Durumsal Kriz İletişimi Teorisi Çerçevesinde Örgüt-Kamu İlişkisinin ve Kriz Tepki Stratejilerinin Sorumluluk Atfetme Düzeyine ve Örgütsel İtibar Algısına Etkileri

Bu çalışmanın amacı durumsal kriz iletişimi teorisinin temel varsayımlarından hareketle örgüt-kamu ilişkisinin ve kriz tepki stratejilerinin krize ilişkin örgüte atfedilen sorumluluk düzeyine ve örgütsel itibar algısına olan etkilerini analiz etmektir. Araştırma toplam 316 katılımcı üzerinden, yapay/uydurma bir senaryo ve yarı-deneysel bir yöntem kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları örgüt-kamu ilişkileri ile kriz sorumluluk atıf düzeyi arasında negatif yönde ve ters orantılı bir ilişki olduğunu, örgüt ile olan ilişkilerini daha olumlu bulanların olumsuz bulanlara oranla krizden dolayı örgüte daha düşük düzeyde bir sorumluluk atfettiklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre kriz tepki stratejilerinden özür dileme ve gerekçelendirme stratejileri hatırlatma stratejisine göre, suçu başkasına atma stratejisi ise hem özür dileme hem de hatırlatma stratejilerine göre krizden dolayı örgüte atfedilen sorumluluk düzeyini artırmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında elde edilen bulgular özür dileme ve hatırlatma stratejilerinin kriz sorumluluk atıf düzeyi bağlamında örgüt açısından daha iyi sonuçlar verdiğini göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte elde edilen bulgular seçilen tepki stratejisi ne olursa olsun örgüt ile kamuları arasındaki ilişkiyi olumsuz değerlendirenlerin olumlu değerlendirenlere göre krizden dolayı örgütü suçlamaya daha eğilimli olduklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Örgüt-kamu ilişkisine dair algılar ile kriz sorumluluk atıf düzeyi arasındaki ilişki en fazla sırasıyla gerekçelendirme, özür dileme, suçu başkasına atma ve hatırlatma stratejileri çerçevesinde gerçekleşmektedir. Araştırma bulguları kriz sorumluluk atıf düzeyinin yüksek olmasının örgütsel itibar algısını olumsuz yönde etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre kriz sorumluluk atıf düzeyi ile örgütsel itibar arasındaki negatif yönde ve ters orantılı en kuvvetli ilişki suçu başkasına atma stratejisi, en zayıf ilişki ise hatırlatma stratejisi bağlamında gerçekleşmektedir.Anahtar Kelimeler: Durumsal kriz iletişimi teorisi, örgüt-kamu ilişkisi, kriz tepki stratejileri, sorumluluk atfetme, örgütsel itibar

The Effects of The Organization-Public Relations and Crisis Response Strategies on Level of Attribution of Respensibility and Perception of Organizational Reputation Based on Situational Crisis Communication Theory

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of organization-public relationship and crisis response strategies to the level of responsibility attributed to the organization related to crisis and the perception of organizational reputation in terms of underlying assumptions of the situational crisis communication theory. Total 316 participants joined the research in which artificial/fabricated scenario and quasi-experimental method was used. Results of the research show that there is a negative and inverse relation between organization-public relationships and the level of attribution of crisis responsibility. The level of responsibility attributed to the organization due to crisis is lower in those who define their relationship with the organization positive than in those who define their relationship negative. According to the findings, the apology and justification crisis response strategies against reminding strategy and scapegoating crisis response strategy against both the apology and reminding response strategies increase the level of responsibility attributed to the organization due to crisis. The findings obtained from the research demonstrate that the apology and reminding strategies give better results for organization in terms of the level of attribution of crisis responsibility. However, findings indicate that those who evaluate the relationship between the organization and its publics as negative, regardless of the chosen strategy, have a more tendency to blame the organization due to crisis than those who evaluate the relationship as positive. Relationship between the perceptions on organization-public relationship and the level of attribution of crisis responsibility has been shaped mostly by the justification, apology, scapegoating and reminding strategies, respectively. Findings of the research show that high level of attribution of responsibility has negative effect on the perception of organizational reputation. According to the findings, most powerful negative and inverse relation is scapegoating strategy in the relationship between the level of attribution of responsibility and organizational reputation, the weakest one is reminding strategy.Key Words: Situational crisis communication theory, organization-public relationships, crisis response strategies, attribution of responsibility, organizational reputation

