Week 5 Assignment ResourcesCommunication as a Strategic Tool in.docx

Week 5 Assignment Resources/Communication as a Strategic
Tool in Change Processes.pdf
International Journal of
Business Communication
2014, Vol. 51(4) 359 –385
© The Authors 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2329488414525442
jbc.sagepub.com
Article
Communication as a Strategic
Tool in Change Processes
Marit Christensen1
Abstract
The aim of the study was to develop, test, and partly validate a
set of organizational
communication factors for use in an organizational-change
setting. Based on literature
reviews and pilot interviews, a survey study was conducted
using three samples.
First, the testing involved construct validation through
exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses. Second, the sample was divided into three

groups: employees who
experienced change, those who had recently had finished a
change process, and those
who had not experienced any change processes. The
communication factors were
then examined as predictors of employee assessment of
communication in these
three groups, respectively. The results of the study indicated
eight robust dimensions
included in five categories: social contact, central leadership,
information, influence,
and barriers to improvement. The results of the factor analyses
indicated satisfactory
reliability and construct validity of the communication factors,
and the confirmatory
factor analysis revealed a satisfactory model fit.
Keywords
organizational communication, organizational change,
measurement, validation
Organizations today are confronted daily with the need for
change. A major challenge
for organizations is to develop both a culture or climate and
leadership strategies that
allow them to cope with challenges such as downsizing, re-
engineering, flattening
structures, global competition, and the introduction of new
technology (Waddell,
Cummings, & Worley, 2011). One approach to a successful
change process could be
through the establishment of good communication and
information strategies within
1Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),
Trondheim, Norway

Corresponding Author:
Marit Christensen, Department of Psychology, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Email: [email protected]
525442 JBCXXX10.1177/2329488414525442Journal of
Business CommunicationChristensen
research-article2014
360 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
the organization, while implementing change. Communication is
well recognized as
instrumental to organizational survival and growth (Bordia,
Hobman, Jones, Gallois,
& Callan, 2004; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991; Wanberg & Banas,
2000). This fact has
served as a driving force in the development of efficient
instruments for the measure-
ment and analysis of communication in organizations (Downs,
DeWine, & Greenbaum,
1994). The basic idea is that a communication audit creates a
foundation for diagnos-
ing the quality of the communication practice. Auditing
communication involves the
assessment of current communication practices to determine
what steps are required
for improvement. Based on this line of thought, several
instruments for measuring
organizational communication have been developed (see Downs
et al., 1994, for a
review). The existing measures are diverse and differ in their
aims regarding commu-

nication focus. Additionally, few of them are related
specifically to change. Most of
the instruments have only been used once. The aim of this study
was therefore to
develop, test, and partly validate a measure of organizational
communication related
to change.
The first step was a study of the literature on the role of
organizational communica-
tion during change processes. The following section provides a
review of the literature
for the pilot interview study.
Resistance to change is a phenomenon that slows the change
process by hindering
its implementation and increasing costs. Some of the drivers of
responses to change
could be economic fear, uncertainty, inconvenience, threats to
interpersonal relation-
ships, the impact on internal processes and systems, and the
impact on social func-
tions. Resistance is mostly considered negative; however, that
does not tell the whole
story. Change is not necessarily beneficial to the organization,
and resistance can
reveal to managers important aspects of the situation that have
not been properly con-
sidered (Pardo del Val & Martinez Fuentes, 2003). Change can
generate deep resis-
tance in employees and organizations, which makes it difficult
and sometimes
impossible to implement change processes (Garvin, 2000).
Employees mostly resist
change when they are insecure about its consequences. The lack
of information and

communication with managers could give life to rumors and
gossip and lead to anxiety
associated with the change. Effective communication about the
changes and conse-
quences could reduce this anxiety and increase the feeling of
mastery (Argyris &
Schön, 1996). However, communication is also a difficult and
frustrating aspect of
managing change in an organization. There is, therefore, a
strong need to have well-
considered communication and information strategies during the
planned change pro-
cess. Another effective strategy to avoid pitfalls and hindrances
is to involve employees
in planning and implementing the change process with regard to
information and
ideas. It could increase the likelihood that the employees’
interests and worries are
accounted for and thereby increase the motivation to implement
the change process
(Waddell et al., 2011).
The concept of organizational communication is, according to
Goldhaber (1999),
marked by diversity. The many definitions of organizational
communication reflect a
wide range of approaches and perspectives. In analyzing the
content of these defini-
tions, Goldhaber identified three common features:
Organizational communication (a)
Christensen 361
takes place within complex open systems (it is influenced by the

environment and
influences it as well); (b) entails all features of a message (i.e.,
flow, purpose, direc-
tion, and media); and (c) involves people, including their
attitudes, feelings, relation-
ships, and skills. Drawing on these features, Goldhaber
proposes the following
definition: Organizational communication is “the flow of
messages within a network
of interdependent relationships” (Goldhaber, 1999, p. 36).
Research suggests that the concept of organizational
communication is multidi-
mensional. For example, on one hand, Tukiainen (2001) found
that employees per-
ceive four dimensions of meaning in organizational
communication: (1) personnel’s
use of the communication system; (2) the management’s
conduct and methods of com-
munication, including the perception that separate
communication channels exist for
workers and leadership, how the leadership’s decisions and
communicative behavior
are perceived, and the extent to which communication is
considered regular, orga-
nized, and equal; (3) face-to-face communication; and (4) the
efficiency of the com-
munication process. On the other hand, Johnson (1992)
reviewed four major approaches
to organizational communication structure and identified five
dimensions: relation-
ships, entities (e.g., employees, work units), contexts,
configuration (e.g., patterns of
organizational behavior), and temporal stability. These
examples are given merely to
illustrate that the structure of organizational communication has

been described in dif-
ferent dimensions. The variety is not surprising, considering the
wide scope of the
field. Organizational communication is considered a specific
discipline, although it
cuts across a wide range of research fields.
The broad scope of the discipline of organizational
communication is also reflected
in the variety of different organizational communication
measurements that have been
developed. The most widely used measures are in two
categories: process instruments
(e.g., measuring issues of conflict management, team building,
and communication
competence) and comprehensive instruments (involving an
overall approach to com-
munication). Validated instruments that have been applied
frequently include the
Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ; Downs &
Hazen, 1977), which
emphasizes the relationship between communication and job
satisfaction; the
Communication Audit Survey (also known as the International
Communication
Association [ICA] audit survey), identified as one of the most
comprehensive attempts
to measure all aspects of organizational communication
(Goldhaber & Krivonos,
1977); the Organizational Communication Development Audit
Questionnaire (OCD2;
Wiio, 1975), which determines the efficiency of the
communication system for achiev-
ing an organization’s goals; and the Organization
Communication Scale (OSC;
Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974), which compares communication

practices across organi-
zations. This is by no means a complete list but is meant to give
a sense of the scope
of the field.
The complexity of organizational communication demands a
broad perspective.
According to Downs et al. (1994), the extensive span of the
research area and the use
of imprecise parameters created a challenge in establishing the
field’s current status. A
similar point had already been made in 1974 by Roberts and
O’Reilly, who called
attention to the lack of systematic development of
instrumentation to measure
organizational communication. According to Downs et al., it is
unfortunate that so few
of the organizational communication measures have been used
sufficiently to generate
the mandatory levels of reliability and validity.
Based on the argument of Downs et al. (1994), two tasks would
seem to be entailed
in the development of an organizational-communication
measure. First, although sev-
eral instruments have been developed and validated, the
multifaceted nature of the
field renders it difficult to define the direction to be taken in
instrument development.
In other words, how does one identify the common denominator
to be used to compare

a new instrument with previous measurements? It is argued here
that a key factor in
measurement development is the identification of a background
or starting point that
can serve as a common reference point, allowing comparison
with other approaches.
Specifying a background that can be used in any approach to
organizational commu-
nication increases the possibility of comparing results and
identifying the status of the
field. The second task concerns the problem of designing an
instrument that will be
used only once, with no further attempt to certify its validity.
Thus, a key issue becomes
the development of an instrument that is easy to use, requiring
frequent validation. The
theoretical background for the study is elaborated next.
Content of the Communication Instrument
A study of the literature and a pilot interview study were
important to defining the five
categories of the communication instrument that were extracted
and tested in this
paper. As a first step in the development and validation of an
instrument of organiza-
tional communication, item generation is essential. In this
paper, both a deductive
approach and an inductive approach were used. The basis for
the deductive approach,
which involves providing a theoretical foundation for
organizational communication
and the chosen categories, is provided below. In addition, the
inclusion of an inductive
approach, in which respondents were invited to share their
experiences of organiza-

tional communication in change processes, was thought to be of
interest. The catego-
ries extracted from the pilot studies and literature review
included social contact,
central leadership, information, influence, and barriers to
improvement. Within some
of the categories, several themes demonstrated that each
category had several facets.
An elaboration of the categories’ theoretical and empirical
foundation is provided
below.
Social contact was the first category developed from the pilot
interviews. Within
this category, respondents identified several elements as crucial
to well-functioning
communication systems in change processes. In this category,
respondents highlighted
certain themes: contact between coworkers and leadership,
contact among coworkers,
and finally the fact that disruptive relations between colleagues
and leaders could dev-
astate an organization. The respondents also pointed out the
importance of distinguish-
ing between levels, that is, distinguishing between contact with
central leadership and
contact with the closest leader in times of reorganization and
change. The communica-
tion and information processes could be experienced quite
differently based on who
initiates the rationale and strategy behind a planned change
process. Central leadership
was therefore defined as a specific category, the second
category. According to

