Research on corporate communications – the strategic use of public language to influence stakeholders – has flourished in recent years, but the COVID-19 pandemic highlights some shortcomings in corporate communication research. Three salient features differentiate pandemic communications from the typical communication setting studied by management scholars. First, the pandemic generated an extreme level of uncertainty, shared by both communicators and listeners. Second, the pandemic created information disorder, disrupting the normal manner of information processing and decision making. Third, the pandemic is characterized by a flood of information that overwhelms listeners. Our study explores these challenges and offers important insights that suggest the reevaluation of some existing assumptions and recommendations is in order.

Shared Uncertainty

Prior research has explored how firms can strategically choose the content of their communications to manage the information asymmetry between insiders and outsiders. Some studies have noted the benefits of withholding information, while others have demonstrated the advantages of obfuscation (e.g., Elsbach, 1994). An implicit assumption in these studies is that uncertainty is primarily a problem for listeners. Communicators are assumed to have superior knowledge, as well as an awareness of what listeners will interpret as good or bad. Thus, information asymmetry is beneficial to communicators.

The pandemic, however, is characterized by an extreme level of uncertainty, shared by both communicators and listeners. What is believed accurate today may well be discredited tomorrow. Furthermore, when information becomes discredited, it tends to in turn discredit the source. In this environment, the assumption that communicators can strategically manage their messages to gain advantage from information asymmetry becomes questionable. Thus, the pandemic highlights the need to shift our view of corporate communications as a process of sensegiving by communicators and sensemaking by listeners to a process of joint sensemaking. When uncertainty is shared, selectively sharing information may engender mistrust and harm communicators’ credibility. In contrast, using communication as an opportunity to openly and honestly share information with listeners to jointly make sense of an uncertain situation may be a more viable approach.

Information Disorder

Messages with nearly identical content can have substantially different effects depending on the type of language used to construct them. Considering that firm communication is accessible to multiple stakeholders, scholars have studied how firms can craft their messages to manage the divergent interests of stakeholders (e.g., König et al., 2018). For instance, several studies have demonstrated the strategic value of complex and ambiguous language in helping communicators preserve flexibility in organizational settings (e.g., Sillince and Mueller, 2007).

The extraordinary scale and unusual nature of the COVID-19 pandemic creates new communication challenges by disrupting the existing, taken-for-granted order in listeners’ information environments. During the pandemic, disinformation (i.e., intentional sharing of false or misleading content), misinformation (i.e., unintentional sharing of false or misleading content), and malinformation (i.e., intentional reframing of information in misleading ways) are ubiquitous (Wardle and Derakhshan, 2017). Moreover, such information disorder is created when both official and unofficial sources release information that turns out to be erroneous, misleading, or contradictory. Established, implicit rules that govern the credibility of information and sources collapse. At the same time, people demand nonstop information from a variety of sources to keep abreast of a rapidly evolving situation. The natural result is complexity and confusion. Furthermore, humans tend to react to complexity with oversimplification. In situations of information disorder, listeners gravitate toward simple and clear communication that is easy to process.

Information Overload

In addition to content (i.e., the message) and composition (i.e., the language used), scholars have studied the delivery aspects of corporate communications (i.e., the presentation of the message) (e.g., Guo et al., 2020). The conventional wisdom in this literature cautions against the use of repeated delivery in corporate settings, because repetition does not provide any novel information and often leads to negative reactions.

However, during the pandemic, when people are motivated to seek information from a wide variety of sources to maintain the sense that they have some control, the flow of information can easily exceed the cognitive capacity to process it. Combining information overload with the information disorder we noted above, a key challenge for communicators is ensuring their messages are heard and retained by listeners – essentially, breaking through all of the noise. Since repetition leads to familiarity and preference, delivering the same message repeatedly is perhaps the best way for communicators to influence their listeners in a chaotic environment. Thus, the pandemic calls for greater attention to the importance of repetition in communication.

Characteristics of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Communications

Amid all of the hardships created by the pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci stands out for his exceptional communication skills. Despite his initial mistake of telling the public facemasks were of marginal benefit in preventing the spread of COVID-19, Dr. Fauci managed to maintain and enhance his credibility, becoming one of the most trusted and influential communicators about coronavirus. In fact, he was recently awarded the prestigious Dan David Prize in recognition of his communication skills and efforts. We analyzed 338 speeches by Dr. Fauci between February 2020 and January 2021, including the White House Coronavirus Task Force briefings and his interviews on various TV shows and livestreamed events. Our analysis uncovered three distinguishing features of his communications: precision, clarity, and repetition.

