The purpose of this article is to contribute to the discussion concerning the present position and future directions of strategic communication by looking into the past and offering some proposals and a vision of how to develop and advance the field further. Research in strategic communication has mostly focused on communication professionals working in communication departments or agencies as primary agents of communication. However, this reflects a limited comprehension of organizations. The article addresses the need to focus not only on communicators, but also on managers and coworkers as key actors when trying to understand and theorize the practice of strategic communication.Theoretical approach-broadening the understanding of strategic communicationIn this section, we present a theoretical framework that broadens the understanding of strategic communication. First, there is a need to challenge the traditional understanding of communication and its relation to organizations. It is quite astonishing that our research community sometimes takes communication for granted. One could expect that researchers who have expertise in communication theory, should frequently try to understand and explain different phenomena from a communication perspective and also reflect on communication per se. For the purpose of reflecting on communication and its vital importance for the existence of organizations, we proclaim the use of the CCO perspective. Second, there is also a need to challenge the often taken-for-granted understanding of strategy. For that purpose we use the strategy as practice tradition that is related to the practice turn in strategic communication (cf. Aggerholm & Asmuß, 2016). Finally, to reach a more realistic understanding of the complex organizational realities, we have consulted literature within the organizational paradox and contradiction movement.The CCO perspective has its roots and primary advocators within the discipline of organizational communication. However, we believe that the CCO approach goes hand-in-hand with the basic tenets of strategic communication and that it could enrich our field. It should be noted that CCO is how research could go beyond a more traditional way of approaching and studying strategic communication. We believe that it is difficult to embrace all aspects of strategic communication within a single research project, such as multiple perspectives and theories, but we would like to see more perspectives, also critical, on an aggregated level. In the research that is presented below, we have primarily included communication professionals, managers and coworkers, and we have used both quantitative and qualitative empirical material. Method and materialThe empirical material in this part of the article comes from a three-year-research project, "The Communicative Organization" (2014)(2015)(2016)(2017). The purpose of the project is to increase knowledge about how communication creates value and contributes to organizational goal attainment. A distinguishing characteristic o...

In recent years we have seen a trend towards a managerial focus in communication professionals taking the role as coaches supporting managers in their communication roles. This is a clear step towards a more strategic role, closer to the basic work processes in the

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to contribute with increased knowledge of the complex role of internal communication during a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. More specifically, the authors want to address the following research questions. How can the overall approach to internal crisis communication during the pandemic be interpreted, and what view of internal crisis communication does this approach reflect? What has been characteristic of the leadership communication during the pandemic? What do coworkers think of their communication role and how well does the internal communication support that role?Design/methodology/approachThis article is based on a case study of an authority with 1,000 employees. The empirical material consists of both documents and interviews. The analyzed documents include steering documents, e-mails to managers from the support function and newsletters from the top manager. The 17 interviews comprise managers, coworkers and communication managers. All interviews were recorded and the authors have conducted verbatim transcriptions.FindingsThe pandemic is an example of a wicked problem that involves a lot of ambiguity. Often organizations try to handle wicked problems by trying to control it through traditional management skills and practices. A pandemic demands a leadership, culture and communicative approach that highlights the importance of coworkers. In the studied organization the authors found knowledge and rhetoric about the value of coworkers and communicative coworkership. However, top management does not encourage, support and award practices that are in line with the espoused culture. The key to success is top managers that walk the talk and act as role models.Practical implicationsCrisis managers and crisis communicators need to focus more on improvisation, flexibility, listening and how to approach and make sense of the uncertain. In general, there is a tendency to rely too much on simple tools and to oversimplify complexity. Complex crises such as the pandemic raise new demands on leadership. Effective crisis leadership in a complex crisis seems to be much more democratic and collaborative than often assumed. If coworkers are expected to act as ambassadors or organizational representatives, they also need to be given better support for that role.Originality/valueThis article highlights the importance of closing the gap between espoused and enacted culture in order to change from a managerialistic internal crisis communication to a process internal crisis communication approach.

The aim of this article is to elucidate the complexity of internal crisis communication by identifying and discussing different paradoxical tensions embedded within a large, complex, multi-professional organization. This article is based on a qualitative case study of a university hospital. Internal dimensions of crisis management have long been neglected within the field of crisis communication research. In the first part of the article, two theoretical approaches are presented – the functionalist and social constructionist which are based on different ontological and epistemological assumptions. We take a social constructionist perspective on crisis communication, which focuses on aspects such as complexity, sensemaking, and symmetrical relations. In the first part, we also give a brief overview of the small, but growing research into internal crisis communication. In the second part of the article, five different paradoxical tensions are identified and discussed: (1) episodic–emergent, (2) centralized–decentralized, (3) professional–organizational, (4) planning–improvisation, and (5) external–internal. While the complexity of internal crisis communication demands a both-and perspective, we have found a tendency to a simplistic either-or thinking. In the concluding discussions, several explanations of the one-sided polarization within the tensions are offered. Furthermore, we discuss various ways of responding to paradoxical tensions. Metacommunication is presented as important in order to increase organization members’ understanding and thereby facilitate a more reflexive and broader approach to crisis management.

No abstract