Managing corporate reputation in times of crisis : examining the influence of storytelling on employee and customer perceptions

(1)

Managing corporate reputation in times of crisis: Examining the influence of storytelling on employee and customer perceptions

Sanya Karasanova – 10675493

University of Amsterdam, Department of Communication Science

25 June, 2015

(2)

Nowadays, upholding favourable corporate reputation in periods of crisis is a major challenge for organizations. They need effective strategies to communicate to their stakeholders and, ultimately, to protect their reputation. Recently, organizations started using corporate storytelling to shape the stakeholders’ image of the organization. In this sense, corporate storytelling is an acknowledged communication management tool, but its application during organizational crises along with its effect on reputation have been hardly investigated. The present study provides a reflection on the advantages and the limitations to storytelling and its application in times of crisis. Accordingly, the research examined the influence of storytelling on corporate reputation by taking into account two of the most influential stakeholder groups organizations have, namely the employees and the customers. Specifically, the corporate reputation of First Investment Bank (Fibank), Bulgaria, was investigated, as perceived by the organization’s employees and customers, during a crisis that the bank was going through. This was achieved by means of cross-sectional research design, based on survey data that

incorporated 214 respondents. Overall, the results revealed that during the crisis Fibank’s corporate reputation was positive according to both stakeholder groups. In addition, the effect of corporate storytelling on the organization’s reputation was found to be positive and

moderately strong. Whether the individuals were employees or customers of the bank did not moderate the relationship. The only difference between the two stakeholder groups was that the employees had more favourable perceptions than the customers. The findings of this study are beneficial for organizations in their aim to improve their reputation management processes and their communication with key stakeholders during crisis.

Keywords: Crisis communication, corporate reputation, corporate storytelling, communication management tool, reputation management process, employees, customers

(4)

Introduction

Organizations are often affected by disruptive events which can result in negative consequences for the organizations and their stakeholders. In corporate communication

literature and practice, these situations are referred to as organizational crises. Communication is an essential aspect of organizations’ attempts to handle crises. In this sense, organizations are advised to respond to a crisis in a timely manner, as otherwise there is a possibility for the stakeholders to rely on rumors and speculations as the source of their information (Veil & Ojeda, 2010). The same authors add that this can in turn create uncertainty and the crisis could escalate.

According to Coombs (2007), most of the information that stakeholders receive about organizations comes from the news media. The author also points out that weblogs and social media play an important role in the context of some organizational crises. The crisis

communication of an organization is also crucial, as one of its main goals is to restore the corporate reputation of the organization and the trust of its stakeholders (Utz, Schultz, & Glocka, 2013). In addition, it can limit negative media coverage (Nijkrake, Gosselt, & Gutteling, 2014). Thus, the information elicited from the organization in crisis is often relatively different than the information stakeholders receive from the media. As a result, in times of crisis people are presented with contradicting information and are often confused when forming their opinion about the organization in crisis.

Corporate storytelling can possibly facilitate organizations’ internal and external communication in times of crisis, as this communication management tool frames information in a way to reinforce people’s perceptions and behavior (Gill, 2011a) and employs a narration that makes the message clear and memorable. Nevertheless, engaging in corporate storytelling does not ensure successful outcomes. In order for the storytelling strategy to be efficient, organizations need to craft and implement their story according to the specific situation and business purpose they aim to use it for. In this sense, there is no single right way to tell a story and neither is the story always interpreted in the same way by the audience (Denning, 2006). In order to better examine the aforementioned situation, the present study will consider the current state of one of the largest financial institutions in Bulgaria - First Investment Bank (Fibank). This is an example of an organization that used the corporate advertisement type of storytelling. It was employed as a communication management tool aimed to communicate to Fibank’s stakeholders during a crisis that was triggered by rumors, initiated online by weblogs and websites. It should be addressed herein that weblogs have become an influential

(5)

state that weblogs allow for anyone to publish information without any editorial process and this includes people who lack expertise. Therefore, rumors and speculations are likely to be elicited by some weblogs. In the case of the present study, it is arguable if there has been an official end of the crisis, as currently the organization states there is no crisis, whereas the online mediums continue to spread rumors that Fibank is going to bankrupt within less than a year.

Thus, it is possible that the contradicting information from different media outlets, as well as from the organization itself, would cause confusion and relatively different opinions within two of the most important stakeholder groups - the employees and the customers. Consequently, the following research question is to be investigated: How does corporate storytelling, as a communication management tool, influence an organization’s corporate reputation as perceived by employees and customers in times of crisis?

The case is suitable for consideration, since it is an illustrative of the described

situation. Consequently, this study will investigate an organization’s most valuable asset – its corporate reputation – in a crisis context, as perceived by the aforementioned stakeholder groups. Furthermore, many communication theorists acknowledge corporate storytelling as a valuable communication strategy (Dowling, 2006; Gill, 2011a), but there is little research investigating its application in periods of crisis, more specifically, in relation to improving corporate reputation. Therefore, the present study is expected to fill in this gap in the body of academic knowledge and provide useful implications about if and how organizations should apply storytelling, first, in a crisis context, and second, to protect and possibly enhance their reputation.

Theoretical background

As mentioned in the previous section, the influence of corporate storytelling on corporate reputation will be explored on the example of Fibank. In order to do so, an extensive literature review was necessary. This theoretical foundation begins by introducing the crisis concept and outlining the value of crisis communication. Next, stakeholders and corporate reputation are discussed, by stressing the importance of reputation in times of crisis. Third, a reflection on the conceptual streams of reputation measurement, as well as the corporate reputation pillars and corporate personality, are presented, as these are closely related to corporate reputation. Finally, the concept of corporate storytelling, its impact on reputation and its application in periods of crisis are elaborated upon. This review of relevant literature from

(6)

various research fields creates a solid theoretical foundation that enables the analysis of the research problem outlined in the Introduction.

Crisis communication

An organizational crisis is characterized as “a sudden and unexpected event that threatens to disrupt an organization’s operations and poses both a financial and reputational threat.” (Coombs, 2007, p. 164). Crises can cause negative consequences for organizations’ stakeholders in an emotional, physical and financial way (Coombs, 2007). Therefore, an organization’s crisis communication is proven to be a crucial aspect in handling crises (Coombs, 2007; Van der Meer, Verhoeven, Beentjes, & Vliegenthard, 2014). In particular, crisis communication aims to repair the image of organizations, restore the trust of the stakeholders and prevent damage to corporate reputation (Utz et al., 2013; Van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). According to Coombs (2007), the more the stakeholders regard an organization as responsible for a crisis, the more its reputation will suffer. Hence,

stakeholders’ perceptions about whether an organization is responsible for a crisis have been a main focus in the existing literature, as those perceptions have a core impact on reputation (Schwarz, 2012). Thus, a successful crisis management incorporates strategic communication with the stakeholders by presenting them efficient information (Ki & Nekmat, 2014). The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) developed by Coombs (2007) provides organizations with knowledge of how to match different crisis types with proper response strategies, thus ensuring an understanding that crisis communication can protect

organizations’ most valuable asset – their corporate reputation. The SCCT comprises three clusters of crisis types, namely victim, accidental and preventable cluster, which are based on stakeholders’ evaluation of how much certain organization is responsible for a crisis

(Coombs, 2007). The focus of the present study is on the rumor crisis that is incorporated in the victim cluster, as this is how the crisis at issue was first triggered.

