to a broader public. Critics, on the other hand, hold that while message strategies are being analyzed only from the recipient’s point of view, for communication managers it is not only the rhetorical response strategy but rather timely, consistent and active responses that are most relevant in order to safeguard reputation (Huang, 2008). Corporate crisis communication and reputation management Regulators and industry groups, as well as companies and organizations, have meanwhile developed many guidelines for communicating during crises (Löffelholz and Schwarz, 2008). Communication research takes on the many “recipes” and also slowly begins to provide more theoretically derived models about crisis communication as such (Coombs, 2004, 2007). However, the definition and measurement of threats to reputation is still largely being ignored in crisis literature (Eccles et al., 2007). And although “among the most important functions of reputation management is crisis management” (Tucker and Melewar, 2005), the precise impact of communication matters to maintaining or even building reputation during crises remains unclear. In our study, we put the argument forward that reputation is the perception of an organization of different stakeholders over time. Consequently, managing reputation during crisis situations seems inappropriate since first, crises often occur spontaneous and second, they last not long enough for managing reputation in the long run. Therefore, it is necessary to compartmentalize the process of reputation management. As McAllister (1995, p. 52) shows, the constitution CCIJ 16,1 12 of reputation, on the one hand, is dependent on trustworthiness (Backhaus, 1999; Blois, 1999; Groenland, 2002; Herger, 2006; Plötner, 1995). Eisenegger and Imhof (2008, p. 130) even state corporate reputation as the “reputation of trustworthiness”, so that in order to build reputation, trustworthiness becomes a minimum precondition. Trust on the other hand is built only, when organizations are able to establish an (often long built) reputation (Eberl, 2006; Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2010; O’Neill, 1984). Stakeholders only trust an organization when it has proven to be trustworthy over time, meaning having built a positive reputation. Crisis communication, which is usually situational, is therefore only able to have an impact on short-term trustworthiness in order to build or safeguard long-term reputation (Figure 1). Most striking, the dimensions of trustworthiness correspond to the ones we identified for the reputation construct: the abilities of an organization reflect its skills, competencies and expertise (functional dimension). In order to signal trustworthiness through competencies and thereby to safeguard functional reputation, an organization must clearly state its competencies, skills and abilities regarding both its core business and its crisis management. Benevolence expresses an organization’s desire to do good (social dimension), while integrity testifies an organization’s character, its fairness and credibility (emotional dimension) (Caldwell and Clapham, 2003), so that eventually in an empirical analysis all three dimensions may be explored distinctively. Previous crisis communication models Since most literature on crisis communication is case study based, the development of sophisticated approaches has only just begun. It is Gonzáles-Herrero and Pratt (1996) who propose a four-step symmetrical model for crisis communication management. Referring to Grunig and Hunt (1984), they argue that crises follow a life cycle (birth, growth, maturity and decline), demanding management procedures for each respective phase. Hence, they identify issues management, planning prevention, crisis and post-crisis management as crucial crisis management options. Our criticism is that their model is only a descriptive assignment of management activities according to crisis phases. It is neither a theoretically derived model nor does it hold empirically proven results. However, the authors do proclaim a classification of communication management activities according to different crisis stages, which is the most basic assumption for formulating crisis communication models. A somewhat similar but more detailed approach is introduced by Horsley and Barker (2002), who proclaim a synthesis model of crisis communication. Working on a more abstract level they also follow a time-based classification of crises and introduce six steps that are necessary for influencing the public during a crisis event. However, their study is limited to the public sector and does not take different types of crises into consideration. They also widen the view and suggest seeing crisis communication Figure 1. Managing reputation during crisis situations Trustworthiness Reputation Trust Crisis communication Crisis communication management 13 as a circle rather than an enclosed process. From their perspective, learning from a crisis becomes a crucial step for crisis communication management. Murphy (2007) argues that uncertainties in public relations (PR) may be analyzed through complex adaptive system theory or chaos theory. This is mainly because complexity-based thinking begins “from a view of the world as a shifting, often unpredictable, environment” (p. 120). In the sense of PR being also a strategy of constant negotiating between shifting powers and interest groups, chaos theory may be a suitable framework for analyzing crisis situations. Hence, most fruitful of her approach is the contextualizing of crises: similar to chaos theory, crisis situations manifest structures and patterns; however, they are non-predictable (Murphy, 1996). Also, do both concepts share the notion of attractors, bifurcation, unpredictability and non-linearity (Gilpin and Murphy, 2008, p. 38). But despite its attractiveness for embedding crisis situations, the impact of communication in chaotic situations was neither empirically nor theoretically being discussed. A sophisticated model, also implementing ideas from chaos theory, is introduced by Seeger (2002). He too sees chaos theory as best for understanding the behavior of complex systems but also for corporate communication during crises. Seeger implies first that precise predictions regarding system performance are impossible, so that crisis communication strategies may not be as effective as suggested by scholars so far. As a consequence, to best adjust a communication