Christensen 363
Goldhaber (1999), organizational communication pertains to the
attitudes, feelings,
relationships, and skills of people. In line with Goldhaber’s
suggestion, others have
also emphasized the social component of organizational
communication. For example,
Tukiainen (2001) reported that the management’s conduct and
face-to-face communi-
cation shaped employee perception of organizational
communication. Johnson (1992)
also underlined the social component of organizational
communication, suggesting
that social relationships represent one of the key dimensions of
organizational com-
munication structure. Finally, Towers-Perrin (2006) concluded
that one of the key
hindrances to employee engagement is the difficulty of building
appropriate connec-
tions between the leadership and the workforce.
The third extracted category involved information, especially
information content,
quality, timing, and structure. Previous research (Johnson,
1992; Tukiainen, 2001)
emphasized the importance of employee use of the
communication system and the
system’s efficiency. Rafferty and Jimmieson (2010) found that
the information cli-
mate regarding change had a positive relationship with the
quality of work life and a
negative association with role ambiguity, work overload, and
distress. They also found
that the participation climate during change had a positive

relationship with quality of
work life. This is in line with the results of Van Vuuren, de
Jong, and Seydel (2007),
who reported that feedback from managers to employees is a
critical factor in shaping
communication climate and employee commitment.
Communication and information
in the workplace during change and reorganization are essential
to employee job sat-
isfaction (De Nobile & McCormick, 2008).
The fourth category dealt with influence. Respondents
emphasized the importance
of both their perceived influence and participation in decision
making as well as the
important role of the labor unions, especially in the
reorganization and change pro-
cesses. Wilson and Peel (1991) defined participation as
allowing individuals to be
involved to a high degree in the planning and control of their
own work and as having
enough knowledge and power to influence processes and results
in order to reach
desirable goals. A meta-analysis including 43 studies revealed
that profit-sharing,
worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making
were all positively
correlated with increased productivity (Doucouliagos, 1995).
Participation during
change seems to empower the employees and might function as
a predictor of accep-
tance of change (Gagné, Koestner, & Zuckerman, 2000;
Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
The fifth category was concerned with barriers to the
improvement of communica-

tion during organizational change and hindrances to good
communication practices.
Earlier studies demonstrated that relationships, rules, policies,
and resources, or lack
of them, affect communication team functioning. Koontz (2001)
summarized the bar-
riers to communication with the notion that communication
problems are often symp-
toms of problems that are more deeply rooted: for example,
poor planning and lack of
common goals for the organization, communication overload,
badly expressed mes-
sages, lack of understanding, and hostility between the
participants and bureaucracy.
As mentioned, resistance to change might be a major barrier to
successful reorganiza-
tion because it triggers a perceived lack of control, insecurity,
and anxiety, among
other things (Bruckman, 2008; Erwin & Garman, 2009; Ford &
Ford, 2009). Lack of
information and good communication strategies might increase
these experiences
(Waddell, Cummings, & Worley, 2007).
Theoretical Presupposition
The contemporary focus of the theoretical field of
organizational communication is
closely related to the issues of organizational change (see
Salem, 1999, for a review).
Communication is regarded as key to the successful

implementation of change pro-
grams, because it is a tool for announcing, explaining, or
preparing people for change,
as well as for preparing for positive and negative effects of the
impending change
(Spike & Lesser, 1995). According to Barrett (2002), effective
communication is the
glue that holds the organization together. During organizational
change, the effective-
ness of this glue becomes critical. Efficient communication is
essential because it links
all organizational processes. As pointed out by Galpin (1996),
any organizational
change strategy begins by establishing the need for change. A
critical decision is then
related to how to communicate this need to members of the
organization. The rationale
for change must be communicated clearly, as must the
consequences of not changing,
not to mention how the organization will appear after the
changes (Galpin, 1996).
The rate of change in organizations has been increasing during
the past 20 years
(see, e.g., Burnes, 2004; Jones, Dunphy, Fishman, Larne, &
Canter, 2006), and there
has been considerable debate about whether change actually
brings the expected ben-
efits to the organizations or those who work in them (Jones et
al., 2006). There are two
main approaches to change: the planned and the emergent. The
main criticism of
planned change is that it attempts to make order and a linear
sequence out of some-
thing that is really unpredictable, messy, and untidy (Buchanan
& Storey, 1997).

Weick (2000) argues that emergent change consists of ongoing
accommodation, adap-
tion, and alteration that produce fundamental change without a
priori intentions to do
so. Both of these approaches indicate that change in any fashion
is unpredictable and
unstable and in many cases fails to achieve its objectives.
One of the major aims of communication during change is to
reduce the experience
of job insecurity among employees (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia,
& Irmer, 2007). Good
and effective communication seems to reduce psychological
insecurity about change
and, additionally, increases acceptance, openness, and
commitment to change (Bordia et
al., 2004; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
The failure to provide
sufficient information or provide inferior information can have
negative consequences,
such as perceived cynicism about change (Wanous, Reichers, &
Austin, 2000). Rafferty
and Jimmieson (2010) found that the climate of information
regarding change has a
positive relationship with the quality of work life and a negative
association with role
ambiguity, work overload, and distress. They also found that the
climate of participation
related to change has a positive relationship with the quality of
work life.
Processes of organizational change are thus intimately related to
communication
processes. Although it is well recognized in the literature,
Galpin (1996) noted that
organizations have devoted most attention to technical,

financial, and operational
aspects of change. This is echoed by Barrett (2002), who argued
that some companies
Christensen 365
still do not see that organizational changes, and the management
of change, are hin-
dered without effective communication. Strategic
communication is a key aspect in
Galpin’s (1996) description of the change process, which begins
by preparing strate-
gies for communication. Furthermore, communication by means
of feedback and
employee participation drives the change process forward.
Based on the key role of
communication in organizational change, we suggest that
organizational change may
serve as an arena for the development and assessment of
tion instruments.
Method
Aim and Design
The main objective of the work was to develop and test an
instrument of organiza-
tional communication and especially examine its performance
during phases of orga-
nizational change. The design, therefore, included the
development and testing of the
instrument itself, followed by a test of the instrument’s
performance in groups defined

in accordance with three phases of organizational change. It was
of specific interest to
investigate the performance of the instrument in the phase
during which employees
experienced organizational change.
According to Hinkin (1998), the factor-development process
includes (1) item gen-
eration, (2) questionnaire administration, (3) initial item
reduction, (4) confirmatory
factor analysis, (5) convergent/discriminant validity, and (6)
replication. The results as
reported in the present study followed Steps 1 through 4 in this
suggested process. As
convergent/discriminant validation (Step 5) was not available as
an option, a predic-
tive validity test was conducted. The predictive validity of the
communication factors
was examined by testing how the factors related to
communication during organiza-
tional change. This was done by examining how the factors
predicted the employees’
assessments of communication in three different phases of
organizational change. The
employees were divided into three groups: employees
experiencing no change or reor-
ganization, employees who were in a change process, and
employees in organizations
that had recently completed their reorganization or a change
process. Replication
(Step 6) was not performed in the current study.
As described above, the questionnaire was developed and based
on a review of the
literature and a pilot interview study. The questionnaire was
administered in three

separate samples, involving different organizations,
occupations, and work positions,
in order to examine the robustness of the dimension structure,
which consisted of 76
items. In Step 1, the 76 items were organized into five
categories based on their mean-
ing content: (1) social contact (36 items), (2) central leadership
(5 items), (3) informa-
tion (14 items), (4) influence (10 items), (5) barriers to
improvement (11 items).
The Aims of this Paper
The overall objective of the present work was to develop, test,
and partly validate a
specific set of organizational communication factors as well as
to examine how the
factors relate to organizational change. The rationale lies in the
presumed value and
centrality of organizational communication, that is,
communication as a strategic part
of organizational-change management.
The content of the communication factors was designed based
on both a review of
the literature and a pilot interview study. The review of the
literature helped to clarify
the construct of organizational communication and guided the
selection of items. A
sample of six respondents from a variety of occupations and
positions were asked to

describe their experiences of organizational communication,
especially related to
change processes. Their responses were classified into five
categories based on key
words or themes: social contact, central leadership, information,
influence, and barri-
ers to improvement.
After the items had been generated, the next step was to
administer a questionnaire
to three different samples, with the objective of examining how
well those items con-
firmed expectations about the psychometric properties of the
measure of organiza-
tional communication. The third step of the process was to
ascertain the reliability and
validity of the instrument, and it involved initial item reduction
through principal com-
ponent analyses in all three samples. Reliability represents the
instrument’s precision
and is a necessary condition for validity. The internal
consistency of each new dimen-
sion was measured by Cronbach’s alpha.
In the fourth step, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted
to test the adher-
ence of the results of the prior principal component analyses to
the data. A weakness
of principal component analysis is its inability to test the
goodness of fit of the result-
ing factor structure. A confirmatory factor analysis allows the
assessment of the factor
structure by statistically testing the significance of the overall
model and of item load-
ings on factors. Two confirmatory factor analyses were
conducted in this study. They

were both performed on the largest sample. The first analysis
was performed to test the
model fit of the eight-dimensional measurement model
previously found in the PCA
analyses. The second analysis was performed to test whether the
eight-factor commu-
nication instrument was a homogeneous measure of
organizational communication
with different facets. As a result, a confirmatory factor analysis
with a second-order
common latent dimension of organizational communication also
was conducted.
Finally, predictive validity was tested in the last step to
examine how the eight com-
munication dimensions predicted the “employees’ assessments
of communication,” an
item measuring employee evaluation of organizational
communication.
These analyses were conducted in three different groups in the
second largest sam-
ple—no reorganization, current reorganization, and finished
reorganization—to inves-
tigate whether the instrument, with the included eight
dimensions, was able to
differentiate the performance of the instrument.
Data Collections and Their Design
The pilot study included six interviews with three managers and
three employees, who
were chosen for participation because of their recent experience
with change processes
in their organizations. Of these respondents, one leader and one
employee were chosen

