strategic value of employee relationships and communicative actions: overcoming corporate crisis...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 30 May 2012, At: 20:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of StrategicCommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hstc20

Strategic Value of EmployeeRelationships and CommunicativeActions: Overcoming Corporate Crisiswith Quality Internal CommunicationAlessandra Mazzei a , Jeong-Nam Kim b & Carolina Dell'Oro aa IULM University, Milan, Italyb Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Available online: 18 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Alessandra Mazzei, Jeong-Nam Kim & Carolina Dell'Oro (2012): Strategic Valueof Employee Relationships and Communicative Actions: Overcoming Corporate Crisis with QualityInternal Communication, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6:1, 31-44

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2011.634869

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hstc20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2011.634869

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6: 31–44, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1553-118X print / 1553-1198 onlineDOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2011.634869

Strategic Value of Employee Relationships andCommunicative Actions: Overcoming Corporate Crisis

with Quality Internal Communication

Alessandra Mazzei

IULM University, Milan, Italy

Jeong-Nam KimPurdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Carolina Dell’OroIULM University, Milan, Italy

A case study was conducted to understand how continuous managerial efforts and internalcommunication to secure employee safety would cultivate quality of relationships between companyand employee publics and further influence employee communicative actions in crisis situations.This case study shows that positive employee communicative behaviors and decreased negativecommunicative actions would be likely during a crisis resulted from good quality relationships. Thisshowed the value of good relationships to corporate strategic management and enhanced adaptabilityto organizational turbulence.

INTRODUCTION

On 9th December 2008, the evening television news reported the death of a worker of a man-ufacturer company in an accident at a plant in Northern Italy. This report was followed by aninterview of an employee, who, far from blaming the company for the accident, said that theepisode was unfortunate and that the company paid a lot of attention to factory safety. To under-stand the significance of this interview, we must know that safety at work is a hot issue in Italy.In 2008, 1,120 people died while they were working in Italy (Press clipping). In order to bring

This study was supported by the Internal Communication Laboratory at IULM University, in partnership with ASCAI;Ferrero; Henkel Italia; Hogg Robinson Italia; IBM Italia; illycaffè; Iper, La grande i; Micron Technology Italia; NatuzziGroup; Porsche Italia; and Unicoop Firenze.

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented to the Conference “Communicating Crisis in an Age ofComplexity,” Aarhus, October 6–8, 2011.

Correspondence should be sent to Alessandra Mazzei, IULM University, via Carlo Bo 1, 20143 Milan, Italy. E-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2

32 MAZZEI, KIM, AND DELL’ORO

the issue to public attention, on Labour Day 2008, Italian Republic President Giorgio Napolitanosaid, “We cannot resign. We have to work hard to prevent ‘white’1 deaths” (Ilsole24ore.com,May 2, 2008). Accidents in the workplace are usually followed by violent accusations directedat the companies and severe media criticism.

The communicative behavior of the employee was surprising in this context. What was newsin this case was the lack of public accusations aimed at the company. Employees are the mosteffective advocates of a company’s reputation and a crisis is when the support of the workforce/employees is critical. This study aims to understand how the company in the study achievedthis result in its crisis management. The paper is based on a literature review that is intended toshed light on sense-making processes in times of crisis. The case study provides an opportunity toexamine whether good relationships with employees can drive positive employee communicativeactions during periods of turbulence.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Internal Crisis Communication

Although most studies focus on external communication in a crisis, some recent studies haverecognised the relevance of internal communication (Frandsen, Johansen, 2011; Taylor, 2010).Studies show that internal communication is relevant first, for crisis prevention. By influenc-ing organizational climate, culture and relationships, internal communication can affect theimplementation of organizational changes and the solution of problems (Taylor, 2010).

Second internal communication can help to manage workers’ reactions. As we stated earlier,employees are the most effective advocates of a company’s reputation and its communicationstrategies. There is however, always a danger of employees’ negative communication reactionsaffecting the company reputation, for instance, via word-of-mouth that flow through informalnetworks (Kim & Rhee, 2011). If employees communicate openly and listen, stakeholders’ per-ceptions of the company involved in the crisis are positive (Rhee, 2008). Internal communicationis a lever that helps to prevent crises, supports appropriate reactions, minimizes damage andeventually produces positive results.

Employees as Both Receivers and Senders

There are several studies focused on communication strategies of companies involved in crises.Scholars are currently paying increasing attention to crises from the stakeholders’ perspec-tive to predict their reactions to a crisis and the companies’ communication strategies (Fediuk,Coombs, & Botero, 2010).

Stakeholders form expectations from a company based on their perceptions of the company’spromises. These promises tend to stem from the existing relationship between the stakeholderand the company. For stakeholders, a crisis is a violation of those expectations. Their reactions,like anger and resentment, cause two pronged damage for the company - reputation damage,

1In this context, in Italian “white” means “innocent”.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2

OVERCOMING CRISIS WITH QUALITY INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 33

and negative behavior intentions that take the form of ending the relationship, public complaints,negative word-of-mouth, protests and even violence (Fediuk, Coombs, & Botero, 2010).

The crisis communication arena is characterized by multiple voices but no dominant senderor receiver (Coombs, 2010; Frandsen & Johansen, 2010). In this arena employees play a criticalrole, usually underestimated because they are regarded as target publics (Frandsen & Johansen,2011; Kim & Rhee, 2011). A new research agenda calls for studies that consider employeeseither as receivers or as senders (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011). Employees have a contractualrelationship with the company that influences how they behave and what they are allowed to doin a crisis situation. Furthermore, their job security, motivation and engagement are at stake, andthis affects how they interpret the company’s action in crisis situations and how they attributeresponsibility for the crisis. Finally, employees feel a sense of belonging and identification thatinfluences their efforts in defending their own company (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011).

For these reasons, in a crisis situation, employees have peculiar emotional and cognitive reac-tions, such as insecurity, stress, feelings of betrayal, fear, and anger. In the context of a crisis,employees are either receivers or senders of information about problems related to the crisis,and can talk about their feelings with their families and friends, express their opinions or dis-close information to traditional or social media (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011; Kim, 2011; Kim &Rhee, 2011). As employees can adopt the roles of both receiver and sender, it is important tobroaden the concept of employee communication behaviors.

Employee Communication Behaviors

Employee communication behaviors (Grunig, 1997) has recently been conceptualized and mea-sured considering three aspects: megaphoning, scouting, and microboundary spanning (Kim,2011; Kim & Rhee, 2011). Megaphoning is “voluntary information forwarding or informationsharing about organizational strengths (accomplishments) or weaknesses (problems)” (Kim &Rhee, 2011: 246). Scouting is the employees’ voluntary attention to information and seeking fur-ther information during their formal and informal contacts with constituencies, and the sharingand forwarding of the same information within the company (Kim & Rhee, 2011).

The integration of megaphoning and scouting generates microboundary spanning: “non-nominated (nondesignated) employees’ voluntary communication behaviors to 1) dispersepositive information for one’s organization, 2) search and obtain valuable organization-relatedinformation from internal and external constituencies, and 3) disseminate acquired informationinternally with relevant personnel and groups” (Kim & Rhee, 2011: 249). This concept is close tothat of networking and active allegiance (Mazzei, 2010). The concept of employee communica-tion behaviors highlights the multiple communication roles of people in organizations, especiallythe role of those with no specific communication responsibilities.

Employee Communication Behaviors in a Crisis

People in an organization have affective, cognitive and behavioral reactions to a crisis (Myeret al., 2007). Affective reactions are rumors, damage to morale, and reduced loyalty. Cognitivereactions are changes in the company’s goals and decision-making protocol. Behavioralreactions alter the agenda to devote time to the crisis solution, distort the distribution ofresponsibilities, and hamper the organizational effectiveness.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


This study focuses on employees’ behavioral reactions to a critical event. Employees may actas either advocates or as adversaries of their company. They may support the company by givingit the benefit of the doubt, rather than criticizing it (Coombs & Holladay, 2006). They may inter-act with their social, familial, and professional networks about the crisis. They are also exposed tothe company’s crisis communication strategy through press releases, interviews and informationon the website, and may serve to critique the strategy adopted by the management. (Frandsen &Johansen, 2011). The literature provides a rich overview of employee communicative actionsduring crises. This study attempts to broaden this spectrum considering the constructive theoryof communication and the enactment perspective.

Social Interaction and Meaning Creation

It is very hard to distinguish the sender from the receiver in a conversation, because a conver-sation is a complex interaction with no fixed starting point (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson,1967). Furthermore, communication is a social process of interaction and interpretation thatgives sense to organizational actions and events (McPhee & Scott Poole, 2001; Tompkins, 1984).Overlapping conversations among many actors produce the organization (Taylor, 1993), becauseof the organizational “imbrications,” i.e., the overlap and interaction of different functions(Taylor, 2011).

The enactment perspective stresses that all organizational members negotiate meanings andmake the organization operate (Heath, 1994; Weick, 1977). Applying the enactment theory toa crisis situation, Weick (1988) argues that if senior managers perceive that safety is important,they enact an environment that pays attention to safety. As a consequence, the crisis preventionbehavior increases and people tend to see opportunities for their intervention in controlling thecrisis (Weick, 1988).

The enactment perspective highlights that the existing assumptions about the relevance ofhuman actions in crises determine the ability to see room for interventions, to understand whensafe inaction is preferable to dangerous action, to apply self-control and to engage in voluntarycooperation (Weick, 1988). Internal communication increases the awareness of people about thehuman impact on crisis prevention, management, and communication.

Quality of Relationships as a Driver for Employee Communication Behaviors

Employee communicative actions are influenced by organizational factors: the type of organi-zation, the kind and history of the crisis, the company communication and crisis cultures, andthe company communication strategy (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011). Many studies link the qual-ity of relationships between the organization and the employees to the communication actionsof employees in a crisis (e.g., Kim & Rhee, 2011). A positive relational history diminishes theattribution of responsibility for the crisis to the company, thanks to the halo effect (Coombs,2000). When employees perceive that they have good quality relationships with their company,they tend to act as advocates for their company and do not exaggerate management responsibilityor leak secret information (Kim & Rhee, 2011). When the pride of belonging to a company isnegatively affected by a crisis, employees may keep a distance from their company or refuse tobe its advocates (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


Good quality relationships between a company and its employees generate trust-relatedbehavior (MacMillan et al., 2000). Employees are willing to give the business the benefit ofthe doubt when its behavior is questionable, to communicate their own trust to other people, toact as advocates for the company, to be honest, to keep commitments, to avoid taking advantageor behaving opportunistically, to contradict false criticisms of the company, to report to the man-agement about dangers or threats, and to look for occasions to preserve or improve the reputationof the company. Communication is a key driver of relationship quality (MacMillan et al., 2000)and influences employee reactions to a crisis (Myer et al., 2007).

RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design of this study includes two research questions and a case study of a crisisfollowing a fatal accident that occurred in 2008 at a manufacturer plant.

Research Questions

RQ1: What sort of communicative actions do employees engage in during and after a crisis?

The answer to this question is based on the literature review. This study merges multiplepoints of view and proposes a broad set of employee communicative actions starting from twopremises. The first is that it is important to consider a wide range of crisis communication content:information, experience, assumptions, perceptions, opinions, knowledge, and meanings. Theseconcepts express the immaterial and subjective nature of communication content.

The second premise is that it is important to consider a broad domain of communicativeactions (Kim & Rhee, 2011) at both the individual and collective levels, expressed by verbslike to search, to interpret, to mean, and to comprehend, rooted in the social and inter-connectednature of the communication process.

Taking into account this premise, there is a wide range of employee communicative actionsthat should be considered in a crisis context (Figure 1), and that can be classified into threecategories: search, interpretation, and sharing.

