Download the Full Report : Disabilities in the Workplace Report (PDF)Watch the Webinar: Disabilities in the Workplace Report DiscussionDownload the Press Releases: News release for Communications Professionals (PDF)News Release for Human Resources (PDF) Institute for Public Relations and Voya Financial have partnered on a comprehensive report, “Disabilities in the Workplace: Culture, Communication, Support, and Inclusion” that analyzes a survey of 1,014 employees to determine how organizations support and communicate about disabilities and caregiving in the workplace.Introduction: Little research has been conducted regarding employee perceptions of diversity priorities and inclusion and how well initiatives and programs are communicated within organizations. In 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 17% of people with a disability were employed compared to the 61% of people without a disability. According to a report from Bentley University, more than two-thirds of disabilities are “invisible,” meaning disabilities cannot be observed or are not visually detectable. The Bentley University report also found that while more than two-thirds of workplace leaders believe their technological arrangements and cultures are supportive of employees with disabilities, fewer than half of those with disabilities agree.While Disability:IN has seen participation in its annual Disability Equality Index increase year-over- year, an Institute for Public Relations (IPR) study found executive support of those with disabilities may not be communicated effectively through organizations. In the 2021 IPR Language of Diversity study, of communication professionals, only 24% said, “physical abilities and disabilities” were rated as a “high priority” for their organization’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I)initiatives, while only 14% said the same about neurodiversity (e.g., ADHD, autism, etc.). Compared to other categories of diversity, disabilities was one of the lowest-ranked. Disabilities or becoming a caregiver of those with disabilities can affect anyone at any point in their lives.In January 2023, IPR and Voya Financial surveyed 1,014 employees in organizations with more than 15 full-time employees to determine how well organizations communicate about and support disabilities and inclusion in the workplace. Full Report: Some Key Findings: More than half of people with disabilities have witnessed or experienced both macroaggressions and microaggressions toward individuals with disabilities at least a few times a year in the workplace.Forty percent of respondents were not familiar with the organization’s position or strategic plan related to disabilities in the workplace.Only slightly more than one-third of employees were “very familiar” with an organization’s position or strategic plan on how best to support individuals with a disability. In fact, 4-in-10 respondents were unfamiliar or “slightly familiar” with their organization’s plan. For organizations to be effective with their programs, employees must be well-versed in the strategy as they influence the culture of the organization.Slightly more than half of employees said their company effectively communicated internally and externally about leadership’s commitment to disability inclusion.Both employees with and without disabilities wanted to learn more about disability inclusion within the organization.More than half of their employees (53%) without disabilities and 72% of those with disabilities were interested in learning more about disabilities within their organization, offering a great opportunity for organizations.Despite nearly three-quarters (73%) of employees saying they want to see people with disabilities represented in commercials, advertisements, and social media, only one-third said their organization actually features people with disabilities on these channels. Only 36% said their company featured individuals with disabilities in commercials or advertisements and 39% said they were included in their internal or employee-focused communications (39%).People with disabilities and caregivers thought their organizations did a better job communicating about supporting people with disabilities and their caregivers than people without disabilities.One-in-three people who have a disability and one-in-five caregivers have not disclosed their disability or caregiving responsibilities to their employer.At least 4-in-10 respondents with disabilities had to scale back their hours (41%) or leave their job (49%) due to their disability, affecting retention. Similarly, nearly 5-in-10 caregivers (48%) had to scale back their hours and 34% had to leave their job. People who did not disclose their disability to their employer were concerned about being fired, ridiculed, orretaliated against. Methodology: IPR and Voya Financial surveyed 1,014 employees in organizations with more than 15 full-time employees to determine how well organizations communicate about and support disabilities and inclusion in the workplace.One hundred and eighty-seven respondents identified as an individual with disabilities either currently or in the past, and 242 respondents said they had or have had caregiving responsibilities for an individual with a disability. Prior to taking the survey, employees were provided definitions of the scope of disabilities and the definition of a caregiver for consistency purposes (see Appendix for definitions and methodology).*IPR is a separate entity and not a corporate affiliate of Voya Financial®. About the Institute for Public RelationsFounded in 1956, the Institute for Public Relations is an independent, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the science beneath the art of public relations™. IPR creates, curates, and promotes research and initiatives that empower professionals with actionable insights and intelligence they can put to immediate use. IPR predicts and analyzes global factors transforming the profession and amplifies and engages the profession globally through thought leadership and programming. All research is available free at www.instituteforpr.org and provides the basis for IPR’s professional conferences and events.Media Contact:Brittany HigginbothamCommunications & Digital Specialistbrittany@instituteforpr.org352-392-0280 ...

The Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago examined Americans’ confidence levels in science and medicine related to their political affiliation.A survey of 3,544 U.S. adults was conducted May 5 – Dec. 20, 2022.Key findings include:— 39% of U.S. adults overall said they had “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community.—– This number is down from 48% in 2021.—– 53% of Democrats reported “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community compared to 55% in 2018.—– 22% of Republicans said they had “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community compared to 45% in 2018.— 34% of Americans reported “a great deal of confidence” in medicine, compared to 39% before the pandemic.— Although confidence in the scientific community has declined in recent years, this community is still more trusted than other institutions in America including the press (7%), organized religion (19%), and education (25%).Full report here ...

Pew Research Center examined journalists’ concerns and perspectives on changes in the news industry.A survey of 11,889 U.S.-based journalists was conducted from Feb. 16 – March 17, 2022. Key findings include:— 57% of journalists say they are extremely or very concerned about possible restrictions on U.S. press freedoms.— Journalists aged 65+ years were the most concerned age group; 42% reported they are feeling extremely concerned.—– 39% in the 50-64 year old age group were extremely concerned, followed by ages 30-49 (28%) and ages 18-29 (20%). — 65% of journalists who have more than 20 years of experience are extremely or very concerned about press freedoms, compared to 45% of journalists with five years or less.— Concern remains consistent across types of news outlets and local, state or national news.—– 59% of journalists who work for news sources with right-leaning audiences and 56% of those who work for news sources with left-leaning audiences are extremely or very concerned about press freedoms.Discover how journalists perceive the future of the news industry ...

WE Communications and the USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations examined how communications leaders are responding to the recent uptick of interest in AI. The study specifically measured practitioners’ levels of excitement and concern.A survey of roughly 400 communications leaders was conducted in April 2023.Key findings include:— 80% of respondents said AI will be extremely or very important to the future of PR work.— 16% of respondents said they were extremely knowledgeable about the applications of AI in communications.—– 59% of respondents said they already have or are looking for ways to incorporate ChatGPT into their work.— 23% of respondents said their organizations are changing the way they work due to new AI tools.—– 88% of respondents said AI will increase the efficiency of their work.—– 72% or respondents said it will reduce workloads.— 25% of respondents think that AI will negatively impact creativity.— 87% of respondents said the ability to write good AI prompts will become a more important skill to have.—– Other important skills included having knowledge on human-computer interaction (82%), strategic thinking (79%), and data analytics experience (75%).Discover what communications leaders are saying about AI ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Digital Media Research CenterMorning Consult explored Americans’ trust in artificial intelligence (AI) companies and support of AI being regulated by the government.A survey of 2,212 U.S. adults was conducted from April 19-22, 2023.Key findings include:— 43% of all respondents said AI companies should be “more regulated” by the government.—– 49% of Democrats said the same, compared to 44% of Republicans.— 36% of Americans overall said they have a “favorable” view of AI companies.—– Millennials had the most favorable views of AI companies (48%), followed by Gen Xers (34%), and Gen Zers (32%).—– Baby Boomers had the least favorable views of AI companies (26%). — While nearly equal shares of adults trust (38%) or distrust (36%) AI companies, major technology firms such as Microsoft and Google fare much better with 52% of respondents saying they trust these firms.—– Democrats (47%) were more likely than Republicans (32%) to say they trust AI companies to “do what is right.” Learn more about Americans’ thoughts on AI companies and regulation ...

This blog is provided by the IPR Behavioral Insights Research CenterWe’ve started to get glimpses into what AI means for the comms and PR professions, and not all the news is good…As AI has burst onto the scene, no one has missed the fact that it will have huge ramifications — not only in our work lives, but for society at large. This is especially true in terms of privacy, regulation, and information access — not to mention the very definitions of originality, authenticity, and art. There is talk of a “Cambrian explosion” in terms of AI’s impact on our world, due to its exponential enablement of new technology and generative outputs. But what specifically does it mean for professional communicators?AI’s newer generative language models, such as ChatGPT, are transforming the business landscape in ways that have huge knock-on effects for the profession. The push of a button is all it takes to create original content, mimic narrative styles, paraphrase texts, and in some cases, design compelling rhetoric that can sway and motivate. It’s patently clear that this is going to be a game changer and relieve at least some of the more tedious tasks in comms. Not to mention the fact that it’s really fun to use. Why, then, does it make us feel so uneasy?In my book, published last year (a lifetime ago in AI terms), I emphasized that generative AI poses a significant threat to the communication and PR professions. In terms of day-to-day content production — such as press releases, corporate announcements, and basic journalism — ChatGPT and its variants can produce convincing and accurate copy in a fraction of the time it takes a human being. This is especially threatening to entry-level and junior communications roles. But the fact is that this type of technological encroachment as inevitable as taxes and death. Just as robotic chefs and robotic surgeons and AI-powered legal contracts will soon become commonplace, many communication tasks will be outsourced to machines. This will undoubtedly create crises for employment and financial security — and it will also create crises around the purpose and meaning of apprenticeships and on-the-job learning — not just for comms, but for all impacted professions.The good news is that communicators have an ace in their pocket. We are still a long way from surrendering organizational and leadership communication to a machine, at least for the time being. This is for two different reasons:1.) There is a dark side to these technologies Even in the earliest days of GPT-2 and GPT-3, researchers found that generative AI excels at generating disinformation — a phenomenon that Politico’s AI reporter Melissa Heikkilä cleverly described as “filling the swamp.” Generative AI is alarmingly effective at crafting slick-sounding messages — from QAnon conspiracy theories and climate change denial to extremist narratives and radical ideologies.With this kind of gloomy research, however, we can glean many useful insights. Because AI is so effective at “filling the swamp,” it means that the structure of disinformation itself must be formulaic or algorithmic. IPR published a valuable primer on how to detect disinformation, and these clues, along with academic research into AI, may help us learn how to reverse engineer it.2.) Generative AI’s output is decontextualizedChatGPT is a generative technology, but that doesn’t mean that the content it generates is meaningful or even relevant. In Alan Turing’s imitation game, a series of questions can determine if one is interacting with a human or a machine, but the results of the game depend not only on the ability to give correct answers, but on how closely the answers resemble those that an actual human would give. In other words, the machine eventually reveals itself. For the time being at least, for any issue of real consequence, ChatGPT is an imitation and not the real McCoy.For these reasons, I believe that generative AI presents an opportunity for the communication profession to grow, even as it increasingly threatens many livelihoods. It may, in fact, be because of the threat that it forces change. It does this by providing an impetus to up our game and focus our time and energy on how to develop more perceptive, sincere, thoughtful, and yes, human communication — that can only be done by people. This is easier said than done, but it will mark the next era of the profession. And provide an even greater reason for corporate communicators to have a seat at the table in the organizations they serve.ReferencesBuchanan, B., Lohn, A., Musser, M., & Sedova, K. (2021, May). Truth, lies, and automation: How language models could change disinformation. Center for Security and Emerging Technology. https://cset.georgetown.edu/public ation/truth-lies-and-automation/McGuffie, K., & Newhouse, A. (2020). The radicalization risks of GPT-3 and advanced neural language models. Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey. https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/sites/www.middlebury.edu.institute/files/2020-09/gpt3-article.pdf Laura McHale is the Managing Director and Leadership Psychologist Expert at Conduit Consultants Limited. McHale is an expert in assessments, leadership, and team effectiveness. She is the author of Neuroscience for Organizational Communication. She currently serves on the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center Board of Advisors. ...