The rumor crisis type is characterized as “a false or damaging information about an organization being circulated” (Coombs 2007, p. 168). Furthermore, the author postulates that, in such crises, it is necessary that the organization argues that no crisis exists and denies the rumors. In the light of this discussion, Coombs (2007) suggests that if the stakeholders accept the framing of denial or that the crisis is not real, the organization is saved from damages to its corporate reputation. Therefore, the present study will assess whether storytelling, as the communication strategy Fibank used to refute and end the crisis, was successful in sparing reputational damages to the bank.

(7)

Corporate reputation

The existing literature states that corporate reputation has received a substantial interest among scholars, but there is no single definition of the concept that has been commonly accepted (Shamma, 2012). For instance, Fombrun and Rindova (1996) define corporate reputation as “a collective representation of a firm’s past actions and results that describes a firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders. It gauges a firm’s relative standing both internally with its employees and externally with its stakeholders, in both its competitive and institutional environments” (p. 10). Accordingly, Gotsi and Wilson (2001a) suggested that corporate reputation is “a stakeholder’s overall evaluation of a company over time” (p. 29). Hence, most authors acknowledge the important role of corporate reputation as a means that helps organizations to establish a sustainable competitive advantage and

maintain long-term relationships with various stakeholders (Boyd, Bergh, & Ketchen, 2010). Moreover, according to Shamma (2012), an organization’s reputation is its most valuable intangible asset that facilitates legitimization over time. The same author suggests that maintaining favourable corporate reputation acts as organization’s security in periods of crisis.

The present study will assess corporate reputation by employing the perspective that the construct aggregates the perceptions of two key stakeholder groups – employees and customers. The reasoning behind this premise lies in several facts outlined in the corporate communication academic literature. For instance, many theorists see reputation as a function of identity and image (Chun, 2005; Fombrun, 1996). Shamma (2012) explains this

relationship by suggesting that corporate identity represents the internal stakeholders’ perceptions about an organization whereas corporate image is formed through an

organization’s external communication and is therefore the external stakeholders’ perceptions about the organization. In other words, the overall corporate reputation is constituted by internal and external corporate reputation which are formed consequently by the perceptions of the internal and external stakeholders of organizations. Furthermore, the identity and the image of an organization are interdependent of each other, as the employees’ perceptions of an organization are the ground on which the corporate image is built (Chun, 2005).

Nevertheless, Chun (2005) points out to the need to study corporate reputation by assessing the gaps between employee perceptions (corporate identity) and customer perceptions (corporate image), which ultimately signals potential aspects for improvement in the reputation management processes. In the light of this discussion it should be addressed that the crisis communication literature also suggests that corporate reputation is one of the most

(8)

important resources that organizations possess and should therefore be a core management concern to be protected in periods of crisis (Coombs, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002).

Stakeholders

Fassin (2009) postulates that the stakeholder model developed by Freeman (1984) is widely accepted as a management tool for creating organizational strategies, because of its premise of two-way relationships between organizations and their stakeholders. According to Freeman (1984), a stakeholder is an individual or a group that “can affect or is affected by the

achievement of an organization’s objectives” (p. 46). An organization’s stakeholders include employees, communities, customers, suppliers, shareholders, et cetera, which all have different stakes in the organization and are therefore affected in different ways during crisis. The present study will focus on two stakeholder groups, namely, employees and customers, firstly, because both Freeman (1984) and Fassin (2009) regard them as two of the major and most important stakeholder groups, secondly, for the sake of feasibility those two groups are more easily reachable for conducting an analysis and, thirdly, various scholars regard

corporate reputation as a function of corporate identity and image (Fombrun, 1996). Davies, Chun, Vinhas da Silva, and Roper (2004) suggest that many studies investigating corporate reputation acknowledge the interdependence of employee and customer perspectives (Davies & Louella, 1998; Fombrun, 1996; Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Therefore, reputation management processes require focus on both stakeholder groups simultaneously. To elaborate further on this premise, de Chernatony (1999) states that customers’ attitudes towards an organization are strongly influenced by its employees, because the contact between employees and customers shapes the customers’ impression of the organization (Bettencourt, Meuter, & Gwinner, 2001). According to Pugh (2001), through a process called ‘emotional contagion’, customers can sense the employees’ emotions, which in turn affects their opinion about the service they receive. This especially applies in the case of Fibank, as it is an organization with constant employee-customer interactions. Davies et al. (2004) point out that in order to create a positive external view of themselves, organizations should make sure that the internal view is positive. Correspondingly, internal and external perceptions should be aligned (Hatch & Schultz, 2001), so that any discrepancies between internal and external reputation are reduced (Davies et al. 2004). In addition, such

discrepancies are related to future crises (Dowling, 1994).

Employees who are satisfied with their employer’s practices and values are crucial assets to enhance the external reputation of their organization (Herman & Gioia, 2004;

(9)

Leary-Joyce, 2004). In accordance with this line of thought, the present study postulates that when employees have positive perceptions about an organization, meaning the higher the internal reputation is, the customers will also hold positive views about the same organization, or the higher the external reputation will be, and vice versa.

Davies et al. (2004) claim that internal and external corporate reputation have been often investigated seperately, but reputation should rather be explored by taking into account both internal and external views simultaneously and with the same measure. The present study adopts to this perspective and will assess both internal and external perceptions about an organization. As mentioned above, customers are the external stakeholders whose perceptions are highly dependant on employees and their behavior (de Chernatony, 1999; Pugh, 2001). Gotsi and Wilson (2001b) imply that employees’ opinions can also be formed by

communicating with customers on various occasions. The need for comparison, as well as the high interdependence between employees and customers, are the reasons behind choosing these two groups as representatives of internal and external stakeholders.

Conceptual streams of corporate reputation measurement

The conceptualization of corporate reputation outlined in the previous section suggests that it is a multidimensional construct which comprises multiple stakeholder groups’ perceptions about an organization’s performance (Fombrun, Gardberg, & Sever, 2000). Berens and Van Riel (2004) distinguished three main conceptual streams from the reputation measurement literature, the first of which is based on social expectations. In other words, these are “the expectations that people have regarding the behavior of companies” (Berens & Van Riel, 2004, p. 161). The authors suggest that the Reputation Quotient, developed by Fombrun et al. (2000), is one of the most prominent measures of this stream. The scale is suitable for

uncovering potential areas of improvement of organizations’ reputation, which facilitates corporate reputation management processes. The second stream is established on the base of corporate personality, meaning “the personality traits that people attribute to companies” (Berens & Van Riel, 2004, p. 161). Davies, Chun, Vinhas da Silva, and Roper (2001) suggest that people assign personality traits not only to other human beings, but also to organizations, because they use the traits metaphorically. Berens and Van Riel (2004) conclude that the Corporate Character Scale developed by Davies, Chun, Vinhas da Silva, and Roper (2003) is the most suitable measurement technique to assess this stream. This scale enables

organizations to recognize the types of personalities that are dominant for them as well as to detect potential aspects of improvement in relation to their corporate personality. Berens and

(10)

Van Riel (2004) include a third reputational stream of thought, based on trust, for which the Corporate Credibility Scale developed by Newell and Goldsmith (2001) is said to be the most appropriate measure.

Corporate reputation pillars. There are six main pillars of corporate reputation which are incorporated in the Reputation Quotient developed by Fombrun et al. (2000). The pillars are as follows: (1) emotional appeal; (2) products and services; (3) vision and

leadership; (4) workplace environment; (5) social and environmental responsibility and (6) financial performance (Fombrun et al., 2000). Findings from a study conducted by Shamma and Hassan (2009) revealed that products and services and workplace environment have the strongest relationship with reputation and therefore should be a priority for organizations in the reputation management processes. In line with the theory of Coombs (2007) reflected upon in the previous sections, Fibank stated that there is no crisis and denied the rumors. Therefore, this study assumes that both stakeholder groups accepted this denial frame. More specifically, it is argued that the most important corporate reputation pillars, namely products and services and workplace environment will be positively evaluated by the employees and, consequently, by the customers of Fibank:

Hypothesis 1a. The employees of Fibank have positive perceptions of the organization’s products and services.

Hypothesis 1b. The customers of Fibank have positive perceptions of the organization’s products and services.

Hypothesis 2a. The employees of Fibank have positive perceptions of the organization’s workplace environment.

Hypothesis 2b. The customers of Fibank have positive perceptions of the organization’s workplace environment.

Corpotate personality. According to McCorkindale (2008), stakeholders expect organizations to have a trustworthy personality which is a result of organizations’ attempts to build and enhance their corporate reputation. In this sense, Davies et al. (2004) point out that the corporate personality of organizations is directly related to their reputation. Keller and Richey (2006) argue that the employees set up the grounds of an organization’s corporate personality. The same authors add that the employees determine who an organization is by bringing its corporate personality to life. Keller & Richey (2006) suggest that it is important that the employees embrace the corporate personality that an organization strives to establish

(11)

because the customers perceive the employees to be the face of the organization. Therefore, organizations are advised to investigate their corporate personality in order to grasp their dominant mindset and improve their corporate reputation (Goffee & Jones, 1998). The current discussion leads to formulating the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a. The employees of Fibank have positive perceptions with regards to the organization’s corporate personality.

Hypothesis 3b. The customers of Fibank have positive perceptions with regards to the organization’s corporate personality.

Corporate storytelling

Corporate storytelling has been acknowledged as a communication strategy by many scholars, as it has been a fundamental part of human communication for centuries (Gill, 2011a). Due to the lack of empirical research on the matter, the present study aims to clarify whether

storytelling is a successful communication management tool to be applied in times of organizational crisis.

As previously noted, according to the SCCT, rumor is a type of crisis that

organizations often face (Coombs, 2007). Therefore, during such a crisis, organizations need effective communication management tools in order to protect their reputation, which, as suggested in the previous sections, depends on stakeholders’ perceptions. This is where corporate storytelling comes into play during a crisis, as it is regarded as a communication tool that presents information to stakeholders in an understandable, substantial and

memorable way (McLellan, 2006). According to Dowling (2006), there are several forms of storytelling, namely, books, websites, corporate advertising, annual reports, et cetera, which represent art supported by science. Storytelling is defined as “the process of developing a message that creates a new point-of-view or reinforces an opinion or behavior by using narration about people, the organization, the past, visions for the future, social bonding and work itself.” (Gill, 2011a, p. 25). To elaborate further, a narrative refers to “any cohesive and coherent story with an identifiable beginning, middle, and end that provides information about scene, characters, and conflict; raises unanswered questions or unresolved conflict; and

provides resolution” (Hinyard & Kreuter, 2007, p. 778). Various studies prove that narratives have a strong influence on audiences’ attitudes, beliefs, and even their behaviors (Morgan, Movius, & Cody, 2009; Moyer-Guse & Nabi, 2010). Interestingly, Kopp, Nikolovska, Desiderio, and Guterman (2011) suggest that crises are narratives in their nature, which is a

(12)

prerequisite for storytelling to serve as their antidote, because the strongest advantage of storytelling is its narrative process. Correspondingly, Patriotta (2003) argues that this narrative process can be used as a strategy to “absorb discordance around a disruptive occurrence” (p. 365).

Corporate storytelling is suggested to be a successful change and crisis management tool from an internal communication’s perspective (Gill, 2011a, 2011b; Kopp et al., 2011). In particular, Gill (2011a) argues that in difficult organizational times storytelling increases employees’ engagement and loyalty by connecting with them on a more personal level. However, Dowling (2006) postulates that through corporate storytelling, an organization can foster customers’ or other stakeholders’ trust and loyalty by justifying its behavior in terms of mission and morality. Furthermore, the information elicited by the organization should be incorporated into a corporate reputation story that fits both internal and external stakeholder groups (Dowling, 2006). The same author’s conclusion is that corporate storytelling enhances corporate reputation. Therefore, it can be assumed that in times of crisis corporate storytelling can be employed to restore, preserve or even enhance corporate reputation by influencing the perceptions of all stakeholder groups.

Limitations to corporate storytelling

Although the existing literature points out to the benefits of corporate storytelling, there are also some limitations to this communication management tool that need consideration. First and foremost, storytelling is only one communication strategy that should be embedded in a broader array of communications that aim to reach mutual understanding across diverse audiences (Mohan, McGregor, Saunders, & Archee, 2008). In other words, storytelling should not be applied alone, as it is possible to turn out ineffective. Organizations should rather integrate it among other communication strategies intended to fulfill the same strategic objectives.

Secondly, corporate storytelling is said to be successful in connecting with audiences on an individual, personal level (Gill, 2011a). However, Gill (2011b) acknowledges that this advantage might be restricted depending on the medium used, as the media lack the personal approach of face-to-face communication.

