Search

Once a firm has been accused of ethical wrongdoing, a key issue lies in regaining the trust of stakeholders. This study extends the application of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory and explores the effectiveness of accounts designed to diminish perceptions of culpability offered by organizations in response to allegations of ethical wrongdoing. Study 1 examines the impact of the linguistic style of the account—consultative versus formal—and the magnitude of harm involved in the allegation on observers in the United States. Results indicate that consultative accounts are more effective than formal accounts and that both styles of account are less effective following an allegation involving greater harm. Study 2 examines the effectiveness of consultative versus formal accounts in India and China using the same scenario and accounts as in Study 1. Results show that India exhibits somewhat similar results to the US, while China does not (the consultative account is not superior to a formal account). Implications of this study suggest that managers seeking to preserve their firm's reputation following an allegation should consider the linguistic style of their response as well as its content. These findings also suggest numerous avenues for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]