This blog is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research CenterBe it the 3 a.m. phone call from your CEO or a polite ask (even though it’s not really an ask) to leave early from a vacation to return to work, a crisis can upend your life. Crisis communication professionals must always be at the ready. But what if you don’t have crisis experience, as is the case for many public relations professionals?In a crisis situation, you will react as you are organized and trained (Machado & Anderson, 2022). Knowing what to do can draw the line between chaos and calm. The best frameworks and policies are implemented by well-trained employees at companies that truly prioritize preparation.Organizations sustain more long-term damage before and after a crisis than during the crisis itself (Herridge & Lee, 2022). Proactive crisis communication helps minimize damage, improve morale, and encourage healing (Bowman and Schneider, 2021). Traditional and social media have significant long-term impacts on public perception and organizational reputation, but so do messages from employees. The burning question: how do you best prepare for a crisis?Proactive PlanningThe key to effective crisis communication is proactive planning. One must consider communication logistics. Do you have enough staff for coverage? Do you need to engage a crisis communication consultant? If so, it is vital to bring them in before the crisis, so they understand your organization and a solid working relationship exists before things go south.As it pertains to crisis response, communication teams must act quickly, but with factual information. The crisis communicator does not act on speculation or hypotheticals. Once the facts have been gathered, the communication team should compose a holding statement (Levick, 2020). Holding statements generally contain basic information to provide the media and other stakeholders and provide time to gain a deeper situational understanding and gather more information.Other considerations are internal communication and spokesperson selection. Keep staff in the loop through internal communication tactics that can include internal messaging like e-mail or Slack, town halls, and staff huddles (depending on organizational size). Internal stakeholders often are overlooked, which can harm staff morale and organizational effectiveness (Strandberg & Vigso, 2016).Depending on the crisis, one must choose the appropriate spokesperson (Vercic, Vercic & Coombs, 2019). For major crises, the chief executive must be front and center to convey the organization’s serious attitude regarding the matter. The organization’s designated spokesperson also must be available to triage and field media requests and relieve the chief executive in providing media updates. If technical expertise is necessary, (for example, during an environmental disaster,) subject matter experts can translate scientific or policy jargon and explain organizational response in layman’s terms.When responding to a crisis, there are a few universal rules. First, lead with empathy to humanize the situation (Fannes & Claeys, 2023). Second, state what happened, that your organization will correct it, and what steps they will take to do so. Third, be as transparent as possible to foster credibility (Schoofs & Claeys, 2021). Sometimes, these corrective steps can position the organization as an industry leader, as it emerges from the crisis (Sellnow, Ulmer & Snider; 1998).Risk Mitigation and Crisis PlanningA crisis can happen at any time, no matter how well one prepares and anticipates. This being said, it is important to prepare as diligently as possible to help stave off a crisis (Coombs, 2007).Organizations should conduct environmental scanning as part of daily issues management work. Environmental scanning is applied from systems theory (Slaughter, 1999). Issues management helps prevent/mitigate potential crises by catching them before they occur, which helps maintain reputation. If an issue looks like it will fester, it probably will — break the glass on your crisis communication plan and prepare for the crisis. Finally, continuously plan and evaluate so one’s organization remains on top of things to the best of their ability.Crisis Communication Plan Components​​Before we dive into the elements of a crisis communication plan, there are several considerations to address. Who shapes the crisis communication policy? Does it dovetail with an emergency preparedness plan? Who activates the plan and who is part of the crisis team? Who speaks with reporters and when? Does a holding statement repository exist? The crisis communication plan should answer all of these key questions to ensure you are prepared when the crisis occurs.The Crisis Communication Plan FormatPart 1:Cover PageTable of ContentsPart 2:Executive SummaryIntroductionAcknowledgementsRehearsal DatesPurpose and ObjectivesCrisis InventoryPart 3:List of Key PublicsNotifying PublicsIdentify Crisis Communications TeamCrisis Communication Team DirectoryIdentify Media Spokesperson(s)List of Emergency Personnel and Local OfficialsList of Key MediaSpokespersons From Related/Regional OrganizationsPart 4:Crisis Communications Control CenterEquipment and SuppliesPre-gathered InformationKey MessagesWebsite, Blogs, and Social MediaTrick QuestionsList of Prodromes (early symptoms of potential crisis – could begin as an issue)Part 5:Evaluation FormAfter-Action Report/Hot Wash Questions and FormatHolding Statement RepositoryConclusionAt the end of the day, no matter how prepared one might be for a crisis, surprises will happen. However, with crisis communication planning communication teams can better position their organizations so that they are not caught completely off-guard and can spring into action.ReferencesBoman, Courtney D., and Erika J. Schneider. “Finding an Antidote: Testing the Use of Proactive Crisis Strategies to Protect Organizations from Astroturf Attacks.” Public relations review 47.1 (2021): 102004–. Web.