Christensen 367
from the private, municipal, and public sectors. In the pilot
interview sample, half of
the interviewees were women. Managers and employees were
located in Trøndelag, in
the region of mid-Norway. The respondents were contacted by
telephone, and agree-
ments were reached about their participation and interviews.
Each interview lasted 30
minutes, and all were audio-recorded with the permission of the
interviewee and there-
after transcribed and analyzed. The pilot interview work,
together with the literature
review, formed a basis for the development of the 76 items used
in the questionnaire.
Sample 1 was based on a cross-sectional survey design and
consisted of employees
working in the social, labor, and health sectors in Norway (n =
470). Five different
types of services were contacted for participation. A total of 24
municipalities were
carefully chosen on the basis of size and on whether they had a
cornerstone industry1
that was downsizing or that had closed down. The design
included a control sample.
Among the studied municipalities, 12 had a cornerstone industry
that had recently
closed down or was downsizing. For the purpose of comparison,
another 12 munici-
palities were chosen based not on having a downsizing
cornerstone industry but on

their resemblance to the former 12 municipalities in size and
location. These are
referred to here as “control municipalities.”2 Each control
municipality was compared
with the 12 municipalities with a downsizing cornerstone
industry, using the criteria
for comparability of the Norwegian Central Bureau of
Statistics3: geographical loca-
tion, settlement pattern, economy of the municipality, average
level of education,
income after tax per inhabitant, population, age-structure, and
employment statistics
(Langørgen, Galloway, & Aaberge, 2006).
The design also divided the municipalities according to size;
half of each subsam-
ple was selected from small municipalities (0-4,999
inhabitants), and the remaining
half was selected from medium-sized municipalities (5,000-
19,999 inhabitants). The
division was also based on the grouping by the Central Bureau
of Statistics of munici-
palities according to size. The mean age of the employees was
46 years (SD = 10.50);
73% were female and 27% were male. The leaders of each
service received a letter of
invitation and were contacted again by telephone for
participation. Sample 2 included
a selection (convenience sample) of employees working in the
production industry and
in the transport sector (n = 192). Two local industrial
production companies, as well as
a local office of a transportation labor union, were contacted
and engaged. Participation
was voluntary, and the study had the consent of the respective
leadership and employee

representatives or unions. A contact person in each organization
or office distributed
the questionnaire to the employees. Participants came from
leadership, production,
and transportation. The mean age of the respondents ranged
between 40 and 50 years
of age; 89% were male and 11% were female. Sample 3 was a
national quota sample
collected in 2004 of Norwegian employees working in different
organizations, occu-
pations, and positions (n = 1,002). A quota sample is collected
by a stratified sampling
technique in which the number of cases to be sampled is
predetermined (Reber, 1995);
in this case, the sampling represented the overall national
distribution of occupations.
The distribution of the respondents’ areas of work will be
presented in four categories:
production and industry (17%; e.g., agriculture, fishing, and
industry), service sector
(18%; e.g., retail and vehicle repair services, transport,
bank/insurance/finance, and
the service industry), public administration (46%; e.g., research
and education, health
and social services), and others (19%; see the Statistical
Yearbook of Norway 2005
[Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005]). The mean age of the
employees was 44 years
(SD = 11.49); 44% were male and 56% female. See Table 1 for
a description of the
three samples.

Questionnaire and Measures
Organizational communication was measured using 76 items in
the questionnaire. The
respondents were presented with statements to be checked on
five-point scales ranging
from 1 = not correct to 5 = absolutely correct, and 1 = never to
5 = always, as well as
1 = not useful to 5 = invaluable.
The first category, social contact, consisted of three
dimensions: (a) contact with
leadership (nine items, e.g., “the dialogue between my closest
leader and me is good”),
(b) disruptive relations (five items, e.g., “rumors are flourishing
between the employ-
ees”), and (c) coworker contact (four items, e.g., “the
communication between my
coworkers and me is good”). This category of social contact
measured the social rela-
tionship and dialogue between the leader and the employees and
among coworkers.
The first dimension, contact with leadership, measured the
relationship between the
employee and the closest leader and included aspects such as
tolerance, openness,
respect, and trust. The second dimension, disruptive relations,
measured detrimental
relationships among the employees and included such topics as
rumors, conflicts, and
lack of communication. The third dimension measured the
relationship and contact
among coworkers. The items included trust and solidarity.
The second category consisted of only one dimension, central

leadership (three
items). It measured the relationship between employees and
their central leadership,
related to topics such as openness, involvement, and regular
contact (e.g., “The com-
munication with the leadership is marked by openness”).
The third category, information, also had one dimension:
information (seven items,
e.g., “the information provided is relevant for me”). The items
dealt with relevance,
clearness, and comprehensibility as well as the amount of
information that is given and
the timing of the information.
The forth category, influence, had two dimensions: (a)
perceived influence (three
items, e.g., “my opinions are heard”) and (b) perceived union
assistance (two items,
e.g., “The unions bring my view/opinion further on”). The first
dimension measured
the influence experienced by the employees in their workplace,
involving items of
Table 1. Description of the Three Included Samples.
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Type of employees Public Private Diverse
Gender distribution 73% female 11% female 56% female
n 470 192 1,002
Christensen 369

being heard, time and place for discussion, and inclusion. The
second dimension mea-
sured the employees’ experience of union assistance regarding
information about
rights and bringing the employees opinions forwards.
The fifth category, barriers to improvement, had only one
dimension (six items). It
measured different barriers to well-functioning communication
in an organization
(e.g., “certain individuals may hamper communication”).
Employee assessment of communication was measured by a
single item from the
General Nordic Questionnaire (QPS Nordic) for psychological
and social factors at
work (Dallner et al., 2000). The item asks, “Is there sufficient
communication in your
department?” The item was measured on a five-point scale
where 1 = very seldom or
never, 2 = rather seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rather often, and 5
= very often or always.
Data Analyses
The pilot study used qualitative interview techniques to gather
data on organizational
communication during change. The interview questions
concerned the respondents’
perceptions of communication in their organization and their
appraisal of ideal organi-
zational communication. The interviews were read and an
overall framework was
established. The analysis process started with data reduction by
focusing on relevant
parts in the text to be included in a survey on organizational

communication during
change. The next step was to sharpen, focus, and organize the
data by developing units
within organizational communication for use in a survey
instrument. Together with a
review of the literature, this material was used as a foundation
for developing the orga-
nizational communication instrument.
Three principal component analyses (PCAs) and reliability
analyses were per-
formed, in three separate samples. The samples were all part of
the project “Work and
Health in a Changing World” (financed by the Research Council
of Norway).
Preliminary Factor Analyses. Principal component analyses
were used to examine the
dimensionality of the hypothesized communication components
in all three samples.
The questionnaire was based on items describing the
aforementioned five specific
areas within organizational communication. The assumption was
that the variables
were indicators of different dimensions as presented above. The
Kaiser criterion has
been referred to as the most appropriate for evaluating the
results of a principal com-
ponent analysis (see Kim & Mueller, 1978). The dimensionality
was examined using
both varimax (orthogonal) rotation and promax (oblique)
rotation, both with the Kai-
ser’s extraction criterion (i.e., eigenvalue ≥1).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Two confirmatory factor
analyses (CFAs) were per-

formed to investigate the model fit of the data. The first model
tested the model fit of
the eight-dimensional model previously found in the principal
component analyses,
and the second model further tested whether the eight-factor
communication instru-
ment was a homogeneous measure of organizational
communication with different
facets. The latter confirmatory factor analysis with a second-
order common latent
dimension of organizational communication was therefore
conducted. The analyses
were performed using the AMOS program 18.0. In comparing
the fit of the factor
structure, the following fit indices were reported: chi-square,
degrees of freedom, root
mean square of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit index
(GFI), and compara-
tive-fit index (CFI). Reliability of the resulting dimensions is
reported by Cronbach’s
alpha (α) coefficient. The analyses were run separately in all
three samples to test
whether a robust dimensional solution had been achieved: that
is, whether it could be
reproduced in all three samples, based on respondents from
different organizations
and different occupations. Correlational analyses were
examined by means of Pear-
son’s r correlation coefficient. Regression analyses (multiple
linear regressions) were
performed to examine how the communication components

