Some Points to Consider:

• Stakeholder Attributes
• Stakeholder’s Influence on the Issue
• Organization’s Locus of Control

Stakeholder/Stakeholder Group Attributes

It is well established that all stakeholders possess some measure of power, legitimacy and urgency and thus the ability to influence the operations of an organization or its good name  During a crisis, the question of stakeholder salience-the principle of “Who or What Really Counts[1],” becomes pivotal and the order in which priority must be assigned to competing stakeholder claims-must go beyond the stakeholder group’s discernible power and legitimacy. What is arguable, though, is the extent (the limits) of power, the duration of the power and the context. While stakeholder attributes such as urgency makes it self-evident that needs of these stakeholders take precedence during a crisis, new power dynamics emerge as stakeholders perceived less important become more powerful depending on the issue faced by the organization. And, therefore, these subtle swings in the power dynamics must be re-evaluated. Whereas it is hard to overlook stakeholders with recognizable power, whether it is economic power (gained through ownership of resources), authoritative power (acquired through a formal position), or political power (attained by occupying a political seat or public office in a government organization or agency), the less powerful stakeholder groups and its impact can be less discernible.

During a crisis situation, the top management‘s attention  must also be directed toward understanding the source of these stakeholder’s power and the extent to which they can harm or hurt the organization and its good name if their claims are not met or are delayed. For e.g. if there’s a plane crash, trade or professional association’s negative claim about the plane crash could have as much of a debilitating impact on the reputation of the organization and its profitability as a report issued by a government agency. Another instance could be if there are demonstrations against an organization or a cause, these demonstrators may or may not have legitimacy, and if their cause is hijacked by groups with hostile intent, then it can create a crisis of massive proportions and these protesters who did not have power or legitimacy have now acquired considerable bargaining power and the ability to harm the operations and/or the reputation of an organization. The decision-makers must then also examine these stakeholder attributes to gain a complete picture of the crisis situation.

Stakeholder Influence on the Issue—Claimants versus Influencers

            Stakeholders such as government organizations or agencies have legal claims on an organization with no reciprocal claims on them by the organization. Such stakeholder groups have the power to influence an organization without a reciprocal impact on them. Trade or professional associations, similarly, can have moral claims on an organization but are not influenced by an organization as they do not have anything at stake. Such stakeholder groups or influencers have the power to influence an organization without being impacted by it. When interacting with influencers, it is important to remember that they are not exposed to the same level of risk as the involuntary risk bearers[2]–the employees, investors, suppliers, and distributors, to name a few. They have invested-capital, talent, or other resources—in the organization and are, therefore, susceptible to risk. These stakeholder groups or  claimants have a definite stake. It thus becomes important to distinguish between the claimants and the influencers to ascertain the mix of influence or power and the level of risk being undertaken by each of the stakeholder groups. When engaging with claimants clearly their claims must supersede those of voluntary risk bearers or influencers. during a crisis. This evidently creates a paradox and necessitates that top management attune stakeholder salience based on stakeholder influence on the issue in addition to stakeholder attributes.

Organization’s Locus of Control

            A key characteristic of organization-stakeholder relationships is interdependence. These interdependencies creates moral obligations and an expectations of fairness and justice[3]. However, these interdependent relationships are seldom symmetrical. The asymmetries observed in the organization-stakeholder relationships are, for one, due to an unequal dependence of one group on the other for their preferred outcomes. Understandably more power accrues to the group which is less dependent on the other. Internal stakeholders, for example, employees have a higher degree of dependence on an organization than vice-versa due to financial considerations. Also the organization’s actions have a far greater impact on employees than employees’ action on the organization. This indicates that the organization’s locus of control is greater in respect to stakeholders whose dependence is more than its own. During a crisis, the stakeholder groups who have a greater degree of dependence on the organization than the organization on them, the stakeholder groups are more likely to have an accommodative or a pro-organizational stance. In contrast, in the case of external stakeholders such as customers or government agencies, the organization is more dependent on them than vice-versa. In such cases, the organization is in a slightly disadvantageous position because the organization’s locus of control is diminished as more power is concentrated with the customers or the government. During a crisis situation, these stakeholders are more likely to take an antagonistic stance. So, the top management must prioritize the claims/interests of the stakeholders based on its locus of control over these stakeholder groups. The important takeaway is that the locus of control of an organization during a crisis depends upon the level of dependence of the organization on the stakeholder for the preferred outcome and if the preferred outcome is jointly controlled or are more independently controlled.

            Having a clear idea of the variables that create asymmetries in stakeholder relations can prove helpful for the top management in recalibrating stakeholder salience during a crisis situation and contracting the decision-making process.

[1] Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience:Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853-886. DOI:10.2307/259247

[2] Max B. E. Clarkson. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.2307/258888

[3] Bosse, D., & Coughlan, R.,(2015). Stakeholder Relationship Bonds. Journal of Management Studies. 53 (7), 1197-1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12182

The post Asymmetrical Stakeholder Relations and its Impact on Crisis Situations first appeared on Strategic PR Insights.

The post Organizational Best Practices in Countering Digital Mis-or Disinformation first appeared on Strategic PR Insights.

The conversation about mental health is never an easy one. In the COVID-19 era, these conversations can no longer be ignored as organizations must grapple with re-integrating employees into the workplace after an extended period of remote work and social isolation. Organizations that support the emotional well-being of their employees are more likely to see improvements in employee engagement, productivity, recruitment, and retention.

