Exploring internal crisis communication in multicultural environments

Abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to explore managers' perspectives on and practices of internal crisis communication in multicultural environments. Design/methodology/approach-After a review of relevant literature on crisis, culture and internal communication to define the framework and relevance of this study, results from qualitative interviews with Danish managers are presented. Findings-Interviewees acknowledge the relevance of the cultural backgrounds of employees in relation to internal communication, especially in crisis situations. Cultural aspects affect message framing and employee sensemaking, especially when it comes to employees located in other countries. Line managers and local communicators are key in the adaptation of verbal and nonverbal communicative features. Employees are also seen as active sensegivers and communicators. Research limitations/implications-Findings show how demographic and globalisation patterns, which are changing domestic and international workplaces, have important implications for internal communication and internal crisis communication. There is therefore a call for further research, especially from the perspective of employees. Originality/value-Although cultural aspects have been highlighted as a recurrent feature of most crises today, and one of the new research areas to be explored, studies within this area are very few and concern mainly external audiences and practices. The present research study contributes to this overlooked area by offering valuable insights into internal crisis communication in organisations with a multicultural environment.

Interdisciplinary Understanding of a Crisis: Towards an International Crisis Classification Matrix

“…High or low cultural differences of the affected stakeholders [21] states that multiculturalism is a challenge for crisis communication and culture, national and organizational, influences stakeholder perceptions and interpretations. Central concepts in international research are the psychic distance and the cultural differences.…”

Crisis Typologies Revisited: An Interdisciplinary Approach

“…A major strategic issue in every internationalization effort is the global standardization or local adaptation of the supporting and value creating activities, including marketing and communication (Hill, 2014). Historical research stresses the necessity to adapt communications in terms of language, content, non-verbal communication, media consumption and technology use, visual features, rhetoric and argumentation strategies (Ravazzani, 2016). The adoption of global values (for example global employer branding) and a singular corporate language are mentioned as effective instruments to overcome cultural differences and support standardization efforts (Hill, 2014).…”

“…The question of which crisis type requires standardized crisis communication and which one needs idiosyncratic adaptation to different cultures remains unanswered. According Ravazzani (2016) some crisis types can be more pertinent culture-wise and require cultural adaptation of the internal crisis communication. These include organizational changes like reorganization and restructuring or emergency situations that put employees at risk, such as terrorism and natural disasters.…”

Model of Crisis Communication Management in the Perspective of Situational Crisis Communication Theory at the Transportation Ministry

“…Other researches on crisis communication at an internal organization include preparedness of an organization for a crisis to maintain reputation and build trust (Wowak, et al, 2015;Roshan, et al, 2016;Mazzei, 2015); leadership in an organization in times of crisis (Brown, et al, 2016;Cardon, 2019); employees' perspective of narration, culture and supervision (Strandberg & Vigsø, 2016;Ravazzani, 2016); internal conflict within an organization in facing crisis (Purworini, 2017); monitoring information via online media in times of crisis (Dominguez-Lopez, 2017;Zeng et al, 2017); motivation language of leaders (Farida & Ganiem, 2017).…”