Thirdly, if the mission, morality and the behavior of the organization are not aligned in a corporate reputation story, it is possible that the audience will ignore it or will oppose to the message (Dowling, 2006). As previously mentioned, corporate advertising is a type of

(13)

television advertisement might encode the message of the ad with dominant ideological meaning, whereas the audiences might decode it in a different way than intended (Hall, 1980). Yousman’s (2013) theoretical analysis of Stuart Hall’s model from 1980 suggests that Hall identified dominant, negotiated and oppositional readings of television. Specifically, Hall categorized as dominant readings the times when the audiences accept the encoded message without questioning it (Yousman, 2013). Negotiated readings involve the audiences accepting the general idea of the message, but opposing to specific parts; oppositional readings are when audiences criticize and reject the message as a whole (Yousman, 2013). Thus, Stuart Hall’s theory supports the possibility that the viewers can respond differently to a corporate story in an advertisement. In addition, Dowling (2006) admits that stakeholders can formulate

contrasting expectations and beliefs about the organization, thus creating fuzzy corporate reputation. Furthermore, due to the distinctive characteristics of each stakeholder group and the fact that they all have different experience with the organization (Denning, 2006), they may have different interpretations of storytelling (Dowling, 2006).

Finally, the literature acknowledges the lack of a universally correct way to craft a story (Denning, 2006; Dowling, 2006). According to Denning (2006), this is a consequence of storytelling having various forms, each of them corresponding to certain business purposes for which it should be applied. Hence, Denning (2006) implies that most organizations often do not differentiate between those storytelling patterns and distinguishing the patterns is a prerequisite for the effective use of corporate storytelling.

Despite the aforementioned shortcomings, communication theorists claim that taking those into account would harness the benefits of using corporate storytelling. This would ultimately lead to achieving organizations’ objectives (Gill, 2011a; Denning, 2006; Dowling, 2006). Considering the importance of the stakeholders suggested by various scholars and elaborated upon in the previous sections, this study assumes that the relationship between storytelling and reputation during crisis is affected by the individual’s relationship to the organization. In the light of this discussion the following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 4a. Corporate storytelling has a positive influence on employees perceptions (internal corporate reputation) in times of crisis.

Hypothesis 4b. The influence of corporate storytelling on employees perceptions (internal corporate reputation) is moderated by the individual’s relationship to Fibank.

(14)

Hypothesis 5a. Corporate storytelling has a positive influence on customers perceptions (external corporate reputation) in times of crisis.

Hypothesis 5b. The influence of corporate storytelling on customers perceptions (external corporate reputation) is moderated by the individual’s relationship to Fibank.

Denning (2005) and Mohan et al. (2008) suggest that research on the targeted stakeholder groups, as well as measuring responses on the desired outcome, are imperative to the

successful application of corporate storytelling. Reflecting on the relevant literature, there is a research gap in relation to the application of storytelling in times of organizational crisis. Therefore, the present study will address these issues by employing a quantitative measure to assess the responses of the employees and the customers of Fibank to the storytelling

advertisement the bank released during the crisis. All the measurements used, along with the case at issue will be described in the next section.

Method Design

The objective of the present study was to examine whether in times of organizational crisis the effect of storytelling on corporate reputation was positive, negative or neutral, as perceived by two of the most important stakeholder groups – the employees and the customers. The analysis incorporated respondents’ individual perceptions for both the independent and the dependent variables. For the purposes of the present study, a

cross-sectional research design in form of an online survey was chosen as the most suitable research design, able to reach the specific target population needed.

Case description

First Investment Bank (Fibank) is one of the largest financial institutions in Bulgaria. In the end of June, 2014, a major financial crisis started in the country with the unexpected bankrupt of Corporate Commercial Bank (CCB). In further consequence, certain weblogs and websites spread rumors that Fibank was going to bankrupt as well. As a result, people started

withdrawing their money from the bank. Meanwhile, the organization was constantly assuring that the rumors were not true. In addition, various campaigns were initiated, which

represented Fibank’s way to communicate with the customers during the crisis. The employees, on the other hand, were concerned about keeping their jobs, but nevertheless provided high quality service while working overtime. An internal source informed that on a

(15)

regular basis they were given up-to-date information about the bank’s condition. In

September, 2014, Fibank released an “image video”, which represented the story of the bank through their eyes and contained information suggesting that there was no crisis. However, the aforementioned internal source claimed that in reality the bank was not in such a stable condition, as only 30 % of the withdrawn funds were deposited back.

Speculations from different online sources, such as weblogs continue to spread rumors that Fibank is going to bankrupt within less than one year. Moreover, bank documents with an unverified origin are being leaked online. Meanwhile, the organization’s external

communication suggests the opposite, i.e. that the bank is in a good state.

Sample

The present study was conducted among Bulgarian citizens who, at the time of collecting the data, were employees or customers of Fibank. They were recruited from a pool of the

researcher’s acquaintances. According to Bulgarian law, only people at the age of 18 or above can be employees or customers of any bank. Thus, the sample included only people of legal age. For the sake of feasibility, a non-random sample procedure was employed, in particular, convenience sampling. This sampling method was the most applicable one for the purpose of sifting out and including only employees and customers of the bank and at the same time reaching out to a larger number of possible participants.

Overall, 214 completed questionnaires were collected after cleaning the data. The sample included 56.5 % female respondents. 64.3 % of the participants were at the age between 25 and 34. The sample comprised employees and customers of Fibank, with the customers representing 51 % of the total. The employees included 56 % females and 44 % males, whereas the customers included 57.5 % females and 42.5 % males. In relation to the length of the relationship between the participants and the organization, the majority of employees (41.4 %) had a tenure in the organization between five and ten years. On the other hand, 41.7 % of the customer sample were clients of Fibank for one to five years.

Procedure

The survey incorporated an anonymous self-rating questionnaire. It was designed online by using Qualtrics, a web-based survey software. The study was not funded and no incentives were given for participation. The employees were contacted by the Corporate

Communications Director of Fibank, who provided them with hard copies of the

(16)

Internet on their computers. The completed questionnaires were later on scanned and put online in Qualtrics by four acquaintances of the researcher who were given instructions in advance. To ensure the quality and genuineness of the data, an IP tracking system was put into place in order to control for the correct input online. The customers were contacted online and were given general information about the purpose of the study as well as that it was anonymous and voluntary. This information was included in the introduction of both the hard copy of the survey as well as in the online survey in Qualtrics. In addition, the time needed for the survey to be completed was indicated. Participants were asked to complete the

questionnaire within one week’s time.

The survey was designed in English, but translated and sent out to the respondents in Bulgarian language. The reasoning behind this decision was to ensure that no potential participants were excluded from the analysis due to not holding a good command of English language. It should be noted herein that the Bulgarian translation of each variable was equivalent to its original meaning in English, and was therefore valid for inclusion in the questionnaire. The survey was identical for both stakeholder groups, as the scales used allow for multi-stakeholder measurement. The data collection of the study took place in the period between the 21st and the 30th of April, 2015.