predicted employee
assessment of communication. The Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS)
V18 was used to analyze the data.
Results
Results From the Pilot Study
The data from the pilot study were organized in five categories,
based on the analyses.
The first category, social contact, included three dimensions,
namely contact with lead-
ership, disruptive relations, and coworker contact. The
interviewees emphasized the
important relationship and interaction with both colleagues and
leaders during a change
process, including issues such as regular contact, trust, and
justice, and items within this
area of communication were therefore developed. The second
category included the
topic of contact with central leadership. This category was
included because of the
importance of the impact of different levels of leadership to the
better understanding of
communication during a change process. Items related to central
leadership (e.g., the
top leadership, corporate leadership, or political leadership)
were therefore developed.
The third category concentrated on information. The processes
of change were described
as being dependent on high-quality information: the right
amount of information given
at the right time. The fourth category focused on influence and
included both perceived
influence and perceived union assistance. Influence and

participation were mentioned
as some of the main factors for successful implementation of
change, especially related
to overcoming resistance in the change process. Items related to
these issues were there-
fore included in the instrument. The fifth category emphasized
barriers to improve-
ment, a topic that was mentioned in each of the prior categories.
Therefore, items
related to barriers in each of these themes were included in this
category.
Establishing the Factor Structure
The first step in validation involved determining dimensionality
and reliability of the
items and dimensions. The objective was to establish a robust
dimension structure that
could be reproduced in different samples and settings. Hence,
the main criterion for
dimensionality and reliability for the communication
components was a structure that
was reproduced in each of the three separate samples.
Christensen 371
Communication Components
Dimensionality was examined by means of explorative principal
component analyses
with varimax and promax rotation and Kaiser’s extraction.
Social Contact. The 36 items measuring social contact were
analyzed with explorative

principal component analysis. A robust three-dimension
structure involving 15 of the
items was found in all samples. However, some minor
exceptions were related to
Samples 2 and 3. The principle component analysis was
performed with Kaiser’s
extraction criteria revealing seven dimensions in the first
principal component analy-
sis done in Sample 3. Only three dimensions made theoretical
sense, and in the initial
analyses, 21 items were excluded from further analysis because
they did not adhere to
a clean structure and presented weak factor loadings. The
resulting structure is pre-
sented in Table 2.
In Samples 1 and 2, there were some remaining cross-loadings,
but those were
retained because the major sample demonstrated a clean
structure. A further analysis
revealed that removing the items cross-loading the structure did
not improve anything
but only moved problems to the other dimensions.
Based on the content of the variables, the dimensions were
named “contact with
leadership,” “disruptive relations,” and “coworker contact.” The
results of the PCAs
are shown in Table 2. Only factor loadings at .35 or above are
included; this is close to
the conventional .40 criterion that is frequently applied as a
cutoff (Ford, MacCallum,
& Tait, 1986).
Central Leadership. The five items measuring degree of central
leadership were

extracted as one dimension. Two items were omitted owing to
weak factor loadings.
Table 3 presents the results. An additional principal component
analysis was per-
formed including the items from the social contact category and
the items of central
leadership, because of similarities in the content of the two
categories. The results
revealed, however, that central leadership emerged as an
individually distinct dimen-
sion. The category was therefore kept in the initial form.
Information. The respondents were asked to assess 14 items
regarding how messages
are communicated (e.g., for quality, timing, and
comprehensibility). The principle
component analysis was performed with Kaiser’s extraction
criteria revealing one
dimension. Seven items were excluded from further analysis
because they did not
adhere to a clean structure (see Table 4).
Influence. The principal component analysis revealed that 5 of
the 14 items fell into a
robust two-dimensional solution with acceptable reliability. The
two dimensions were
named perceived influence and perceived union assistance (see
Table 5).
Barriers to Improved Communication. The results of the items
measuring barriers to
communication improvement demonstrated that six items
constitute a robust dimen-
sion (see Table 6).

So far, the analyses have examined each dimension separately.
Having established
dimensionality and reliability of the communication
components, the next step was to
examine the bivariate correlations between the dimensions. See
the correlation matrix
in Table 7.
Table 2. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Social Contact
(Factor Loadings).
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1. Contact with leadership
I can be open in bringing up subject matters
with my closest leader.
.83 — — .78 — — .82 — —
The dialogue between my closest leader and me
is good.
.82 — — .84 — — .81 — —
There is tolerance/acceptance in my
communication with my leader.
.81 — — .83 — — .80 — —
My closest leader keeps an open door policy for
the employees.

.80 — — .79 — — .70 — —
My closest leader is available if I wish to bring
up personal matters.
.76 — — .79 — — .78 — —
My closest leader trusts the employees. .71 — — .69 .42 — .59
.46 —
My closest leader respects me. .70 — — .61 — .38 .74 — —
My closest leader and I have a common
understanding of responsibility distribution.
.69 — — .76 — — .72 — —
The manager takes the employees’ different
needs into consideration.
.66 — — .51 .47 — .72 — —
Explained variance 48% 36% 50%
Cronbach’s alpha .931 .930 .933
2. Disruptive relations
Rumors are flourishing between the employees. — .80 — −.36
−.71 — — .80 —
My coworkers and I use a lot of time in
discussing our frustrations concerning the job
situation.
— .78 — — −.45 .51 — .73 —
We have personnel conflicts. — .76 — — −.78 — — .72 —

3. Coworker contact
The communication between my coworkers
and me is good.
— — .79 — — .68 — — .77
I can bring up work related topics with my
coworkers.
— — .77 — — .70 — — .65
I can bring up personal issues with my
coworkers.
— — .68 — .36 .57 — — .72
Note. — = factor loadings below .35.
Christensen 373
Table 7 demonstrates that the overall tendency suggests
associations between the
communication components. Because some of the dimensions
were highly correlated,
it was found necessary to retest the dimensionality of the
communication components
by using principal component analyses with oblique rotation
(promax). The results of
the oblique rotation reproduced the initial dimensions that were
found by use of
orthogonal rotation (varimax).

Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Having established robust dimensionalities across the three
samples, the next step
was to test these dimensions simultaneously as an overall model
in a confirmatory
factor analysis. This model included first-order factor only.
This confirmatory factor
analysis was performed only on Sample 3. The intentions of the
first confirmatory
Table 3. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Central
Leadership (Factor Loadings).
1. Central Leadership Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 1
The communication with the leadership is marked by
openness.
.91 .87 .91
The leadership is personally involved in the employees’
on-the-job well-being.
.90 .86 .92
The leadership contacts the employees on a regular
basis.
.89 .84 .92
Table 4. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Information

(Factor Loadings).
1. Information
Generally there is an insufficient amount of
information provided.
.77 .76 78
The information uncovers the consequences of future
proceedings.
.77 .76 .78
The information uncovers the causes of future
proceedings.
.76 .75 .80
The information was provided too late. .74 .69 .75
The message contained within the information is
comprehensible.
.72 .57 .73
When the information is provided, there is not
enough time for discussion/questions/feedback.
.70 .70 .69
The information provided is relevant for me. .56 .51 .58

factor analysis was to test the eight-factor structure found in the
previous principal
component analyses. The results revealed a satisfactory model
fit to the data, as
indicated by the following fit indices’ values: χ²(566) =
1,907.44, p < .000, CFI =
0.92, GFI = 0.87, and RMSEA = 0.056. An RMSEA of 0.05 or
less indicates a close
model fit; 0.05 to 0.08 indicates a fair fit; and 0.08 to 0.10
indicates a mediocre fit.
An RMSEA exceeding 0.10 reflects a poor fit to the observed
data (Brown &
Cudeck, 1993).
Table 5. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Influence
(Factor Loadings).
1 2 1 2 1 2
1. Perceived influence
I am included in the evaluation
process.
.90 — .91 — .86 —
My opinions are heard. .89 — .87 — .87 —
There is not enough time and/or
place for discussion and feedback.
.80 — .74 — .80 —

2. Perceived union assistance
Unions provide complete information
about my choices/rights.
— .96 — .94 — .90
The unions bring my view/opinion
forward.
— .95 — .94 — .91
Note. — = factor loadings below .35.
Table 6. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Barriers to
Improved Communication
(Factor Loadings).
1. Barriers to Improvement Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 1
A lot remains unsaid because of negative consequences
for those who introduce difficult topics.
.84 .75 .86
Certain individuals may hamper communication. .83 .79 .85
There are easily too many rumors. .80 .68 .85
Information content is poor in its quality .76 .76 .78
Certain groups may hamper the flow of
communication.
.75 .77 .80

Communication is too unstructured. .68 .64 .63
Christensen 375
Furthermore, it was of interest to see whether the eight-factor
communication
instrument was a homogeneous measure of organizational
communication with differ-
ent facets. Therefore, a second confirmatory factor analysis
with a second-order com-
mon latent dimension of organizational communication was
conducted. The analysis
was also conducted in Sample 3. The results revealed that the
model had a satisfactory
fit to the data according to the following values: χ²(586) =
2,105.84, p < .000, CFI =
0.91, GFI = 0.86, and RMSEA = 0.058. See Table 8 for the
confirmatory factor analy-
sis with the second-order latent dimension. The results revealed
that seven of the eight
factors loaded strongly on the latent second-order dimension of
organizational com-
munication. The union assistance dimension exhibited a low
factor loading with a
loading of only .10 (see Figure 1). The goodness-of-fit indices
of both models are
summarized in Table 9. Consequently, the dimensions were used
for further
analyses.
Predictive Validity

