Irrespective of how well-developed a crisis plan and how effectively it is implemented, if a company fails to effectively communicate the measures taken, stakeholders may still perceive the organization as unconcerned or uncaring. Thus, crisis management is both a question of the stakeholders' perceptions and a matter of recovery.
Organizations that have developed over time solid relationships with their stakeholders and a strong brand have higher chances of recovering after a crisis. However, brand image comprises various elements such as performance, governance, social policies, and ethics all of which fluctuate and hinge on the perceptions of diverse constituencies such as employees, consumers, investors, or public opinion who react vis-à-vis brands (Vernier, 2008).
Building relationships with stakeholders and emphasizing good will increase the chances of successful crisis management. Today, the crisis management strategies need to involve two elements that could prove to be challenging: the new media or the citizen journalism and the environment. Communities in which corporations operate expect them to be environmental friendly and thus, the former need to incorporate environmental issues into their organizational lore. Concern for the environment cannot occur in a vacuum, but rather it should be "a logical extension of an enterprise-wide culture of environmental management and stewardship that factor into an organization's overall corporate reputation and brand identity" (Oltmanns, 2008). If corporations include concern for the environment only at the moment when they are compelled by circumstances to face a crisis, they risk being perceived as insincere and disingenuous (Oltmanns, 2008). In order to integrate environmental issues into their lore, organizations should demonstrate environmental leadership (be committed to sound environmental management practices) and establish credible environmental partnerships (take active roles in the agenda and programs of environmental organizations) -- (Oltmanns, 2008).
Another factor of challenge but also of opportunity is the internet. Today's Web 2.0 changed the way organizations respond to crisis by limiting their time for preparation and by transforming disgruntled and angry voices into "experts" writing on blogs, whose credibility may not be questioned while their identity is cloaked (Bridgeman, 2008). In order to transform the challenge of the new media and of the citizen journalism into an opportunity in times of crisis, organizations should be ready to change their Q&A type of response from a decade ago into an online dialogue. Effective crisis communication in the Web 2.0 era requires that organizations apportion time and resources into engaging in dialogue with stakeholders, disgruntled consumers, but also with total strangers, supporters or detractors, etc. By engaging in dialogue with various constituencies, organizations allow them to take part in the crisis management process which, in turn renders the organizations as "caring" and "open" and may attract new consumers. Yet, it is important to note that, in times of crisis, managers from various corporate departments should be willing to engage in online dialogues and thus be prepared to regard the Web 2.0 as a medium that provides conversation and not debate (Oltmanns, 2008).
The importance that Web 2.0 and the environment play in the crisis management response should be analyzed using various case studies that could compare organizational responses from the perspective of the SCCT (Situational Crisis Communication Theory, Coombs-2002) or the Theory of Image Restoration Discourse (Benoit, 1995)and by having as units of analysis the online interaction between the organization's representatives and its stakeholders. Such a content analysis could determine the effectiveness of the crisis management response and add on the existing crisis management literature.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Ulmer, R.R., Sellnow, T.L., & Seeger, M.W. (2007). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Unique moments in the history of an organization that can create high levels of uncertainty and threaten an organization's high-priority goals, crises, if managed through effective communication skills, can create opportunities of renewal (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2009).
However, most of the crisis managers tend to focus on the financial and emotional distress that crises may engender instead of concentrating on the positive changes that effective crisis management can bring about. Sitkin (1996) argued that failure for example, is essential in the learning process of an organization. Yet, not all failures are conducive to effective risk management- rganizations learn best from intelligent failures, which have the following characteristics: they result from carefully planned actions, are modest in scale, are responded to with alacrity, and take place in domains that are so familiar as to permit efficient learning. Consequently, after each crisis, or during small failures that take place in the process of risk management, organizations have the opportunity to collect information and to critically analyze it, thus contributing through their results and experience to the organizational memory.. Additionally, vicarious learning also contributes to the organizational experience and expertise- the concept refers to acquiring information about crises that struck similar organization in the past.