First, Dr. Fauci communicates precisely. He is transparent about what he knows and what he doesn’t know. In matters he knows, he gives exact and definite answers. In matters where he is uncertain, he admits his lack of knowledge. ‘We don’t have enough information now’ and ‘I can’t quantitate it for you accurately now’ are some example statements. He often refuses to comment or draw conclusions on issues for which rigorous evidence is lacking. For instance, when asked about the promise of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis against COVID-19, he said, ‘The evidence that you’re talking about is anecdotal. It was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can’t make any definitive statement about it’. Hence, we noted that Dr. Fauci used a relatively large number of negative words. In fact, about 1.2 per cent of the words he used are negative, which is an average of 14 negative words per talk. That number is three standard deviations above the mean number of negative words used by other speakers at the same briefings (0.7 per cent). We believe this is attributable to his precise acknowledgment and qualification of what is not known.

Second, Dr. Fauci communicates clearly, using direct language and breaking complex topics into understandable components. Our analysis revealed that Dr. Fauci used language that requires only 9 years of formal education to understand (equivalent to high school students). In contrast, others on the Coronavirus Task Force used language that requires 12 years of education to understand. For example, when talking about ‘aerosol transmission’, he transformed this technical term into a sentence of short and easy-to-understand words: ‘Aerosol means that it can stay in the air for a period of time because it’s in a droplet that’s very small and doesn’t go down’. Thus, the amount of cognitive effort required to understand Dr. Fauci’s speeches is low relative to his task force colleagues.

Last but not least, Dr. Fauci frequently repeats his messages. Phrases such as ‘I’ve said many times, and I’ll repeat it’ and ‘I think it’s worth reiterating’ occur over and over in his speeches. In fact, the word ‘repeat’ occurred a total of 21 times in his speeches in the White House briefings alone. For instance, on 16 March 2020 he introduced a two-pillar approach to containing the pandemic. He then repeated the two pillars of containment on 21 March, 31 March, 4 April, and so on. Additionally, to emphasize the importance of mitigation, he stated: ‘So if we really want to make sure that we don’t have these kinds of rebounds that we’re worried about, it’s mitigation, mitigation, and mitigation. That’s the answer’. Additionally, his answer to the immediate next question was as follows: ‘It’s the same thing. It’s mitigation, mitigation, mitigation’. In two sentences, using a total of 36 words, he mentioned mitigation six times.

Future Research Directions

Although the COVID-19 outbreak represents a rare and extreme event, executives do encounter situations characterized by widespread uncertainty and information disorder and overload, such as global slowdowns and industry downturns. Lessons learned from COVID-19 suggest four future directions for corporate communication research.

First, the pandemic highlights the need to revisit the implicit assumption in the corporate communication literature that only listeners face uncertainty. In fact, many corporate communication settings involve significant uncertainty on the part of the organization (the speaker). Specifically, future research might consider exploring the following questions: When uncertainty is shared, what factors influence communicators’ choice of communication content (i.e., what to say and not to say)? How do listeners evaluate the credibility of communicated messages? What are the benefits and costs of being forthcoming in communication? Can communicators regain credibility after a miscommunication, and if so, how? How do communicators manage their own credibility in dynamic and uncertain contexts?

Second, the pandemic underscores the importance of studying the competition between different messages and communicators. Prior research has largely taken the perspective of communicators by focusing on how to convey the right message to audiences. In uncertain times, stakeholders may take advantage of a wide variety of information sources. We encourage scholars to shift their perspectives from communicators to listeners by exploring the conditions that shape listeners’ choices between different information sources (e.g., corporate press releases, media reports, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other blogs and podcasts) and opinion leaders (e.g., executives, analysts, journalists, activist investors), and why they put faith in some messages (and some messengers) but not others. In particular, when the narratives offered by alternative sources diverge, future research could explore how listeners choose which messages to believe.

Third, the pandemic has highlighted an advantage of repetition in corporate communications that has often been neglected in prior research. As an increasing number of executives use social media (e.g., Twitter, Clubhouse) to communicate, future research could explore the extent to which executives use these alternative communication channels to repeat their message delivered through more traditional communication channels (e.g., earnings conference calls), or whether they send different messages through different channels. Accordingly, a promising avenue for future research would be to examine how different stakeholder groups react to consistency or inconsistency in corporate communications across different channels.

Last but not least, we believe the pandemic has revealed the importance of viewing corporate communications from a contingency perspective. Many of the findings from our study are contingent upon the settings we used to analyze the speakers. For example, some researchers have documented the value of vague language when firms are experiencing uncertain periods, such as strategic change. Still others have documented the danger of vague language because it signals a firm’s vulnerability to its rivals (e.g., Guo et al., 2020). We encourage ongoing research to systematically study the specific conditions under which corporate communications influence stakeholders.