1. Search• ask managers for explanations of company behavior• engage in listening and mutual understanding with constituencies• report any dangers, threats, and criticism to managers• value informal communication opportunities

2. Interpretation• interpret equivocal company behavior giving the company the benefit of the doubt• participate in group discussion to understand the consequences of the crisis• avoid rumors and ask managers for reliable interpretation• pay attention to the accuracy of meaning attribution• engage in cross-functional communication in order to circulate reliable knowledge• attribute responsibility to the company realistically• contribute to problem solution, caring for victims and damage minimization

3. Sharing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


• share arguments with constituencies to support the company’s position and reputation• act as advocate for the company• use personal networks for socializing knowledge about the company’s pre-crisis efforts

and postcrisis accommodative strategies• share data, experience and knowledge with colleagues in order to increase their

awareness of the crisis dynamic• not distinguish themselves from the company, but show a sense of belonging and

solidarity• not leak reserved information• avoid aggressive tone of voice, public complaints and negative word-of-mouth

RQ2: What is the role of internal communication and worker relationship quality in triggeringemployees to communicate in favor of or against their company?

According to findings from the literature, internal communication influences the quality ofrelationships between a company and its employees, and that, in turn, determines the positiveor negative communicative actions. This study looks for empirical evidence about the rele-vance of internal communication and relationship quality as predictive variables of employeecommunicative actions. Based on the literature review, we argue that internal communicationand the quality of relationships influence employee communicative actions.

Research Method

A case study strategy was the appropriate method for the aims of this study because it allows anexamination of how organizational dynamics affect crisis responses (Taylor, 2010) and employeeperceptions of the crisis situation (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011). Furthermore, the company inthe study is a unique example of positive employee communicative actions during a crisis situ-ation. No other research method would have allowed in-depth examination of a so singular anexperience (Yin, 1994).

FIGURE 1 Employee communicative actions in crisis situations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


A case study is the most widely adopted research method in the field of crisis communica-tion (Fediuk, Coombs, & Botero, 2010), although it has a number of limitations. It illustratestheoretical assumptions rather than proves them (Coombs, 2010) and it does not allow gener-alization (Fediuk, Coombs, & Botero, 2010). But in the present case, it seemed to be the bestresearch strategy, in spite of these shortcomings. The researchers gathered data by means ofdocument analysis and interviews (Daymon & Holloway, 2002; VanderStoep & Johnson, 2009;Yin, 1994). The multiple sources of evidence enlarged the range of topics and allowed for thetriangulation of data.

The document analysis included the company profile, website and code of conduct; the pre-sentations of the internal communication policy and activities; the presentations, examples andmonitoring data about the internal communication campaigns dedicated to safety from 2003 to2010; the official data about investments and safety activities implemented from 1997 to 2010;the findings from a climate survey carried out in 2008; the internal communication safety cam-paigns survey administered in July 2010; press releases and the in-house company publicationsreporting the accident, together with press clippings.

The document analysis made it possible for the researchers to investigate the safety and com-munication strategies adopted by the Company since 2003, and to reconstruct the accident and thereactions that followed it. The researchers obtained all requested documents from the companyin their authentic and complete version.

The interviews with the internal communication referent explored the Company’s internalcommunication system, its aims, outputs and effects; the company’s safety policies, objectives,main results and measurement; the crisis management strategies, and the reactions of managers,employees and external stakeholders after the critical episode. The interviews took place in July2011, one face-to-face and one via Skype, for a total of more than 4 hours. They were recordedand transcribed. After the interviews, the researchers asked for further information and clarifi-cation via telephone and emails. The researchers then carried out a qualitative analysis of thedocuments and the transcript of the interviews, identifying information relevant to the researchaims and hypothesis, recurrent themes and differences among the sources of evidence.

FINDINGS

The Company

The Company in this study is a leading global manufacturer and supplier of steel tubes andrelated services for the world’s energy industry as well as other industrial applications. Listedon four international stock exchanges, it has an integrated worldwide network of steel pipemanufacturing, research, finishing and service facilities with industrial operations in North andSouth America, Europe, Asia, and Africa and a direct presence in most major oil and gasmarkets.