Though it may sound contradictory, an organization that does not engage in an unlearning process, cannot successfully engage in crisis management that leads to renewal. Specifically, since organizations exist in an environment that is changing incessantly, they have to continuously adapt to the expectations that are extant in the macrosystem. Therefore, strategies and tactics that may have worked effectivelz in past crises, may not be effective in future ones. Being willing "to unlearn" obsolete responses to crises can thus be conducive to renewal.
It is important to point out that organizations that did not set strong ethical standards and did not develop mutual beneficial relationships with their stakeholders prior to the crisis, may find it hard to frame the crisis in such a way so that they can transform it into an opportunity. Moreover, for the opportunity of renewal to arise, the crisis response should go beyond shifting the blame or escaping blame. (e.g., the effective response in the case of the plant fire at Malden Mills).
The crisis management literature emphasizes the importance of a clear message that the spokesperson should deliver. Yet, the authors suggest that, until the circumstances of the event are unbeknowst to the management, the response should entail elements of uncertainty so that a later response can be adapted as new information comes to surface. The use of ambiguity in crisis responses is ethical as long as it contributes to a better understanding of the event by allowing for several interpretations and views until more pieces of information about who/what caused the tragic event come to light.
For an organization to face opportunity of renewal, it also needs to deliver a crisis response that balances the technological-centered approach with the dialogue-centered approach, thus opting to both listen to the voices of the stakeholders and provide scientific and reliable details.
Moving beyond the negative aspects of a crisis is a laborious process whose onset is traced in the values of the company, its relationships with its primary and secondary stakeholders but also in its leadership (authoritarian, democratic, laissez-fair, or contingent). Lastly, there are seven major potential positive results that a crisis can lead to(Meyers & Holusha, 1986):
1. Heroes are born.
2. Change is accelerated.
3. Latent problems are faced.
4. People are changed (a crisis shakes the system of values/beliefs)
5. New strategies evolve (organizational memory).
6. Early warning systems develop.
7. New competitive advantages appear.
However, most of the crisis managers tend to focus on the financial and emotional distress that crises may engender instead of concentrating on the positive changes that effective crisis management can bring about. Sitkin (1996) argued that failure for example, is essential in the learning process of an organization. Yet, not all failures are conducive to effective risk management- rganizations learn best from intelligent failures, which have the following characteristics: they result from carefully planned actions, are modest in scale, are responded to with alacrity, and take place in domains that are so familiar as to permit efficient learning. Consequently, after each crisis, or during small failures that take place in the process of risk management, organizations have the opportunity to collect information and to critically analyze it, thus contributing through their results and experience to the organizational memory.. Additionally, vicarious learning also contributes to the organizational experience and expertise- the concept refers to acquiring information about crises that struck similar organization in the past.
Though it may sound contradictory, an organization that does not engage in an unlearning process, cannot successfully engage in crisis management that leads to renewal. Specifically, since organizations exist in an environment that is changing incessantly, they have to continuously adapt to the expectations that are extant in the macrosystem. Therefore, strategies and tactics that may have worked effectivelz in past crises, may not be effective in future ones. Being willing "to unlearn" obsolete responses to crises can thus be conducive to renewal.
It is important to point out that organizations that did not set strong ethical standards and did not develop mutual beneficial relationships with their stakeholders prior to the crisis, may find it hard to frame the crisis in such a way so that they can transform it into an opportunity. Moreover, for the opportunity of renewal to arise, the crisis response should go beyond shifting the blame or escaping blame. (e.g., the effective response in the case of the plant fire at Malden Mills).
The crisis management literature emphasizes the importance of a clear message that the spokesperson should deliver. Yet, the authors suggest that, until the circumstances of the event are unbeknowst to the management, the response should entail elements of uncertainty so that a later response can be adapted as new information comes to surface. The use of ambiguity in crisis responses is ethical as long as it contributes to a better understanding of the event by allowing for several interpretations and views until more pieces of information about who/what caused the tragic event come to light.
For an organization to face opportunity of renewal, it also needs to deliver a crisis response that balances the technological-centered approach with the dialogue-centered approach, thus opting to both listen to the voices of the stakeholders and provide scientific and reliable details.
