Struggling with internal crisis communication: A balancing act between paradoxical tensions

Abstract

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.

Expanding the Scope of Strategic Communication: Towards a Holistic Understanding of Organizational Complexity

“…Several researchers argue that tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes are not necessarily problematic, but should rather be seen as normal, unavoidable, and ubiquitous in organizational life (Cooren, Matte, Benoit-Barné, & Brummans, 2013;Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016;Tracy, 2004). Instead of suppressing or ignoring tensions, it is better to embrace them-to increase awareness of them, to analyze their characteristics and to manage them by meta-communication (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004;Heide & Simonsson, 2015).…”

Doing the right things or doing things right?

“…Stohl and Cheney, 2001;Heide and Simonsson, 2015). There is an equivalent emphasis on rationality in organizations, where linear models and rational problem solving guide decision makers.…”

Internal crisis communication and the social construction of emotion: university leaders' sensegiving discourse during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…These narratives frequently evidence present continuity-based storytelling (Dawson and Sykes, 2019) fostering a collective sense of belonging to address anxiety and uncertainty. As such, the university community is continuously re-legitimised in line with future-orientated sensemaking (Gephart et al, 2010) through the articulation of shared values, expertise and regional contribution, reflecting discourse as processual, continuously reproducing the organisation (Heide and Simonsson, 2015). Therefore, sensegiving discourse is a process of interpretation and oscillation between macro events and micro experiences.…”

“…Third, we bring to the fore the notion of antenarratives or 'unfinalised' narratives (Boje, 2008) that continuously challenge the three core narratives, requiring sense to be reframed as events unfold. An emotion and meaning-making constructionist perspective picks up Heide and Simonsson's (2015) challenge to re-orientate research away from rationalist approaches to understand the complexity of internal crisis communication.…”