Organizations interact with different individuals, groups and other organizations that populate an organization's environment. Managing relationships with stakeholders has been identified as an important strategic capability of organizations. Stakeholder management is essentially stakeholder relationship management as it is the relationship and not the actual stakeholder groups that is managed (Friedman & Miles, 2006). Stakeholder relationship management emphasizes communication and engagement with stakeholders. The aim of engaging with stakeholders is to obtain stakeholder views, both on the organization and on projects (Friedman & Miles, 2006). Interaction with stakeholders is an aspect that is integrated into most national policy documents that require organizations, especially in public services, to interact with citizens. They emphasize the importance of decision-makers understanding and communicating with those affected by the organization's actions and decisions. Developing a strategy for engagement and showing the ability to communicate with different stakeholders becomes important. Whom does the organization engage with, when and why? The answers are found through stakeholder analysis and strategic prioritization. In order to engage
successfully, an organization should have an understanding of stakeholder needs,
requirements and expectations. A good communication environment provides the basis for relationship development. A communication climate based on two-way dialogue, mutual understanding, positive behaviour and respect is one of the most important elements in a collaboration. Symmetrical, equal communication is based on openness, trust and credibility.
Listening to stakeholders and giving them opportunities to express their objections and concerns through feedback is an important part of interaction. Good engagement between the organization and stakeholders gives better results and is also important for reputation.
Openness in communication and trust in the sharing of knowledge are prerequisites for active participation and involvement.
Social media presents both opportunities and threats for stakeholder relationship
management. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube present new opportunities for connecting and interacting directly with stakeholders in different phases of the crisis management cycle. In the pre-crisis stage, social media can be integrated into the proactive crisis management perspectives, with the main objective being preventing crisis.
This can be through managing issues and risks through social media or building good relationships with the stakeholders. Social media provides a vehicle for interactive communication, and allows message exchange, with the organization and stakeholders having exchangeable roles as audience and content producers. As such, social media can be harnessed for soliciting the opinions of stakeholders. Interactivity through social media provides possibilities for real-time feedback. Stakeholders may provide support and useful insights into the issues at stake. Gaining support from powerful stakeholders is also an insurance when things go wrong. Communicating with stakeholders early and frequently creates sustainable communication lines that can be relied upon in times of crisis. Social media can be used for cultivating relationships with different stakeholder constituencies.
Cultivation of relationships with publics is an essential part of successful crisis management (Park & Reber, 2011). Hence the goal should be the cultivation of quality stakeholder
relationships. Authentic stakeholder relationships will serve as a buffer during times of crisis.
With an increasing number of natural disasters and man-made crises, forms of
inter-organizational cooperation or networking have become an essential feature of crisis management. Crisis brings together different organizations and compels them to work collaboratively to resolve situa- tions that affect them all. Inter-organizational relationships
(IRS) refer to the relationships between and among organizations. They can be viewed as
"formal arrangements that bring together assets (of whatever kind, tan- gible or intangible) of two or more legally independent organizations with the aim of producing joint value added (of whatever kind, tangible or intangible)" (Bachmann & van Witteloostuijn, 2006). Barringer and Harrison (2000) distinguish some of the commonly found types of IRS such as joint ventures, networks, consortia, alliances, trade associations and interlocking directorates.
Cropper, Ebers, Huxham, and Ring (2008) note, however, that the concepts used for IRS have multiple meanings, and the definitions provided are not universally accepted. Networks are structures of interdependence involving multiple agencies or divisions of these agencies.
Barringer and Harrison (2000) describe a network as a "constellation of businesses that organize through the establishment of social, rather than legally binding, contracts". Defining network organizations faces many challenges due to the various meanings attached to the concept of 'network' across different disciplines. A strategic view perceives networks as long-term purposeful arrangements between organizations sharing similar goals. They are characterized by a structure, process and purpose. Carlsson (2001) categorizes networks into three different types: (1) intra-networks, (2) extra-networks and (3) inter-networks.
Intra-networks refer to organization-specific networks and do not transcend the
organization's boundaries. Extra-networks are networks that transcend the organization's boundaries but have restricted participation, meaning that only individuals and groups from specific organizations are allowed to participate. Inter-networks are networks that transcend the organization's boundaries and are more or less open to anyone who wants to join and participate (ibid.). The types of these IRS, whether they are networks, consortia or alliances, and differences in social capital are often identified as key factors determining the success or failure of crisis management. Studies of IRS are therefore concerned with the character and patterns, origins, rationale and consequences of such relationships.
Organizational relationships can range from dyadic relations involving just two organizations to multiple relations involving many organizations. They can thus be relations between firms or huge alliances within a specific sector, such as automotive industry alliances, airline associations such as the International Air Transport Association (IATA), government
agencies and so on. Evan's (1965) article 'Toward a Theory of Inter-organizational Relations' emphasizes the embeddedness of organizations in an environment of other organizations as well as the complexities of society at large.
Modern society is characterized by transboundary complex crises that cut across jurisdictions, levels, organizational functionalities and national boundaries. Terrorist
bombings, large-scale natural disasters and epidem- ics underline the need for collaborative efforts in crisis management. Common to these crises is the fact that they require
communication strat- egies that enhance collaboration and the coordination of response strategies and approaches.
As Ansell, Boin, and Keller (2010) noted, whether one talks about epidemics, energy blackouts, financial crises, ice storms, oil spills or cyberterrorism, "the characteristics of these crises are strikingly similar: they affect multiple jurisdictions, undermine the func- tioning of various policy sectors and critical infrastructures, escalate rapidly and morph along the way" (Ansell et al., 2010, p. 195). These crises are transboundary in terms of three dimensions, namely political, functional and time (ibid.). The political dimension includes aspects of locality such as a geographically bounded political jurisdiction. A crisis can also
verti- cally cross political boundaries when it involves different layers of govern- ment, such as local, regional, national and international, or it can develop horizontally across two or more political jurisdictions, such as cities or counties. The functional dimension includes crises that cross over func- tional boundaries, spilling into other sectors. The time dimension covers crises that transcend time boundaries, with effects appearing in different timescales.
These dimensions invariably affect crisis communication activities.
Transboundary crises present challenges to crisis communication and management.
Different case study researches and reports have persistently noted that the main challenge in containing transboundary crises is the lack of or poor coordination between the various agencies involved. These organizations do not work together on a daily basis and yet they are expected to contribute their expertise to crisis resolution. Usually each of these
organizations has its organizational structures and cultures as well as defined policies for emergency procedures, which makes it difficult for participants from one emergency actor to collaborate or share information with other emergency actors. The complex environment in which differ- ent entities must operate demands new management techniques, practical skills and knowledge (Estivalete, Cruz, & Pedrozo, 2008). These agencies often operate under different constraints, including institutional con- straints, managerial complexity,
differing organizational strategies and other factors that make it difficult for them to effectively deal with crises.. Yet the nature of the crises highlighted above requires a collaborative net- work response. Large-scale crises are overwhelming for individual organi- zations and hence invariably require a number of crisis responders. Responses to these crises also require participation from both within and outside the organization. Successful inter-organizational cooperation will yield excellence in handling conditions of uncertainty, anticipating crises and mitigating them.