Measures

Corporate storytelling. This variable measured the effect of the storytelling advertisement that Fibank released during the crisis, on the perceptions of the organization’s employees and customers. It was assessed with one question incorporating a five-item version of the scale designed to measure user responses to interactive stories developed by

Vermeulen, Roth, Vorderer, and Klimmt (2010). The present study adopted five types of common user reactions that according to the authors occur most frequently in stories. The user responses include: “Curiosity about what will happen next”, “Suspense”, “Flow of story”, “Aesthetic Pleasantness (positive experiences of beauty or artistic impressiveness)” and “Enjoyment (an overall sense of positively valenced experimental quality)” (Vermeulen et al., 2010). The items were scored on a five-point Likert scale designed in an ascending order and ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Example items include: “After watching the video I was curious about Fibank’s future”, “The storyline of the video kept me in suspense”, “Overall, I enjoyed watching the video”. All the items are presented in the complete questionnaire employed in the study (see Appendix A).

(17)

was achieved, as the video was attached to the survey. The ad was required to watch before the question described in the previous paragraph. It should be noted that the employees received hard copies of the questionnaire and were therefore asked to retrieve the video by its name – “We are Fibank” – from the database of the bank, where such videos are kept. In order to gain a better understanding and insights of the ad’s content, see Appendix A.

Corporate reputation. In order to assess the corporate reputation of Fibank, the present study employed the Reputation Quotient scale developed by Fombrun et al. (2000) and the Corporate Character Scale, developed by Davies et al. (2003). The scales are

internationally valid and tested for reliability by various scholars (Shamma, 2012). Moreover, they are suitable for measuring multiple stakeholder perceptions (Shamma, 2012). Hence, Shamma (2012) suggests that the Reputation Quotient and the Corporate Character Scale appear to be the most popular and commonly used measurement techniques, which are able to assess the concept of corporate reputation in its full complexity.

Reputation Quotient. The scale incorporates 20 attributes, which fall into six pillars of corporate reputation. The 20 items, as well as the six pillars, are shown in Table B1 (see Appendix B). This study formulated the six pillars into six questions and each question consisted of several statements representing the 20 items. In order to better understand the dimensions “emotional appeal” and “workplace environment”, they were extended with one item each. An example dimension is “products and services”, which includes the following statements: “Fibank stands behind its products and services”, “Fibank develops innovative products and services”, “Fibank offers high quality products and services”, “Fibank offers products and services that are a good value for money”. In total, 22 statements were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). All the questions that incorporated the corporate reputation pillars are present in the survey (see Appendix A).

Corporate Character Scale. The Corporate Character Scale is based on personifying organizations by attributing them with human characteristics (Davies et al., 2004). It is especially suitable for measuring employee and customer perceptions and therefore identifies potential gaps between internal and external reputation (Davies et al., 2004). The scale includes 49 items describing 16 facets, grouped in seven personality dimensions. The 49 items are adjectives that represent personality traits characterizing the corporate brand of an organization. The list of personality dimensions, facets and items is illustrated in Table B2 (see Appendix B).

(18)

Agreeableness and competence were found to be the most important dimensions of the scale, as they strongly correlate with employee and customer satisfaction (Davies et al., 2004; Whelan & Davies, 2007). In contrast, ruthlessness is considered to be the most negative dimension from the scale, as it correlates negatively with employee and customer satisfaction, mostly with employee satisfaction (Davies, et al., 2003, 2004). Machismo and informality are recognized as the least important dimensions (Davies et al., 2003). Having this in mind, organizations should emphasize on agreeableness and competence when managing their corporate reputation.

When incorporating the scale into a questionnaire, respondents are asked to imagine that an organization was a person, which was also applied in the present study. The survey included all 49 items in seven questions that equaled the seven dimensions of the Corporate Character Scale. An example dimension is “agreeableness” which has “friendly”, “pleasant”, “open”, “straightforward”, et cetera, as its corresponding items of personality traits. “The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Appendix A provides an overview of the questions informed from the Corporate Character Scale.

Demographics. The survey included several questions requiring general information from respondents. The first question concerned the individual’s relationship to Fibank and asked whether the respondent was an employee or a customer of the organization. The next two questions outlined the gender and the age of the respondents. Then the length of the relationship between the respondents and the organization was assessed. For employees there was a question asking about their tenure in the organization. The equivalent question for customers asked for how long they have been clients of Fibank.

The main part of the survey consisted of questions employing a five-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. In order to be precise when

calculating the results, the method of Wrench (2013) was applied. More specifically, a mean score above 3.4 was regarded as agreement, or a positive perception, a mean score between 2.61 and 3.4 was taken as neutral, whereas a mean score below 2.61 was regarded as

disagreement or a negative perception. Table 1 presents in detail the method of mean scores interpretation.

(19)

Table 1

Mean average range

Likert scale categories Mean range

Strongly Disagree 1 – 1.8

Disagree 1.81 – 2.6

Neither Agree nor Disagree 2.61 – 3.4

Agree 3.41 – 4.2

Strongly Agree 4.21 – 5

Source: Wrench (2013)

Results

Positive employee and customer perceptions with regards to corporate reputation pillars Products and services considered as positive. Hypotheses 1a and 1b assumed that the employees and, consequently, the customers of Fibank have positive perceptions of the organization’s products and services. In order to test the hypotheses, a one-way ANOVA was performed. The results indicated that there is a difference between the employees (M = 4.16, SD = .71) and the customers (M = 3.83, SD = .64) with regards to their opinion about the organization’s products and services, F(1, 203) = 12.00, p = .001. However, Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances showed that the groups are relatively equal (p = .93). Follow-up post-hoc tests were performed in order to receive an accurate result. Both Welch’F and Brown-Forsythe’F revealed that the groups are in fact significantly different (p = .001). Within this context, the average mean values inferred that the employees scored higher than the customers. Nevertheless, it was outlined in the Method section that when calculating the mean average, every score above 3.4 is considered as agreement or positive perception. Therefore, the results allow to conclude that although the employees and the customers are different, the perceptions of both groups with regards to the products and services of Fibank are positive. Thus, hypotheses 1a and 1b can be supported.

Workplace environment considered as positive. It was hypothesized that the

employees and, consequently, the customers of the organization at issue have positive opinions about Fibank’s workplace environment. One-way ANOVA was used as the most suitable statistical technique to test hypotheses 2a and 2b. The results revealed that there is no difference between the employees (M = 3.62, SD = .82) and the customers (M = 3.43, SD = .61) in relation to their perceptions of the Fibank’s workplace environment, F(1, 204) = 3.47,

(20)

p = .06. Levene’s test indicated that the groups are significantly different (p < .01).

Therefore, Welch’F and Brown-Forsythe’F were performed to obtain robust results. The F-statistics of both tests indicated that there is no statistically significant difference between the employees and the customers when it comes to their perceptions about the bank’s workplace environment (p = .07). As the mean average scores of both groups were above 3.4, it can be stated that the employees and the customers have positive perceptions about the workplace environment of Fibank. Therefore, hypotheses 2a and 2b are confirmed.

In further consequence, MANOVA was used to compare the views of the employees and the customers by including all the pillars of corporate reputation into same analysis. MAVOVA was chosen as the most suitable statistical procedure, because it allows to compare groups by including several dependent variables into one analysis. As previously discussed, the Reputation Quotient consists of six dominant corporate reputation pillars. Therefore, six dependent variables were formulated by taking the mean scores for the reputation pillars. The results obtained from the analysis revealed that the employees and the customers differ in their perceptions in relation to all corporate reputation pillars, V = .13, F(6, 195) = 4.90, p < .001, η2 = .13.

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances indicated that the assumption of equality was satisfied for the pillars of emotional appeal, products and services, social and

environmental responsibility and financial performance. In relation to the vision and leadership and the workplace environment pillars, the assumption was violated (p < .05). Findings from the separate ANOVAs for all reputation pillars indicated that, with the

exception of workplace environment, the groups differ significantly with regards to the other five pillars. Table 2 provides a complete overview of the results from the univariate ANOVAs indicating the difference between the groups with regards to the corporate reputation pillars.

(21)

Table 2

Difference between employees and customers perceptions with regards to corporate reputation pillars Corporate reputation pillars Df Mean Square F p η2 Emotional appeal 1, 200 10.88 15.71 .00 .07

Products and services 1, 200 5.25 11.41 .001 .05

Vision and Leadership 1, 200 5.94 11.12 .001 .05

Workplace environment 1, 200 1.94 3.70 .056 .02 Social and environmental responsibility 1, 200 4.50 9.80 .002 .05 Financial performance 1, 200 11.15 23.10 .00 .10

Note. Employees, N = 100; Customers, N = 102

Post-hoc tests showed that the largest difference between the employees and the customers lies in two of the dependent variables, namely emotional appeal and financial performance (p < .001). For a detailed overview of the findings from the post-hoc tests, see Table C1,

Appendix C.

The descriptive statistics revealed that according to both the employees and the customers, Fibank scored the highest on the products and services reputation pillar, with the employees assigning higher values (M = 4.15, SD = .71), and the customers assigning lower values (M = 3.83, SD = .64). The second reputation pillar with highest values given by the groups was emotional appeal. On this dimension, the employees indicated higher scores (M = 4.09, SD = .87), than the customers (M = 3.62, SD = .80). According to both groups, Fibank scores the lowest on workplace environment, with the employees indicating higher values (M = 3.61, SD = .83), than the customers (M = 3.41, SD = .61). In the Method section, it was outlined that when mean average is calculated, every score between 2.61 and 3.4 is regarded as neither agreement nor disagreement, or neutral. Thus, scores above 3.4 are considered as agreement, or as positive perceptions. Within this context, the results revealed that all six corporate reputation pillars incorporated in the Reputation Quotient were ranked above 3.4 by the employees and the customers of Fibank. Thus, both stakeholder groups hold positive views about the organization, in other words, Fibank’s internal and external reputation is

(22)

positive. However, it should be noted herein that for each of the six corporate reputation dimensions, the employees were more positive than the customers. This tendency is illustrated in Figure 1. As a consequence, the mean values provided further support for hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b.

Figure 1

Corporate reputation pillars scores for Fibank

Corporate personality perceived as positive by employees and customers

Hypotheses 3a and 3b postulated that the corporate personality of Fibank is positive according to the organization’s employees and, consequently, its customers. In order to verify or reject this assumption, MANOVA was performed. As outlined in the previous sections, the

Corporate Character Scale consists of 49 items that fall into seven dimensions of corporate personality. Therefore, MANOVA was chosen to compare the perceptions of the employees and the customers by taking into account all the dimensions of the Corporate Character Scale in one analysis. The mean scores of the seven dimensions were taken into account, thus formulating seven dependent personality variables. The MANOVA yield significant results, meaning that the employees and the customers differ significantly with respect to their views about Fibank’s corporate personality, V = .16, F(7, 192) = 5.38, p < .001, η2_{= .16.}

For most of the dependent variables, Levene’s test statistic showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was satisfied, namely for the dimensions of enterprise, chic, ruthlessness, informality and machismo. The values for agreeableness and competence

4,1 4,15 3,91 3,61 3,9 3,92 3,62 3,83 3,6 _3,41 3,6 _3,45 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 Employees Customers

(23)

however, were significant (p < .05), meaning that the assumption was violated. The follow-up separate ANOVAs on all seven dependent variables revealed that the employees and the customers indeed differ with regards to their opinions about the bank’s agreeableness, enterprise, competence, chic, informality, and machismo. The only exception was the

ruthlessness dimension, on which the employees, as well as the customers, seem to have given relatively equal responses. Table 3 provides an overview of the results obtained from the separate univariate ANOVAs for the dependent corporate personality variables.

Table 3

Difference between employees and customers perceptions with regards to the corporate personality of Fibank Personality dimensions Df Mean Square F p η2 Agreeableness 1, 198 4.13 6.88 .009 .03 Enterprise 1, 198 8.93 22.72 .00 .10 Competence 1, 198 5.60 15.10 .00 .07 Chic 1, 198 3.74 12.50 .001 .59 Ruthlessness 1, 198 .41 .63 .43 .00 Informality 1, 198 7.90 15.80 .00 .07 Machismo 1, 198 1.90 6.84 .01 .03

Note. Employees, N = 101; Customers, N = 99

Post-hoc tests revealed that the differences between the employees and the customers were the largest for three of the dimensions, namely enterprise, informality and competence (p < .001). For more detailed overview of the post-hoc results, see Table C2, Appendix C.

Despite the fact that the employees and the customers of Fibank differ in their perceptions, the mean average scores obtained from the analysis indicated whether those perceptions were positive or negative. It became evident that for both employees and

customers, the most dominant personality dimension of Fibank was competence, followed by enterprise and agreeableness dimensions which, as previously mentioned, are the most important corporate personality dimensions.