 Although mental health is characterized by good behavioral adjustment and an ability to cope with the day-to-day demands and stresses of life relatively free from anxiety, people often conflate it with more serious mental disorders or illnesses. Therefore, communicating about it to the employees in more neutral terms such as “emotional well-being” might help to remove some of the negativity and the blocks associated with the expression “mental health.”

 Following are some strategies and tactics that organizations might find useful in enhancing employee emotional well-being.

1. Tailoring employee communication to the needs and styles of the employees—The best health policies and programs will be rendered useless if the employees are unaware about it. The employees of an organization are not a homogenous group; and therefore, strategies that are broadly tailored can be ineffective in addressing their emotional well-being. Segmenting the employees by demographic characteristics like age, gender, race, sexual orientation, and SES (Socio-Economic Status) might prove to be more effective in facilitating conversations about emotional well-being. For instance, Millennials and Gen Zs with the highest turnover rate are also the most likely to talk about emotional well-being at work. Creating a webpage on the Intranet that lists useful information and resources about emotional well-being is a good starting place to organize information for different demographic groups of the employees. Both the PR and the HR department would need to collaborate to make the resources public and accessible.
2. Creating resources for emotional support that can be accessed privately or anonymously— Talking about one’s emotional well-being is an extremely private matter and most people, understandably so, would be unwilling to discuss it within the organizational setting. Employers might consider engaging certified counsellors or coaches from reputed organizations to provide support in an anonymous manner. This would encourage more employees to seek advice in a timely manner.  This could be a stand-alone initiative or a part of the employee wellness program or employee health benefits plan.
3. Increasing investments in wellness programs that promote holistic well-being— Initiatives such as mental health days or week at work are effective in raising awareness about emotional issues that employees face at work. Organizations should consider investing in additional resources for enhancing emotional-well-being, such as creation of clubs for the pursuit of sports or hobbies. This can have two-fold advantage—first, the employees can channel their unexpressed emotions into their interests such as biking, hiking, volleyball, gardening, dancing, yoga, meditation, painting etc. and transmute it into positive emotions and outcomes; second, when people connect with their colleagues through other ways besides their work, it will change the dynamics of the relationship and bring positivity even in their professional interactions. Instituting changes in organizational policy that provides extra-paid time off or yearly paid family vacation will also help to promote emotional well-being. It would also be advantageous to explore unique solutions based on the nature and type of the organization to provide support that improves positivity at work.
4. Identifying and minimizing common stressors—The pandemic has brought to the surface issues of emotional well-being at work, which were otherwise overlooked or dismissed. Emerging evidence on the effects of COVID-19 on people’s emotional well-being suggests that employees need coping resources to deal with four common stressors related to: (i) Personal; (ii) Financial; (iii) Social; and (iv) National situations to lead a more stress-free life. Stressors related to personal circumstances elicit anxieties and stress from the likelihood of being infected, being hospitalised or the possibility of infecting loved ones or in rare cases of dying; stressors related to one’s financial situation cause worry about an individual’s financial stability both in the short and the long term; for instance, housing rent/mortgage payments in the event one partner has lost his/her job, This, of course, will differ based on the socio-economic position and the sectors/industry in which they are employed; the third group of stressors as it relates to the social situation create anxiety about the health and safety needs of children and elderly parents for whom the employees might be responsible; and the fourth group of stressors relates to the economy of their country, vis-à-vis the inflation rates, unemployment rates, travel restrictions, vaccination status, housing market etc. Organizations based on their financial position may be able to alleviate some of the anxiety or stress related to the personal, financial and social stressors at least temporarily by providing some financial support for child care, rent payment, student loan repayment, tuition reimbursement, providing assistance in planning for financial security, or providing more flexible work hours, reassigning responsibilities and roles etc.  These are some suggestions and are not meant to be exhaustive.
5. Role of Leadership—The top leadership within an organization play an important role in how an organization handles matters of employee emotional well-being as they are the ones who influence and shape policies. It is becoming imperative that they begin prioritizing emotional well-being of their employees, not only from an empathetic perspective but also from a business perspective. According to one estimate millions of workdays and billions of dollars are lost in productivity due to mental health issues. Efforts should be made to create cohesiveness and a sense of community within the employees to improve the workplace environment. When employees feel valued, are given autonomy, that is, a sense of control, experience a sense of optimism and have access to social support, it builds resiliency in them and assists them in successfully coping with the stressors. The top management should ensure that these coping resources are provided to the employees to improve their emotional well-being. Everyone in the organization–top management, middle managers, supervisors and all the other staff and employees–can also benefit from training in mindfulness. Most people are facing some challenge in their lives related to the pandemic, which makes them more sensitive their environment. Little gestures of kindness can create positivity in the work environment helping to improve the emotional well-being of both the givers and receivers. Research into pro-social behavior suggests that small and even insignificant acts of kindness had the power to increase the levels of job satisfaction as it made the givers feel more in control at work. An important point to note, however, is that the gesture should be genuine in its intent.

The post 5 Ways in Which Organizations Can Enhance Employee Emotional Well-Being first appeared on Strategic PR Insights.

The post The Fabindia Ad Debacle: Mixed Messages or Missed Opportunities? first appeared on Strategic PR Insights.

The post Recovering After A Crisis first appeared on Strategic PR Insights.

The post Stewardship During a Crisis Critical for Successful Resolution first appeared on Strategic PR Insights.