中文翻译：

---

无需了解一切：COVID-19 对企业传播研究的影响

对企业传播的研究——战略性地使用公共语言来影响利益相关者——近年来蓬勃发展，但 COVID-19 大流行凸显了企业传播研究中的一些缺陷。三个显着特征将流行病传播与管理学者研究的典型传播环境区分开来。首先，大流行产生了传播者和听众共同的极端不确定性。二是疫情造成信息混乱，扰乱了正常的信息处理和决策方式。第三，大流行的特点是信息泛滥，使听众不知所措。我们的研究探讨了这些挑战，并提供了重要的见解，表明对一些现有假设和建议进行重新评估是有必要的。

共同的不确定性

先前的研究探索了公司如何战略性地选择其通信内容以管理内部人员和外部人员之间的信息不对称。一些研究已经注意到隐瞒信息的好处，而其他研究则证明了混淆的优势（例如，Elsbach，1994 年）。这些研究中的一个隐含假设是不确定性主要是听众的问题。传播者被认为具有卓越的知识，并且知道听众会解释什么是好是坏。因此，信息不对称有利于传播者。

然而，大流行的特点是传播者和听众都具有极端的不确定性。今天被认为准确的东西明天很可能会被抹黑。此外，当信息变得不可信时，它往往会反过来诋毁信息来源。在这种环境下，传播者可以战略性地管理他们的信息以从信息不对称中获得优势的假设变得有问题。因此，大流行强调需要将我们对企业传播的看法转变为传播者的意义传递和听众的意义建构过程，转变为联合意义建构的过程。当共享不确定性时，有选择地共享信息可能会导致不信任并损害传播者的可信度。相比之下，

信息障碍

根据用于构建它们的语言类型，具有几乎相同内容的消息可能具有显着不同的效果。考虑到企业沟通可以被多个利益相关者访问，学者们研究了企业如何精心设计他们的信息来管理利益相关者的不同利益（例如，König et al., 2018）。例如，一些研究已经证明了复杂和模棱两可的语言在帮助沟通者在组织环境中保持灵活性方面的战略价值（例如，Sillince 和 Mueller，2007 年）。

COVID-19 大流行的非凡规模和不寻常的性质通过破坏听众信息环境中现有的、理所当然的秩序，带来了新的沟通挑战。在大流行期间，虚假信息（即有意分享虚假或误导性内容）、错误信息（即无意分享虚假或误导性内容）和虚假信息（即有意以误导性方式重构信息）无处不在（Wardle 和 Derakhshan，2017年）。此外，当官方和非官方来源发布的信息被证明是错误的、误导性的或矛盾的时，就会造成这种信息混乱。管理信息和来源可信度的既定的、隐含的规则崩溃了。与此同时，人们需要来自各种来源的不间断信息，以跟上快速发展的形势。自然的结果是复杂和混乱。此外，人类倾向于对复杂性做出过度简化的反应。在信息混乱的情况下，听众倾向于易于处理的简单明了的交流。

信息超载

除了内容（即信息）和构成（即所使用的语言）之外，学者们还研究了企业传播的传递方面（即信息的呈现）（例如，Guo et al., 2020）。该文献中的传统观点告诫不要在公司环境中使用重复交付，因为重复不会提供任何新信息，而且往往会导致负面反应。

然而，在大流行期间，当人们有动力从各种来源寻求信息以保持他们有一定控制权的感觉时，信息流很容易超过处理信息的认知能力。将信息过载与我们上面提到的信息混乱相结合，传播者面临的一个关键挑战是确保他们的信息被听众听到并保留——本质上，要突破所有的噪音。由于重复会导致熟悉和偏好，因此重复传递相同的信息可能是传播者在混乱环境中影响听众的最佳方式。因此，大流行呼吁更多地关注沟通中重复的重要性。

Anthony Fauci 博士的交流特点

在大流行造成的所有困难中，安东尼·福奇博士以其卓越的沟通技巧脱颖而出。尽管他最初错误地告诉公众口罩在防止 COVID-19 传播方面的作用微乎其微，但福奇博士设法保持并提高了自己的信誉，成为有关冠状病毒最值得信赖和最有影响力的传播者之一。事实上，他最近获得了著名的丹大卫奖，以表彰他的沟通技巧和努力。我们分析了福奇博士在 2020 年 2 月至 2021 年 1 月期间的 338 次演讲，包括白宫冠状病毒特别工作组的简报以及他对各种电视节目和直播活动的采访。我们的分析揭示了他交流的三个显着特征：精确、清晰和重复。