Having established the structure and dimensionality of the
communication factors, the
next step was to examine the predictive validity. This involved
examining how the
communication factors predicted the “employees’ assessments
of communication,” an
item measuring the employees’ evaluation of communication (Is
there sufficient com-
munication in your department?). This was examined in Sample
1, and analyses were
performed in the total sample and three separate groups: Group
1 consisted of employ-
ees experiencing no reorganization; Group 2 included
employees going through reor-
ganization; Group 3 contained employees who had recently been
involved in completed
reorganization. These analyses provided the opportunity to
differentiate between
groups within specific stages of a change process. A regression
model was then speci-
fied by entering all of the communication factors as predictors
for the “employees’
assessments of communication.” This regression model was
tested in the total sample
and each group (see Table 10).
Table 7. Correlation Matrix of the Communication Components
(Pearson’s r Coefficient).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Contact with leadership
2. Disruptive relations .51*
3. Coworker contact −.52* −.27*
4. Contact with central leadership .55* −43* .32*

5. Information .57* −.538* .37* .59*
6. Perceived influence .55* −.42* .36* .50* .54*
7. Perceived union assistance .10* −.01* .16* .01 .09* .15*
8. Barriers to improved comm. −.54* .67* −.35* −.47* −.60*
−.46* −.05
* p < .01.
Table 8. Results of a Confirmatory Factor Analysis With a
Second-Order Common Latent
Dimension (Sample 3).
Estimate SE β
Contact with leadership (ξ 1)
X1: I can be open in bringing up subject matters with my
closest
leader.
1.00 .84
X2: The dialogue between my closest leader and me is good.
0.92 0.03 .81
X3: There is tolerance/acceptance in my communication with
my
leader.
1.04 0.03 .88
X4: My closest leader keeps an open-door policy for the
employees.

0.99 0.04 .83
X5: My closest leader is available if I wish to bring up personal
matters.
0.92 0.04 .71
X6: My closest leader trusts the employees. 0.72 0.03 .74
X7: My closest leader respects me. 0.76 0.03 .73
X8: My closest leader and I have a common understanding of
responsibility distribution.
0.82 0.03 .76
X9: The manager takes the employees’ different needs into
consideration.
0.79 0.04 .71
Disruptive relations (ξ 2)
X1: Rumors are flourishing between the employees. 1.00 .64
X2: My coworkers and I use a lot of time in discussing our
frustrations concerning the job situation.
1.31 0.08 .81
X3: We have personnel conflicts. 1.14 0.08 .71
Coworker contact (ξ 3)
X1: The communication between my coworkers and me is good.
1.00 .73
X2: I can bring up work related topics with my coworkers. 1.09
0.08 .70
X3: I can bring up personal issues with my coworkers. 1.23 0.10
.60
Central leadership (ξ 4)
X1: The communication with the leadership is marked by

openness. 1.00 .84
X2: The leadership is personally involved in the employees’ on-
the-
job well-being.
1.00 0.03 .89
X3: The leadership contacts the employees on a regular basis.
1.03 0.04 .84
Information (ξ 5)
X1: Generally there is an insufficient amount of information
provided.
1.00 .71
X2: The information uncovers the consequences of future
proceedings.
1.17 0.06 .75
X3: The information uncovers the causes of future proceedings.
1.00 0.06 .67
X4: The information was provided too late. −0.78 0.05 −.65
X5: The message contained within the information is
comprehensible.
−0.93 0.05 −.70
X6: When the information is provided, there is not enough time
for
discussion/questions/feedback.
−0.87 0.05 −.68
X7: The information provided is relevant for me. −0.55 0.04
−.48

(continued)
Christensen 377
Estimate SE β
Perceived influence (ξ 6)
X1: My opinions are heard. 1.00 .87
X2: I am included in the evaluation process. 1.07 0.04 .69
X3: There is not enough time and/or place for discussion and
feedback.
0.87 0.04 .83
Perceived union assistance (ξ 7)
X1: Unions provide complete information about my
choices/rights. 1.00 .92
X2: The unions bring my view/opinion further on. 0.96 0.24 .89
Barriers to improvement (ξ 8)
X1: A lot remains unsaid because of negative consequences for
those who introduce difficult topics.
1.00 .82
X2: Certain individuals may hamper communication. 0.88 0.04
.77
X3: There are easily too many rumors. 0.97 0.04 .77
X4: Information content is poor in its quality. 0.71 0.03 .71
X5: Certain groups may hamper the flow of communication.
0.74 0.04 .68
X6: Communication is too unstructured. 0.62 0.04 .60
Note. All p values are <.001.

Table 8. (continued)
Table 10 shows that the regression equations explained 52% of
the variance in
Group 1 (i.e., employees not experiencing organizational
change) compared with 46%
of the variance in Group 2 (i.e., employees experiencing
ongoing change); in Group 3,
60% of the variance was explained in those who had been
through a completed reor-
ganization. Overall, the results of the regression analyses
suggest a relationship
between the communication factors and the item “Is there
sufficient communication in
your department?” In other words, the regression models
indicate that the communica-
tion factors are related to employee assessments of
communication item, which in turn
indicates a predictive validity of the communication factors.
Discussion
The aim of the current study was to develop, test, and partly
validate a set of organiza-
tional communication factors and to investigate how these were
related to organiza-
tional change. The theoretical framework was underpinning the
need to develop
organizational communication as a part of the strategic-change
management.
The communication instrument demonstrated predictive validity
in all three change/
reorganization situations; however, the actual reorganization
situation did not emerge

as the one where the instrument explained most of the variance
as predicted. The com-
munication instrument was functional in all three situations, and
the eight-dimensional
instrument was able to differentiate between the situations and
as a result follow an
organizational change as it develops over time. Organizational
change is not some-
thing static but is an ongoing process that develops and
fluctuates over time. It is
Contact with
leadership
Disruptive
relations
Coworker
contact
Central
leadership
Information
Perceived
influence
Union
influence
Organisational

communication
Barriers to
improvement
.80
-.80
.59
.73
-.83
.74
.10
-.80
Figure 1. The factorial structure of the second-order common
latent dimension of
organizational communication.
Table 9. Model-Fit Indices for the Two Models (n = 763).
χ2 df p
Root Mean
Square of
Approximation
Goodness-
of-Fit Index

Comparative-
Fit Index
Model 1: Model with first-
order factors only.
1,907.44 566 .000 0.056 0.87 0.92
Model 2: Model with an
additional second-order
factor
2,105.84 586 .000 0.058 0.86 0.91
Christensen 379
Table 10. Regression Model Including All Communication
Components as Predictors.
Dependent Variable: Employee Assessment of Communication
(Is There Sufficient
Communication in Your Department?).
Total Sample
(N = 398)
No
Reorganization
(n = 76)
Reorganization
(n = 120)
Finished

Reorganization
(n = 69)
β t β t β t β t
Social contact
Contact with
leadership
.25 4.58*** .2 1.952 .32 3.12** .34 2.541*
Disruptive
relations
−.19 −4.05*** −.26 −2.57* −.25 −3.077** −.13 −1.24
Coworker contact .1 2.32* .08 0.84 .07 0.81 .29 2.74**
Central leadership
Central leadership −.06 −1.33 .05 0.56 −.07 0.75 −.39 −3.66**
Information
Information .16 2.624** .45 2.89** .01 0.12 .42 3.43**
Influence
Perceived influence .05 1.02 .02 0.15 .08 0.87 .02 0.18
Perceived union
assistance
.04 1.08 .07 0.74 .02 0.26 .1 1.27
Barriers to improvement
Barriers to
improved
communication
−.16 −2.89** .1 0.75 −.21 −2.26* −.03 −0.22

Adjusted R² .47 .523 .461 .596
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
therefore important that the instruments are able to capture
these fluctuations and are
able to distinguish between different types of change situations.
It was interesting to
note from the results that the different dimensions had different
impacts on employee
assessment of communication in the different stages of the
change process.
The results of the principal component analyses established five
communication
categories with subcategories in some of them. Communication
categories 1 through
4 covered areas that, according to Goldhaber (1999), represent
important aspects of
organizational communication. The two first communication
categories (i.e., social
contact and central leadership) pertained to employee
perceptions of communication
in terms of social interaction. The aspects of social interaction
may also be seen as
related to Tukiainen’s (2001) emphasis on management conduct
as one of the dimen-
sions in organizational communication. Furthermore, this is also
in line with Johnson’s
(1992) suggestion that social relationships are a major structural
component of organi-
zational communication. In a situation of planned change in an
organization, the

process could be perceived as a threat to interpersonal
relationships, and resistance
could be a product of interaction. Lack of good communication
strategies, close inter-
action, and adequate information fuels rumors and gossip, which
could lead to
increased anxiety and insecurity about the future in the
organization (Ford & Ford,
2009; Waddell et al., 2007).
In accordance with Goldhaber (1999), the purpose and direction
of a given message
are important features to consider in organizational
communication. This notion was
supported by the third communication category of the current
study, information.
Change in many organizations could lead to increased job
insecurity and lack of pre-
dictability (Allen, et al., 2007). High-quality information
provided during change and
reorganization seems to reduce psychological insecurity about
the effects of change
and in addition increases acceptance, openness, and
commitment to change. At the
same time, inferior or insufficient information seem to have
negative consequences,
such as cynicism about change (Bordia et al., 2004; Schweiger
& DeNisi, 1991;
Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Wanous et al., 2000).
The fourth communication category was influence, and it
illustrated the fact that
communication takes place within an interactive system. As