Fibank scored the highest on the competence dimension according to both the

employees (M = 4.04, SD = .71), and the customers (M = 3.71, SD = .48). Enterprise was the second highest result as perceived by both groups from which the employees gave higher scores (M = 3.96, SD = .63), and the customers gave lower scores (M = 3.54, SD = .62). The

(24)

next strong dimension, as assessed by the employees and the customers was agreeableness, where the employees gave higher scores (M = 3.80, SD = .88), and the customers gave lower (M = 3.52, SD = .65). Both groups assigned the lowest values to Fibank with regards to the informality dimension, with the employees indicating lower values (M = 1.96, SD = .74), than the customers (M = 2.4, SD = .67). As pointed out in the Method section, every mean score above 3.4 is considered as agreement, or positive. Herein the findings indicate that according to both employees and customers Fibank scored above 3.4 on the dimensions of

agreeableness, enterprise, competence and chic. However, it should be addressed that the groups are different in the way that the received values tend to be higher for the employees. Figure 2 illustrates the results obtained from the analysis. Thus, the findings suggest that Fibank’s corporate personality is positive as perceived by both its employees and customers. As a result, hypotheses 3a and 3b are herein supported.

Figure 2

Corporate personality of Fibank

The steps taken thus far are an essential part of the analysis in order to better understand the multidimensional nature of the corporate reputation construct and be able to differentiate between the employees and the customers – two of the most important stakeholder groups of organizations. However, this study also aims to statistically analyze whether corporate storytelling, as a communication management tool, has an influence on the reputation of an organization in crisis. For this reason, the next section illustrates the analyses needed to test

3,81 3,96 4,04 _3,7 2,5 1,96 3,13 3,52 3,54 3,54 _3,4 2,6 2,4 2,93 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 Employees Customers

(25)

the last hypotheses of the study. Hence, the individual’s relationship to Fibank was tested as a possible moderator in the relationship between storytelling and reputation.

Corporate storytelling with positive effect on corporate reputation during crisis

The last set of hypotheses suggested that corporate storytelling influences positively the perceptions of Fibank’s employees and customers in times of crisis. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the effect of storytelling on employees and customers perceptions is moderated by the individual’s relationship to the organization. In order to test the

aforementioned assumptions, 13 multiple regression analyses were performed. The analyses incorporated the six corporate reputation pillars from the Reputation Quotient and the seven corporate personality dimensions from the Corporate Character Scale. These formulated 13 dependent variables that stood for the multidimensional concept of corporate reputation. The predictor variable of storytelling was standardized and included in the regression analyses together with a dummy variable representing the individuals’ relationship to the bank, with the individuals being either employees or customers. The analyses also incorporated a multiplication of the two variables, representing the interaction effect.

All 13 regression models were found to be significant (p < .001). The models can therefore successfully predict Fibank’s corporate reputation during the crisis. The results revealed that for 12 of the 13 dependent corporate reputation variables, corporate storytelling was found to have a significant, positive and moderately strong influence. The only exception was the personality dimension of machismo, for which the obtained value was not significant (p = .89). The effect of storytelling was negative for the dimensions of ruthlessness, b* = -.45, t = - 4.12, p < .001, and informality, b* = -.27, t = - 2.51, p < .05. However, as mentioned in the Method section, informality and machismo are the least important corporate personality dimensions, whereas ruthlessness is considered as negative. Although the influence of storytelling on reputation was positive for both the employees and the customers, after flipping the dummy variable it was observed that the effect was stronger for the employees. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the current corporate reputation of Fibank is positive according to both stakeholder groups. Therefore, hypotheses 4a and 5a can be supported. The individual’s relationship to Fibank was not found to moderate the influence of corporate storytelling on the organization’s corporate reputation, as 12 of the regression models did not indicate significant interaction effect. The only exception was the personality dimension of ruthlessness, which, as already specified, correlates negatively with employee and customer satisfaction, b* = .39, t = 3.66, p < .001. Hence, hypotheses 4b and 5b are herein

(26)

rejected. Due to the large number of analyses performed, Table 4 provides a detailed overview of the results obtained for each regression model.

Table 4

Fibank’s corporate reputation during the crisis, by taking into account the influence of corporate storytelling and the interaction effect of the individual’s relationship to Fibank

Corporate reputation, b* B (Z)Stor ytelling Relatio nship Interact ion R2 F Δ R2 Emotional appeal 3.70*** .63*** .23*** -.08 .40 44.39*** .39 Products and services 3.90*** .50*** .19** -.30 .28 26.19*** .27 Vision and leadership 3.60*** .44*** .18** -.003 .23 20.25*** .22 Workplace environment 3.45*** .37*** .10 .07 .20 16.48*** .19 Social and environmental responsibility 3.64*** .47*** .18** -.02 .25 22.32*** .24 Financial performance 3.49*** .53*** .28*** -.09 .31 30.72*** .30 Agreeableness 3.57*** .55*** .13* .06 .39 43.11*** .38 Enterprise 3.59*** .48*** .27*** -.05 .29 27.59*** .28 Competence 3.76*** .45*** .20** .08 .32 32.14*** .31 Chic 3.42*** .36** .20** .05 .21 17.61*** .20 Ruthlessness 2.56*** -.45*** -.03 .39*** .08 5.98** .07 Informality 2.36*** -.27* -.26*** .11 .11 8.40*** .10 Machismo 2.95*** .02 .16* .21 .08 5.70** .07 Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 Conclusion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of corporate storytelling on corporate reputation in an organizational crisis context. The aim was to inform whether using storytelling during crisis is beneficial for organizations, more specifically, with regards to their reputation management processes. The research was based on the example of Fibank, an

(27)

organization that used corporate storytelling in its advertisement type, intended for all

stakeholder groups. The effect of storytelling on corporate reputation was explored according to the opinion of two of the most influential stakeholders that organizations have, namely the employees and the customers. This was accomplished by employing a cross-sectional

research design and conducting multiple statistical tests, based on survey data that included 214 respondents. Up until now, the number of studies investigating corporate reputation in a crisis context was scarce. In addition, no research that examines the influence of storytelling on the reputation of organizations in crisis has been conducted in a single study. Hence, the present study aimed to address this gap in the corporate communication academic literature and practice.

The current investigation revealed that when organizations find themselves in a state of an organizational crisis - more specifically, a crisis triggered by a rumor - they can refute it by applying corporate storytelling. This communication management tool was found to be successful in communicating to two important stakeholder groups during crisis, by positively influencing their perceptions about the organization at issue. This finding can serve as a proof for organizations’ management that in times of crisis, corporate storytelling is suitable and reliable strategy to communicate simultaneously to multiple stakeholder groups, internal as well as external ones. Specifically, the study shows that in crisis periods organizations can craft and present the same corporate story to both their employees and customers and thus protect their most valuable asset – the corporate reputation.

The first set of hypotheses referred to Fibank’s products and services and workplace environment, which are the two most important corporate reputation pillars from the

Reputation Quotient. It was argued that both the employees and the customers hold positive views in relation to the bank’s products and services as well as workplace environment. The findings were similar, as with regards to the two reputation pillars both the employees and the customers had favourable perceptions. However, the employees were more positive than the customers with regards to the organization’s products and services. Such difference between the two stakeholder groups was not evident for the pillar of workplace environment. As a result, hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b were supported.