The Company is the Italian branch of an international Group and it was established with theacquisition of an historic company. It has a turnover of about ¤950 million, about 850 white-collar workers and 1,750 blue-collar workers and has five manufacturing facilities.2

2All data correct as of December 2010.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


Internal Communication Strategy

The Company has a long-standing commitment to internal communication as illustrated byits continuous investment in internal communication programs and policies and its strategicpurpose: “To build a common basis of knowledge and to develop all of the company’s poten-tial. Internal Communication aims to share the company mission, values, business ethic, andthe respect for people. It creates a sense of belonging.”3 The focus of the company’s internalcommunication has evolved over time. Immediately after the acquisition, internal communica-tion concentrated on the development of the internal brand. Then, safety became the company’spriority to promote a deep cultural change in employees’ habits and behavior and to reducethe number of workplace accidents. The current internal communication policy mainly aimsat involving managers in the employee communication process to motivate people. Managerialcommunication skills are relevant “to create, share and interpret corporate values.”

Current information flows mainly through the many internal communication channels: theintranet, the two house organs, the monthly CEO newsletter, videos, and events. All these modesof communication contribute to internal communication by presenting a consistent message thatfocuses on the company’s goals.

The Company attaches great importance to internal and external communication transparencyconsistent with the major principle that governs its conduct. In fact, transparency is a majorfeature of the company’s actions in all business contexts. The CEO describes transparency andintegrity as core values of the Company, which is committed to share its most relevant strategiesand information with all employees. The Company’s employees at all levels are expected to becommitted to integrity and transparency, thus nurturing long lasting and trust-based relationshipswith all constituencies (Code of Conduct, 2009).

Internal Communication Feedback

The Company carries out regular audits on its internal communication efforts in order to monitortheir effectiveness. The findings show that employees consider the internal communication toolsand campaigns useful. For example, a climate survey carried out in 2008 indicated interest inreceiving internal communication: the average agreement was 4.69 on a scale from 1 to 6. Alsoa readership survey of one of the house organ conducted in 2009 showed employee approval,although there were some requests for changes.

Internal communication in the Company aims at building positive employee relationships.This aspect was investigated by means of the climate survey in 2008, some months before theaccident. A sample of 1,655 employees (with a response rate of 82.6%) revealed that - on a scalefrom 1 (disagree) to 6 (totally agree) - people are quite satisfied with working at the Company(4.12) and liked their job (4.83). They thought that their departments try to improve the qualityof the work environment (4.10) and that leaders are available when workers need help (4.49).

According to the Company’s interpretations of the survey, one of the key success factors thatlead to the results of the survey is the effort to make all communication consistent over time,media, and departments. The significance of internal communication in the Company has grown

3These are phrases taken from the interview transcripts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


over the years, due to its effectiveness in raising awareness and creating employee engagement,with the Company’s communication function reaching an autonomous and leading role amongthe other organizational functions.

Safety Policy

The Company is an organization that is committed to safety. This commitment is demonstratedby its multifaceted approach in promoting safety in the workplace. For the purpose of our study,three approaches in particular are relevant. These are investment, training, and communication.

Investment is directed towards improving plant safety. Since 1997, the Company hasinvested ¤ 1.5 million annually on manufacturing and plant safety. In addition to this amount,a part of each plant’s and the Engineering Department’s budget is allocated for safety improve-ments and upgrades.

Training is intended to equip employees with all the knowledge needed to operate efficientlywhile following the Company’s standards. Since 2006, the “Safety Training Index,” which mea-sures the relationship between worked hours and training hours dedicated to safety, has beenabout 1%, a relevant percentage compared to the average in the same industry.

Internal Communication addresses the issue of safety through house organs, brochures,events, videos, and targeted campaigns. Each house publication pays attention to safety issues.For example, the monthly magazine dedicates two of its eight pages to safety. Brochures servemultiple purposes and are therefore widely used. For instance, every year each operator receivesa brochure with incident and accident reports in his/her work area. This report includes the tech-nical details of all the accidents/incidents with an explanation from the local operations manager.In addition, a meeting is held at the plant by the local operations manager specifically to explainthe details of accidents.

Videos are also used extensively for blue-collar worker communication. They are shown, forexample, during safety events or on dedicated occasions, such as area meetings with shift man-agers. Events mainly aim to involve people and strengthen their awareness of safety. For example,in the bi-annual safety events, workers agree to share their own work-safety related experiences.Usually these events are an opportunity for top managers to engage in discussion with workersand unions on safety issues. In addition to this, the Company also holds safety events for employ-ees of supplier companies that operate in their plants in order to share safety policies and effortsand to assure them of a safe workplace.

