EFFECTS OF RELATIONAL SATISFACTION ON CRISIS COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

Year 2017, , 348 - 364, 31.07.2017

Engin Çelebi

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesakademia.296136

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of
organizations’ positive or negative relationship with their target groups
before the crisis on different crisis communication strategies. In the context
of the research, motor vehicle brands in Turkey were selected as the
organization and users were selected as stakeholders and Coombs’ situational
crisis communication theories have been tested on 500 vehicle users in a
semi-experimental manner. The results show that there is no meaningful
interaction between relational satisfaction and crisis communication
strategies. In this study, which crisis communication strategy is used,
participants who have a positive relationship with the organization are less
likely to blame the organization in the crisis than participants who have a
negative relationship with the organization. However, the difference between
the responsibility degree of the participants with positive and negative
relational satisfaction towards the organization was not significant. Thus, the
findings of this research reveal that none of the crisis communication
strategies have reduced the responsibilities of organizations in the crisis in
terms of stakeholders. In addition, research findings have given significant
results about perceptions resulting from attitudes towards the current crisis
and supporting action on crisis response will be given if ignored or taken
responsibility. Within the crisis communication strategies, the strategy of
“denial” raised the degree of the accusation of the organization and the
strategy of “apology and compensation” decreased the degree of accusation of
the organization. Another finding is that, who think that the crisis is caused
by internal causes are more blamed the organization.

Keywords

Public Relations, Crisis Communication, Relational Satisfaction, Crisis Response Strategies

İLİŞKİSEL MEMNUNİYETİN KRİZ İLETİŞİM STRATEJİLERİ ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı kuruluşların kriz öncesinde hedef
kitleleriyle pozitif veya negatif ilişki sürdürmesinin farklı kriz iletişim
stratejileri üzerine etkisinin araştırılmasıdır. Araştırma kapsamında kuruluş
olarak Türkiye’deki motorlu araç markaları, paydaşlar olarak ise mevcut kullanıcıları
seçilmiştir ve Coombs’un durumsal kriz iletişim teorileri yarı deneysel bir yöntemle
500 araç kullanıcısı üzerinde test edilmiştir. Sonuçlar ilişkisel memnuniyet
ile kriz iletişim stratejileri arasında herhangi anlamlı bir etkileşim olmadığını
ortaya koymuştur. Bu çalışmada, hangi kriz iletişim stratejisi kullanılırsa
kullanılsın, kuruluş ile pozitif ilişkileri olan katılımcıların kuruluş ile
negatif ilişkileri olan katılımcılara göre krizde kuruluşu daha az suçladığı
sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ancak kuruluşa yönelik olumlu ve olumsuz ilişkisel
memnuniyet duygusuna sahip olan katılımcıların sorumluluk atfı dereceleri arasındaki
fark anlamlı değildi. Bu yüzden bu araştırma sonucundaki bulgular kriz iletişim
stratejilerinden hiçbirinin paydaşlar açısından kuruluşların krizdeki
sorumluluklarını azaltmadığını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Ayrıca araştırma bulguları
krizin nedenine yönelik algılamalar sonucu oluşan tutumlar ve krizde sorumluluk
alınması veya alınmaması durumunda verilecek tepkiler hakkında destekleyici
davranışların kazanılmasına yönelik önemli sonuçlar vermiştir. Kriz iletişim
stratejileri içerisinde “inkâr” stratejisi kuruluşun suçlanma derecesini yükseltmiş,
“özür ve telafi” stratejisi ise kuruluşun suçlanma derecesini düşürmüştür. Diğer
bir bulgu ise krizin kurum içi nedenlerden kaynaklandığını düşünenlerin kuruluşu
daha fazla suçladığı bulgusudur.