首先，福奇博士的沟通准确。对于他知道的和不知道的，他是透明的。在他知道的事情上，他给出准确而明确的答案。在他不确定的事情上，他承认自己缺乏知识。“我们现在没有足够的信息”和“我现在无法为您准确量化”是一些示例陈述。他经常拒绝对缺乏严格证据的问题发表评论或得出结论。例如，当被问及羟氯喹作为 COVID-19 预防措施的前景时，他说，‘你所谈论的证据是轶事。它不是在对照临床试验中完成的，所以你真的不能对此做出任何明确的陈述'。因此，我们注意到 Fauci 博士使用了相对大量的否定词。事实上，他所使用的词汇中约有 1.2% 是负面的，即平均每次谈话 14 个负面词汇。这个数字比其他发言者在同一场简报会上使用的否定词的平均数量（0.7%）高出三个标准差。我们相信这归因于他对未知事物的准确承认和限定。

其次，福奇博士沟通清晰，使用直接的语言并将复杂的话题分解成可理解的部分。我们的分析显示，福奇博士使用的语言仅需接受 9 年的正规教育即可理解（相当于高中生）。相比之下，冠状病毒特别工作组的其他人使用的语言需要 12 年的教育才能理解。例如，在谈到“气溶胶传播”时，他将这个技术术语变成了一个简短易懂的词：“气溶胶的意思是它可以在空气中停留一段时间，因为它是在一个飞沫中非常小，不会下降'。因此，与他的工作组同事相比，理解福奇博士的演讲所需的认知努力量较低。

最后但并非最不重要的是，福奇博士经常重复他的信息。诸如“我已经说过很多次，我会重复一遍”和“我认为值得重申”之类的短语在他的演讲中一遍又一遍地出现。事实上，仅在他在白宫简报会上的讲话中，“重复”这个词就出现了 21 次。例如，在 2020 年 3 月 16 日，他引入了控制大流行的两大支柱方法。然后，他在 3 月 21 日、3 月 31 日、4 月 4 日等重复了两个遏制支柱。此外，为了强调缓解的重要性，他说：“因此，如果我们真的想确保我们没有担心的这类反弹，那就是缓解、缓解和缓解。” 这就是答案'。此外，他对下一个问题的回答如下：'这是同一回事。这是缓解，缓解，缓解'。在两句话中，总共使用了 36 个词，他提到了六次缓解。

未来研究方向

尽管 COVID-19 爆发代表了罕见的极端事件，但高管们确实会遇到以广泛的不确定性和信息混乱和过载为特征的情况，例如全球经济放缓和行业低迷。从 COVID-19 中吸取的教训为企业传播研究提出了四个未来的方向。

首先，大流行强调需要重新审视企业传播文献中的隐含假设，即只有听众面临不确定性。事实上，许多企业沟通环境涉及组织（演讲者）方面的重大不确定性。具体而言，未来的研究可能会考虑探索以下问题： 当不确定性被共享时，哪些因素会影响传播者对传播内容的选择（即说什么和不说）？听众如何评估所传达信息的可信度？坦诚交流的好处和成本是什么？传播者能否在沟通不畅后重新获得信誉，如果是，如何恢复？传播者如何在动态和不确定的环境中管理自己的可信度？

其次，大流行强调了研究不同信息和传播者之间竞争的重要性。先前的研究主要从传播者的角度出发，关注如何向受众传达正确的信息。在不确定时期，利益相关者可能会利用各种信息来源。我们鼓励学者通过探索影响听众在不同信息来源（例如，公司新闻稿、媒体报道、Facebook、Twitter、YouTube 和其他博客和播客）和意见领袖之间做出选择的条件，将他们的观点从传播者转向听众。例如，高管、分析师、记者、激进投资者），以及为什么他们相信某些信息（和某些信使）而不相信其他信息。特别是，

第三，大流行凸显了企业传播中重复的优势，而这在先前的研究中经常被忽视。随着越来越多的高管使用社交媒体（例如 Twitter、Clubhouse）进行交流，未来的研究可以探索高管在多大程度上使用这些替代沟通渠道来重复他们通过更传统的沟通渠道（例如，收益电话会议）传递的信息，或者他们是否通过不同的渠道发送不同的消息。因此，未来研究的一个有希望的途径是检查不同的利益相关者群体如何对跨不同渠道的企业沟通的一致性或不一致做出反应。

最后但并非最不重要的一点是，我们认为大流行揭示了从应急角度看待企业沟通的重要性。我们研究的许多发现取决于我们用来分析扬声器的设置。例如，一些研究人员记录了当公司经历不确定时期（例如战略变革）时模糊语言的价值。还有一些人记录了模糊语言的危险，因为它表明公司对竞争对手的脆弱性（例如，Guo 等人，2020 年）。我们鼓励正在进行的研究系统地研究企业传播影响利益相关者的具体条件。