Page 73

GRANT

journal

ISSN 1805-062X, 1805-0638 (online), ETTN 072-11-00002-09-4

EUROPEAN GRANT PROJECTS | RESULTS | RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT | SCIENCE

contexted and therefore don't need to be briefed in much detail for
each transaction ..." (Hall et al., 1990, p. 23)

3.2 Culture, values and conflicts

According to Neubauer (2003, p. 63), values are a normative and
moral anchor in an individual that guide his/her behavior in a
particular situation – personal values decide what is right and
wrong. Frey et al. (2016, p. 314) describe the problem between the
mediation of values and their anchoring in human behavior, which
can eventually lead to internal conflicts in an individual. The
conflicts surface through communication, and they lead to
disharmony in social interaction. There is a certain discrepancy
between the proclamation of values and actual behavior, that is,
between words and actions. Nevertheless, people are trying to
behave according to their values and, following Frey (2016), certain
variables complicate and/or aggravate the transformation between
the professed values and actual behavior.

The values that are valid in one culture vary from those in other
cultures, which is reflected in behavior. Intercultural competence is
one of the key competences for the employees of international
corporations – a knowledge of what values are preferred in which
culture in order to adequately approach the other mentality. Through
sensible perception, intercultural competence helps us to convey this
knowledge into an adequate behavior towards the foreign culture
(Frey et al., 2016, p. 314).

Conflicts between the communication aim and professed values
People are in permanent conflict with themselves because the values
overlap in in communication, so there is a conflict between the
transparent and diplomatic communication. It can be concluded that
the values are mutually exclusive in their extreme forms. A
paradoxical situation occurs, for example, when someone truly
appreciates another person but cannot always communicate
everything honestly and openly. This means that the values are
variable and dependent on the interlocutor and the situation –
sometimes they are foregrounded or they remain on the periphery
(Frey et al., 2016, p. 315).

In the organizational context, this can be to some extent understood
as a micropolitical procedure, which has a rather negative effect on
social interaction.

Conflicts in an organization may also be formed because of the
inconsistency between self-evaluation and evaluation of others. It
can be explained by the social phenomenon of observation of the
proclaimed vs. lived values, which results in hybrid behavior in the
workplace. Hybrid behavior means to behave differently –
according to the situation. A high percentage of employees always
think higher of themselves than the others (Frey et al., 2016, p. 315).
As a result, the result of self-assessment is not identical to the result
of the assessment of others. If an executive judges himself/herself as
credible but the subordinates rate him/her as unreliable, this
situation may be interpreted as variable: who the executive
interacted with and under what conditions (alone or in the presence
of the team). To better assess the behavior of others, one needs to be
familiar with these circumstances.

The “living” of certain values is often enforced only when people
feel they are being observed. From a psychological standpoint, it can
be concluded that anonymity is a kind of protective equipment
against the sanctions, and persons are able to act otherwise, i.e. far
beyond the definition of their own values. Empirical studies show
that people act more egoistically knowing their behavior remains
hidden – and only if their behavior and/or actions is clearly revealed

do they act according to the values (Diener 1979; Zimbardo 1970,
quoted from Frey et al., 2016, p. 317).

The living of own values is threatened when, for example, a culture
of individual successes prevails in the organizational context, in
which the stronger wins. This particularly concerns getting even
greater power and strategic use of the situations to enforce
individual goals – even when the circumstances damage others.
There are corporate cultures in which the tactics of micropolitical
negotiations are supported in order to increase the productivity
through the rivalry of colleagues. These socialization processes in
the workplace cause a discrepancy in living the values: it is not
possible to live the values, such as fairness or cooperation, in the
workplace even though these values are preferred private lives. It
can be explained by the defense mechanisms in the context of
interactions where people often react by intentionally betraying their
own values. The need for self-defense is manifested in reciprocal
practices "tit for tat", the idea of which is originally based on a
positive cooperative strategy in organizational contexts (Axelrod
2005, quoted from Freya et al., 2016, p. 317). However, this practice
contributes to the reduction of cognitive dissonances by legitimizing
the (sometimes selfish) behavior if only a reaction is given.

CRISIS STRATEGY AND COMMUNICATION – AN
INSTRUMENT OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN
AN ORGANIZATION

So how should we prevent and deal with the crisis in an organization
that arises suddenly and unexpectedly? We are aided by the crisis
strategy and a previously prepared emergency plan. This should
include a procedure for the affected and interested parties, which
includes the role and function of a spokesperson, other presenters,
and competent persons from senior management of the company,
and/or the main representatives of the office, institution etc. When
the crisis communication is also viewed as an integral part of
relationships with the public, it is recommended that the following 5
steps discussed at length by Svoboda (2009) be respected.

1.

Analyze the crisis situation.

Prepare a detailed plan for crisis communication.

Choose appropriate topic presenters.

Choose suitable communication channels.

Provide training to presenters to cope with the crisis.

4.1 Coombs SCCT model in the proces sof crisis
communication

There are many different theories and models that can be used in a
crisis. We decided to further describe the process based on the
Coombs model (Situational Crisis Communication Theory - SCCT).
The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) is an
experimentally tested analytical framework for the study of crisis
communication. It consists of three main parts: typology of crisis
situations, typology of response strategies to the crisis, and the
mechanism for adaptation of the response strategies to a crisis
(Coombs, 2006). It allows us to determine how to maximize the
protection of the reputation and good name of an organization by
means of crisis communication (Coombs, 2007a). The theory
describes how the key aspects of the crisis affect the perception of
the organization's reputation. Based on this, the theory formulates
empirically tested recommendations to select the most appropriate
response strategy to the crisis (see Fig. 5).

This theory can be applied to any type of organization. The theory
of crisis communication suggests that an effective emergency
response depends on the assessment of the situation and the

Vol. 9, Issue 1