Moving beyond the negative aspects of a crisis is a laborious process whose onset is traced in the values of the company, its relationships with its primary and secondary stakeholders but also in its leadership (authoritarian, democratic, laissez-fair, or contingent). Lastly, there are seven major potential positive results that a crisis can lead to(Meyers & Holusha, 1986):
1. Heroes are born.
2. Change is accelerated.
3. Latent problems are faced.
4. People are changed (a crisis shakes the system of values/beliefs)
5. New strategies evolve (organizational memory).
6. Early warning systems develop.
7. New competitive advantages appear.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
In their attempt to restore their image and prove legitimate after harsh criticisms are leveled against them, organizations seek to engage in ritualistic forms of communication through which they enter a public confessional dominated by themes of guilt and restoration.
At times, the corporate discourse tends to benefit rhetorically from the ambiguity of the terms apologia and apology. Etymologically, the word apologia comes from the Greek terms “apo” (away, absolve) and “logia” (speech) therefore apologia stands for a speech in defense. Conversely, apology, a much newer term means the offering of mea culpa or the acceptance of guilt. Hearit (2006) considers that it is precisely because of this ambiguity of terms that audiences may perceive an organization as contrite while the latter only engages in a discourse of apologia aimed at evading future litigation.
Moreover, although an apologia may contain an apology, it is merely “a defense that seeks to present a compelling, counter description of organizational action” (Hearit, 1994). Therefore, apologiae are good stories that audiences may find credible based on the plausible accounting of facts presented by rhetors.
Studies of apologia and apology fall under the umbrella of crisis management and explore the attempt of corporations to extricate themselves from blame and restore/renew their tarnished image.
For Hearit (2006) the corporate discourse is a source that has both a communicative and a managerial dimension. More specifically, from a communicative perspective, discourses can frame or shape the perceptions of a crisis through the way in which the crisis is defined (e.g., accident vs human/technological error). In other words, the corporate discourse can create meaning and exert influence on how a crisis is perceived and judged by various stakeholders. Additionally, discourses have a managerial dimension in the sense that they can be put to use similarly to corporate resources such as money, employees, or technology. Regarded through this lens, the public relation function should become part of the dominant coalition, a component of the organization’s strategic mix with the purpose of “bringing about strategic, political, or marketplace advantage.”
Playing a paramount role in the corporate discourse, apologiae and apologies seek to reestablish the image-based social relationships by rendering them legitimate (useful and socially responsible). The image that stakeholders have of an organization stems from direct and indirect interactions with the latter. It is rather an interpretation of the way in which corporations communicate about themselves as well as of the intermittent past experiences that individuals have had with an organization.
The prototypical apologia according to Hearit (2006) entails five strategies: denial (we didn’t do it), counterattack (denial combined with pointing the finger at the accuser), differentiation (we are to some degree responsible but it was an accident/an anomaly,nothing representative of who we are), apology (engaging in corrective action), and legal (no comments-talk to our lawyers!).
Regardless of which of these strategies an organization chooses to combine and employ in its attempts of image restoration, the performance of an apologia is but a public performance of a ritual that aims at propitiating the guilt through confession, the reacceptance of the societal values, and of the current order. More precisely, the organization affirms its adherence to the values it broke and hence apologia is a confirmation of the norms and the societal values by which organizations need to abide. Apologia completes a cycle of order, guilt, and redemption and the community can move forward with the recognition that the values are vital and valid.
Apologia as a ritual implies not only delivering the right content that would extricate organizations from their guilt, but also making use of aesthetical modes of communication, demonstrating communication competence and meeting generic expectations:did the performer really mean he was sorry? Was that a bona fide concern? Additionally, apologia needs to be delivered at the right time. Regrets that are displayed too early could lead to the conclusion that the corporation did not ponder enough on its wrongdoing, whereas regrets expressed too late might show that the apologist is condescending and not caring. In crisis management, time does not heal wounds but rather, it makes new ones (Tavuchis, 1991). Further on, apologia as a ritual also implies that it needs to be delivered voluntarily while at the same time it should be socially constructed and reproduce the prevailing social structure. Lastly, apologia has to be characterized by gravity and sincerity; it is a serious ritual that lacks levity and its sincerity and seriousness lend it a sacred dimension.