argued by Goldhaber
(1999), organizational communication both is influenced by its
surroundings and
influences them. The practice of organizational communication
can be expected, on
the one hand, to affect employees’ perception of their own
influence on the matters at
hand. On the other, this perception may in turn shape the
communication process. As
an example of this second possibility, if the employees feel that
they are excluded by
definition from taking part in any decision making, this
experience may overshadow
the content of communication. Related to change and resistance
to change, one of the
most effective strategies is to involve employees directly in
planning and implement-
ing change and thereby allowing them to contribute to making
the implementation of
change successful (Argyris & Schön, 1996). By being involved
and participating, the
employees could investigate the barriers to implementation,
increase their motivation,
and increase their effort in making the changes work (Argyris &
Schön, 1996). The
results of the second confirmatory factor analysis with a
second-order latent dimen-
sion of organizational communication revealed that union
assistance had a very low
factor loading on organizational communication, which
indicates that union assistance
had a weaker association with organizational communication
than expected. However,
it is still important to argue the need to include it in a measure
of organizational com-
munication, especially related to the unions’ significant role in

negotiations, hearings,
and discussions related to change processes. In addition to these
four communication
categories, all in line with Goldhaber’s (1999) description of
organizational communi-
cation, the current study identified a fifth communication
category, barriers to
improved communication. This communication category related
to employee percep-
tion of aspects in the organization that they found obstructing
communication and its
improvement. The barriers to organizational communication
could easily increase
during a change process, caused by the proliferation of rumors,
insecurity, and anxiety
about the future (Graetz, Rimmer, Lawrence & Smith, 2006). It
is necessary to iden-
tify these barriers at different stages of a change process to be
able to reduce them and
deal with them. The repeated testing in each sample of the
communication dimensions
Christensen 381
suggested a robust and generalizable set of dimensions, further
supported by satisfac-
tory reliability of the indices in all three samples.
Predictive Validity
The overall idea is that if a concept can be demonstrated
empirically to relate to a
criterion or other concept as a theory predicts, such a result
supports validity. Predictive

validity was examined here by testing how the communication
factors related to the
item “Is there sufficient communication in your department?”
The results of the
regression models revealed that the communication factors are
contributory predictors
to organizational communication. This conclusion supported the
aim by demonstrat-
ing that the communication factors had predictive validity. In
other words, there is, as
was assumed, a relationship between the communication factors
and the criterion
(employee assessment of communication). In addition, the
regression results revealed
that the communication factors contributed in all investigated
organizational circum-
stances: Group 1, employees not experiencing reorganization,
Group 2, employees
experiencing current reorganization, and Group 3, employees
experiencing just
recently finished reorganization. However, the regression
models overall explained
52% (no reorganization), 46% (reorganization), and 60%
(completed reorganization)
in the three groups, respectively, indicating that the instrument,
with the included eight
dimensions, was able to differentiate the performance of the
instrument in different
situations of change.
As noted by both Spike and Lesser (1995) and Galpin (1996),
communication is
part of every step in a change process and is thus crucial to
success in organizational
change. However, one important aspect in this context is the
question, What is change?

When does a change process begin and end? And is it possible
to single out one dis-
tinct change process? The communication instrument is a
strategic tool in change set-
tings to diagnose lack of information and disruptive relations
and to overcome the
barriers to improvement. In a change situation, it was also
important that the instru-
ment actually distinguished between different developments and
fluctuation during
the change process as revealed by the analyses of predictive
validity. Preparation is
central to any organizational change process and includes
informing all parties about
the forthcoming changes. The need for efficient communication
is very much present
in these preparatory phases of a change process. This, however,
demands the effort of
establishing effective organizational communication on the
same level of strategy as
the change process. Although processes of organizational
change are intertwined with
the process of communication, Galpin (1996) argued that most
organizations concen-
trate on the technical, financial, and operational features. In
order to lift organizational
communication to a strategic level, communication must be
analyzed systematically.
As communication among other aspects represents a preparatory
tool for the change
process (the one that is to be implemented), the diagnosis of the
current status of the
organizational communication ought to be the first step.
The measurement of organizational communication as
introduced in this study

could be applied as a way to establish the employees’
perceptions of the current state
of organizational communication. Furthermore, communication
must be considered
when looking at positive factors for improving the psychosocial
environment and
employee job satisfaction. The amount of research suggesting
an impact of negative
factors on the work environment is enormous. The subject
matter of organizational
communication may, however, be seen as representing a
positive perspective, in that
it can be used as a strategy for improving both organizational
efficiency and employee
working conditions and satisfaction.
In these datasets, it would have been preferable to follow an
organizational process
over time in one organization when testing and validating the
instrument, and in a rep-
lication study, this will be recommended. However, it also
needs to be clear that it is
difficult or impossible to measure when a change process begins
and ends in an organi-
zation. Furthermore, it would be of great importance, if it is
possible, to follow the same
employees in a longitudinal study during a change process or
downsizing process.
Conclusion

The review of the literature emphasized the crucial role of
tion in a good psychosocial work environment, and especially so
in times of change
(Barrett, 2002; Salem, 1999). When searching for suitable
instruments to measure orga-
nizational communication during change, it was found that the
measures already devel-
oped were diverse and that none of them was specifically
related to change processes at
work. An instrument of organizational communication was
therefore developed, tested,
and partly validated. The outcome was based on test results
from three different sam-
ples, where a robust eight-dimensional factor structure of
tion was found in all three samples. Analyses confirmed that the
eight-dimensional
structure had a good model fit to the data. The results also
supported the finding that the
instrument was a homogenous measure of organizational
communication, including
different facets of the concept. The analyses of predictive
validity revealed that the
instrument was predictive of employee assessment of
communication across three dif-
ferent settings of organizational change. The results revealed,
however, that the com-
munication instrument was applicable in all three situations, and
not particularly in the
change situation. Change is, however, a continuous process with
various developments
over time. The ongoing changes in an organization require a
survey instrument that
measures different facets within this development. The
instrument includes eight dif-

ferent dimensions, which have different impacts in these change
situations. This dem-
onstrates that the communication instrument is able to
differentiate between various
change situations. The importance of communication goes
beyond change and is inter-
twined with all organizational activities. Communication is a
part of an organization’s
everyday life, but in many cases it can be problematic to uphold
because the manage-
ment can easily forget the special importance it has during a
change situation, as a result
of the financial, technical, and operational demands of the
change process.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Christensen 383
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: The author received financial
support for the research from the
Research Council of Norway.
Notes
1. Cornerstone industry: An industry that is large in relation to

the population of the municipal-
ity in which it is located and is therefore vital to employment
and the development of a local
community.
2. The design also served purposes outside the scope of this
paper but that are not noted in this
context.
3. In Norwegian: Statistisk sentralbyrå.
References
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007).
Uncertainty during organizational
change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal
of Change Management,
7(2), 187-210.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II:
Theory, method and practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change communication: Using strategic
employee communication to facili-
tate major change. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 7(4), 219-231.
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J.
(2004). Uncertainty during orga-
nizational change: Types, consequences, and management
strategies. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 18(4), 507-532.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen

& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.
136-162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Bruckman, J. C. (2008). Overcoming resistance to change:
Causal factors, interventions, and
critical values. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11, 211-219.
Buchanan, D. A., & Storey, J. (1997). Role-taking and role-
switching in organizational change:
The four pluralities. In I. McLoughlin & M. Harria (Eds.),
Innovation, organizational
change and technology. London: International Thompson.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change. Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall.
Central Bureau of Statistics (SSB). (2005). Statistisk årbok
2005 [Statistical yearbook of
Norway 2005]. Retrieved from
http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/
statistisk-aarbok-2005
Dallner, M., Elo, A.-L., Gamberale, F., Hottinen, V., Knardahl,
S., Lindström, K., . . .Orhede, E.
(2000). Validation of the General Nordic Questionnaire (QPS
Nordic) for psychological
and social factors at work (Nord 2000:12). Copenhagen: Nordic
Council of Ministers.
De Nobile, J. J., & McCormick, J. (2008). Organizational
communication and job satisfac-
tion in Australian Catholic primary schools. Educational
Management Administration &
Leadership, 36(1), 101-122.
Doucouliagos, C. (1995). Worker participation and productivity

in labor-managed and partici-
patory capitalist forms: A meta-analysis. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 49(1),
58-77.
Downs, C., & Hazen, M. D. (1977). A factor analytic study of
communication satisfaction.
Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63-73.
http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-
publikasjoner/statistisk-aarbok-2005
Downs, C. W., DeWine, S., & Greenbaum, H. H. (1994).
Measures of organizational communi-
cation. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, H.-E. Sypher, et al.
(Eds.), Communication research
measures: A sourcebook (pp. 57-78). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Erwin, D., & Garman, A. (2009). Resistance to organizational
change: Linking research and
practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
31(1), 39-56.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The
application of exploratory factor analy-
sis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 39(2),
291-314.
Ford, J., & Ford, L. (2009). Resistance to change: A
reexamination and extension. Research in
Organizational Change and Management, 17, 211-239.

