Crisis Management training in ZurichCrisis management in the canton of Zurich: how can you inform clients without promising more than you know?
In the canton of Zurich, banks, insurers, technology companies and European headquarters often operate at a fast pace, with international teams using English as their working language. When an incident affects several markets, how can managers inform clients without turning an internal estimate into a public promise?
What the literature establishes: the response depends on perceived responsibility
W. Timothy Coombs (2007, Corporate Reputation Review) presents a crisis communication framework in which the response should reflect the responsibility stakeholders attribute to the organisation. He distinguishes information people need to protect themselves and understand the situation from strategies intended to preserve reputation. For managers, this means addressing the needs of those affected before immediately seeking reassuring language.
A second mechanism: trust rests on more than competence
Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis and F. David Schoorman (1995, Academy of Management Review) distinguish perceived ability, benevolence and integrity in their model of organisational trust. This framework suggests that demonstrating technical expertise is insufficient when audiences also question an organisation’s intentions and reliability. Applied cautiously to crisis communication, it encourages managers to examine whether announced commitments remain consistent with what the organisation can actually deliver.
The hasty conclusion: simply disclose everything
These papers do not establish that exhaustive transparency automatically restores trust. Publishing a tentative hypothesis can obscure understanding, while some information must remain protected for confidentiality or security reasons. A more useful discipline is to distinguish explicitly between confirmed facts, uncertainties and commitments within the organisation’s control. (our executive and employee training programmes)
The limits: frameworks, not a formula validated in Zurich
Coombs develops a theoretical framework informed by earlier research; Mayer, Davis and Schoorman propose a conceptual model that does not specifically address client communications during a crisis. Neither paper demonstrates the effectiveness of particular wording in Zurich-based companies. Likewise, approval of an English text does not guarantee that local versions preserve the same degree of certainty or scope of commitment.
A practical check in Zurich
In a hypothetical exercise within SHR’s crisis management programme, a team at a European headquarters in Zurich could address a service interruption affecting several markets, drafting a reference message in English and versions for clients. Before simulated release, each statement would be classified as a confirmed fact, an uncertainty or a commitment, with a source for facts and an accountable owner for commitments. The check would count unsupported statements and commitments whose scope changes between versions, then verify that these have been corrected. Announcing the next update rather than an unconfirmed restoration time provides a concrete case to test. To go further: explore the Crisis Management training in Zurich in the canton of Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Crisis Management in Zurich
- crisis management
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich