1 
  
Responsibility in the post-crisis organizations: 
strategic shifts in internal communication for 
sustainable and resilient organizational culture 
 
Natalie Cvikl Postružnik
1
, Nina Lesar
2
,  
Tjaša-Ana Buček
3
 
 
Abstract: Purpose of the article: The article examines how internal 
communication, coaching, and sustainability practices have evolved in 
Slovenian organisations by comparing two cross-sectional studies from 
2019 and 2025. It analyses how crisis experience, digitalisation, and 
shifting organisational demands shape communication quality, 
managerial behaviour, and responsibility in post-crisis contexts. 
Originality/Value: The study provides a rare longitudinal view of 
internal communication and coaching before and after major crises. It 
shows how increased awareness of communication, coaching, and 
sustainability does not necessarily lead to structural improvements. By 
integrating ESRS-related sustainability insights, the article offers an 
updated understanding of responsibility-focused organisational 
communication. 
Research methodology: A mixed-methods approach combines 
descriptive comparisons of 2019 and 2025 survey data with qualitative 
thematic analysis of nine leadership interviews conducted in 2025. This 
design enables exploration of communication deficiencies, coaching 
use, and sustainability integration. 
Keywords: internal communication, coaching, sustainability, crisis 
communication, organizational resilience 
JEL classification: D83 
 
Odgovornost v pokriznih organizacijah: 
strateški premiki v interni komunikaciji za 
trajnostno in odporno organizacijsko kulturo 
 
Povzetek: Namen članka: Ta članek raziskuje spreminjajočo se vlogo 
coachinga kot orodja notranje komunikacije pri spodbujanju 
odgovornosti kot dela ciljev odnosov z javnostmi, zlasti v obdobju po 
krizi. 
Izvirnost/vrednost: S ponovnim pregledom in nadgradnjo študije, ki je 
bila prvotno izvedena leta 2019, študija posebej preučuje, kako je 
coaching trenutno vključen v prakse notranje komunikacije v slovenskih 
organizacijah, njegov vpliv na povečanje osebne in organizacijske 
odgovornosti, njegovo vlogo v skladu s strategijami trajnosti in njegovo 
zaznano učinkovitost po krizah, kot sta COVID-19 in socialni nemiri. 
Poleg tega te ugotovitve umešča v okvir ESRS, zlasti v socialno (S) 
dimenzijo direktive CSRD. 
Raziskovalna metodologija: S kvantitativnim in kvalitativnim pristopom 
študija želi identificirati spremembe v odnosih vodstvenih delavcev, 
komunikacijskih strukturah, njihovi odgovornosti in njihovem prispevku 
k spodbujanju trajnosti v negotovih časih. 
Ključne besede: interna komunikacija, coaching, trajnost, krizno 
komuniciranje, organizacijska odpornost 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
Insights d.o.o., 
natalie@insights.si  
Doba University of Applied 
Sciences, Maribor, Slovenia,  
natalie.cvikl-
postruznik@net.doba.si 
 
2
Doba University of Applied 
Sciences, Maribor, Slovenia, 
ninchy.lesar@gmail.com 
3
Doba University of Applied 
Science, Maribor, Slovenia, 
tjasa-ana.bucek@net.doba.si 
 
 
©Copyrights are protected by = 
Avtorske pravice so zaščitene s 
Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial 4.0 International 
License (CC BY-NC 4.0) = 
Priznanje avtorstva-
nekomercialno 4.0 mednarodna 
licenca (CC BY-NC 4.0) 
 
DOI 10.32015/JIBM.2025.17.2.5 
Mednarodno inovativno 
poslovanje =  
Journal of Innovative Business 
and Management  
ISSN 1855-6175 
 
 
 

 
2 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
 1 INTRODUCTION 
Organizations operating in an increasingly turbulent global environment face mounting 
pressures related to crises, digital transformation, employee expectations, and sustainability 
demands. Over the last decade, events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, labour-market 
disruptions, climate-related risks, and geopolitical uncertainty have underscored the 
importance of internal communication as a strategic function indispensable for 
organizational continuity and resilience (Bodolica et al., 2020; Yue et al., 2021). Internal 
communication is no longer understood as a unidirectional transfer of information but as a 
relational and systemic process that shapes trust, employee engagement, organisational 
culture, and crisis responsiveness. 
Alongside communication, coaching is increasingly recognised as a leadership competency 
with the potential to strengthen listening, empathy, feedback, collaboration, and 
psychological safety—dimensions that are essential in uncertain, crisis-prone environments 
(Romão et al., 2022). Likewise, sustainability and corporate responsibility have emerged as 
internal communication themes that influence employee sense-making, identity, and 
alignment with organizational values (Alemu & Burrell, 2023). Although the relevance of 
these three practices—communication, coaching, and sustainability—empirical findings 
continue to indicate a consistent gap between recognition and implementation. 
This article examines this gap through a comparative analysis of two studies conducted in 
2019 and 2025, both exploring crisis communication, coaching practices, and employees’ 
perceptions of internal communication within Slovenian organizations. The 2019 study offers 
pre-pandemic baseline insights into communication practices, whereas the 2025 study 
captures post-pandemic realities characerised by increased digitalization, hybrid work 
structures, and heightened expectations toward transparency, responsibility, and 
sustainable behaviour. This longitudinal comparison is therefore both temporal and 
conceptual in nature: it traces how crisis experiences and contextual shifts reshape 
communication systems, leadership behaviours, and the perceived value of coaching within 
organizations. 
Despite the widespread assumption that organizations “learn from crises,” early evidence 
from the 2025 data indicates a contradictory pattern. Proactive crisis preparation decreased 
from 55% (2019) to 31% (2025), while reactive, ad-hoc responses increased from 38% to 44%. 
Similarly, while nearly all respondents acknowledge the critical role of internal 
communication in crisis management (95% in 2019; 98% in 2025), communication quality 
scores declined, especially regarding horizontal communication among employees. Coaching 
presents another paradox: familiarity with coaching increased substantially, yet actual use 
in crisis contexts did not improve. 
These inconsistencies highlight an underlying research problem: 
It remains necessary to examine the factors that contribute to continued organisational 
difficulties in these areas: communication, coaching adoption, and sustainability 
integration—despite increased awareness of their strategic importance. 
To address these research questions, the study develops three analytical propositions that 
reflect theoretically grounded expectations regarding developments between 2019 and 
2025. These propositions do not imply statistical testing; rather, they provide an interpretive 
structure that guides the descriptive comparison of empirical patterns across the two time 
points. This approach is appropriate given the partly non-equivalent nature of the 
instruments used in 2019 and 2025 and the exploratory purpose of the study. 

 
3 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 
The study pursues four main objectives: 
1. To compare internal communication practices in 2019 and 2025, with emphasis on 
crisis preparedness, communication quality, and the structure of communication 
gaps. 
2. To analyse the role and adoption of coaching as a tool for communication and crisis 
management in both periods. 
3. To evaluate how sustainability values influence internal communication and 
whether they are operationalized strategically. 
4. To identify convergences and divergences between awareness and implementation 
across the two time points. 
2.1 Research Questions 
The comparative design centres on the following research questions: 
1. How have internal communication practices changed between 2019 and 2025? 
2. What role does coaching play in communication and crisis management in both 
years? 
3. How do employees perceive the integration of sustainability values into internal 
communication? 
4. What contextual, organizational, or behavioural factors explain differences 
between awareness and implementation? 
2.2 Analytical Propositions 
Drawing on the findings of the 2019 baseline study and the theoretical framework presented 
in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, this study formulates three analytical propositions. These 
propositions serve as theoretically informed expectations that orient the descriptive 
comparative analysis. Because the 2019 and 2025 instruments are only partially equivalent, 
and due to the exploratory nature of the design, the propositions do not function as 
statistical hypotheses and are not subjected to inferential testing. Instead, they guide the 
interpretation of empirical patterns. 
Proposition 1 (P1): 
Between 2019 and 2025, organizations are likely to demonstrate greater formalization of 
internal communication processes, reflecting digitalization trends and the post-pandemic 
institutionalization of structured communication routines. 
Proposition 2 (P2): 
Compared with 2019, employees in 2025 are expected to perceive a deterioration in 
communication quality, particularly in horizontal communication, due to increases in 
workload, hybrid work patterns, and structural changes within organizations. 
Proposition 3 (P3): 
Coaching is expected to receive greater conceptual recognition by 2025, while its 
operational implementation in day-to-day managerial practice is likely to remain 
inconsistent and limited. 

 
4 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
2.3 Contribution of the Comparative Approach 
Comparing 2019 and 2025 offers a unique opportunity to observe organisational learning (or 
its absence) across two structurally different contexts—pre-pandemic and post-pandemic. 
While crises often catalyse communication improvements, the findings suggest deteriorating 
practices in several areas. The comparative approach therefore reveals not only temporal 
changes but structural tensions between behaviours, capacities, and organizational 
priorities. 
By integrating perspectives on internal communication, coaching, and sustainability, the 
study contributes to a more holistic understanding of how organizations navigate crises and 
transitions. It also provides empirical grounding for more robust leadership, communication, 
and HR development strategies. 
3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK  
Internal Communication as a Strategic Organizational Function 
Internal communication has shifted from being viewed as a transactional process to a 
strategic, relational system that shapes organizational culture, employee attitudes, and 
crisis resilience. Contemporary research positions it as a foundational driver of satisfaction, 
engagement, and psychological safety (Curado et al., 2022; Yue et al., 2021). Yue et al. 
(2021) describe internal communication simultaneously as a formal infrastructure—
comprising tools, protocols, and structured processes—and a dynamic interpersonal system 
that mirrors organizational values and emotional climate. 
During crises, internal communication functions as both an operational and psychological 
anchor. It provides stability, coherence, and emotional containment in volatile situations 
(Bodolica et al., 2020; Gomes et al., 2023, Chenguang et al., 2022). Transparency, 
consistency, and dialogic engagement are repeatedly identified as essential attributes of 
crisis communication (Rathore & Arora, 2024). Leadership visibility—particularly through 
digital tools—further strengthens trust and morale (Gomes et al., 2023). 
Digitalization of communication channels has expanded opportunities for two-way dialogue, 
social presence, and organizational connectedness. However, it also introduces challenges 
such as cognitive overload, digital fatigue, and reduced job satisfaction (Zhang, Dai, Chen, 
Gu & Zhao, 2025; Wang, Hong, Pitafi & Hangeldiyeva, 2024). Recent studies additionally 
explore how AI-driven tools shape internal communication practices and influence the 
quality of organizational dialogue (Yue et al., 2024). 
Internal communication also mediates the relationship between human capital and 
organizational resilience, strengthening knowledge sharing, innovation, and adaptability 
(Lu, Wang & Xu, 2023, Kim, 2021). Nonetheless, persistent barriers—such as cultural 
misalignment, uneven communication skills among managers, and employee disengagement 
with corporate platforms—continue to limit its effectiveness (Cvikl Postružnik & Lesar, 
2019). These findings underscore the need for organizations to treat internal communication 
as a strategic capability rather than an operational afterthought. 
Coaching as a Relational and Communication-Based Leadership Practice 
Organizational and leadership coaching contributes to emotional intelligence, adaptability, 
and relational competencies—key components of effective communication in uncertain 
environments (Romão et al., 2022; Seemann et al., 2024). Coaching fosters psychological 

 
5 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
safety, which is crucial for open dialogue, reflective learning, feedback exchange, and 
rebuilding trust after crises (Kaputzis et al., 2023). 
Research emphasizes that coaching behaviors—active listening, constructive feedback, goal 
exploration, and empathetic communication—directly enhance employee well-being and 
reduce turnover intentions (Romão et al., 2022). Coaching is also identified as a sustainable 
leadership style, promoting autonomy, shared responsibility, and long-term engagement 
(Seemann et all.). 
Despite these theoretical advantages, empirical findings from Slovenian organizations show 
a persistent gap between awareness and implementation. Although awareness of coaching 
increased sharply between 2019 and 2025, practical adoption stagnated at around one-third 
of organizations (Insights d.o.o., 2025; Cvikl Postružnik & Lesar, 2019). This mirrors 
international research highlighting that organizations often recognize the value of coaching 
but fail to integrate it systematically into leadership development and communication 
practices (Rathore & Arora, 2024). 
Studies also call for more sophisticated measurement of coaching impact, moving beyond 
satisfaction surveys to behavioral and communication indicators, including trust scores, 
sentiment analysis, and perceived transparency (Yue et al. 2021). 
Sustainability, Communication, and Responsible Organizational Culture 
Sustainability in internal communication refers to a transparent, ethically grounded, and 
long-term–oriented communication approach that aligns daily practices with broader 
organizational values (Alemu & Burrell, 2023). It includes not only the content of 
sustainability messages but also the tone, frequency, inclusiveness, leadership role 
modeling, and feedback mechanisms used within the organization (Gutaman, 2024). 
Sustainable internal communication fosters employee commitment, organizational trust, 
and responsible behavior (Rys et al., 2024). Research shows that organizations that embed 
sustainability in internal communication—rather than treating it as a compliance exercise—
achieve higher levels of employee pride, belonging, and engagement (Insights d.o.o., 2025; 
Romão et al., 2022). 
Still, survey findings from 2025 reveal substantial implementation gaps: 40% of organizations 
do not prioritize sustainability in internal communication, and 8% deem it irrelevant, despite 
growing awareness of ESG imperatives. Integrating sustainability with communication and 
leadership practices strengthens organizational resilience and cultural cohesion (Rathore & 
Arora, 2024). Furthermore, communication mediates the influence of skilled employees on 
sustainable transformation, indicating the need for consistent messaging, shared values, and 
inclusive policies (Lu et al., 2023, Kim, 2021). 
Synthesis: A Triadic Framework of Resilience 
Across all theoretical strands—internal communication, coaching, and sustainability—recent 
studies converge on a single insight: relational competencies such as authenticity, empathy, 
and dialogic engagement are as crucial as technical systems for organizational success in 
complex environments (Romão et al., 2022; Rathore & Arora, 2024). Post-crisis resilience 
relies on a triadic alignment of: 

 
6 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
• strategic communication, 
• emotionally intelligent leadership and coaching, and 
• values-based sustainable HR and CSR practices. 
Organizations that integrate these elements create cultures capable of navigating 
complexity, retaining trust, and fostering long-term adaptability. 
4 METHODS 
4.1 Research Design 
This study employed a mixed-methods design, combining a repeated cross-sectional 
quantitative survey (2019 and 2025) with a qualitative, semi-structured interview study 
conducted in 2025. The design enabled both longitudinal comparison of communication 
practices and in-depth exploration of leadership perspectives. The study followed the logic 
of methodological triangulation, integrating descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic 
analysis. 
4.2 Sampling and Participants 
Quantitative Component 
A total of 112 respondents participated in the 2025 survey. The sample comprised employees 
across diverse Slovenian organisations varying in size, ownership, and sectoral orientation. 
Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The 2019 dataset utilised an instrument with 
largely similar constructs, enabling descriptive comparison. 
Demographic composition in 2025 included: 
– 81% female, 19% male 
– highest age representation in 40–49 (34%) and 50–60 (34%) groups 
– organisational sizes ranging from micro to large firms 
Qualitative Component 
Nine participants were recruited purposefully to ensure sectoral and organisational diversity. 
Interviewees included HR Directors, PR managers, senior leaders, and representatives of 
public, private, family-owned, and multinational companies. Inclusion criteria required 
participants to hold decision-making responsibilities related to communication or HRM. 
4.3 Data Collection 
4.3.1 Quantitative Survey 
The survey was administered online. The core structure replicated the 2019 instrument to 
preserve construct continuity, with new items added in 2025 to capture post-COVID 
changes in communication tools and sustainability practices. 
The instrument included: 
– demographic and organisational descriptors 
– crisis communication preparedness 
– internal communication deficiencies 
– behavioural consequences of communication gaps 
– use of coaching in crisis communication 

 
7 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
– perception of sustainability in internal communication 
– a 7-point scale assessing overall communication quality 
Full survey items are provided in Appendix A. 
4.3.2 Qualitative Interviews 
Semi-structured interviews were conducted via video-call, each lasting 45–60 minutes. 
Interviews followed a standardised guide (Appendix B), allowing flexibility for probing 
while maintaining consistency across participants. 
All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. 
4.4 Measurement and Analytical Strategy 
4.4.1 Quantitative Data 
Given the exploratory and comparative purpose, analysis relied on descriptive statistics 
(frequencies, percentages, and distribution shifts) rather than inferential testing. This aligns 
with the goal of comparing patterns across two cross-sectional datasets with non-identical 
instruments, making inferential comparability inappropriate. 
Coding rules for multiple- and single-response items are detailed in Appendix A. 
4.4.2 Qualitative Data 
Analysis followed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019). 
The coding protocol included: 
1. familiarisation 
2. open coding 
3. axial coding 
4. theme development 
5. reflexive validation through peer-debriefing 
Coding was inductive; no pre-existing codebook was imposed. Themes were integrated 
with quantitative findings during synthesis. 
4.4.3 Positioning of Analytical Propositions 
The analytical propositions formulated in Section 2.3 were explored through descriptive 
comparative analysis. Because the 2019 and 2025 questionnaires are not fully identical—
owing to the addition of new sustainability- and practice-related items in 2025—direct 
statistical comparison is not methodologically appropriate. For this reason, the study does 
not employ inferential statistical tests, nor does it attempt to draw causal conclusions. 
Instead, the propositions serve as interpretive guides that structure the analysis of 
quantitative distributions and qualitative themes. This approach aligns with the exploratory 
purpose of the study and ensures that interpretations remain within the boundaries of 
descriptive evidence and conceptual reasoning. 

 
8 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
4.5 Validity, Reliability, and Ethical Considerations 
 
– Content validity was ensured through replication of the 2019 instrument and expert review. 
– Construct reliability was supported by consistent coding rules and methodological 
transparency. 
– Qualitative trustworthiness was strengthened by triangulation, analytic memos, and an 
audit trail 
– Ethical compliance included informed consent, confidentiality assurances, voluntary 
participation, and anonymised reporting. 
– No identifying information was collected. 
5 RESULTS 
 
The results presented below reflect the descriptive empirical patterns observed in 2019 and 
2025. Given the exploratory design and the non-equivalent structure of the two instruments, 
these findings do not evaluate the analytical propositions statistically. Instead, they indicate 
the degree to which the observed patterns appear to align or diverge from the propositions 
formulated in Section 2.3. 
5.1 Quantitative Results 
5.1.1 Organizational Crisis Management Approaches 
A comparison of the 2019 and 2025 survey responses shows a notable shift in crisis 
management strategies. Respondents in 2025 relied more heavily on reactive, ad-hoc 
responses and less on proactive planning than those surveyed in 2019. 
Table 1. Crisis Management Approaches (2019 vs. 2025) 
Crisis Management Strategy 2019 (%) 2025 (%) 
No crises experienced 8 8 
Proactive (predict and prepare) 55 31 
Ad-hoc (reactive) 38 44 
Hiring external experts 26 22 
PR team involvement 25 25 
 
5.1.2 Key Deficiencies in Internal Communication 
The 2025 results show deterioration in horizontal (employee-to-employee) communication, 
while some leadership-to-employee communication indicators show marginal improvement. 
 
 
 

 
9 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Table 2. Reported Communication Deficiencies (2019 vs. 2025) 
Communication Weakness 2019 (%) 2025 (%) 
Between leadership and employees 66 56 
Between employees 42 58 
Lack of transparency — 27 
Lack of organizational understanding 18 23 
Unawareness of goals/vision/values 25 27 
 
 
5.1.3 Impact of Communication Gaps on Daily Work 
Respondents in 2025 reported more dissatisfaction and misunderstandings regarding 
managerial decisions, though fewer noted decreased motivation compared to 2019. 
Table 3. Consequences of Communication Gaps (2019 vs. 2025) 
Consequence 2019 (%) 2025 (%) 
Employee dissatisfaction 27 36 
Low productivity 11 10 
Misunderstanding leadership decisions 27 31 
Decreased motivation 29 23 
 
5.1.4 Perceptions of Crisis Risk 
Respondents in both years overwhelmingly agreed that poor communication can trigger 
crises. 
Table 4. Poor Communication as a Crisis Trigger (2019 vs. 2025) 
Response 2019 (%) 2025 (%) 
Yes 92 96 
No 8 4 
 
5.1.5 Quality of Internal Communication 
Internal communication quality declined between 2019 and 2025, with a pronounced shift 
toward lower ratings. 
 

 
10 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Table 5. Internal Communication Quality (Scale 1–7) 
Score 2019 (%) 2025 (%) 
1 0 5 
2 11 14 
3 12 19 
4 30 23 
5 23 29 
6 21 7 
7 7 4 
 
 
5.1.6 Importance of Internal Communication for Crisis Management 
Agreement with the statement that internal communication is crucial in a crisis increased 
further in 2025. 
Table 6. Importance of Internal Communication in Crisis Management 
Response 2019 (%) 2025 (%) 
Yes 95 98 
No 5 2 
 
5.1.7 Use of Coaching During Crises 
Awareness of coaching increased significantly from 2019 to 2025, while actual use showed 
little change. Non-use increased. 
Table 7. Coaching Use in Crises (2019 vs. 2025) 
Coaching Use 2019 (%) 2025 (%) 
Yes 34 35 
No 43 58 
Unaware of the concept 23 7 
 
5.1.8 Post-COVID Internal Communication Practices (2025 only) 
This item was introduced in the 2025 survey to capture post-crisis digitalization trends. 
 
 

 
11 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Table 8. Post-COVID Communication Changes (2025) 
Response Option 2025 (%) 
No change 13 
Fewer tools than before 4 
More digital tools (do not prefer) 13 
More digital tools (excellent solution) 23 
More traditional tools (effective) 4 
More traditional tools (outdated) 6 
Combination of digital and traditional (effective) 20 
Both tool types introduced → confusion 17 
 
5.1.9 Awareness of Sustainability in Internal Communication (2025 only) 
Respondents varied widely in their perceptions and practices regarding sustainability. 
Table 9. Sustainability in Internal Communication (2025) 
Response Option 2025 (%) 
Sustainability not emphasized 40 
Sustainability irrelevant 8 
New sustainability tools introduced 18 
Sustainability one of core values 27 
Sustainability integrated before ESRS 7 
 
5.2 Qualitative Results (2025 Interviews) 
Nine semi-structured interviews with HR, PR, and leadership professionals provided deeper 
insights into communication and leadership practices. Using reflexive thematic analysis, four 
overarching themes were identified. 
Theme 1: Communication as a Structural Weakness in Organizations 
Interviewees consistently described internal communication as fragmented, inconsistent, or 
overly dependent on individual managers. Several noted that horizontal communication 
deteriorated during and after COVID-19, mirroring the quantitative findings that employee-
to-employee communication problems increased from 42% in 2019 to 58% in 2025. 
Theme 2: Leadership Communication Behaviours and Their Limitations 
Participants highlighted gaps in managerial communication competencies, citing insufficient 
feedback practices, low transparency, and inconsistent messaging. Many linked these issues 
to organizational culture rather than individual responsibility. 
 

 
12 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Theme 3: Coaching as an Underused but Valued Tool 
Respondents viewed coaching positively but described its implementation as sporadic, 
unstructured, and dependent on “champions” rather than systems. The qualitative insights 
correspond to quantitative results showing stagnant coaching usage (34% in 2019; 35% in 
2025) despite rising awareness. 
Theme 4: Sustainability as an Emerging but Uneven Value 
Interviewees reported growing interest in sustainable practices, yet noted that many 
organizations lacked a systematic approach. This aligns with survey results showing 40% of 
organizations do not prioritize sustainability in communication. 
5.3 Summary of Key Comparative Findings and alignment with the propositions 
To support clarity and preparation for the Discussion chapter, the core findings can be 
summarised as follows: 
1. Crisis preparedness declined, with proactive strategies falling from 55% to 31%. 
2. Communication quality deteriorated, especially among employees. 
3. Awareness of coaching increased, but adoption stagnated. 
4. Sustainability remains weakly integrated in most organizations. 
5. Digital communication expanded, but tool overload created confusion for 17% of 
respondents. 
These results reflect a complex post-crisis landscape in which awareness of good practices 
increases, but structural implementation often lags. 
These results partially align with P1, showing clearer procedural formalization in several 
organizations, although implementation remains uneven. These findings strongly align with 
P2, as the perceived inadequacy of employee-to-employee communication increased from 
42% in 2019 to 58% in 2025. The patterns observed moderately align with P3, indicating stable 
recognition of coaching but continued inconsistency in its practical application. 
6 DISCUSSION 
This discussion interprets the findings in relation to the analytical propositions introduced in 
Section 2.3. Because the propositions serve as interpretive anchors rather than testable 
hypotheses, their evaluation is grounded in descriptive patterns rather than statistical 
inference. The purpose of this discussion is therefore not to confirm or reject propositions, 
but to assess the degree to which the observed empirical trends align with theoretically 
informed expectations and with insights from prior research. 
6.1 Internal Communication: Awareness Without Structural Strengthening 
The most salient finding is the deterioration of internal communication quality between 2019 
and 2025. Ratings shifted downward, with a marked increase in low-quality assessments 
(scores 1–3) and a decline in high-quality ratings. This trend signals an erosion of consistency, 
clarity, and relational quality—dimensions that the literature identifies as foundational for 
resilient communication systems (Curado et al., 2022; Yue et al., 2021, Shatilo, 2019). 
The quantitative results show that communication deficiencies between employees 
increased significantly (from 42% in 2019 to 58% in 2025). Qualitative interviewees confirmed 

 
13 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
that horizontal communication became “fragmented,” “unclear,” and “overly dependent on 
informal channels,” echoing the view that digitalization often increases information flow 
while weakening sensemaking if not strategically orchestrated. The post-COVID shift to 
digital and hybrid tools, reported by 23% of respondents as “an excellent solution” but by 
17% as a source of confusion, reinforces the idea that technological adoption without 
harmonized communication structures generates overload and ambiguity. 
These findings align with research stating that digital transformation enhances 
communication efficiency only when supported by clear protocols, relational leadership 
behaviours, and an integration of tools into coherent systems (Gomes et al., 2023; Kumar & 
Hart, 2025; Wang et al., 2024). The observed decline in communication quality despite the 
proliferation of digital tools corroborates this perspective. 
At the same time, nearly all respondents—95% in 2019 and 98% in 2025—recognised internal 
communication as crucial for crisis management. This near-universal acknowledgment 
suggests that awareness is not the primary barrier. Rather, the gap lies in capability, 
structural integration, and leadership behaviours. This distinction between conceptual 
awareness and operational practice mirrors earlier research noting that organizations often 
espouse communication values without embedding the corresponding competencies (Yue et 
al., 2021). 
6.2 Crisis Preparedness: Declining Proactivity Despite Crisis Experience 
One of the most unexpected findings is the reduced prevalence of proactive crisis 
preparedness. In 2019, 55% of respondents reported proactive planning, which declined to 
31% in 2025. Meanwhile, reactive, ad-hoc responses increased from 38% to 44%. This trend 
stands in contrast to the theoretical expectation that crisis exposure—most notably COVID-
19—should intensify preparedness behaviours (Rathore & Arora, 2024). 
The qualitative data help explain this shift. Leaders described crisis management as 
“overwhelming,” “constant,” and “difficult to separate from daily operations,” suggesting 
that the frequency and intensity of crises may have normalized uncertainty to the point 
where structured crisis planning is frequently deprioritised. This phenomenon is consistent 
with complexity leadership theory, which suggests that prolonged volatility increases 
reliance on adaptive, short-term responses rather than structured preparedness. 
Additionally, increased digital communication fragmentation may have weakened the 
capacity for coordinated planning. If communication systems are inconsistent or 
overburdened, sustaining proactive crisis processes becomes more difficult—especially in 
resource-constrained environments. 
Thus, paradoxically, crises may have reduced organizations’ structural readiness for future 
crises, not due to lack of understanding, but due to overstretched capacities. 
6.3 Coaching: Rising Awareness, Stagnant Application 
Coaching awareness improved substantially between 2019 and 2025: respondents unfamiliar 
with the concept decreased from 23% to 7%. However, coaching use in crisis communication 
remained nearly unchanged (34% to 35%), and non-use increased (43% to 58%). This pattern 
suggests the presence of cultural and structural barriers that limit operationalization. 
The qualitative insights show that while leaders value coaching, it is viewed as a 
supplementary activity rather than an embedded component of routine communication 

 
14 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
practices. Interviewees described coaching as dependent on individual champions, echoing 
literature that emphasizes the need for systemic integration—training, incentives, 
modelling—to embed coaching across leadership levels (Passmore, 2021; Seemann et al., 
2024). 
The stagnation in coaching adoption aligns with research suggesting that awareness alone is 
insufficient; organizations require deliberate structures, leadership modelling, and 
reinforcement mechanisms to translate coaching principles into daily communication 
practices (Romão et al., 2022). The increase in awareness without an increase in use 
therefore reflects a misalignment between conceptual recognition and systemic integration. 
6.4 Sustainability: Emerging Value, Limited Internalization 
Sustainability appeared in the 2025 data as an emerging but inconsistently implemented 
communication value. While 27% of respondents considered sustainability one of their core 
organizational values and 7% described sustainability as integrated prior to ESRS, 40% 
reported that sustainability was not emphasised internally and 8% regarded it as irrelevant 
to internal communication. 
Interview participants highlighted Sseveral sustainability initiatives that appear primarily 
symbolic, with limited observable operational implementation —“talked about, but not 
lived”—which aligns with research emphasizing the danger of superficial sustainability 
messaging that does not translate into internal behavioural norms (Alemu & Burrell, 2023). 
This pattern is consistent with global findings showing that organizations often articulate 
sustainability externally before internal communication and HR practices are aligned. 
Internal communication is essential for fostering shared meaning, behavioural change, and 
identification with sustainability values (Rys et al., 2024), yet the data suggest that 
Slovenian organizations are still in the early stages of this internal alignment. 
6.5 Integration of Communication, Coaching, and Sustainability 
The findings show limited integration between the three domains. Communication is 
recognised as critical, coaching is valued but not structurally embedded, and sustainability 
is inconsistently applied. The theoretical framework proposed a triadic model in which 
communication provides structure, coaching provides relational depth, and sustainability 
provides purpose. The empirical findings indicate that organizations rarely implement this 
integrated approach. 
Instead, the three domains remain functionally isolated: 
– communication practices are hindered by tool overload and uneven managerial skill; 
– coaching remains underutilised and is primarily driven by individual initiative rather than 
organisational systems; 
– sustainability-related communication often lacks internal consistency and is not 
systematically linked to behavioural expectations. 
 
This functional separation constrains organisational resilience by preventing the emergence 
of mutually reinforcing capacities such as shared meaning, trust, and long-term orientation—
capacities that the post-crisis literature identifies as essential for navigating complexity 
(Rathore & Arora, 2024; Romão et al., 2022). 

 
15 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
To summarize in the terms of propositions: 
P1 – Formalization of communication structures 
The findings show partial alignment with P1. Several indicators suggest growing procedural 
clarity and increased use of structured communication formats by 2025, consistent with 
digitalization and post-pandemic adaptations. However, discrepancies between formal 
structures and actual managerial behaviours remain. 
P2 – Perceived communication quality 
The findings strongly align with P2. Employees report a noticeable decline in horizontal 
communication quality between 2019 and 2025, which aligns with broader literature on 
role overload, hybrid work tensions, and organizational fragmentation. 
P3 – Conceptual vs. operational coaching 
The findings moderately align with P3. While coaching continues to be recognized and 
valued conceptually, implementation remains inconsistent. Practical uptake has not 
advanced proportionally to growing organizational awareness. 
6.6 Explaining Differences Between 2019 and 2025 
Three systemic factors contribute to explaining the observed changes: 
1. Pandemic-Induced Digitalization 
The accelerated shift to digital communication produced both new possibilities and new 
dysfunctions. Without harmonized structures, rhe use of digital tools increased 
fragmentation and inconsistency, resulting in communication overload —reflected in both 
quantitative and qualitative findings. 
2. Leadership Overextension 
Interviewees repeatedly described leaders as “overwhelmed,” suggesting that the frequency 
of crises may have reduced leaders’ bandwidth for strategic communication, coaching 
behaviours, and crisis planning. 
3. Value–Practice Misalignment 
The rising awareness of communication, coaching, and sustainability reflects cultural 
change. Yet insufficient structural reinforcement—training, role modelling, communication 
systems—has inhibited the translation of values into stable practices. 
The findings suggest that organisational change is constrained not by resistance, but by the 
absence of enabling systemic conditions that enable the institutionalization of 
communication and leadership behaviours over time. 
6.7 Theoretical Implications 
The findings contribute to scholarship in three ways: 

 
16 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
1. They challenge assumptions about organizational learning after crises. Contrary to 
theoretical expectations, crisis experience did not enhance preparedness; instead, 
it revealed structural vulnerabilities. 
2. They highlight the interdependence of communication, coaching, and sustainability. 
The triadic framework is empirically supported: weaknesses in one domain amplify 
weaknesses in the others. 
3. They show the limits of awareness-based change. Conceptual recognition does not 
produce behavioural or structural change without systemic reinforcement. 
6.8 Managerial Implications 
For practitioners, the findings emphasize the need to: 
1. Redesign internal communication systems to reduce tool overload, increase 
transparency, and strengthen horizontal communication. 
2. Embed coaching competencies into leadership development and performance 
frameworks rather than offering coaching as an isolated intervention. 
3. Integrate sustainability into daily communication routines, not only external 
reporting, to avoid symbolic implementation. 
4. Prioritize crisis preparedness by establishing clear structures and roles, even in 
environments characterised by constant change. 
7 CONCLUSION 
This study formulated three analytical propositions to orient the descriptive comparison 
between 2019 and 2025. The findings reveal varying degrees of alignment with these 
propositions, offering insight into the evolution of communication structures, perceived 
communication quality, and managerial coaching practices in Slovenian organizations. While 
the observed trends support theoretically grounded expectations, they remain descriptive 
and cannot be generalized beyond the studied samples. 
Three overarching conclusions emerge. 
First, internal communication remains broadly recognized as a critical organisational 
function, yet its structural quality deteriorated between 2019 and 2025. Although nearly all 
respondents acknowledged its importance for crisis management, communication systems 
became more fragmented, less transparent, and increasingly burdened by digital tool 
proliferation. The findings demonstrate that awareness alone does not translate into 
coherent communication architecture or relational communication competence. 
Second, coaching demonstrates a similar awareness–practice gap. While familiarity with 
coaching grew markedly over the six-year period, its application did not increase in any 
meaningful way. Coaching behaviours were rarely institutionalised and remained dependent 
on individual leaders rather than organizational systems. This stagnation highlights the 
persistent difficulty organizations face in embedding relational leadership practices into 
everyday communication routines. 
Third, sustainability surfaced as a growing but unevenly internalised value. Although some 
organizations began integrating sustainability into internal communication, the majority did 
not prioritise these practices, and some respondents considered them irrelevant. This 
indicates that sustainability discourse has not yet matured into a coherent internal 
communication norm capable of shaping shared meaning or behaviour. 

 
17 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Taken together, the findings depict organizations positioned at the intersection of rising 
expectations and insufficient structural reinforcement. Communication, coaching, and 
sustainability—three domains theoretically capable of generating organisational resilience—
remain only partially integrated. The empirical evidence shows that while values and 
intentions evolved between 2019 and 2025, organisational systems, processes, and 
competencies did not develop at a rate consistent with contextual changes. 
The study contributes to theory by challenging the assumption that crises naturally generate 
organisational learning, showing instead that persistent volatility may constrain the 
development of more formalised organisational structures. It underscores the importance of 
alignment across communication structures, leadership behaviours, and sustainability values 
as a prerequisite for resilient organisational cultures. For practitioners, the research 
highlights the necessity of deliberate system design: communication protocols, leadership 
development frameworks, and sustainability narratives must be explicitly connected rather 
than treated as isolated initiatives. 
Overall, the study concludes that Slovenian organizations possess a clear conceptual 
understanding of the importance of internal communication, coaching, and sustainability, 
but face enduring challenges in translating this understanding into consistent, 
institutionalised practice. Strengthening this translation process is essential for developing 
resilient, adaptive, and purpose-driven organizational cultures capable of navigating future 
crises. 
7.1 Limitations 
Several methodological and contextual limitations should be acknowledged to ensure an 
accurate interpretation of the findings. 
First, the study relies on non-probabilistic convenience samples in both 2019 and 2025. 
Although this approach ensured comparability across the two periods, it restricts the 
generalizability of results to the broader population of Slovenian organizations. Respondents 
self-selected into the surveys and may disproportionately represent individuals with stronger 
views on internal communication and leadership practices. 
Second, the quantitative component is limited to descriptive and comparative analysis. 
Because the 2019 instrument did not include validated multi-item scales or inferential 
indicators, introducing statistical modelling or hypothesis testing in the 2025 dataset would 
have violated methodological continuity. As a result, differences between 2019 and 2025 are 
interpreted as indicative trends rather than statistically confirmed effects. 
Third, the study relies on self-reported perceptions of communication, leadership behaviour, 
and sustainability. These perceptions may be shaped by personal experiences, organizational 
culture, and retrospective biases. Objective measures—such as communication audits, 
document analyses, or behavioural observations—were beyond the scope of the original 
research design and therefore not included. 
Fourth, the qualitative sample in 2025 consists of nine interviewees, purposefully selected 
for their roles in leadership, HR, and communication. Although their insights enrich the 
interpretation of survey findings, the sample does not capture the full diversity of employee 
perspectives across sectors, hierarchical levels, or organizational types. Moreover, 
qualitative data reflect post-pandemic interpretations that may differ from earlier or future 
experiences. 

 
18 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Fifth, contextual differences between 2019 and 2025 complicate longitudinal comparison. 
The COVID-19 pandemic, rapid digitalization, regulatory changes (e.g., ESRS), labour-market 
fluctuations, and economic uncertainty all shaped the 2025 context in ways that could not 
have been anticipated in 2019. These external factors likely influenced communication 
systems, leadership behaviour, and sustainability expectations. 
Sixth; because the propositions were interpretive rather than statistical, the findings cannot 
serve as a basis for causal or inferential claims. 
Finally, the integration of sustainability items occurred only in the 2025 study. As a result, 
longitudinal comparison in this dimension is limited, and the analysis of sustainability-
related communication reflects only contemporary attitudes and practices. 
Despite these limitations, the mixed-method design, methodological consistency with the 
2019 study, and triangulation between quantitative and qualitative evidence provide a 
robust foundation for examining change processes in internal communication, coaching 
adoption, and sustainability integration within Slovenian organizations. 
7.2 Future Research Directions 
Building on the findings and limitations of this study, several avenues for future research 
emerge that may deepen theoretical understanding and support the development of more 
effective internal communication, coaching, and sustainability practices in organizations. 
Future studies should operationalize these analytical propositions into statistically testable 
hypotheses using standardized instruments and probabilistic sampling, which would enable 
more robust inferential analysis and stronger external validity. 
First, future studies should employ probability-based or stratified sampling strategies to 
ensure broader representativeness across sectors and organizational types. While 
convenience sampling provided valuable initial insights, a more systematic sampling 
approach would strengthen external validity and allow for sector-level comparisons—for 
example, between public and private organizations or between SMEs and large enterprises. 
Second, future research should incorporate validated multi-item measurement scales for 
constructs such as communication quality, psychological safety, coaching leadership 
behaviours, and sustainability orientation. The 2019 survey’s design restricted the analytical 
depth of the longitudinal comparison. Developing a standardized instrument would enable 
inferential statistics, structural modelling, and robust hypothesis testing in future 
longitudinal or cross-national studies. 
Third, researchers should complement self-reported data with objective or behavioural 
measures of communication and leadership. These could include communication audits, 
content analysis of internal messages, network analysis of communication flows, or 
observational assessments of leadership interactions. Such methodological diversification 
would reduce perceptual bias and enrich the understanding of how communication and 
coaching behaviours are enacted in practice. 
Fourth, the qualitative component should be expanded to include a wider range of employee 
voices. Future studies might incorporate focus groups or narrative interviews across 
hierarchical levels, departments, and demographic groups. This would capture 
organizational communication as a multivocal phenomenon and yield deeper insights into 
how employees make sense of leadership signals, sustainability messages, and crisis 
communication processes. 

 
19 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Fifth, future research should examine the integration of sustainability within internal 
communication systems in greater depth. As sustainability-related communication was 
introduced only in the 2025 dataset, longitudinal evidence is still lacking. Studies could 
investigate how employees interpret sustainability values, how sustainability narratives 
evolve within organizations, and how communication practices influence alignment between 
external CSR commitments and internal culture. 
Sixth, comparative international research would provide valuable contextual insights. 
Comparing Slovenian organizations with those in neighbouring EU countries could highlight 
cultural, regulatory, and institutional factors that shape communication, coaching adoption, 
and sustainability integration. Given the growing impact of ESRS and CSRD across the EU, 
such cross-country comparisons would also illuminate readiness levels and implementation 
trajectories. 
Seventh, future research should investigate the effects of hybrid and digital communication 
ecosystems on relational communication quality, trust, and leadership visibility. 
Digitalization emerged in this study as both an enabler and a source of fragmentation. 
Longitudinal digital ethnographies or diary studies could offer nuanced perspectives on how 
employees navigate information overload, digital fatigue, and tool proliferation. 
Finally, studies should explore the mechanisms through which communication, coaching, and 
sustainability interact as a system. The triadic framework proposed in this research provides 
a conceptual starting point, but empirical testing—potentially through mediation or 
moderation models—could clarify whether and how these domains reinforce one another. 
Such research would contribute to a more systemic understanding of organizational 
resilience and cultural adaptation in post-crisis environments. 
Taken together, these research directions underscore the need for more rigorous 
measurement, greater methodological diversity, broader sampling, and deeper analysis of 
dynamic interactions between communication, leadership, and sustainability. Addressing 
these gaps will support both theoretical advancement and more effective organizational 
practice. 
REFERENCES 
Alemu, B., & Burrell, D. N. (2023). Exploring Green Human Resources, Corporate Social 
Responsibility, and Internal Organization Sustainability Strategy. 
https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.3.129 
Bodolica, V., Spraggon, M., & Zaidi, S. M. H. (2020). Building organizational resilience 
through strategic internal communication. Journal of Business Strategy, 41(6), 41–49. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-06-2020-0142 
Braun, V ., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative 
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 
Chenguang, H., Kyung Hwan, Y ., Ziqi, S. & Chang, X. (2022). Effective Crisis Management 
during Adversity: Organizing Resilience Capabilities of Firms and Sustainable 
Performance during COVID-19. Sustainbility, 14(20), 13664. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013664 
Curado, C., Henriques, P. L., Jerónimo, H. M.  & Azevedo J (2022). The contribution of 
communication to employee satisfaction in service firms: A causal configurational 
analysis. Journal of Business Research, 149, 745–755. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262922110 
Cvikl Postružnik, N., & Lesar, N. (2019). Coaching in odnosi z javnostmi za odgovornejšo 
družbo. Doba Fakulteta. 

 
20 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Gomes, R., Bezerra, F., & Trez, G. (2023). An exploratory analysis of internal 
communication in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Business and Organizational 
Excellence, 42(2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22168 
Gutaman, P . K. (2024). Crisis to Resilience: Cultivation Effective Internal Communication 
for Employee Engagement and Organizational Trust. Quest Journal of Management and 
Social Science, 6(3), 559-571. 
Insights d.o.o. (2025). Analiza ankete [Unpublished internal report] 
Kaputzis, N., Whiley, L. A., Yarker, J., & Lewis, R. (2023). Coaching culture: An evidence 
review and framework for future research and practice. Coaching: An International 
Journal of Theory Research and Practice, 17 (2), 1-27. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2023.2250458  
Kim, Y . (2021). Building organizational resilience through strategic internal communication 
and organization–employee relationships. Journal of Applied Communication 
Research, 49(5), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2021.1910856 
Lu, Y ., Wang, L., & Xu, J. (2023). Sustainable human resource management practices 
positively affect employee resilience, work engagement, and innovation. Human 
Resource Management, 62(1), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22153 
Passmore, J. (2021). The coaches handbook: The Complete Practitioner Guide for 
Professional Coaches. Routledge. 
Rathore, S., & Arora, M. (2024). Strategizing in Turmoil: Unveiling Effective Internal Crisis 
Communication Practices amidst Contemporary Disruptions. Journal of Communication 
and Management, 3(03), 265-275. https://doi.org/10.58966/JCM20243312  
Romão, S., Ribeiro, N., Gomes, D. R., & Singh, S. (2022). The Impact of Leaders’ Coaching 
Skills on Employees’ Happiness and Turnover Intention. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12(3), 84. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030084 
Rys, M., Schollaert, E., & Van Hoye, G. (2024). Living the employer brand during a crisis? A 
qualitative study on internal employer branding in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
PLOS ONE, 19(5), Article e0303361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303361 
Seemann, P., Štofkova, Z., Poliakova, A., Biňasova, V., Loučanova, E. (2024). Coaching 
approach as a sustainable Means of Improving the Skills of Management Students. 
Administrative Sciences, 14, 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14060114  
Shatilo, O. (2019). The Impact of External and Internal Factors on Strategic Management of 
Innovation Processes at the Company Level. Ekonomika, 98(2), 85–96. 
https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2019.2.6 
Wang, Q., Hong, S. Pitafi, A. H. & Hangeldiyeva, N. (2024). The dark side of enterprise 
social media and employee digital creativity: Communiciation visibility perspective. 
ScienceDirect, 10, 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37756  
Yue, C. A., Men, L. R. & Berger, B. K. (2021). Leaders as Communication Agents. In: Men, 
L.R., Tkalac Verčič, A. (eds) Current Trends and Issues in Internal Communication. New 
Perspectives in Organizational Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 19-38. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78213-9_2 
Yue, C. A., Men, L. R., Mitson, R., Davis, D. Z., & Zhou, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence for 
internal communication: Strategies, challenges and implications. Public Relation 
Review, 50 (5), 102515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102515 
Zhang Q, Dai W, Chen J, Gu Y , Zhao Y (2025) The ‘side effects’ of digitalization: A study on 
role overload and job burnout of employees. PLoS One 20(4): e0322112. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322112 
  

 
21 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT (QUANTITATIVE STUDY) 
The 2025 survey replicated the core structure of the 2019 instrument, with several 
additional items introduced in 2025 to capture pandemic-related communication changes 
and sustainability practices. Unless otherwise stated, response options were closed-ended 
and single-choice. 
A1. Demographic Items 
1. Gender 
– Female 
– Male 
– Other / Prefer not to say 
2. Age group 
– Up to 30 
– 31–39 
– 40–49 
– 50–60 
– 61+ 
3. Type/size of organisation 
– Micro (1–10 employees) 
– Small (11–50 employees) 
– Medium (51–250 employees) 
– Large (250+) 
A2. Crisis Management Practices 
Q1. How does your organisation respond to crisis situations? 
(multiple responses allowed) 
– We do not experience crises. 
– We anticipate crises and prepare proactively. 
– We respond ad-hoc when the crisis occurs. 
– We hire external experts. 
– Our PR department prepares crisis communication plans and conducts communication 
training. 
A3. Internal Communication Challenges 
Q2. Where do you observe shortcomings in internal communication? 
(multiple responses allowed) 
– Insufficient leadership–employee communication. 
– Insufficient communication among employees. 
– Lack of transparency. 
– Lack of understanding of organisational operations. 
– Employees do not understand goals, vision, and values. 
A4. Impact of Communication Gaps 
Q3. How do these shortcomings manifest in everyday work? 
(multiple responses allowed) 
– Employee dissatisfaction. 
– Low productivity. 
– Misunderstanding of leadership decisions. 
– Loss of motivation. 

 
22 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
A5. Crisis Risk Perception 
Q4. Can poor communication cause a crisis within the organisation? 
– Yes 
– No 
A6. Internal Communication Quality 
Q5. How would you assess the quality of internal communication in your organisation? 
Scale: 1 = Very poor … 7 = Excellent 
Options: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 
A7. Perceived Importance of Internal Communication 
Q6. Is internal communication crucial for crisis management? 
– Yes 
– No 
A7. Use of Coaching in Crisis 
Q7. Do you use coaching as a communication tool in crises? 
– Yes 
– No 
– I am not familiar with this tool 
A8. Post-COVID Changes in Communication Tools (Introduced in 2025) 
Q8. How has communication with employees changed after COVID-19 and other crises? 
(multiple responses allowed) 
– No change. 
– We have fewer tools than before COVID-19. 
– We introduced more digital tools, which we do not like. 
– We introduced more digital tools, which we like. 
– We introduced more classical tools. 
– We use more classical tools, which feels outdated. 
– We introduced both classical and digital tools, which works well. 
– We introduced both classical and digital tools, which causes confusion. 
A9. Sustainability in Internal Communication (Introduced in 2025) 
Q9. How does your organisation integrate sustainability in communication with employees? 
(multiple responses allowed) 
– We do not emphasise sustainability. 
– Sustainability is irrelevant. 
– We introduced one new sustainability-related tool. 
– We introduced several sustainability tools; sustainability became a core value. 
– We used sustainability tools before ESRS and continued afterwards. 
A10. Coding Procedures 
– Multiple-response items were coded dichotomously (0 = option not selected; 1 = option 
selected). 
– Single-response items were coded according to ordinal or nominal logic as applicable. 

 
23 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
– Items Q8–Q9 were coded only in 2025, and treated as non-comparable with the 2019 
dataset. 
– No imputation was applied; only fully observed responses were included. 
APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUALITATIVE CODING PROTOCOL 
B1. Purpose and Structure 
The 2025 qualitative component followed a semi-structured design to explore leadership 
perspectives on internal communication, crisis management, coaching use, and 
sustainability. The guide included 11 core questions with optional prompts. 
Participants included HR Directors, PR leads, and senior managers across organisations of 
different sizes and sectors. 
B2. Interview Guide 
1. Leadership perspective on employees 
– How do you view employees from the perspective of organisational leadership? 
2. Employees as organisational pillars 
– Do you agree that employees are the core pillar of any organisation? Please 
explain. 
3. Employee satisfaction and motivation 
– How does your organisation foster employee satisfaction and motivation? 
4. Internal communication processes 
– How does internal communication function in your organisation? 
5. Role of PR / communication structures 
– What role does the PR department play? 
– If absent, who fulfils this communication role? 
– Are other departments involved? 
6. Experience with crisis situations 
– Has your organisation faced crises? 
– How often? 
– Can you describe them? 
7. Communication in crisis 
– How did internal communication unfold during the crisis? 
8. Role of communication in resolving crises 
– Can appropriate communication and employee relations resolve a crisis? 
– Which other factors contribute? 
9. Role of employees in crisis management 
– How did employees contribute to resolving the crisis? 
10. Quality of internal communication before and after crisis 
– How do you assess communication quality before and after COVID-19? 
11. Tools and sustainability 
– Did you change communication tools after COVID-19? 
– Do you communicate corporate social responsibility and sustainability to 
employees? 
B3. Qualitative Analytic Procedure 
A reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) was applied. The following protocol 
was adhered to: 

 
24 
Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 2025 / Vol. 17 / No. 2 
Stage 1: Familiarisation 
– Interviewers transcribed all responses verbatim. 
– Researchers independently read transcripts multiple times. 
Stage 2: Initial Coding 
– Line-by-line open coding was performed using inductive logic. 
– Coding captured semantic content (e.g., “employees as co-creators”) and latent meaning 
(e.g., “emotional safety”). 
– No pre-defined codebook was imposed. 
Stage 3: Axial Coding and Categorisation 
– Codes were clustered into higher-order categories (e.g., Leadership–Employee Relations, 
Crisis Communication Practices, Post-COVID Tool Evolution). 
– Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through peer-debriefing among the three 
authors. 
Stage 4: Theme Construction 
– Categories were synthesised into thematic clusters aligned with research questions (e.g., 
“Employees as Strategic Co-Creators,” “Communication as Crisis Infrastructure,” “Partial 
Adoption of Coaching”). 
Stage 5: Validation 
– Member checking was not feasible for confidentiality reasons. 
– Internal audit trail and analytic memos ensured transparency. 
– Themes were reviewed for internal coherence and external distinctiveness. 
Software 
No qualitative software was used; coding was done manually and stored in shared 
documents following an audit-trail procedure.