Gap between PR-theory and Practice: Still Space for Improvement

Depending on the communication strategy managers, politicians or celebrities alike phrase their words highly different: Those who deny responsibility, instrumentalize figures to present their innocence, those who want to put the crisis into perspective, work with terms of unsecurement (“possibly”, “I believe”, etc.) and those who apologize, don´t shy away to express also verbally emotions like sadness or shame.

And: Phrases that hide the own involvement (ie “The accident took place due to ….”, “There were losses”) are still pretty popular – not really a signal for transparency.

These are the results of a recently published study from Belgium after having analyszed 179 audio-visual, on average 4-minutes-long crisis statements. The researchers point also to a gap between theory and practise when looking at the well known PR academies. There each student learns a lot about diverse communication strategies in the case of crisis. But what that exactly means in terms of wording for the speakers involved is not taught and not described anywhere.

Fannes/Claeys/Van Gorp, “Phrasing Crisis Communication: How are Distinct Crisis Response Strategies Put Into Words?”, in: Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, I-26, 2024.

From the practice:

Everybody knows – at least in theory: the accurate wording is essential in the case of crisis. That´s why I am particularly engaged to support my clients in advance by so-called crisis communication workshops. And the need is tremendously high: there are a lot of crisis plans in a lot of drawers, though, but much rarer the management is prepared for challenging communication moments and has trained any potential crisis interview with an external trainer.

For me a role model how to communicate properly in cases of crisis is Carsten Spohr, CEO of Lufthansa Group, in his 2nd press conference after he has been informed that the crash of a German Wings civil flight in 2016 was due to the copilot´s wish to commit suicide. Almost perfect and breath-taking how Spohr takes responsibility for the worst case ever “Employee kills 150 customers” by utilizing it to present Lufthansa as the best airline company with the best staff all over the world.

Snitching wrongdoing friends and peers stands for morality and leadership

Loyality is a high moral standard – privately and in the working place. It is switching, though, into the immoral if friends or acquaintances, peers and superiors are doing wrong and you don´t do anything. On the contrary: Snitching wrongdoing friends and peers stands for morality and leadership.

There is only one exception to the rule: when the snitcher does not like the person meant, and when he/she has a special self-interest in the snitching. These are the conclusions of a brand new, concise US-study that was being published recently. The researchers point out that particularly whistle blowers must decide for themselves from time to time if they want to be known as good friends or as moral leaders. This given Donald Trump´s call for 100% loyality among the potential members of his government creates a dilemma and shows into a grim future.

Berry/Silver/Shaw, “Moral Paragons, but Crummy Friends: The Case of Snitching”, in: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 30(3), 442–464.

From the practice:

I am fully with the conclusions of this study: it is also in my opinion a sort of loyality or solidarity completely misunderstood if someone is covering for a close relationship where the proponent is keeping behaving wrong. Whitewashing the situation or not drawing any consequences does not make the case better. I do believe that this is even more crucial where credibility is concerned, where taxpayer´s money is at risk, where someone´s health could be severely damaged and where it might get prosecutable.

Loyality and/or solidarity serves always to the greater good: the state, the electorate, the organisation, customers and clients, members etc.

BUT: with friends, acquaintances, peers or superiors in our first step we should always motivate them to set proactively a sign of personal responsibility – reparation or resignation – before we snitch. This is the advantage they get due to the close relationship with us. Nothing more but nothing less.

90% need more than 2 options for feeling good after decisions

Gut decisions provide ad hoc a better feeling than the ones having been made according to data and facts: 1. Because it is less complex to decide spontaneously and intuitively and 2. because gut decisions lead us apparently closer to our core, to our authentic preferences, whereas data and facts could suggest to go new ways. And new ways cost in the majority of cases particular willpower. Therefore, gut decisions are much more often applied, says at least a recently published German scientific study.

Also exciting: 90% among us need more than 2 options for feeling good after having made a decision.

Remmers/Topolinski/Knaevelsrud/Zander-Schellenberg/Unger/Anoschin/ Zimmermann, “Go with your gut! The Beneficial Mood Effect of Intuitive Decisions”, in: Emotion, 24(7), 1652-1662.

From the practice:

The paper refers to day-by-day decisions and not so much to those that are made in the working place. Still, I don´t see that many differences: even in companies, political parties, universities etc. decisions were again and again made based on personal preferences and not according to the respective facts. Additionally: In contrast to private gut decisions leaders do know mostly how they should proceed specifically, and don´t do it nevertheless.

My personal point of view: intuition ought to be found in the office, too, not in the sense of “What do I like most?”, though, but in the sense of “How do I cope with this personally and what do I have to keep in mind for communicating it in a motivating way?” In that case guts and brain support each other lovely and fruitfully

Quantity of cheerful ones beats intensity of one-on-one

Laughing is contagious – that´s common sense meanwhile. How a cheerful group evokes affective reaction in contrast to a smiling individual was analysed by a British scientist just recently, though. Three findings are remarkable: 1. The smiling group transfers its positive emotions distinctly stronger than the smiling single person. 2. It does not matter if one is focussed on the smiling group or gets their emotions only by the way. 3. A mourning group can evoke sadness in others, too, but by far not to that extent as the smiling one joy.