​​Coombs, W. Timothy. Ongoing Crisis Communication : Planning, Managing, and Responding. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2007. Print.Herridge, Andrew S, and Xinyang Li. “Surfing for Answers: Understanding How Universities in the United States Utilized Websites in Response to COVID-19.” Journal of Comparative and International Higher Education 14.3B (2022): 111–. Web.Levick, Richard. “Cybersecurity in the Age of Cyber-Espionage, Nation-State Hacking, and Criminal Abundance.” Of Counsel 39.4 (2020): 5–20. Print.Machado, Sara A, and Patricia N Anderson. “The Perspectives of Preschool Teachers Regarding Their Ability to Respond to Various Crises in the Childcare Center.” Journal of Early Childhood Research : ECR (2022): 1476718–. Web.Schoofs, Lieze, and An-Sofie Claeys. “Communicating Sadness: The Impact of Emotional Crisis Communication on the Organizational Post-Crisis Reputation.” Journal of business research 130 (2021): 271–282. Web.Sellnow, Timothy L., Robert R. Ulmer, and Michelle Snider. “The Compatibility of Corrective Action in Organizational Crisis Communication.” Communication quarterly 46.1 (1998): 60–74. Web.Slaughter, R.A. (1999), “A new framework for environmental scanning”, Foresight, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 441-451. Strandberg, Julia Matilda, and Orla Vigsø. “Internal Crisis Communication: An Employee Perspective on Narrative, Culture, and Sensemaking.” Corporate communications 21.1 (2016): 89–102. Web.Tkalac Verčič, Ana, Dejan Verčič, and W. Timothy Coombs. “Convergence of Crisis Response Strategy and Source Credibility: Who Can You Trust?” Journal of contingencies and crisis management 27.1 (2019): 28–37. Web. Matt Charles, DPA, APR, teaches Crisis Communications for the Georgetown University School of Continuing Studies Master’s in Public Relations and Corporate Communications program and is President & Founder of Matt Charles Public Relations+Strategy. ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research CenterDr. Jian Peng, Dr. Qi Nie, and Dr. Yucong Cheng examined how team abusive supervision created team distrust in the supervisor and eventually induced team behavioral resistance to organizational change.Researchers collected three-wave survey data from 124 teams in four organizations that were part of a large Chinese conglomerate.Key findings include:1.) Higher levels of team abusive supervision resulted in higher levels of team cognitive distrust and affective distrust in the supervisor.2.) Higher levels of team cognitive distrust in the supervisor resulted in greater levels of team behavioral resistance to organizational change.3.) Higher levels of team affective distrust in the supervisor resulted in greater levels of team behavioral resistance to organizational change.4.) When teams perceived a greater frequency of organizational change, team abusive supervision impacted team affective distrust more negatively. — Team behavioral resistance to change also became stronger.Find the original study here. ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research Center.Dr. Cornelia Wolf and colleagues conducted research on the role and need for strategic internal communication in startup environments.A review of 25 journal articles focused on strategic communication, business management, and entrepreneurship was conducted between January 2010 and June 2020. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted from June to August 2020.Key findings include:1.) In startup environments, internal communication tended to encourage back-and-forth discussion and fostered open ideas and thoughts.2.) Internal communication went hand-in-hand with internal growth.3.) Feedback from employees was often not systematically evaluated.— There were no tools in place to measure or organize employee feedback, resulting in a lack of internal communication strategy.4.) Organizations were constantly in flux and undergoing changes and it was crucial to avoid adhering too strictly to old routines or ways of doing things.— Growth required flexibility and adaptation.Find the original study here. ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Organizational Communication Research CenterDr. Dejun Tony Kong and Dr. Liuba Y. Belkin examined how the feeling of being neglected by employers could bring negative implications on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.A four-wave survey of 111 employees across 40 states in the United States was conducted from March-May 2020.Key findings include:1.) The employees who felt more negelected also felt  more frustrated about their need for relational connections met at work.— This frustration led to a negative perception of the meaning of their work.2.) Negatively viewed work was associated with a reduction in employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors.3.) Employers needed to deliver attention and care through daily communication and action.Find the original study here. ...