strategy to the current crisis situation, a classification becomes necessary, showing a corridor from which the set of strategies are to be chosen from. He claims that the impact of communication must be seen in a wider context than just in a timeline. However, we believe that chaos theory is a too widespread approach, modeling communication during crisis situations. It therefore does not help conceptualize modes of action regarding communication strategies and reputational outcome. The review shows that none of the introduced models aims at profoundly explaining the safeguarding of reputation during crisis situations. Some remain rather basic approaches, only proclaiming classifications of crisis communication and therefore even lacking a theoretical grounding. But since “the [assessment of a] crisis situation should be a major influence in strategy selection” (Coombs, 1995), it is equally important to embed crisis communication into a wider context in order to help in most effectively matching a crisis situation with its appropriate strategies (Sturges et al., 2001). In crisis communication models, the link between crisis communication strategy and multidimensional reputation has yet to be made. As indicated, research on crisis communication remains predominantly on a normative basis or analyses refer only to single crisis cases. Moreover, almost any concept produces its own idea of reputation, risk or crisis. It is therefore hard to find common ground from which to derive sophisticated models of reputation management during crisis situations. To demonstrate how to distinctively prevent long-term losses of (multidimensional) reputation, we develop a theoretically derived crisis communication model. Embedded in the theory of structuration by Giddens (1984), the aim is to find general structures and conditions of crisis communication and its impact on reputation, thereby helping to profoundly understand the forming and deforming of reputation during crises. Development of the integrative model of crisis communication Theory of structuration as theoretical foundation In communication research, scholars predominantly either relate to system theory approaches (macro perspective) or action theory approaches (micro perspective) in order CCIJ 16,1 14 to embed their empirical research (Röttger, 2005, p. 12). Consequently, most often studies either struggle with empirical evidence on the one hand or disregard structural conditions on the other. But in trying to describe and analyze communication conditions profoundly, especially in the field of PR, such dualism merely restricts the shaping of theoretical frameworks. Therefore, it is important to overcome such micro-macro dualism. An approach addressing the dichotomy between system and action is the theory of structuration by Giddens (1984), which integrates both perspectives. The aim of the theory is to find a framework that allows an intermediation of social structure and social action at the same time. With the theory of structuration, Giddens outlines social structures as both enabling and constraining social actions. In the view of the theory of structuration, social actors produce actions recursively, which means they act within a structure that is produced by social action itself. As indicated above, structures thereby both enable social action and restrain it at the same time. On the other hand, acting also enforces and maintains social structures. For Giddens, agents can be both individual persons and conglomerates such as organizations. To some extent, their actions are motivated, purposeful and designated to a relevant context. On the other hand, agents do not always know what they are doing and therefore do not necessarily carry out their actions in order to enable social structuring. Therefore, Giddens argues that social action may emerge either from a practical or a discursive knowledge. Practical knowledge is somewhat habituated and its social actions come from a certain routine. Only discursive knowledge, by contrast, is reflected knowledge, with its social actions being well considered and reasoned. Most everyday actions, however, derive from a practical knowledge and only a few actions come from discursive knowledge. Consequently, social structure to a large extent is formed through habituated social acting. Structures by contrast are resources or rules organized as social systems. According to Giddens, there are three types of structure: signification, domination and legitimation, which are linked with one another through so-called modalities. While resources (domination) can be allocative (control over material objects) or authoritative (control over persons), rules either give meaning to social acting (signification) or legitimize social acting (legitimation). Modalities are the links between structures and social actions, so the rules of sense-making (signification) are translated through interpretative schemes into communication. Authoritative/allocative resources (domination) translate structure through facilities into power and legitimation, and finally through norms into morality or sanctions. The fundamental improvement of the theory of structuration is to bring both the concept of structure and the concept of agent together, balancing agency and structure in the “concept of duality”. These fundamental assumptions show that social systems exist over time. Because structuration is a constant process in time and space, structure only exists through social acting (which in turn produces structure again). As Johansson (2007) shows, definitions on corporate communication employ dividing lines between internal and external communication with its very own research traditions. We follow the definition by Theis-Berglmair (2008), stating the term as communication of and inside organizations. Communication about organizations moreover describes an orientation of organizations towards public societal horizons of expectation. This definition overcomes the distinction between internal and external communication (Kuhn, 2008). We argue that corporate communication serves Crisis communication management 15 as a link between the internal and external environments of an organization (Yates and Orlikowski, 1992). It improves a coordination function of all corporate communication and serves on a macro level (social delineation), a meso level (user-oriented communication) and a micro level (tools of communication). In order to …