Gagné, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating
acceptance of organizational
change: The importance of self-determination. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology,
30(9), 1843-1852.
Galpin, T. J. (1996). The human side of change: A practical
guide to organizational redesign.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Goldhaber, G. M. (1999). Organizational communication in
1976: Present domain and future
directions. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organizational communication
and change, (pp. 4-30).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Goldhaber, G., & Krivonos, P. (1977). The ICA communication
audit: Process, status, and cri-
tique. Journal of Business Communication, 15(1), 41-64.
Graetz, F., Rimmer, M., Lawrence, A., & Smith, A. (2006).
Managing organizational change.
Milton, Australia: Wiley.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of
measures for use in survey ques-
tionnaires, Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.
Johnson, J. D. (1992). Approaches to organizational
communication structure. Journal of
Business Research, 25(2), 99-113.

Jones, Q., Dunphy, D., Fishman, R., Larne, M., & Canter, C.
(2006). In great company:
Unlocking the secrets of cultural transformation. Sydney:
Human Synergistics.
Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor
analysis: What it is and how to do
it. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in
the Social Sciences (Series
No. 07-013). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Koontz, H. (2001). Management: A global perspective. 10th ed.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Langørgen, A., Galloway, T. A., & Aaberge, R. (2006).
Gruppering av kommuner etter folke-
mengde og økonomiske rammebetingelser 2003. [Group division
of municipalities based
on population and economic conditions 2003] (Report 2006/8).
Oslo: Central Bureau of
Statistics.
Pardo del Val, M., & Martinez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to
change: A literature review and
empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
Rafferty, A. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Team change
climate: A group-level analysis of
the relationships among change information and change
participation, role stressors, and
well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 19(5), 551-586.
Reber, A. S. (1995). Dictionary of psychology. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Roberts, K., & O`Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring

organizational communication. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59(3), 321-326.
Salem, P. (Ed.). (1999). Organizational communication and
change. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Christensen 385
Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with
employees following a merger:
A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 34(1), 110-135.
Spike, B. K., & Lesser, K. (1995). We have met the enemy.
Journal of Business Strategy, 16(2),
17-23.
Towers-Perrin. (2006). Ten steps to creating an engaged
workforce. Brussels: Author.
Tukiainen, T. (2001). An agenda model of organizational
communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 47-52.
Van Vuuren, M., de Jong, M., & Seydel, E. (2007). Direct and
indirect effects of supervisor com-
munication on organizational commitment. Corporate
Communications: An International
Journal, 12(2), 116-128.
Waddell, D., Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2007). Organization
development and change.

Pyrmont, NSW, Australia: Nelson ITP.
Waddell, D., Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2011).
Organizational change: Development &
transformation. South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes
to changes in a reorganizing
workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism
about organizational change:
Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and
Organization Management, 25(2),
132-153.
Weick, K. E. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in
organizations. In M. Beer & N. Nohria
(Eds.), Breaking the code of change, (pp. 223-241). Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Wiio, O. A. (1975). Systems of information, communication,
and organization. Helsinki:
Helsinki Research Institute for Business Economics.
Wilson, N., & Peel, M. J. (1991). The impact on absenteeism
and quits of profit sharing and other
forms of employee participation. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 44(3), 454-468.
Author Biography
Marit Christensen, PhD, is working as an associate professor at
the Department of Psychology,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Copyright of Journal of Business Communication is the property
of Association for Business
Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Copyright of International Journal of Business Communication
is the property of Association
for Business Communication and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Week 5 Assignment Resources/Corporate Communication - A
Strategic Tool for Crisis Management.pdf
Journal of Economic De velopment, Mana geme nt, I T,
Finance and Ma rke ting, 3(2), 55-67, Septe mbe r 2011 55
Corporate Communication: A Strategic Tool for Crisis
Management
Dr. Rachna Gupta
Kathua Campus, University of JAMMU, India

Abstract
In today‘s rapidly changing business environment almost every
company experiences crises. Though
many of them never try to overcome. Crisis problems are
generally not solved in the primary state and are
usually chaotic, w ithout any strategic management plans (Ben-
Yair, Golenko-Ginzburg Laslo 2007,
Kaplinski; 2008). The s ituation gets worse when the
companies‘ employees as well as internal and
external environment have to be informed. Therefore it is
necessary to represent the organization
realistically to tra in the specia lists of knowledge management
(Kumpika ite, 2008). The s ituation does not
become easier because of the negative attitude to cris is
(Virbicka ite,, 2009). Therefore crisis solution can
bring pos itive consequences in the companies‘ (Remeikiene,
2009). One of them is efficient
communication conflict management during cris is period.
1
Moreover; in present era of globa lization
where companies are experiencing the transformational changes
such as incorporation, international
capital appearance, wide geography of the companies, mobility
of employees, globa l cris is, there is a need

to manage communication process in bus iness to generate
communication ideas for cris is prevention and
management. Therefore in this changing context cris is
management process should be re-evaluated in the
theoretical as well as applies form for the efficient cris is
management plans. The paper makes an
assessment of crisis planning and strategic management
processes described in the existing literature and
makes an attempt to answer how to strategically manage crisis
in bus iness environment and prepare crisis
management plans, w ith effic ient corporate communications.
Keywords : Corporate Communication, Strategic Management,
Crisis Management
* Assistant Professor, The Business School, University of Ja
mmu
[email protected] gmail.com

Introduction
Managers, consultants and researchers have traditionally been
focused on the problems of
financial performance and growth, but have paid little attention
to effective management of
corporate crisis. This crisis problems are not solved in its
primary stage and usually chaotic
without any strategic crisis solution or crisis management plans
(Yair, Galenko-Ginzburg, Laslo,
2007; Bivanis, Tuncikiene, 2007; Kaplinski, 2008; Markovic,
2008). It can create related threats:
public safety, financial loss and reputation loss. Some crisis
such as industrial accidents and
product harm can result in injuries and even loss of lives. Cases
such as Three Mile island
nuclear power plant in 1979, C yanide in Tylenol capsules of
Johnson & Johnson in 1982,
Leakage of methyl isocyanides gas from a storage tank at the
Union Carbide plant in Bhopal,
India in 1984 and Coca-Cola case in Belgium in 1999.
Nowadays the companies have to be
oriented to the MOTTO of management strategy to continue
change in management‘s
philosophy to manage socio-economic factors in business e
nvironment and to be socially
responsible. In order to manage crisis situation, it is important
to understand crisis management

and management processes in an organization (K lein, 1981;
Rosenblatt, Sheaffee, 2002). It is
also important to inform the employees about the changes in a
company‘s external and intyernal
environment (Deephouse, 2005; Sare, 2005; Kompikatie, 2007;
Rees, 2008). A new paradigm
has emerged takes in to accounts such issues and is getting due
acceptance in scientific
discussions and global management practice – corporate
communication importance in
conceptual and practical levels. Nowadays when the companies
are experiencing the
transformational changes – incorporation, international capital
appearance, wide geography odf
companies, mobility of employees, global crisis, there is a need
to manage communication
process in business to generate communication ideas for crisis
prevention and management.
This paper analyses the decision of crisis management in a
conceptual paradigm and emphasis
the importance of communication in crisis planning and
strategic management process. The
paper also emphasis on how to strategically manage crisis in
business environment plans,
generating communication ideas crisis prevention and
management.
Unde rstanding Corporate Communication as a Management
Function
There are two methodological aspects of understanding the

corporate communication. The first
aspect is to describe the relation of social environment and
business expression management of
corporate communication system (Heath, 1994; Varey, White,
2000) and maintenance of
company‘s business strategy – implementation of practical
decision (Steyn, 2003, Goodman,
2004, 2006). In the second methodological aspect, it is
necessary ton explore the case for, and
value of corporate practice and productive global relationships
as underpinning of sustainable
business strategy (Goodman, 2006). These methodologies can
be discussed in details as:
First Methodology: The term corporate communication is
increasingly being used in practice to
describe the management function that is referred to as public
relations, crisis and emergency
communication, corporate citizenship, reputation management,
community relations, media
relations, investors relations, employees relations, government
relations, marketing
communication, management communication, corporate
branding, image building and
advertising. According to this first methodological aspect, t his

understanding explores the
integration of corporate and marketing communication system
of managing. It defines a need for
a total stake holders perspective and to integrate corporate
communication activities. According
to Varey (2000), marketing is describes as a special case of
human communication in which all
elements of marketing mix all seen as communicative in action.
With the corporate
communication model of systematic managing is forwarded foe
this purpose. It means that
corporate enterprise has two primary communication systems
that are inter-related. The internal
system directs the activities of organizing to accomplish goals
that are based on the gathering
and interpretation of data on expectations and attitudes and on
conditions for corporatio ns
relevant environment thought external channel of
communication. External systems of
communication are also used to present relevant information
about the internal processes of
corporation to the relevant external environment to attempt to
influence the behavior of various
publics. The focus of internal communication is to establish the
organizational structure and
stability while external communication focuses on the
innovative for corporate development.
These have to be a proper balance between the two for stability.
Managers of present corporate
houses have started realizing the importance of communication

management systems as the core
function of enterprise community. The corporate communication
approaches enables to
reconciliation of social and econo mical interests for business is
in reality is a socio – economic
institution upon which every employee is dependent. Proper
communication facilitates the
organizational performance. Hence, it proves that
communication is a core of the present and
future company approach and communication between people is
core of the business activity.
Second Methodology : As stated earlier according to the second
methodology it is important to
find out case for, and the value of corporate communication
practices in professional
development (Valackiene, Asta, 2010). For a successful
sustainable business strategy it is
important to target a positive relationship between corporate
communication practice and
productive global relationship (2006). Successful professional
development of the next
generation of corporate communication executives will focus on
understanding of corporate
communication functions and on strategic implementation
capabilities. This practice of corporate
communication has profound implication for professional
development programme world wide
as per the findings of Corporate Communication Institution (CI
―Corporate Communications
Practices and Trends‖ 2005).

