Asim Talukdar still remembers the day. It was a chilly Wednesday morning in October, and the General Manager of hr at Maruti Udyog was at home, going through the newspapers, when one headline hit him straight in the face. It screamed "Dead bodies surface in Maruti plant". Dumping the newspaper, Talukdar frantically worked the phone to ascertain the veracity of the report. As it turned out, it was completely wrong, and based on a rumour floated by troublemakers. Talukdar was relieved, but his work wasn't done yet. Thousands of Maruti employees, suppliers, customers, and dealers were bound to have read the news and been left confused and bewildered.

Reaching office, Talukdar consulted with senior executives and drew up a communication strategy to control the damage. It was decided that Maruti would not only send a strong letter of denial, but also put out advertisements to that effect. Given the seriousness of the report, it decided to go one step further. Invitations to visit the plant were sent out to journalists and families of its employees. The idea was simple: seeing is believing. Says Talukdar: "We had just appeased the striking workers and this was completely unexpected. We needed to sort out the situation immediately to maintain the faith of our employees and our stakeholders."

Maruti was lucky. It was a one-off crisis that blew over quickly. But for most corporations today, crises seem to strike with an unsettling regularity. Part of the reason has to do with the business climate. Competition is getting fiercer, predicting consumer demand and behaviour is becoming more and more tricky, technology is forcing organisations to learn new skills and downsize, and generally there is a feeling of uncertainty about tomorrow. Says Shailesh F. Shah, Managing Director, Watson Wyatt India: "In the past, companies operated as neat machines. Jobs were clearly defined in terms of pay, duties and responsibilities. In the knowledge-based business of today, that model is totally irrelevant."

Needless to say, such fluidity or uncertainty doesn't work for all. Unless handled carefully, it can wreak havoc on organisation morale and performance. The fear can paralyse day-to-day work and, worse, lead your best employees to look for safer opportunities elsewhere. That was the situation that stared Arthur Andersen India's Bobby Parikh in the face when the Enron case started to unravel, and Andersen's role as an auditor of the shamed energy company came under scrutiny. All employees knew that Andersen was in the play, but few knew who would buy Andersen, and what would happen to their pay and position within the organisation. "Every day there were speculations about Andersen's global future, and my people in India were very scared," recalls Parikh, who now is the CEO of Ernst & Young India, which acquired Andersen's audit business.

Rather than let rumours and speculations tear the organisation apart, Parikh decided to share information with his colleagues. Although a bulk of it was done via e-mail, ample face-to-face communication lifted spirits in a gloomy office. "The message worked, and the people held together," Parikh points out.

In good companies, crises communication is typically institutionalised. AT&T India, for instance, has a crisis management team comprising people (including the CEO and regional heads) from all divisions; all information about the company, the market, and the procedure to be followed in case of an emergency is available with the team. "Therefore," explains Ali Abbas, Country hr Manager, AT&T India, "At any given point, we have a ready list of people to pull out in case of emergency."

Even companies like Coca-Cola, traditionally well-known for their employee communication, do not take crises communication lightly. As a rule, the cola-major uses a constituency-led approach to communicate with various groups of employees, whom it refers to as "associates". That builds awareness across the region on events and news, both at home and Coke's operations abroad. Therefore, whenever there is a crisis like Naxal attack or product recall, the company quickly communicates with it stakeholders. Says Sunil Kishore, VP (HRD), Coca-Cola India: "We don't believe in holding surprises for our associates."

To speak to their stakeholders in a clear, consistent voice, organisations need to differentiate their vision and mission statements. A vision, by definition, is motivating, and should provide direction for future planning and goal-setting. A mission statement, on the other hand, defines the achievement level and directions that the employees can aspire to. "Vision can help employees focus on what they should be doing," says Purva Misra, People Value Management Consultant, Hewitt Associates, "which is why vision statements are particularly important during periods of flux."

In recent times, organisational research has shown that adaptable organisations are characterised by leaders who promote clear vision or mission for growth. Still, leaders shouldn't ignore the corporate culture. Rather, it should be part and parcel of the vision and mission statements. Doing so also avoids the "split personality syndrome" in communication, where different parts of the organisation speak in different voices, or the organisation has one face for its star performers and another for the rest.

Having institutionalised systems of communication help avoid such problems. Newsletters, e-mail, bulletin boards, town-hall meetings, one-on-ones, and open-doors are all means of creating an organisation that speaks credibly with people within and outside. Remember: In a crisis, no news is often bad news.