PDF

___

BİLGİN, Nuri (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde İçerik Analizi: Teknikler ve Örnek Çalışmalar (2. Baskı), Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
BROWN, Kenon A., WHITE, Candace L. (2011). “Organization–public Relationships and Crisis Response Strategies: Impact on Attribution of Responsibility”, Journal of Public Relations Research. Vol: 23(1), p. 75-92.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (1995). “Choosing The Right Words: The Development of Guidelines For He Selection of The Appropriate Crisis-Response Strategies”, Management Communication Quarterly. Vol: 8(4), p. 447-476.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (1999). “Information And Compassion in Crisis Responses: A Test of Their Effects”, Journal of Public Relations Research. Vol: 11(2), p. 125-142.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (2004). “Impact of Past Crises on Current Crisis Communication: Insights From Stuational Crisis Communication Theory”, Journal of Business Communication. Vol: 41(3), p. 265-289.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (2005). Crisis and Crisis Management, (Ed.) Robert L. Heath, Encyclopedia of Public Relations (Cilt 1), California: Sage. p. 217-221.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (2006). “The Protective Powers of Crisis Response Strategies: Managing Reputational Assets During A Crisis”, Journal of Promotion Management. Vol: 12(3-4), p. 241-260.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (2007a). “Attribution Theory As A Guide For Post-Crisis Communication Research”, Public Relations Review. Vol: 33(2), p. 135-139.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (2007b). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (2007c). “Protecting Organization Reputations During A Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory”, Corporate Reputation Review. Vol: 10(3), p. 163-176.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (2009). Conceptualizing Crisis Communication, (Ed.), Robert L. Heath ve H. Dan O’Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication, New York, NY: Routledge, p. 99-118.
COOMBS, W. Timothy (2010). Parameters for Crisis Communication. (Ed.), W. Timothy Coombs ve Sherry J. Holladay, The Handbook of Crisis Communication Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 17-53.
COOMBS, W. Timothy, HOLLADAY, Sherry 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(4), p. 321-340.
COOMBS, W. Timothy, HOLLADAY, Sherry J. (2002). “Helping Crisis Managers Protect Reputational Assests: İnitial Tests Of The Situational Crisis Communication Theory”, Management Communication Quarterly. Vol: 16(2), p. 165-186.
FERGUSON, Mary Ann (1984). “Building Theory in Public Relations: Interorganizational Relationships”. Annual Convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Florida. USA.
FEARN-BANKS, Kathleen (2011). Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach (4th Edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
FINK, Steven (1986). Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable. New York, NY: American Management Association.
GRUNIG, James E., HUNG, Chun-ju Flora (2002). “The Effect of Relationships on Reputation and Reputation on Relationships: A Cognitive, Behavioral Study”. PRSA Educator's Academy 5th Annual International Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Florida, USA.
HOLLADAY, Sherry J. (2010). Are They Practicing What We Are Preaching? An Investigation of Crisis Communication Strategies in the Media Coverage of Chemical Accidents. (Ed.), W. Timothy Coombs ve Sherry J. Holladay, The Handbook of Crisis Communication, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. P. 159-180
KI, Eyun-Jung, BROWN, Kenon A. (2013). “The Effects of Crisis Response Strategies on Relationship Quality Outcomes”, Journal of Business Communication. Vol: 50(4), p. 403-420.
LEDINGHAM, John A. (2005). Relationship Management Theory. (Ed.), Robert L. Heath, Encyclopedia of Public Relations (Vol 2), California: Sage. p. 740-743
McAULEY, Edward, DUNCAN. Terry E., RUSSELL, Daniel W. (1992). “Measuring Causal Attributions: The Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII)”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol: 18(5), p. 566-573.
MEYERS, Gerald C. (1986). When It Hits The Fan: Managing The Nine Crises of Business. New York, NY: Mentor.
MITROFF, Ian I. (1994). “Crisis Management and Environmentalism: A Natural Fit”, California Management Board. Vol: 36(2), p. 101-113.
PARK, Hyojung ve REBER, Bryan 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(4), p. 240-260.
POINDEXTER, Paula M., MCCOMBS, Maxwell E. (2000). Research in Mass Communication: A Practical Guide. Boston, USA: Bedford St.Martin’s.
SELLNOW, Timothy L., SEEGER, Matthew W. (2013). Theorizing Crisis Communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
STURGES, David L. (1994). “Communicating Through Crisis: A Strategy for Organizational Survival”, Management Communication Quarterly. Vol: 7(3), p. 297-316.
YANG, Sung-Un (2007). Reputation Management for Organizations: Effects of Organization-Public Relationships. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
YAZICIOĞLU, Yahşi, ERDOĞAN, Samiye (2004). SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay.