Credibility and Trust as a Field of Work

Abstract

Credibility and trust are fundamental for us to listen to each other. But how do you work with this in practice as a professional communicator? In this chapter, we take a closer look at the elements of credibility and the points to bear in mind when working to build and protect the organisation’s credibility in a transparent reality.

Credibility and trust are fundamental for us to listen to each other. But how do you work with this in practice as a professional communicator? In this chapter, we take a closer look at the elements of credibility and the points to bear in mind when working to build and protect the organisation’s credibility in a transparent reality.

The case study in this chapter provides an insight into the complexity of managing a crisis that risks undermining the trust of key stakeholders.

The chapter’s international reflections come from the world-renowned Professor Emeritus Robert L. Heath, who has a keen eye for and many good tips on how professional communicators work constructively with credibility in their relations with all stakeholders.

When trust and credibility are the foundation of all effective communication work, you might think that there would be a simple, well-documented approach to the work. Theoretically, however, trust and credibility are approached from many different perspectives. That is why this chapter contains some of the most important approaches from various disciplines, as the professional communicator must have a nuanced approach to both what strengthens the organisation’s credibility and what risks undermining or may increase trust from stakeholders.

Credibility and trust are closely related but are nevertheless different concepts. Trust is something that a receiver has towards a sender. It is an ‘attitude of positive expectations towards the behaviour of other people and is directed towards the future’ (Hoff-Clausen, 2010: 55). Credibility, on the other hand, is a quality we attribute to and judge the sender to have ‘based on impressions of past actions and current appearance’ (ibid.: 55). This means that the professional communicator must work both to understand current trust and to develop the quality that establishes credibility so the organisation can gain future trust. We talk about gaining trust by presenting yourself as credible and about extending that trust by showing trust in others, thereby increasing mutual trust.

Credibility and trust support one another and both will thus in this chapter be integrated into the description of points of attention for the professional communicator.

Economic and social science approaches to trust distinguish between three types of trust:

• 1. Calculated trust based on a rational analysis in relation to utility (Lane, 1998): in other words, that it pays to trust.

• 2. Value- or norm-based trust based on a fundamental community and solidarity approach (Fukuyama, 1995): i.e. people share the same values and stand together in solidarity in a community.

• 3. Cognitive trust, where common cognitions are the foundation and common frameworks for understanding are embedded in expectations (Moreno et al., 2021): i.e. a similar view of the world means that you encounter it with the same expectations.

All three forms of trust can be constructive tools for the professional communicator, both when analysing trust and credibility in order to know whether there is, roughly speaking, an opportunity, a tailwind or a headwind for communication, and when organising practical communication. The professional communicator must be aware whether trust is present with the stakeholder before any communication—and what kind of trust is likely to be present. This will make it possible to identify what the communicator needs to maintain or expand in order to increase awareness, responsiveness and followership amongst stakeholders.

Communication work is much easier to carry out when trust is present, because there is responsiveness and the possibility of effective interaction with the stakeholder, as emphasised for example by Moreno: ‘Where trust is present, possibilities for action and experience increase, bringing more complexity to the social system but also multiplying the number of possibilities to be reconciled with its structure. Thus, trust for a sociologist is the most effective way of reducing complexity’ (Moreno et al., 2021: 3).

Research on organisational credibility from a public relations point of view thus views trust and credibility as a complex responsibility and field of work for professional communicators. From an organisational perspective, this is because nowadays an organisation is not only published on a few top-down channels, but every employee almost constitutes their own channel with the rise of social media. At the same time, media developments have also meant that more internal voices are speaking out on behalf of organisations. That is why there is a whole polyphony of internal voices that the communicator seeks to orchestrate. At the same time, external voices have also become far more numerous, because organisations today meet stakeholders on many different platforms, so external voices must be vigilantly watched, listened to and responded to on all channels and platforms.

So, when professional communicators have to take co-responsibility for the credibility of the organisation and the trust created with all stakeholders, it is increasingly a question of getting the orchestration of communication right. It is an impossible task to professionally manage and quality assure all communication. So, the communicator needs to look at how to better orchestrate an organisation’s expression by, for example training managers and key employees to be skilled representatives of the organisation when they communicate. It is also an increasingly important task to ensure that it is easy for all internal stakeholders to communicate well and correctly, for example by making knowledge, arguments and infographics available to the organisation’s potential ambassadors when communicating with external stakeholders.

Verhoeven and Madsen (2022) have defined eight roles that employees take on and which the strategic communicator can usefully work specifically to understand, inform, activate and manage:

The typology in Fig. 3.1 provides a nuanced image of the counter- and co-play of the internal stakeholders, who may help to work specifically to mobilise the internal archetypes in a wise manner. One example could be the critic. Sceptical internal voices are often a problem in external communication as well because they can directly undermine communication and act as external truth witnesses. Of course, muzzling employees is not an option in a country with freedom of speech, but the strategic communicator can be aware of the potential grounds for criticism and whether it could be prevented by communicating in a more nuanced way internally. For example, a sceptical employee will often be provoked by communication that can be perceived as assertive, salesy and justified in a superficial way. A communication style can easily arise when things are moving fast, and a management team may be more concerned with arguments for a decision, thus making the strategic space in the organisation too narrow. If the professional communicator helps to unfold the nuances and justifications internally and create space for discussion, the critical employees will gain a deeper understanding and perhaps a more nuanced expression of themselves.

Fig. 3.1

A typology of employees’ communicative roles. Madsen and Verhoeven (2019, 2022)

Similarly, all kinds of employees can be identified as stakeholders for the professional communicator to ensure that internal communication includes what different employees need, so that they have the most nuanced basis on which to stand as ambassadors for the organisation.

In other words, the professional communicator must activate key internal stakeholders as voices for the organisation by ensuring that they have the knowledge and skills to communicate. A role that calls for the professional communicator’s overview and ability to bring others into play rather than solely communicating on behalf of the organisation.

3.1 Trust Can Be (Re)Won

Trust is an expectation of stakeholders towards the communicator. An expectation is based on the experience that stakeholders have with the organisation/sender (McCroskey, 1982). In other words, trust is directed towards the future but based on the past. That is why we can talk about circular trust, which can be positive or negative. If we have positive expectations of senders, we listen willingly, but if we are distrustful, we may not listen at all, or we may be prejudiced by bad experiences and thus treat every word with scepticism. Trust is ‘given’ to or placed in either a person (micro level), an organisation (meso level) or more broadly, for example in the structures of society (macro level) (Moreno et al., 2021).

Trust and credibility are essential for the cohesion of society and for the interaction between all stakeholders (Rawlins, 2007). Recent studies on trust show that this trust is increasingly challenged, resulting in distrust and increased polarisation on a global scale (Edelman, 2023). However, from an organisational perspective, the professional communicator should not perceive a trust challenge as an impossible headwind in communication work but instead, look at what can be done to work towards changing that expectation. In their book The Power of Trust, Sucher and Gupta (2021) dispel some of the myths that prevail in relation to trust work and indicate some ways of working constructively to (re)gain trust. This is shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Overview of myths and reality

In debunking the myths, Sucher and Gupta help to define some areas of work for the professional communicator. They emphasise, for example that trust is not boundless but is created in defined relationships. So trust can be worked on within the relationship itself. Since trust is not objective but subjective and thus lies with the individual stakeholders, the communicator can work on how the organisation can earn more positive expectations by working on credibility. However, working on trust is not something that can be spun or marketed. It is about creating coherence between words and actions. In short: ‘Be trustworthy and you will be trusted’ (ibid.: 20).

Furthermore, in myth four, Sucher and Gupta dispel the notion that trust is something that can be earned by an organisation by having the right ambitions in, for example the organisational purpose. Stakeholders assess not only the organisation’s ambitions but the difference they make—both intended and unintended.

The last myth that is challenged is precisely the core of communication work, namely that trust cannot be restored. It requires constant work to safeguard trust in words and actions: ‘Building trust depends not on good PR but rather on clear purpose, smart strategy and definitive action. It takes courage and common sense. It requires recognising all the people and groups your company affects and focusing on serving their interests, not just your firm’s. It means being competent, playing fair and most of all, acknowledging and, if necessary, remediating, all the impact your company has, whether intended or not’ (ibid.: 22).

3.2 Elements of Credibility

In the research on organisational trust, there are many operationalisations of the credibility that professional communicators can demonstrate in order to build trust with stakeholders. Key elements are openness and transparency, dialogue, corporate citizenship, credibility, reliability and goodwill (Moreno et al., 2021: 7).

An important characteristic of trust is that it is reciprocal. It is not only something the stakeholder meets the communicator with, but it is also something the communicator invites. Trust thus implies a reciprocity that arises relationally. Trust requires not only that the communicator seeks to ensure that words and actions are coherent, transparent and credible. The professional communicator must also ensure that the communication signals that they themselves meet all stakeholders with trust and thus invite reciprocity. As Rawlins emphasises: ‘To gain this trust, one must trust others, because trust is reciprocal. One must also be trustworthy, which seems to be best measured by whether one is perceived as having competence, integrity, goodwill, reliability and is open. Caring about the needs of others, telling the truth and being dependable all increase trustworthiness. Trying to exert influence or pressure on others for the sake of meeting self-serving interests appears to damage trust’ (2007: 11).

In short, the self-interested, know-it-all organisation is not capable of meeting its stakeholders with open trust and it is thus more difficult for them to trust it. So, it is also about mobilising responsiveness and contact in the communication itself, from content to form.

A key factor is transparency, which is defined as ‘the perceived quality of the information a sender intentionally provides’ (Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016: 1789). The definition clarifies that it is the sender who chooses what is intentionally shared, but that it is the recipient who determines the ‘perceived quality’. Information can be shared through many different channels, e.g. in financial statements, annual reports, official presentations and in contact with the press. This means that in assessing transparency, the stakeholder must look at many channels and be able to assess any distortion of the truth. Christensen and Cheney clarify the sharp focus on transparency: ‘As organisational activity, transparency involves a host of practices such as disclosing, presenting, explaining, accounting, reporting and auditing. Investigating these practices as manifestations or mechanisms of the transparency pursuit helps us maintain a focus on the perils as well as on the promises of increased transparency. Potential perils relate to practices such as selecting, displaying, posing, framing, hiding and distorting, as well as observing, checking, (self)-controlling and monitoring. These practices are not accidental side-effects of an otherwise “pure” quest for knowledge and insight but inexorable dimensions of the transparency enterprise’ (2015: 75).

The work of ensuring an organisation’s transparency is thus not simple for the professional communicator. It is important to have a nuanced view of both verifiability and actions (Albu & Flyverbom, 2019) and of how to work on organisational transparency. For example, is transparency understood solely as sharing relevant information, or is there also a view of all the processes that must be linked to what is said in order to create credibility? Is transparency only viewed from a sender’s perspective as a question of information quality, quantity and relevance of what is shared, or is there a focus on the experience itself and the negotiation process that is part of the interaction with the stakeholder? And are the possible consequences considered? Because being transparent can often mean potentially surprising complications (Albu & Flyverbom, 2019). So, the professional communicator must not only be able to figure out what is to be shared through which channels but also have an eye for how it will be perceived by stakeholders and in the context of the organisation’s other actions. To put it somewhat plainly, you can claim, however, eloquently, that you are working with a focus on, for example employee well-being, but if examples of critical employee stories flourish on social media at the same time, then your credibility is threatened, and trust is at risk of being undermined.

It can be easy to get lost in the many parameters and divisions of the concept of credibility, but common to them all is that they must be viewed through a stakeholder prism: Trust is based on stakeholders’ perception of credibility. That is why Sucher and Gupta (2019) suggest that the professional communicator looks at the concrete promises that you as a communicator make to your stakeholders. By looking at the promises, the professional communicator can gain insight into what expectations and obligations the promises create—and what it takes to fulfil them in words and actions. Table 3.2 summarises the fundamental promises.

Table 3.2 Fundamental business promises

The practical translation of a perhaps somewhat airy ambition to safeguard trust into a concrete look at the promises that the communicator may have made is a fairly simple approach to work with as a professional communicator. What do stakeholders expect? Is there some kind of psychological contract with unwritten but concrete expectations (Schein, 1993)? The written or unwritten psychological contracts can become self-fulfilling prophecies (Rousseau, 1995), whether they are fair, just or something else entirely. If there is an expectation amongst stakeholders, the professional communicator must relate to it. It is in relation to this expectation that credibility is assessed and trust may be generated. This sometimes requires analyses of the stakeholders’ experience, and it always requires conversations in which the communicator clarifies the expectations at stake and the implicit or explicit promises that the communication must address. This is the kind of knowledge and perspectives that the communicator must bring into a decision-making space, because many other disciplines may tend not to recognise it—not out of malice, but because the perspective is different.

3.3 Trust Is Challenged

International population surveys suggest that trust is generally declining in a wide range of areas. For 20 years, the global consultancy Edelman has been measuring trust in society with their ‘Trust Barometer’. The survey is conducted in 28 countries, amongst over 36,000 respondents and with at least 1150 respondents from each country. The results in 2022 led to the title The Circle of Mistrust (Edelman, 2022). Edelman was able to document a growing distrust of media, which have lost both reputation and trust over many years due to ‘fake news’ and what is seen as a battle for attention and money with ‘clickbait’ and exaggerations. The data also showed that concern about fake news has never been higher. As many as 76% are concerned about fake news or false information being used as a weapon. Trust in social media, which has become an increasingly important source of information, is the lowest. But distrust in governments and public institutions has also grown. This trend continued in the Trust Barometer 2023 figures, where an increasing polarisation is evident due to increased economic uncertainty and institutional imbalances, amongst other factors. For the professional communicator, this data on trust is, of course, interesting in terms of media presence, for example but also because the data suggests that in a global society characterised by distrust and polarisation, there is a greater need for organisations to be clear voices in the world. Indeed, Edelman’s Trust Barometer shows that in 2023, companies—compared to interest organisations, governments and media—are rated as the most trustworthy institutions.

Edelman calls the survey results a call from the public for businesses to step up: ‘The Trust Barometer shows that, by an average five-to-one margin, respondents want business to play a bigger, not smaller, role on climate change, economic inequality, workforce reskilling and racial injustice. Every stakeholder group expects businesses to lean in—nearly 60 per cent of consumers now buy brands based on beliefs while 6 in 10 employees choose a workplace based on shared values and expect their CEO to take a stand on societal issues’ (Edelman, 2022). The increasingly polarised political landscape also calls for businesses to address issues such as gender equality, inclusion and climate and take the lead in working with governments to raise living standards, develop skills and create security (Edelman, 2023).

This development has, amongst other things, contributed to creating a completely new role and a new focus for organisations in society, which has put pressure on the development of corporate citizenship (see Chap. 4). For the professional communicator, this new role also means an increased focus on credibility and trust, and how the organisation should be positioned in the world.

The professional communicator must guard the credibility of organisations and make every effort to create and maintain trust. This is crucial not only for the organisation’s mandate and position externally but also for its internal direction, well-being and commitment. At the same time, it is also a fundamental prerequisite for any organisation’s communication to have any effect at all. If the stakeholder does not trust the communicator, they are unlikely to read, listen or look long or favourably on the communication product, no matter how high the quality may be. Establishing credibility and trust is thus crucial for the communicator, and it requires the use of all skills from analysis to production and orchestration to manoeuvre in the relational field of work. It also often involves co-responsibility for areas that are not the communicator’s primary responsibility, because coherence between words and actions is paramount. So the professional communicator needs to take an interest in and potentially influence many of the actions of the organisation to ensure coherence of expression and impression.

3.4 Case 2. When Credibility Is Challenged

What do you do as a professional communicator when serious violations are reported that go against everything the organisation stands for? That was the challenge Maersk faced in September 2021. In this case study, Maersk provides insight into a violation case that had huge internal and external consequences, and where strategic producers played a key role in fighting to maintain and regain the company’s credibility by working both internally and in external communication.

‘I still remember clearly how horrible I felt when I heard about it’, is how then Head of Media Relations Signe Wagner describes the situation when a serious case of harassment came to light on 27 September 2021. In an anonymous post on an American blog, a young woman published a post describing how, as a 19-year-old new cadet, she had been plied with drink and sexually assaulted by an older and higher-ranking colleague on board a ship from one of Maersk’s US subsidiaries, Maersk Line Limited. In such a situation, what do you do as a professional communicator? Massive external pressures and the fear of scandalous headlines can easily lead to a communicator’s focus becoming too external when quick action is needed. But not only do you need to act quickly, you also need to act wisely when the organisation’s credibility is at stake.

3.4.1 The Ethical Commitment Was Clear

Maersk is a value-driven organisation where integrity has always been and continues to be important. So there was no doubt about how to position themselves when the assault case came to light: There had to be no doubt about what Maersk thought and whose side they were on, and that they took the anonymous blog post at face value. Maersk had also previously made its position on such offences very clear in the public debate. In Sucher and Gupta’s (2019) terminology of fundamental corporate promises, clear promises had been made to stakeholders. The ethical promises were indisputable and formulated by then CEO Søren Skou. ‘As an organisation, with our CEO at the helm, we had chosen to take an active stance before there had been a single mention of MeToo cases in our own industry’, says Signe Wagner. Søren Skou chose to make his position very clear when the cases were breaking out in other industries and organisations. He wanted to make it very clear that no one should go to work and feel harassed at Maersk. So he took the rather unusual step of sending a letter to all employees with a clear message (Fig. 3.2). Amongst other things, he wrote:

Fig. 3.2

Former CEO Søren Skou’s letter to all Maersk employees in connection with the MeToo debates

I personally feel very strongly about this. We all have a responsibility to create an inclusive culture that is free of discrimination, harassment and bullying. Let’s use this moment in history to reflect, listen to each other and together ensure that we take care of ourselves and our colleagues by standing united against harassment.

At the same time, he made himself available to any Maersk employee who might have experienced anything:

If you have experienced or witnessed inappropriate workplace behaviour, harassment or discrimination, I encourage you to report it. You can either go to your immediate manager or to one of our Executive Leadership Team members. You can go to HR or anonymously through the whistleblower system. Also, you are welcome to come directly to me.

‘We were well aware that a letter to so many employees does not remain a secret, even if it is internal communication’, says Signe Wagner. At the time, Søren Skou was one of the most prominent CEOs to declare the message so directly—knowing that it could also bring up potential cases. The letter immediately generated interest and headlines externally as well, which meant that Maersk had already made its mark on this agenda internally and in the public eye when the serious assault case from the USA came to light. The ethical promises were made to Maersk’s employees and to society at large.

When the story broke, the work of the strategic producers was far from being concerned only with external communicative management but rather a co-facilitation of the entire organisation’s work on creating coherence between values and actions. It was important to work with transparency so it became clear that there was a connection between the company’s words and actions, which at a theoretical level corresponds to Albu and Flyverbom’s (2019) focus on both verifiability and actions in connection with achieving transparency. First and foremost, concrete internal actions had to be taken to ensure that the terrible case gave rise to concrete changes that could drive cultural change throughout the industry. The only way to preserve trust was to ensure a safe working environment for everyone on board the ships. The entire starting point for the professional communicators was a belief in the reality that Sucher and Gupta (2019) dispel in Myth 3 of trust work in organisations, see Table 3.1, namely that trust should not be managed from the outside in, but from the inside out. In practice, this meant that a lot of communicative measures had to be taken internally. It was important that the anonymous woman who had reported the harassment case was not seen as a disloyal critic, but that all employee profiles were addressed. For example, using Verhoeven and Madsen’s (2022) terminology—i.e. the eight employee roles that professional communicators must relate to in their communication work—it was important to activate the ‘innovator’ to find solutions, communicate meaningful explanations to the ‘meaning maker’, give nuanced points to the ‘scout’ and show the ‘critic’ that you were listening.

3.4.2 The First Communicative Handling

Transparency was a keyword for the credible handling of this case. That is why the first external communication was to step out in the open (Fig. 3.3)—even before Danish media had picked up the story. A decision that would only work if the strategic producers and management were in full agreement on the necessary courage and transparency.

Fig. 3.3

Examples of the internal communication in connection with the Maersk assault case in 2021

‘When we first learnt about the blog post, the case had not yet been picked up by Danish media. An anonymous source had been quoted in the Washington Post, so we realised that it was a matter of a very short time before it moved across the Atlantic. We spent a couple of days setting up our own investigations and planning how to deal with it, but then we decided to go public ourselves’, says Signe Wagner. ‘When you are employed to protect a reputation, you have to think twice before you actively decide to go public with a story that inevitably puts the words ‘Maersk’ and ‘rape’ in the same headline. But it was nonetheless our recommendation, and we got support for it without hesitation all the way through management. After a deep breath, we sent the anonymous blog post to a journalist at the national newspaper Berlingske, and the then head of Maersk’s fleet, Palle Laursen, gave a major interview in the newspaper, where he himself spoke about the case and expressed exactly how we felt, so no one could be in any doubt. We wanted to be the first to both express dismay and at the same time take responsibility for cultural change on board our ships’.

By raising the issue in the media yourself, an organisation can have a little more influence on the perception that stakeholders have from the outset, because you avoid being put on the defensive by actively stepping forward and helping to shape the coverage. A crisis management technique called ‘stealing thunder’ (see also Chap. 9).

In other cases, it might have been a difficult task to get a top manager to face such an unpleasant case as this in the media and to emotionally reflect the seriousness of the case without becoming too technical, legal or otherwise distanced, but Signe Wagner says that they were all so shaken that this part of the preparation was not at all complex: ‘Palle Laursen himself was so affected by reading the blog post that he was very explicit about how serious it was and how much it was against everything Maersk stands for. He communicated this very clearly both internally and externally; there was no doubt about the human aspect, that he himself and the entire Maersk management with him were deeply concerned and stood behind an unequivocal ambition and a concrete plan to investigate the case and the entire field to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen’.

Palle Laursen was quoted in Berlingske (Fig. 3.4) as saying: ‘We are deeply shocked by this. The way in which the incident is described is not only contrary to common decency but also in particular to our values and what we stand for at Maersk. Under no circumstances should this be allowed to happen, neither on board our ships nor anywhere else in the company’, says Palle Laursen. He emphasises that the company takes the anonymous blog post at face value. ‘[...] Maersk has now launched an independent investigation involving, among others, trade unions, the woman’s school and the maritime organisation in the United States’ (Berlingske Tidende 7/10 2021).

Fig. 3.4

Articles on assault case in Maersk in Berlingske Tidende, 7 October 2021 (Translated, the headlines read ‘Alarming rape case shocks Maersk: “We are deeply shocked by this”’ and ‘Maersk after numerous #MeToo cases: We have a problem’.)

When a case like this happens in a large organisation spanning several continents and with local management in subsidiaries, many legal advisors etc., the strategic producer must not only relate to external communication but also address the many internal stakeholders. It was complex to balance the local US approach, which was largely characterised by the legal aspects of the case, possible future litigation and a political consideration for the US authorities, with the more value-driven approach, which emphasised the consideration of Maersk’s self-understanding, employees, reputation and credibility that characterised the management at headquarters. ‘As communicators, we worked hard to ensure long-term credibility and good interaction with all stakeholders and all parts of the organisation, because there had to be no doubt about where Maersk stood. For example, we did not want it to appear in any way that we were questioning whether the incident had happened because the post was anonymous. No matter what that might mean for a potential future legal action. We wanted to be on the same side as the victim’, emphasises Signe Wagner.

It was also important not to be perceived as being too preoccupied with technicalities or not showing trust in stakeholders in the communication itself, which is in line with Rawlins’ (2007) view that trust and credibility are crucial in the interaction between all stakeholders. This was a danger that Maersk’s professional communicators were very aware of in the process because there were also many lawyers involved in the case internally. ‘We were careful not to get bogged down in details or formalities that might be important internally but would not make sense externally. For example, it may well be that it had happened in a subsidiary where it was the American unions and not Maersk themselves that were responsible for manning the ships, but in those moments it doesn’t matter. Maersk was responsible. Cases like this simply must not happen, and no one could be in any doubt about what we mean. Facts and details about the company’s structure, Maersk’s mandate in the situation, employment contracts, etc. must give way to the bigger picture of Maersk’s values and responsibilities’, says Signe Wagner, who advised all managers who were to speak out on the matter. The response was carefully considered, as it was important that the spokespersons not only expressed their unreserved dismay and apology but were also able to take the consequences of the case and show decisiveness by, for example suspending the people involved in the incident. At the same time, concrete initiatives had to be followed up to effectively identify whether there were any more cases and to ensure that the incident would not be repeated. In this way, the internal work on the case was ongoing, with the external communication task reflecting the organisational work.

In February 2022, Maersk was able to conclude its own internal investigations into the specific case, but without having had the opportunity, for legal reasons, to speak to either the perpetrator or the anonymous victim. As a result of the investigations, five employees were dismissed in February 2022 for not acting in accordance with Maersk’s values and rules. ‘It was of course unsatisfactory not to be able to act on the offence itself, but it was not legally possible. We thus made this clear in our background talks with the journalists who followed the case, so they did not get the impression that Maersk was trying to minimise the seriousness of the situation’, says Signe Wagner.

The cases rolled on. From the same website where the first blog post was published, other cases began to emerge. Another woman who had felt harassed via text messages chose to give interviews to both a Danish and an American media outlet. ‘Again, it was important for us to get our position out there from the beginning to protect trust in the fact that we as a company take care of our employees’, says Signe Wagner. Several media outlets followed the surveys on an ongoing basis, and Maersk agreed to talk about the cultural change underway in interviews with two media outlets.

‘Again, it felt a bit counter-intuitive to present the negative stories to the media ourselves. But in the long run, it was important for the trust in the company that we didn’t try to hide anything and that we weren’t put on the defensive by others who could choose to take up the matter themselves. That would only have made the media story even bigger. We had to be clear that we did our utmost to solve these problems’, says Signe Wagner.

The interaction with the press was close: ‘We talked a lot with our stakeholders, including the journalists, and also provided them with background knowledge about what we were doing, what was delaying the process, what legal challenges there were—or whatever could create the basic understanding of the complexity that was necessary to be able to cover the cases adequately and influence the industry to do something about this. It is not enough for Maersk to change their behaviour. It must be safe to be a woman anywhere. At the same time, of course, we also had to navigate the fact that more cases could still come to light that we did not yet know about’.

When, a few weeks later, then CEO Søren Skou had a strategy interview scheduled with the Danish business newspaper Børsen (Fig. 3.5), it was also an opportunity to once again make it clear both to the outside world and internally in the organisation how high on his agenda the harassment cases were. ‘It turned out to be a pretty strong interview that was really noticed and—I think—built some trust that Maersk meant and did the right things’, emphasises Signe Wagner.

Fig. 3.5

Former CEO Søren Skou in an interview with Børsen on harassment cases in Maersk (Translated, the headlines read: ‘A breakdown in leadership’ and ‘Søren Skou wishes to eradicate culture of abuse at Maersk: “That is in no way the kind of company we want to be” ’.)

Whilst the crisis was being handled by professional communicators at Maersk, the case was of course handled legally. The anonymous woman had come forward as Hope Hicks, providing an active, personal and credible voice in discussions about improving the industry—work and discussions that Maersk also takes an active role in. ‘While the litigation is going on, we are always very bound legally to not say much, but we have been working behind the scenes to do something about this, so the case does not become just one of many, but an opportunity to do something about it’, says Head of International Media, Mikkel Linnet, who took over the area at the time when the long-term preventive organisational work was about to begin. A phase in crisis management that requires even more active stakeholder work.

‘It’s a very complex stakeholder scenario, because if we want to change something, we can’t just act on our own, we also need to involve other actors. For example, it is the trade unions in the United States that man all the ships that service the US government, and all employees are trained at the same American academy. So we need to talk to them about how we can change the culture going forward’, says Mikkel Linnet. The long-term work is also very important to Hope Hicks, who still works in the industry herself.

3.4.3 Long-Term Preventive Organisational Work

The communications department worked in close collaboration with a wide range of internal actors, and several internal activities were launched, such as anonymous surveys and listening sessions, where management made sure they learned as much as possible about what might be going on in the organisation and what they could do. Maersk was well aware that the cases could point to more serious problems, so the perspective of the investigations was much broader. How big was the problem? ‘Even more investigations were launched, for example, all female employees across Maersk’s entire fleet of ships were interviewed so we could hear their perceptions of the reality on board. A dedicated team was hired to lead a culture change. Among other things, a new practice was introduced that if there are women on board the ships, there are always at least two’.

Those who live quietly do not live well when there are problems of this kind, so one of the areas of work was to create a better ‘speak-up culture’: ‘Yes, it was about getting the issues out there, because this was not an exercise in reputation. It’s a question of creating safety and security and long-term change, so we are working hard to create a more open culture at sea. Employees must speak up if they experience something and managers must react promptly. This is the only way to change the culture. We know it’s a long haul, but we also know it’s necessary. We have more than 12,500 employees at sea—350 of whom are women—and they should not feel that they are alone with any problems’, Mikkel Linnet emphasises.

In future work on changing the culture, there are three main tracks involving communication work: (1) internal communication, (2) external media and (3) public affairs.

• 1. In the internal communication track, communicators help facilitate cultural change by maintaining focus, driving activities and taking up agendas across all internal media. For example, emergency hotlines have been established, internal campaigns have been prepared, and a management training programme has been developed and communicated. In the wake of the harassment cases, all new employees at sea must go through an onboarding programme to ensure that they feel safe and know where to go if they experience harassing behaviour. In this way, you work actively to articulate and fulfil the internal promises to employees legally and ethically (Sucher & Gupta, 2019).

• 2. Communication work involving external media also has a sharp focus and clear basic messages: ‘We are ready to go out ourselves and not wait for a new case to come up, but always stay ahead of the agenda. We also media train our managers to be able to handle such cases, so we are ready to do it in a respectful manner’, emphasises Mikkel Linnet.

The key messages from Maersk are unequivocal:

• Maersk has zero-tolerance against sexual assault and sexual harassment (SASH).

• It is deeply rooted in our values that no matter who or where you are, you should always feel safe as an employee at Maersk.

• The recent SASH cases (Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment) in the fleet of our US operator Maersk Line, Limited, are horrific and unacceptable. They go against everything we believe in as a company.