Challenges for Corporate Communication as a Strategic Manage
ment Function
Corporate communication is the strategic management process
by which an organization
communicates with various audiences to mutua l benefit of both
and to improved competitive
advantage. Importance of corporate communication in crisis
management as an early warning
system is beyond dispute (Lauzen, 1995). It provides the
cultural and cross cultural fertilization
with their publics and relay organizational values to and from
their audiences. It is widely
accepted that corporate communication has a crucial role in
total business system (Winner,
1993). Though recent studies have confirmed corporate
communication as a strategic function
still it is centered on following challenges (Goodman, 2006)
audiences;
ion by the corporation to accomplish more with
less;

corporate culture in response to
a hostile environment for multinational corporations;
ecutive as
―counsel to the CEO ‖ and
―manager of the company's‖ reputation;
the local impact of the global
act;
made media relations more
complex and strategic;
money;
planning a critical success
factor for corporate communication professionals;
understanding of transparency as the best practice
strategy for reputation
management; and
Global companies and their brands touch lives of more people
then government representatives
ever could. The example is TATA Group which has touched the
lives of millions of Indians with
different subsidiaries Telco, Tata tele services limited, Tata
Finley, TCS, Voltas, Chroma,

Westside, Tata chemicals, Tata Tea, Indian Hotels, Tanishq
Jewellery etc. the company has its
products in information technology, Engineering, Materials,
Services, Energy, Consumer
products, Chemicals etc. business has often served a large role
in our society than carrying off
the activities of commerce. They can serve a diplomatic
function because of their inter cultural
sensitivity as well as their understanding of global enterprise
they work for and of the world at
large. CCI Practices and Trends for 2000 to 2010 offer some
guidance which include;
Academic Application: Professional development programmes
has be en a growth area in higher
education. In an interdisciplinary and applied field such as
corporate communication current
practices and trends can inform the academic community on
what to offer in professional degree
programme.
Corporate Application: Understanding of corporate
communication can provide a vision a
company requires in information driven economy for strategic
planning. Corporations use it to
lead, motivate, persuade and inform employees and public as
well.

Corporate communication is seen as consisting of three
potentially interactive and synergistic
dimensions – public relations, marketing communications and
human resource management
(Kitchen, 1997). Generalizing and conceptually basing it can be
claimed that corporate
communication confirms as a strategic management function.
This helps to describe a model of
corporate communication style of managing. Corporate
communication responsive to the
demands of professionals should focus on the strategic
challenges executive face (adopted from
Valackiene, Asta, 2010)
ing trust;

responsibility;
Corporate communication is more than science it is
interdisciplinary, drawing on the methods
and findings of anthropology, communication, sociology and
psychology.
Models For Developing Corporate Communication Strategy
Before moving to the crisis communication strategy models it is
very important to review the
existing models of corporate communication strategy.
Grunig & Repper’s model : Grunig & Repper‘s model (in
Grunig 1992:124-150) for the
strategic management of public relations consists of three
stages: The stakeholder stage refers to
the identification of strategic stakeholders through
environmental scanning and the need for
ongoing communication with them. The public stage refers to
the identification of
groups/individuals who see the consequences of organisational
decisions as problematic,
involving them in decision making. The issues stage deals with
the management of issues and the
important role of the media therein. These stages are regarded

as the phases in formulating
corporate communication strategy, whereas stages four to seven
(objectives, planning,
implementation and valuation) refer to the operational level of
corporate communication Moss,
Warnaby & Newman (2000:283, 284) criticise this model as
failing to account sufficiently for
potential variations in the process of strategy- making and for
not explaining how corporate
communication‘s role may differ at the different strategy levels.
Moss & Warnaby’s conceptual model : The conceptual model of
Moss & Warnaby (in K itchen
1997:65) is the most extensive attempt to date to explain how
corporate communication fits into
the strategic decision making processes in organisations. It
overcomes some of the chief
weaknesses of the Grunig & Repper model (in Grunig 1992) and
provides a framework for
linking the development of corporate communication strategy to
corporate and business-unit
strategy. This model outlines the environmental scanning role of
corporate communication at the
corporate level, identifying and analysing strategic issues and
stakeholders, and advising top
management on how the different strategy options might
influence relationships with key
stakeholders. At the business level the role of corporate
communication is to ‖support the

development of distinctive capability-based strategies‖ (Kay, in
K itchen 1997:66), helping to
build and enhance the organisation‘s reputation and that of its
products or services. Corporate
communication strategies thus focus on key stakeholder
relationships and issues that may
constrain or enhance an organisation‘s ability to achieve its
business goals and ―should be
viewed in the context of the corporate and business strategies
from which they derive their
essential purpose‖ (Moss & Warnaby, in K itchen 1997:67). The
communication programmes
that operationalise these strategies can be asymmetrical or
symmetrical in nature.
Steyn’s (educational) model: This model for developing
corporate communication strategy is
the outcome of a longitudinal action research project being
conducted at the University of
Pretoria (Steyn 2000b). The hypothesised model has been
implemented amongst 94 non-profit
organisations, 48 government institutions and 68 small-to-
medium sized companies in South
Africa, and has been adapted based on the findings of the action
research. It consists of an

analysis of the organisation‘s internal environment (corporate
profile, organisational strategies
and policies, corporate culture and values), as well as a
stakeholder and issues analysis of the
external and internal environment by means of environmental
scanning. The organisation‘s key
strategic issues are identified, described and classified
according to a typology (Steyn 2000b;
Steyn & Puth 2000) that differentiates between:
-- where communication is
not the cause of the problem,
but can
-- where too little or no
communication with external
stakeholders or employees caused the problem); and
reaching the target groups.
The implications/effects of the strategic issues on each of the
stakeholder groups are identified
and become the focus of the communication with strategic
stakeholders/publics. Corporate
communicationstrategy entails to formulate clearly what should
be communicated to strategic
stakeholders to solve the problems created by the implications

of a strategic issue or to capitalise
on the opportunitiespresented. Communication goals to be
addressed in plans/campaigns are
developed based on the corporate communication strategy for
each strategic issue (Steyn 2000b;
Steyn & Puth 2000).
The above models for developing strategy at the functional level
provide considerable insight on
the corporate communication strategy formulation process
The Plan of the Efficient Crises Communication
Crisis planning enables management to not only evaluate the
dynamics within a business
environment, but also evaluate similar changes related issues. In
this way, action planning may
be helpful in integrating the constituent parts of a strategy
process and developing the crisis
management perspectives.
The most viable methodological approach in the cognition of
Crisis Communication is systems

approach. Theoretical studies (Bernstein, 2004; Chong, 2004;
Turney, 2004; Zerman, 2004;
Seymuor, 2006; Luecke, 2007) show that Communication and
Mastering the Media are an
important tool for every crisis handler and in each active stage
of Crisis Management:
contingency planning, containment, and resolution. It is
important as an instrument of control
and coordination. Effective media relations begin before a crisis
occurs. The basic steps of
effective Crisis Communications are not difficult, but they
require advance in work in order to
minimize damage.
Chronology of Crisis Communication
Bernstein (2004) implement‘s these 10 steps of Crisis
Communications; the first seven of which
can and should be undertaken before any crisis occurs.
1. Identify Your Crisis Communications Team: Ideally, the
team will be led by the
organization's CEO, with the firm's top public relations
executive and legal counsel as his or her
chief advisers. Other team members should be the heads of
major organization divisions, to
include finance, personnel and operations.
2. Identify Spokespersons: The decision about who should
speak is made after a crisis breaks

— but the pool of potential spokespersons should be identified
and t rained in advance. Not only
are spokespersons needed for media communications, but for all
types and forms of
communications, internal and external, including on camera, at
a public meeting, at employee
meetings, etc.
3. Spokesperson: Training. Spokesperson training teaches you
to be prepared, to be ready to
respond in a way that optimizes the response of all stakeholders.
4. Establish Notification Systems: the means to reach our
internal and external stakeholders
using multiple modalities.
5. Identify and Know Your Stakeholders : Who are the internal
and external stakeholders that
matter to your organization? Employees must be most important
audience, because every
employee is a PR representative and crisis manager for your
organization whether you want them
to be or not.
6. Anticipate Crises: There are two immediate benefits to this
exercise: realize that some of the
situations are preventable by simply modifying existing
methods of operation; begin to think
about possible responses, about best case/worst case scenarios,
etc. There is a more formal
method of gathering this information - a ―vulnerability
audit―.
7. Develop Holding State ments: While full message

Week 5 Assignment ResourcesCommunication as a Strategic Tool in.docx

Week 5 Assignment ResourcesCommunication as a Strategic Tool in.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Week 5 Assignment ResourcesCommunication as a Strategic Tool in.docx

Similar to Week 5 Assignment ResourcesCommunication as a Strategic Tool in.docx (20)

More from cockekeshia

More from cockekeshia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Week 5 Assignment ResourcesCommunication as a Strategic Tool in.docx