Billboard Campaigns

Since 2003, the Company has implemented communication safety campaigns addressed to blue-collar workers through billboards placed in the factories. Every campaign is about a specific topicand lasts for about six months/one year. Although each campaign is topical, the overarchingmessage of the safety campaigns is kept consistent. The bottom line of the billboard has alwaysthe same caption.

The first campaign was aimed at increasing awareness about safety devices such as helmets,gloves, and ear protectors. The billboards showed statues of parts of the human body to underlinethat they are not as resistant as stone, and employees have to protect themselves. The secondcampaign addressed the topic of hand safety, because hand accidents were about 50% of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


total number of accidents that happened. The billboards reported various statements about theimportance of hands and how to avoid accidents. The third campaign was a continuation of theprevious one in terms of the graphic layout, but spoke about safety procedures in general andhow to avoid risks. As in the previous campaign, the statements used puns, like “A suspendedload is a load of risks.”

The fourth campaign linked the value of quality to the value of safety. The billboards showedpictures of employees with their name and work area and a statement such as “The quality ofour work protects everybody’s safety.” The fifth campaign used drawings of a famous Italiancartoonist to remind people to be careful when they were dealing with handling procedures. Theuse of cartoons by a popular author serves to keep attention on the issue. The 2011 campaigncalls for people to attend to safety matters in every action. The statements on the billboards takethe shape of the object they are talking about. For example, the statement, “Always wear theproper protection,” takes the shape of a protective mask.

The results of the Company’s commitment to safety can be evaluated through the “InjuryFrequency Rate,” which measures the number of accidents with lost time compared to millionsof working hours, has decreased from 26.7 in 2007/2008 to 13.8 in 2010/2011.

A survey conducted in 2010 with a sample of blue-collar workers reported that 89% of the306 respondents had seen the 2010 safety campaign billboards, 56% of the respondents declaredthat they appreciated the campaign and 67% considered the billboards effective or very effective.These results are quite encouraging, although they have deteriorated over the last few years,probably because people have become used to billboard communication.

The Crisis

On 9th December 2008, a 20-year-old worker died in an accident at the large-diameter tube mill atone of the Company’s plant. During the routine reactivation of the preheating system, the workerwas hit while repositioning the funnel that allows tubes to be inserted into the furnace. He was atemporary employee who had worked at the Company for about a year.

After the accident the Company delivered a press release expressing regret and condolencesto the operator’s family. The press release also noted “profound consternation that the eventtook place despite the strong and systematic safety initiatives carried out during recent years”(Company intranet). The Operations Director explained to a local newspaper that the accidentwas a defeat for the company because it happened despite the huge and systematic interventionsand training (Press clipping).

The Company published some posts on the intranet explaining the dynamic of the accident,clarifying the company position and remembering the worker who died. Two articles in the com-pany magazines described the accident, expressed a sense of defeat, talked about the employee’slife and reported his colleagues’ and family’s memories. At the same time the Company rein-forced its commitment to safety: “The accident is the motivation to accelerate more and more allthe activities aimed at decreasing risks in the plant” (Company intranet).

Public opinion and public concern about workplace accidents were very strong in Italy at thattime. Despite this, analysis of the press clipping reveals that neither media nor other stakeholdersattributed major responsibility to the company for the accident. A representative of the tradeunions was quoted in a local newspaper saying, “The Company is one of the most careful com-panies talking about safety and has invested a lot in it during recent years, in an industry wherethe smallest mistake can be fatal” (Press clipping).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


Another trade unionist underlined the fact that work accidents are misfortunes and it is notalways possible to foresee and to avoid them (Press clipping). The internal trade unions stated thatalthough, “Safety training and investment at the Company have not been spared during the lastyears,” they could be ineffective when addressed to workers with little experience in dangerousareas (Press clipping). After the accident the trade unions called a strike. An employee wasquoted in a local broadcast company as saying, “The accident happened because of the worker’slack of experience, despite having attended 170 hours of a theoretical course. But when you areworking, experience counts for a lot” (Press clipping). According to a reporter’s description ofthe funeral, the priest expressed disbelief at the loss of so young a life and thanked the Companyfor the support it had provided to the operator’s family (Press clipping).

