Volkswagen emissions scandal, Germanwings Flight 9525, Samsung’s exploding batteries – corporate crises are becoming more and more common in today’s unpredictable environment. In the course of globalization, an increasing number of multinational organizations is operating in an international setting. Thus, the likelihood and potential impact of a corporate crisis rises. At the same time, the international potential of a crisis is aggravated by the dissemination of information in near real-time due to the Internet. Especially negative information spreads with a range and speed that increases an organization’s vulnerability to crises. As a result, the demand and importance of crisis communication is leaping. Due to the more complex and international surroundings of crisis communication, culture as a contextual factor in crisis communication plays a role of growing importance. In different cultures, different crisis responses by the organizations are expected because stakeholders perceive and react to messages in different ways dependent upon their culture. The probably most typical distinction of cultures is between collectivistic and individualistic societies. In the past, crisis communication research has been given too little attention to cultural contexts. Crisis communication research and theories almost exclusively focused on individualistic Western contexts. However, the growing relevance of culture in crisis communication is getting more and more evident in research.
For this reason, the question of the cultural influences of individualistic and collectivistic societies on organization’s crisis communication strategies as well as the stakeholders’ perception of and responses to the crisis messages in different cultural settings is discussed in the present work. To answer this question, first of all an overview of the theory of crisis communication is given, with reference to the definition and the main crisis communication theories and strategies. Secondly, the term culture is paid attention to, with a focus on the dimension of individualistic versus collectivistic cultures as an influencing factor on crisis communication. Subsequently, the current findings of the influence of individualism and collectivism on organizations’ crisis communication strategies and on the perception of stakeholders are reflected. Concluding, the results are discussed in the overall setting, limitations are shown and implications for future research are given.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Organizational crisis communication
3 Culture as an influencing factor on crisis communication
4 Crisis communication in individualistic and collectivistic cultures
4.1 Organizational crisis communication messages and strategies
4.2 Stakeholder perception of corporate crises and crisis communication
5 Discussion and outlook
Objectives and Core Topics
The primary objective of this work is to analyze the influence of individualistic and collectivistic cultural dimensions on organizational crisis communication strategies and how stakeholders within these distinct cultural settings perceive and respond to such communications. The study seeks to bridge the gap in crisis communication research, which has traditionally focused on Western perspectives, by examining how cross-cultural settings necessitate adaptive communication strategies for multinational organizations.
- Crisis communication theory and foundational strategies
- Cultural dimensions of individualism versus collectivism
- Organizational message strategies in cross-cultural contexts
- Stakeholder perception and response to crisis communication
- Cultural adaptation challenges for multinational organizations
Excerpt from the Book
4.1 Organizational crisis communication messages and strategies
Crises are communicated differently by corporations depending to a large extent on the respective culture. In crisis communication, collectivistic cultures, such as China, South Korea or Taiwan, prefer to use group identities. This is reflected in organizational statements that mostly use the name of the organization or refer to all members of the organization. Individualistic cultures, such as the United States, tend to refer to individual representatives in their crisis statements, such as CEOs, presidents and other managers (Kim, 2017, p. 36).
Collectivistic cultures try to avoid public accusations and uncertainty in crisis communication (Zhu et al., 2017, p. 488; Jiang et al., 2015, p. 52). Thus, extreme corporate communication strategies, as for example attacking the accusers, are not highly valued and rarely used (Huang et al., 2016, p. 209). It is more prominent in collectivistic societies to cover up scandals and the truth about them instead of admitting to responsibility (Huang et al., 2016, p. 210). Therefore strategies like diversion and strategic ambiguity to distract public or media attention, ease public anger and escape blame are frequently applied strategies (Huang et al., 2016, p. 208). Scapegoat, referring to blaming a person or group outside of the organization for the crisis, and justification are also frequently used strategies by collectivists in order to attempt to remedy and undermine the crisis’ impact (Kaul & Desai, 2017, p. 280). In addition, collectivistic cultures like to use the no comment strategy in order to block media attention (Huang et al., 2016, p. 208). Crisis managers in in collectivistic cultures attribute a higher importance to maintaining a kind, polite and respectful image in comparison to individualists (Wu, Huang & Kao, 2016, p. 16).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter highlights the rising importance of crisis communication due to globalization and introduces the research question regarding cultural influences on organizational responses.
2 Organizational crisis communication: This section provides a theoretical overview of crisis definitions and key communication strategies, such as Benoit’s Image Restoration Theory and Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory.
3 Culture as an influencing factor on crisis communication: The chapter explores culture as a contextual factor, primarily utilizing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory to contrast individualistic and collectivistic societies.
4 Crisis communication in individualistic and collectivistic cultures: This segment analyzes empirical findings on how corporate communication messages and stakeholder perceptions differ across these two cultural poles.
4.1 Organizational crisis communication messages and strategies: This sub-chapter examines how corporations adapt their language and tactics, such as diversion or transparency, based on the cultural preference for group vs. individual accountability.
4.2 Stakeholder perception of corporate crises and crisis communication: This sub-chapter focuses on how different cultures interpret crisis responses, particularly the role and reception of apologies and inclusion strategies.
5 Discussion and outlook: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, discusses the limitations of current cross-cultural crisis research, and proposes implications for future scholarship and practitioners.
Keywords
Crisis communication, organizational crisis, culture, individualism, collectivism, stakeholder perception, crisis management, image restoration, Hofstede, cross-cultural communication, multinational organizations, globalization, crisis strategy, reputation, corporate communication
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this publication?
This work examines how cultural differences, specifically the dimension of individualism versus collectivism, impact the strategies organizations use to communicate during crises and how stakeholders in these regions perceive such responses.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
Key themes include crisis communication theory, the role of national culture in business, communication strategies like public apologies or ambiguity, and the challenges multinational firms face when operating in diverse cultural environments.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to identify systemic differences in how crisis messages are crafted and received in Western (individualistic) versus Eastern (collectivistic) cultural contexts.
Which scientific methodology is primarily employed?
The study conducts an analytical review of existing literature and case studies to synthesize findings on cultural influence, comparing various theories and empirical evidence from academic publications.
What specific topics are covered in the main body?
The main body breaks down crisis management theories, details the attributes of individualistic and collectivistic societies, and provides an in-depth analysis of message strategies and perception gaps between these two distinct cultural frameworks.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The core keywords include crisis communication, culture, individualism, collectivism, stakeholder perception, and organizational reputation.
How does the concept of 'face' influence communication in collectivistic cultures?
In collectivistic societies, saving 'face' is critical; therefore, organizations often avoid direct confrontation or public admissions of fault to maintain harmony and a respectful image, as opposed to prioritizing transparency.
How do individualistic and collectivistic cultures differ in their use of apologies?
Individualistic societies generally value direct, transparent apologies that admit personal responsibility. In contrast, collectivistic societies may view apologies differently, sometimes seeing them as a means to repair relationships and restore harmony, provided they appear sincere.
What is 'stealing thunder' and how is it used in different cultures?
Stealing thunder is a proactive communication strategy where an organization discloses a crisis itself before others do. While effective in both settings, it is often more commonly utilized in individualistic cultures and can produce different effects on media and stakeholder perceptions.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2018, The Influence of Culture on Organizational Crisis Communication and Stakeholder Perception. Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures in Comparison, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1240231