Keywords

Halkla İlişkiler, Kriz İletişimi, İlişkisel Memnuniyet, Kriz Müdahale Stratejileri

References

• Avery, E. J., Lariscy, R. W., Kim, S. and Hocke, T. (2010). Research in Brief: A quantitative review of crisis communication research in public relations from 1991 to 2009, Public Relations Review, Vol. 36, 190-192
• Boynton, L. and Dougall, E. (2006). The Methodical Avoidance of Experiments in Public Relations Research, PRism Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-14
• Brown, K. A. and White, C. L. (2010). Organization–Public Relationships and Crisis Response Strategies: Impact on Attribution of Responsibility, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, 75-92
• Bruning, S. D. and Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization public relationship scale: exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization–public relationships, Public Relations Review 29, 309-319
• Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and Compassion in Crisis Responses: A Test of Their Effects, Journal Of Public Relations Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, 125-142
• Coombs, W. T. (2007a). “Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory.” Corporate Reputation Review. Vol. 10 (3): 163-176
• Coombs, W. T. (2007b). “Attribution Theory as a guide for post crisis communication research.”, Public Relations Review. Vol. 33: 135-139
• Coombs, W. T. (2015). The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research, Business Horizons, Vol. 58, 141-148
• Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and Attributions in a Crisis: An Experimental Study in Crisis Communication, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1996, pp. 279-295
• Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2001). An Extended Examination of the Crisis Situations: A Fusion of the Relational Management and Symbolic Approaches, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, 321-340
• Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: Clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communication, Public Relations Review, Vol. 34, 2008, 252-257
• Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post-crisis communication: Effects of media and response strategies on perceptions and intentions, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35, Issue 1, 2009, 1-6
• Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2012). Amazon.com’s Orwellian nightmare: exploring apology in an online environment, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, 280-295
• Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J. (2013). Successful prevention may not be enough: A case study of how managing a threat triggers a threat, Public Relations Review, Vol. 39, 451-458
• Coombs, W. T. and Schmidt, L. (2000). An Empirical Analysis of Image Restoration: Texaco’s Racism Crisis, Journal Of Public Relations Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, 163-178
• Coombs, W.T., Frandsen, F., Holladay, S.J. and Johansen, W. (2010) “Why a concern for apologia and crisis communication?”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4: 337-349
• Coy, C. (2004). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Perceptions of Public Relations Practitioners, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 16, No. 4, 371-389
• Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H. and Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective Public Relations, Upper Sadddle River, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1994
• Dozier, D. M. and Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the Manager Role in Public Relations Practice, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, 3-26
• Hon, L. and Brunner, B. (2001). Measuring public relationships among students and administrators at the University of Florida, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 6, No.3, 227-238
• Hon, L. C. and Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations, Institute for Public Relations, 1-40
• Huang, Y. C. and Zhang, Y. (2013). Revisiting organization–public relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies and challenges, Public Relations Review, Vol. 39, 85-87
• Jeong, S. (2009). Public’s Responses to an oil spill accident: A test of the attribution theory and situational crisis communication theory, Public Relations Review 35, 307–309
• Jin, Y. (2014). Examining Publics’ Crisis Responses According to Different Shades of Anger and Sympathy, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 26, 79-101
• Jo, S, Hon, L. C. and Brunner, B. R. (2005). Organisation–public relationships: Measurement validation in a university setting, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, 14-27
• Ki, E. and Brown, K. A. (2013). The Effects of Crisis Response Strategies on Relationship Quality Outcomes, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 50, No. 4, 403-420
• Ki, E. and Hon, L. C. (2012). Causal linkages among relationship quality perception, attitude, and behavior intention in a membership organization, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, 187-208
• Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, 181-198
• Ledingham, J. A. and Brunning, S. D. (1998). Relationship Management in Public Relations: Dimensions of an Organization Public Relationship, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 55-65
• Mattila, A.S. (2009). How to handle PR disasters? An examination of the impact of communication response type and failure attributions on consumer perceptions, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 4, 211-218
• Park, H. and Reber, B. H. (2011). The Organization-Public Relationship and Crisis Communication: The Effect of the Organization-Public Relationship on Publics’ Perceptions of Crisis and Attitudes Toward the Organization, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 5, 240–260
• Sisco, H. F. (2012). Nonprofit in Crisis: An Examination of the Applicability of Situational Crisis Communication Theory, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 24, 1-17
• Stephens, K. K., Malone, P. C. and Bailey, C. M. (2005). Communicatiıng with Stakeholders During a Crisis, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 42, No. 4, 390-419
• Yang, A. and Taylor, M. (2013). The relationship between the professionalization of public relations, societal social capital and democracy: Evidence from a cross-national study, Public Relations Review, Vol. 39, 257-270