Good relationships are strategic for the overall company performance and strategic for themanagement: “This Company existed for 100 years, trying to build and feed good relationshipswith employees, communities, and stakeholders in the long term. It isn’t just a matter of com-munications campaigns but a broader commitment. Good relationships are comparable to plants’maintenance, without a periodical and careful maintenance the plant would break and stop toproduce. The same is with people: you have to take care of your employees and communitiesand build a strong relationship with them.”

DISCUSSION

The first research question of this study relates to the kinds of communicative actions thatemployees engage in, during a crisis situation. The Company in the study shows multiple sensemaking processes in the crisis situation. Employees interpreted the accident as an unfortunatecasualty, attributing no responsibility for the accident to the Company. They also contributed tominimizing the damage by offering support to the family of the victim. Workers shared argumentsabout the commitment of the company towards safety with other constituencies and advocatedto support its reputation. They showed their sense of belonging to the company and avoidedaggressive tones, complaints and accusations about the company.

Critical voices did not call attention to the company but to critical public issues: the highnumber of workplace accident victims and the high-risk conditions of temporary workers, whousually lack experience. The reactions of the Company stakeholders are equally remarkable asthey interpreted the crisis in the context of strong public opinion that blamed firms for workaccidents in Italy at that time.

The second question investigates the role of relationship quality in determining the reactionof employees during crises. The findings of the 2008 climate survey and the perceptions of theinterviewees indicate a positive relationship history. Previous studies demonstrate that a positiverelational history operates as a shield, protecting a company from the attribution of responsibilityin a crisis situation (Coombs & Holladay, 2006). This seems to be the case here.

Probably three elements make the Company relationship building strategy effective. First, theuse of primary communication (Balmer & Gray, 1999) conveyed by the company’s actions andmanagerial concern. Visible organizational interventions and cultural orientation enact the sense-making process (Weick, 1977, 1988). The Company was committed to the issue of safety formany years, and showed an “obsession for safety” with commensurate economic effort. Primarycommunication, or in other word action, is highly credible because it signals the company’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


commitment (Riley, 2001) accordingly with a behavioural management paradigm in publicrelations (Kim, Ni, 2011).

Second, the convergence among organizational units is very effective in dealing with the cri-sis (Taylor, 2010). This seems to be the case of the Company, which uses multiple managerialpractices to reduce the crisis risk and considers the consistency of behavior among differentorganizational units a success factor.

Third, the Company invested in a continuous effort on internal communication. The analysisof the company communication policy reveals that it is guided by transparency, continuity andconsistency, which are considered among the effectiveness principles for internal communication(Goodman & Hirsch, 2010).

This study focused primarily on the employee perspective. Nevertheless, it is worth pointingout a further cue to relationship quality: the adoption of mortification and corrective actionsstrategies by the Company. According to Image Restoration Theory (Benoit, 1995, 1997), thecompany adopted a communication strategy based first on mortification, accepting responsibilityfor the accident, and second, on corrective actions, giving aid to the family and renewing itscommitment to safety policy. Previous studies show that companies with a positive reputationand a positive relational history, privilege crisis communication strategies that show concernfor people damaged by the crisis and reinforce the perception of the company as a responsibleinterlocutor (Coombs & Holladay, 2006).

This case study illustrates that relationship quality is the basis of positive employee commu-nication actions. In turn, quality relationships rely on the commitment of the company and oncommunication that elucidate the company’s commitment. The strength of relationship seemsalso be pertinent for overall performance of the company and for its strategic management.

CONCLUSION

This study underlines the multiple communicative roles employees have in the sense-makingprocess during crises. To this end the study adopted a stakeholder perspective and the constructiveand enactment theories. The case study made it possible to illustrate an experience of positiveemployee communication behaviors and lack of negative employee communication actions aftera fatal work accident. According to the research hypothesis of this study, this was the result ofinvestments in safety over the last years and supported by intense and ad hoc communicationactivities, and relationship building strategies.

The managerial implication is that there should be continuous and consistent managerialefforts towards promoting work safety and a parallel internal communication programme years toprevent the possibility of a crisis. A policy that is preventive rather than curative can contributeto a strong positive relationship between an organization and its employees, which will even-tually prevent negative affective reactions and the related negative communication behaviors incase of crises. Furthermore, to generate positive communication behavior, a company should sig-nal its commitment with its actions, the primary form of communication. Finally, convergenceamong the many levers of communication, including organization, technology and training, isvery important.

Further efforts are needed in order to consolidate the evidence of this study. Qualitativeresearch strategies will help better understand detailed processes of how corporate actions and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


internal communication efforts may foster and secure positive communicative actions by employ-ees during and after crises. In addition, quantitative research across various crisis situations willalso help validate our case study findings — the links from managerial efforts to build quality,long-term relationships with employees and further to supportive communicative actions such aspositive megaphoning among employees even when they experience problematic consequencesfrom crisis situations.

REFERENCES

Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (1999). Corporate identity and corporate communications: Creating a competitiveadvantage. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(4), 171–176.

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, apologizes: A theory of image restoration discourse. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177–186.Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning

(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management (pp. 73–93). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Coombs, W. T. (2010). Crisis communication. In R. Heath (Ed.), The Sage handbook of public relations (2nd ed.; (pp.

477–488). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2006). Unpacking the halo effect: Reputation and crisis management. Journal of

Communication Management, 10(2), 123–137.Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications.

London: Routledge.Fediuk, T. A., Coombs, W. T., & Botero, I. C. (2010). Exploring crisis form a receiver perspective: Understanding

stakeholders reactions during crisis events. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), Handbook of crisiscommunication (pp. 635–656). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Frandesen, F., & Johansen, W. (2011). The study of internal crisis communication: Towards an integrative framework.Corporate Communication: an International Journal, 16(4), 347–361.

Frandsen F., & Johansen, W. (2010). Crisis communication, complexity, and the cartoon affair: A case study. In W. T.Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), Handbook of crisis communication (pp. 423–448). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Goodman, M. B., & Hirsch, P. (2010). Corporate communication: Strategic adaptation for global practice. New York,NY: Peter Lang.

Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss,T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–46). London, UK:ITB Press.

Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Kim, J. N. (2011). Understanding strategic value of good employee relationships and employee communicative actions:

For better corporate branding and reputation management. Insight Train, 1(1), 52–69.Kim, J. N., & Ni, L. (2010). Seeing the forest through the trees. In R. Heath (Ed.). The Sage handbook of public relations

(2nd ed.; (pp. 35–57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Kim, J. N., & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations:

Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(3),243–268.

MacMillan, K., Money, K., & Downing, S. (2000). Successful business relationships. Journal of General Management,26(1), 69–83.

Mazzei, A. (2010). Promoting active communication behaviors through internal communication. CorporateCommunications: An International Journal, 15(3), 221–234.

McPhee, R. D., & Scott Poole, M. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 503–543). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Myer, R. A., Conte, C., & Peterson S. E. (2007). Human impact issues for crisis management in organizations. DisasterPrevention and Management, 16(5), 761–770.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2


Rhee, Y. (2008). Risk communication management: A case study of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Journal ofCommunication Management, 12(3), 224–242.

Riley, J. (2001). Silver signals: 25 years of signalling and screening. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 432–478.Taylor, J. R. (1993). Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: How to read an organization. Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.Taylor, J. R. (2011). Organization as an (imbricated) configuring of transactions. Boston, MA: Proceedings of the ICA

2011 Conference, May 27–31.Taylor, M. (2010). Toward a holistic organizational approach to understanding crisis. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay

(Eds.), Handbook of crisis communication (pp. 98–704). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Tompkins, P. K. (1984). The functions of communication in organizations. In C. Arnold & J. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook

of rhetorical and communication theory (pp. 659–719). New York: Allyn & Bacon.VanderStoep, S. W., & Johnson, D. (2009). Research Method for Real Life: Blending Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatic of human communication: A study of interactional

patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.Weick, K. E. (1977). Enactment process in organizations. In B. M. Stow & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in

organizational behavior (pp. 267–301). Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317.Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, London-New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 2

0:34

30

May

201

2

strategic value of employee relationships and communicative actions: overcoming corporate crisis...

Documents