In order to get a full grasp of Fibank’s reputation during the crisis, a complete analysis of all the corporate reputation pillars was necessary. Results allowed to conclude that the employees and the customers had different views with regards to all reputation pillars, except for workplace environment. The difference lied in the tendency of the employees to be more positive than the customers. In addition, the largest difference between the groups was found

(28)

for emotional appeal and financial performance. Nevertheless, the values obtained suggested that both stakeholder groups evaluated Fibank positively on all corporate reputation pillars, namely emotional appeal, products and services, vision and leadership, workplace

environment, social and environmental responsibility and financial performance. According to the employees and the customers, Fibank scored the highest on products and services and emotional appeal and the lowest on workplace environment. This means that in its reputation management processes Fibank should emphasize more on improving the stakeholders

opinions about the organization’s workplace environment.

The present study assumed that the corporate personality of Fibank is positive, as assessed by both the organization’s employees and customers. Being strongly related to corporate reputation, corporate personality was analyzed by taking into account all seven dimensions from the Corporate Character Scale. The results indicated that the employees, as well as the customers, held favourable perceptions with regards to agreeableness, enterprise, competence and chic dimensions. In relation to the dimension of machismo both groups were neutral in their opinions, whereas for ruthlessness and informality the employees and the customers had negative perceptions. A possible explanation for these results is that machismo and informality are considered to be the least important from the scale, whereas ruthlessness is regarded as a negative dimension (Davies et al., 2003, 2004). It became evident that the two stakeholder groups differed in relation to their perceptions of all personality dimensions, except for the negative one, namely, ruthlessness. The greatest differences between the groups were found in their perceptions of enterprise, informality and competence. The pattern of the employees being more positive than the customers was present for the corporate personality of Fibank as it was for the corporate reputation pillars. Although the groups were found to be different, the results revealed that they had positive perceptions for the same dimensions in the same order, which also applied for the neutral and negative scores. In this sense, the opinions of both stakeholder groups showed that Fibank scored the highest on the competence dimension, followed by enterprise and agreeableness. Within this context, competence and agreeableness are the most important dimensions with regards to the reputation of an organization (Davies et al., 2004). To sum up, the findings enabled the confirmation of hypotheses 3a and 3b.

The last set of hypotheses concerned the potential influence of corporate storytelling on the corporate reputation of Fibank during the crisis. In particular, the perceptions of the employees and the customers with regards to Fibank were considered to be positively affected by storytelling. Furthermore, the analysis took into account the individual’s relationship to

(29)

Fibank as a possible moderator in the relationship between storytelling and reputation. For all the corporate reputation variables, except for the personality dimension of machismo,

storytelling was found to have an influence during the crisis. In addition, storytelling’s influence was indeed positive for all corporate reputation variables with the exception of ruthlessness and informality. Thus, the findings indicated that storytelling had either none or a negative effect only on the negative and least important corporate personality dimensions of ruthlessness, informality and machismo. The positive influence of corporate storytelling on reputation was stronger according to the employees than the customers. As a result, support was found for hypotheses 4a and 5a.

In relation to the potential interaction effect of the individual’s relationship to the bank, it turned out that such effect was not present. An exception was the personality

dimension of ruthlessness, which, as previously noted, is regarded to have a negative meaning to reputation. In further consequence, the hypotheses that assumed moderation (Hypotheses 4b and 5b) were rejected.

Overall, in the time of the crisis Fibank’s corporate reputation was positive, both internally and externally. Within this context, an important finding is that the internal reputation of the organization was more favourable than the external reputation. In addition, corporate storytelling, as the communication management tool that Fibank used, was

successful in affecting positively the perceptions of the employees and the customers about the organization during the crisis. Finally, whether an individual was an employee or a customer of the bank, did not make a difference with regards to the positive effect of storytelling on the organization’s corporate reputation.

Discussion

The current research contributes to the understanding of corporate storytelling, by extending the theoretical boundaries of the concept as a communication management tool applied during an organizational crisis. Furthermore, the study adds up to the theoretical framework of corporate reputation and more specifically, its vital importance in times of crisis.

Additionally, corporate storytelling has been extensively theorized about from an internal perspective and in an organizational change context (Gill, 2011a, 2011b, 2014; Kopp et al., 2011), but without taking into account the external organizational perspective. In this sense, the present study employed internationally valid multi-stakeholder measurements (Shamma, 2012). Thus, the research investigated corporate storytelling from both internal and external perspectives simultaneously and therefore inspected for discrepancies between them.

(30)

Moreover, by considering the influence of corporate storytelling on corporate reputation during an organizational crisis, thus combining them into the same research scenario, this study introduces a new research direction in the academic field of corporate communication. The present study has also managerial implications in the way that it is a valid proof that organizations can successfully make use of corporate storytelling to communicate to their stakeholders in times of crisis. An important aspect of this research is the comparison made between two of key stakeholder groups that organizations have – the employees and the customers. Within this context, the study indicates that whether the individuals are employees or customers of an organization does not make a difference in relation to the positive

influence of storytelling on their perceptions. Therefore, organizations’ management can present the same corporate story to both stakeholder groups during crisis. However, in relation to Fibank’s case, the results can be beneficial in detecting potential areas of improvement to their reputation management processes. The literature states that the higher the employee satisfaction with their employer, the higher the customer satisfaction with the latter will be (Herman & Gioia, 2004; Leary-Joyce, 2004). In line with this premise, an important implication of the study is that both groups had positive perceptions about Fibank. In this sense, a recommendation for Fibank is that in its reputation management processes and campaigns, the organization should incorporate its employees. This is to boost its external reputation, as it was evident from the findings that the customers were not as positive as the employees. Finally, this study shows that organizations’ most valuable asset – their corporate reputation – can be protected and possibly enhanced even in difficult situations like

organizational crises. In the light of this discussion, corporate storytelling, in this case in its form of corporate advertising, was shown to be the proper communication tool to achieve the aforementioned organizational goal both internally and externally.

Regardless of the theoretical and practical implications, the present study is subject to several limitations. First of all, the cross-sectional research design incorporated a self-rating questionnaire, which might have affected the external validity of the study. Although online surveys are regarded as the most common way to conduct empirical data (Gilbert, 2008), researchers have limited or no control over the response behavior of participants and the background setting at the time of filling out the questionnaire (Kozup, Creyer, & Burton, 2003). Furthermore, this research was limited in the sense that it was based on a case study about a specific organization that fulfilled the criteria of being in a crisis and at the same time employing corporate storytelling. Hence, it should be addressed herein that the findings of the study are not applicable to all organizations. Another limitation that should be acknowledged

Managing corporate reputation in times of crisis : examining the influence of storytelling on employee and customer perceptions

Table of Contents