• We reacted immediately when learning about cases. Apart from investigating and dealing with specific cases, we decided to broadly examine the work environment across our global Maersk container fleet.

• We were reaffirmed that the vast majority of our colleagues working at sea are highly honourable, respectful, hardworking women and men. Also, it was evident that we have not had a safe and trusted environment across all social settings on our vessels.

• That is why we have set out to create a cultural change.

• 3. At the same time, public affairs is also an important communication effort, because Maersk wants to change the industry in order to have more women on board, and so they are treated with respect. ‘We are doing everything we can, for example in the US market, to get good dialogues going with all the relevant stakeholders from Congress to the unions, the naval academies and the public, so this can become a better industry for women. And we of course do the same internationally—and with the recruitment we ourselves are responsible for, which is for the vast, vast majority of our ships, we can also do even more in our campaigns and selection’, Mikkel Linnet elaborates.

The work ahead is extensive, and the change is facilitated by broad cross-functional collaboration, which is testimony to the fact that cases like this are not about media management of a scandal but about a long-term effort for a healthy culture at sea. The communications department contributes to the change with active communication across all channels internally and externally, supporting internal activities, training and continued management of media attention globally. In short, there are no easy shortcuts to safeguarding credibility and trust.

3.5 Interview. Watch Closely!

There is a need for skilled communicators who keep a watchful eye on the link between words and action. Professor Robert L. Heath has followed the credibility and communication of organisations for a lifetime, and he has no doubts. Communicators are in demand—and must safeguard the credibility and trust of society. Heath is one of the world’s leading researchers within rhetoric, public relations and strategic communication—and he shares his most important advice with us.

‘Do you know Picasso’s painting Guernica?’ Robert Heath’s dynamic energy is infectious throughout the virtual crackle of the Team meeting. ‘I saw it once in Madrid, and it struck me as an insanely good example of discreet and effective crisis communication’. Picasso’s famous painting depicts a bombing in the then-current Spanish Civil War of the town of Guernica in the Basque country, in which probably more than 1000 people died. ‘Picasso artistically documents the Germans bombing and entering the Spanish Civil War on 26 April 1937. That’s what he chose to paint in great haste to tell the world at the World’s Fair in Paris that the situation was very bad, and it was in fact very important communication and helped to get the world’s attention. It’s a good example of the existence of many ways to communicate, something that all communicators need to be aware of’.

It is also a good example of the professor always having his eyes on the prize. He simply cannot help himself—and that is the everyday practice he recommends to all communicators.

‘One of the most important things for all communication is credibility, and we have to protect that’, he stresses. ‘Incidentally, it’s also our best defence against all the negative energy that the communications field encounters; being “spinners” who can twist everything to their own benefit. We need to show that we are standing up for trust and credibility by creating coherence, and this is a very important task for communicators’.

Few have influenced international communication research the way Robert Heath has done for a lifetime as a researcher—and he has travelled the world with a keen eye and his evidence in place.

3.5.1 Be the Credibility Sheriff in Your Organisation

Management may say the right thing, but communicators need to make sure that it is translated into action in all the organisation’s multivocal voices and behaviours. This sums up one of Professor Heath’s key messages to communicators. ‘We can’t trust management completely’, he says with a slightly indulgent smile, ‘They can’t help it. Management is all about being in control, so they find it really hard to let go. And real communication is about the opposite: about being in touch with your stakeholders and preferring dialogue to monologue. We must not fall into the trap of simply helping management obtain controlled ‘window dressing’ of beautiful messages, but must help them be in real contact’, he stresses—and with the wall behind him full of cowboy hats at his home office in Texas, one cannot help but imagine the dedicated professor as a kind of credibility sheriff, getting managers to notice when they are violating the ‘credibility law’ of the connection between words and action.

Heath has oceans of examples of large companies calling him to fix their credibility with new values, a new purpose or a new vision. But he is not a fan of having external people help fix their problems. ‘I think one of the first ones was Shell in the 70s. They were setting up their US headquarters here in Texas. They called and asked if I could write about their “corporate soul”’. He shakes his head a little. ‘I said “no”, of course, but “yes” to helping them with real soul-searching, because it makes sense not to write out an identity but to analyse what you actually are and make that the basis for identity management’, he explains.

3.5.2 A Historical View of the World

Robert Heath stumbled into the world of communications by accident. He studied history and liked it. But then he got caught up in rhetoric and historical activism, and suddenly it was ‘issues management’ that captured his attention. Back then, it wasn’t something you could focus your research on, so he had to put it into a public relations framework, and the rest is history. He is one of the key fathers of public relations research, focusing also on the ethical dimensions, and he has by no means lost his historical perspective: ‘We should never look at the world, nor at our organisations, without a historical perspective. History comes along, and there is never a fresh start—we cannot be afraid of bringing the past with us, and we should never communicate without history’, he stresses.

This often means that communicators have to speak against the management, if they just want to sell new messages without actively addressing the context of past or current behaviour that is not in sync with the message. Being communicators, we must help them work actively with the organisational history, both as a co-player and an adversary to current wishes and ambitions.