Qureshi/Monk/Quinn/Gannon/McNally/Heim, “Catching a smile from individuals and crowds: Evidence for distinct emotional contagion”, in Journals of Personality & Social Psychology, vol. 127(1), Jul 2024, 132 – 152.

From the practise:

Why is the smiling of a group that contagious? Because you may think: yeah, I want to join them? Or: Great, that there is something making an entire group smile is apparently awesome? Or: hey, fantastic, here I can forget my own sorrows for a moment?

In any case can these findings influence prospective social media-appearances of managers or politicians: instead of a single smiling, confident top capacity employees, customers or voters could face the entire squad on TikTok, WhatsApp etc. in the near future. My reco as a coach: Please have an eye on your authenticity! People recognize faster and clearer than you would believe if your smilies are note intrinsic and true.

When superiors appreciate voice particularly

This is a guideline for employees if they want to make their points by voice:

It is a must that their voice is of high quality. Then not only prohibitive voice is also welcomed although most managers like promotoive voice more. It also does not count if their boss is in a good mood or not in that very moment.

What is relevant, too: 1. If employee´s voice may influence whether the superior will keep or – even better – improve his/her position within the organisation. 2. If superiors are open for experience and believe in self-efficacy.

These are the results of a new study by the Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf. And it is even much more beneficial if you think your proposal through and don´t feel tempted to push forward fast and thoughtlessly.

Stumpf, “The influence of Voice quality, voice content, and managers´mood on their evalutations of voice: An experimental investigation”. In: German Journal of Human Resource Management – Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, I – 27. 2024.

From the practise:

All good, but what is meant with “quality” when it comes to voice?

Well, it is quality if you get quickly to the point, if you use at least one figure, if you connect your voice to the targets of your organisation and if you present an example vividly.

If your superiors are not known as good feedback-taker, you are better off if you use questions like “Why don´t we do this or that?” – that is more easily accepted than voice like “We need this or that”..

And please do me a favor and don´t forget: drop the benefit for your boss in case your voice is forwarded and elaborated on.

The remedy for mind wandering are tasks with significance

Everybody knows boring moments at the working place, even in the most thrilling job. How are we dealing with that, though? Particularly two very common tactics – clenching teeth and work wholeheartedly through and jumping to the next task and hoping that boredom will fade away, respectively – are not at all efficient:

1.Especially by ignoring boredom your brain tries to keep itself entertained even for the hours to come via mind wandering and 2. that´s why your productivity is then actually not automatically coming back, even with the most exciting task. Sounds paradox, but has been right now scientifically confirmed by an current US-American paper. The solution is meaning and meaning-making. If activities following routineous tasks are meaningful to the individual for whatever reason then even most vivid mind wandering disappears faster then you may think.

Belinda/Melwani/Kapadia, “Breaking Boredom: Interrupting the Residual Effect of State Boredom on Future Productivity”, in Journal of Applied Psychology, 2025, vol. 109, no.6, 829-849.

From the practice:

That given, the researchers recommend for your everyday professional life to structure daily routines in the office much more deliberate and to communicate the significance of measures much more explicitly and more individually.

And here I am surfacing: Yes, indeed you could and should as superiors explain members of your team more often, more precise and more taylor-made what the meaning, the importance, the significance of tasks which are to be carried out today, this week or this month, is about. That´s less cristal-clear than you think. And when I use the word “explain” I do mean “speak” & “talk” and definitely not “write” or “text”.

Boring moments do happen in the office – now and in the future. We could handle them more productive, though.

Organisations must emphasize common ground or make space

In two cases political discussions in the working place lead to stress, lower productivity and less job satisfaction: a) if one finds him-/herself dissimilar with his/her co-workers and b) if one contentwise does not agree. And this is regardless of whether you are actively involved in this type of political discourse or whether you only overhear it inadvertently. Conversely: there are hints supporting the benign consequences of both participating and overhearing talks about politics in the office as they may boost stronger feelings of solidarity. These are outcomes of recent US-American studies.

So the researchers recommend organizations and their management to emphasize explicitly the common ground among the staff and therefore to remember the more positive ties they have together – particularly in times when political discussions are more likely i.e. in election times or on special political occasions.

Rosen/Koopman/Gabriel/Lee/Ezerins/Roth, “Hidden Consequences of Political Discourse at Work: How and Why Ambient Political Conversations ImpactvEmployee Outcomes”, in: “Journal of Applied Psychology”, 2024, Vol. 109, Nr. 6, 795-810.

From the practise:

Political discussions may divide partners, families and friends. Topics as the pandemic, the Israel-Palestine-question or the European election, just to name a few, have demonstrated that to a great extent. That´s why since ever political issues have been and often still are an absolute no go for small talk: too big the risk, to alienate potential clients or existing contacts and to jeopardize promising deals and negotiations.

In my opinion it is indeed possible to talk about politics even if you don´t agree with others – you simply have to have time and space to do this in a differentiated mode and with mutual respect. Only then you have the chance to avoid emotional arousement and to get into fight with each other. Time and space at the working place is not available, though – at least not for political discussions. So, my dear organizations, foster the culture of political discourse by providing these requirements or shift them to the spare time of people.

50 years of “Communication Square”, 25 years of “Coaching & Moderation”

Scarcely any literature between Kiel and Klagenfurt has influenced professionals in communication, psychology and Coaching like this: Friedemann Schulz von Thun´s bestseller “Talking with each other”. Me, too, and that´s why I would like to recollect that book particularly on the occasion of my 25-years-anniversary as an executive coach which I am celebrating in May 2024. Two scientists from St. Gallen/Switzerland are going to do the same since Schulz von Thun´s most important concept, teh Communication Square, was developed and presented to the public in 1974, 50 years ago and still no standards of the Professor for Psychology from Hamburg have been published in an English version.

This is absurd, at least in the opinion of Fabienne Bünzli and Martin Eppler, and so they commemorate Friedemann Schulz von Thun in the presumably eldest special interest research journal, the International Journal of Business Communication, having been founded in Chicago in 1963. And I am sure: “Talking with each other” will have an impact even in the UK and US-market that is flooded with expert literature since decades.

Bünzli/Eppler, “Spotlight on a Thought Leader – How to become an Effective Communicator: Schulz von Thun´s Contribution to Business Communication”, in: International Journal of Business Communication, vol. 61, iss. 2, April 2024, pg. 484 – 491.

From the practice:

Any single sentence may be interpreted in four different directions: as a fact (factional level), as an expression of relationship between sender and receiver (relational level), as a hidden appeal (appeal level) and as hint onto the own state of mind (self outing level). This key message behind Schulz von Thun´s Communication Square has opened my eyes and facilitated my life: I comprehended that I did not have to read almost any communication in a relational manner – on the contrary: I learnt that all of a sudden I was provided with space for creative scope when dealing with others. I learnt that only very few content that people wrote or said to me was actually meant as a rejection or an assault or anything considered to harm me. How lovely! 3/4 out of ca. 3.000 clients from ca. 500 organizations whom I was supporting as an executive coach from Chicago to Dubai have participated in my experiences since I recommended them fullheartedly Schulz von Thun´s little book.

I will keep on doing this because still I have not found anything better regarding this issue.

What about you?

Under time pressure support may be authoritarian

You could think that superiors or colleagues who grant autonomy while helping their staff are the most popular ones. People could learn most and develop their skills better after all, couldn´t they? Still: this is not the case. The so or so judgement depends much more whether tasks have to be fulfilled under time pressure or not. That´s the outcome of a new Israelian study: The positive effect of supporting measures that foster autonomy decreases if anything has to go quickly. If people are confronted with tough deadlines then a superior who helps by giving strict orders is more highly appreciated.

Chernyak-Hai/Heller/Tov-Nachlieli/Weiss-Sidi, “Give them a Fishing Rod, if it is not urgent: the impact of help type on support of helper´s Leadership”, in: Journal of Applied Psychology”, 2024, Vol. 109, No. 4, 551–572

From the practice:

These finding confirm what we know from leadership theories for a long time: authoritarian behavior may have advantages when we are running into a crisis. That´s why there is and will be also in future no single over all leadership formula. Responsible ones have to keep up their flexibility and consider from case to case which sort of support or help is actually appropiate for their subordinates. Otherwise they will harvest wrongdoings, rejections or defense.

Apologies contrasting the cliché are more effective

Apologies have a particular high credibility if neither women nor men use gender typical wordings. Or the other way round: Women who are explaining their misbehaviour and suggest accurate steps for reparation (agentic behaviour) or men who express their appreciation directly and ask explicitly for forgiveness (communal behaviour) are more likely to be pardoned. Contrasting the cliché is the path or the formula to success when it comes to apologizing effectively.

Why? Because you don´t emphasize the expected but on the contrary complete your gender typical strengths with an additional unexpected competence.

This is according to recent outcomes of a new US-American study.

Polin/Doyle/Kim/Lewicki/Chawla, “Sorry to ask but…..How is Apology Effectiveness Dependent on Apology Content and Gender?”, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 2024, vol. 109, Nr. 3, 339-361.

From the practice:

It pays off with applications, too: talking as a woman particularly about decision-making power and the ability to conflict or as a man about relationship skills and team orientation. To bring up arguments contrasting the gender specific cliché is key.

And I do believe it in a second – that the very same communication strategy effects also in case of apologies.

Hence, here some other crucial aspects pop up and don´t want to be overheard: 1. Timing – Say sorry asap. 2. Body language – Keep eye contact under all circumstances. 3. The channel – Apologize better in person than by writing. 4. Wording: Be authentic!