3.5.3 Create Joint Action

Robert Heath is a declared constitutionalist. ‘I firmly believe that we must communicate in order to organise. That our role is thus not just to communicate to get messages out. We need to take action with our communication. Not only joint action in our organisations but in our entire contact with the outside world. We need to create communities of shared agency’, he stresses.

Amongst many other things, he has worked with the stakeholder concept in his research. In his view, it is a matter of organisational ‘stakeseekers’ understanding that we only get real interaction by actually understanding our stakeholders and finding the common basic interests that make us not fake a relationship but find a real common interest or ambition. ‘We shouldn’t go out and dominate or manipulate, but we should go out and listen and talk to our stakeholders’, he stresses. ‘This is also how organisations earn their voice, so to speak—get their ‘Social License to Operate’’, he stresses.

The point is quickly backed up with an example from his work with the chemical industry. After all, in American culture, lawsuits are often the way to go in case of problems. And that is exactly what the lawyers at a major Houston chemicals company recommended when the press found a story in a soil contamination case. It was the soil of an elementary school playground, where children suddenly found themselves playing on dangerous, contaminated soil. Images were strong. Black goo below the sandpit and swing set. ‘The case is a good example to illustrate that a reactive communicator simply could have stepped forward to help contain the damaging publicity and handle the press side of a long, expensive lawsuit. But fortunately, the solution was different, and the communicator took on more responsibility’, says the professor. Instead of fighting costly and futile battles over sections and dollars, the company stepped forward in an accommodating manner. They took responsibility and sought cooperation to find good solutions. The messages from the company were very clear: We obviously do not want children to play on contaminated soil. We inherited the land, and the problem, through acquisitions. In a community such as Houston, Texas, now we cannot always know what mistakes companies made in the past. So let us hurry; let us solve the problem and get the soil cleaned up. We agree to pay, and we help the school district find the best people to solve it in a way that makes everyone happy. ‘In my view, this was genuine stakeholder work where the goal was to solve a shared problem together, and true shared agency was created. I’m sure it was also much better, and probably more cost effective, for long-term confidence in the company’, Heath says.

3.5.4 Train Your Observation Skills

In Heath’s view, being a good communicator is thus very much about being aware of the context in order to maintain credibility. ‘We need to use our eyes and ears and constantly look at behaviours to ensure that we can create genuine consistency. It’s something we have to practice all the time’. He himself still does this every day. He cannot help it in his encounter with the world.

For example, the day before our interview, the GPS in his car suddenly malfunctioned, and as he was heading to a destination, he was getting the wrong instructions. He pulled over at a large Walmart. Here, as in most places today, no textual framing has been spared—for example you are not a customer but a client when you enter, and assistants, not cashiers, are employed. But when Professor Heath asked for advice at the checkout, he noticed that, although the assistant was itching to help, she was looking over her shoulder first. If she spent time giving advice, rather than just entering the item and closing a sale, she might risk trouble with the boss.

‘Of course, I wouldn’t have asked if there was already a long queue at the checkout’, the friendly professor stresses in his story, unconsciously illustrating how he, as a stakeholder, had already shown care and respect in the situation.

The story ends happily. He was given the right advice and was able to drive on with a GPS that helped him reach his destination. But to Heath, it was a good example of minor observations of the ‘say-do gap’ that occurs on any normal day; the nice words about clients were being challenged by a management practice with a one-sided focus on sales and efficiency. Communicators need to keep an eye on these gaps and constantly train their eyes so that gaps are spotted even in their own organisation, and adjustments are made to either assure that smart words support helpful behaviour, leaving credibility intact.

3.5.5 Mind Your Own Ethics

Heath is not blind to the fact that being a credibility guard is a difficult role for the communicator. Especially because management does not always really understand. ‘It may seem quite tempting for management to simply use communication for nice messages without any regard for history or reality, and some battles are bound to arise along the way’.

Therefore, the most important advice from the professor is to stand up for your own credibility: ‘I always recommend my students to sit down with a piece of paper before starting a new job and write down specifically: What is important to me? What do I not want to be a part of? Where are my ethical boundaries? What will it take for me to quit? They need to look at that piece of paper every now and then to make sure their ideals are not quietly crumbling away ethically, suddenly not being able to recognise themselves and their own boundaries’.

The voice is serious. You can sense that this particular advice comes from many experiences with communicators who have regretted their participation in certain situations, unloading their frustrations on the professor afterwards. Situations where the power and power struggles in the organisation have made them act contrary to their own ethics. ‘We must not lose ourselves. It’s better to keep your ethics and then update your CV in search of a new job with a better identity match’, Professor Heath concludes.

Robert Heath

Robert Heath is Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Houston. He is an internationally recognised researcher within public relations, crisis communication, issues management and business-to-business communication. Trained in history and rhetoric before shifting his focus to corporate communication, he has remained true to his educational roots in all of his research, focusing on historical perspective, credibility and a keen eye for textuality. He is the author of many award-winning books, such as ‘The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations’ (2010); ‘Strategic Issues Management’ (2009); ‘Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II’ (2009); and ‘Terrorism: Communication and Rhetorical Perspectives’ (2008). In addition, he has authored numerous articles, chapters and reports—and still does. In his long professional life, he has also received numerous awards for his academic work. His greatest satisfaction is seeing his students have successful, rewarding careers.