With regard to the public relations ethics that should determine the decision-making process in crisis management, Hearit (2006) proposes that casuistry be more in depth dealt with in developing paradigms of judging apologetic communication. Further on, he suggests an ideal paradigm that would help determine the morality of the apologia that corporations delivered. By comparing crisis management responses to the ideal paradigm and empirical data regarding the (in)effectiveness of the response in the media coverage that followed, researchers are able to determine the tactics and strategies to be shunned in the future.
Unlike other models of crisis communication, casuistry lays a primary emphasis on the victims of the crisis and, similarly, on stakeholders who have been the least willing to consent to the injury risk. The paradigm consists of two elements: the manner and the content of communication. However,it acknowledges that there could complicating circumstances (catastrophic financial losses, grave liability concerns, a moral learning curve, the problem of full disclosure, and discretion) that avert an organization from coming close to the ideal and that, such situations should be taken into account when analyzing apologetic discourse.
Hearit’s (2006) paradigm entails means of communication such as truthfulness and sincerity and seeks to determine whether the corporate response was delivered in a timely fashion, voluntarily and whether it addressed all the stakeholders. Equally important is that apologia be performed in the appropriate context (site, location, medium). Additionally, apologia should acknowledge the wrongdoing, accept responsibility, express regret and ask for forgiveness. An apologetic discourse is effective if it accomplishes to create a bond between the corporation and the injured and help the former identify with the stakeholders affected by the crisis. For this purpose, the content of apologia should be comprised of a full disclosure of the information related to the tragic event, and it should explain and inform on compensation and corrective action.
From the perspective of this paradigm, apologetic discourses of individuals (Bill Clinton), institutions (The Catholic Church), non-profit organizations (The Red Cross), as well as corporations (Toyota) can be analyzed to determine the extent to which their response was (un)ethical for the final purpose of statistically evaluating how aplogia affected its performance to follow.
The importance of further studies on apologia lies in the fact that, by aiming at restoring their image,their relationships with stakeholders, and their social legitimacy, corporations also reestablish the legitimacy of the capitalism as an economic order.
In their attempt to restore their image and prove legitimate after harsh criticisms are leveled against them, organizations seek to engage in ritualistic forms of communication through which they enter a public confessional dominated by themes of guilt and restoration.
At times, the corporate discourse tends to benefit rhetorically from the ambiguity of the terms apologia and apology. Etymologically, the word apologia comes from the Greek terms “apo” (away, absolve) and “logia” (speech) therefore apologia stands for a speech in defense. Conversely, apology, a much newer term means the offering of mea culpa or the acceptance of guilt. Hearit (2006) considers that it is precisely because of this ambiguity of terms that audiences may perceive an organization as contrite while the latter only engages in a discourse of apologia aimed at evading future litigation.
Moreover, although an apologia may contain an apology, it is merely “a defense that seeks to present a compelling, counter description of organizational action” (Hearit, 1994). Therefore, apologiae are good stories that audiences may find credible based on the plausible accounting of facts presented by rhetors.
Studies of apologia and apology fall under the umbrella of crisis management and explore the attempt of corporations to extricate themselves from blame and restore/renew their tarnished image.
For Hearit (2006) the corporate discourse is a source that has both a communicative and a managerial dimension. More specifically, from a communicative perspective, discourses can frame or shape the perceptions of a crisis through the way in which the crisis is defined (e.g., accident vs human/technological error). In other words, the corporate discourse can create meaning and exert influence on how a crisis is perceived and judged by various stakeholders. Additionally, discourses have a managerial dimension in the sense that they can be put to use similarly to corporate resources such as money, employees, or technology. Regarded through this lens, the public relation function should become part of the dominant coalition, a component of the organization’s strategic mix with the purpose of “bringing about strategic, political, or marketplace advantage.”
Playing a paramount role in the corporate discourse, apologiae and apologies seek to reestablish the image-based social relationships by rendering them legitimate (useful and socially responsible). The image that stakeholders have of an organization stems from direct and indirect interactions with the latter. It is rather an interpretation of the way in which corporations communicate about themselves as well as of the intermittent past experiences that individuals have had with an organization.
The prototypical apologia according to Hearit (2006) entails five strategies: denial (we didn’t do it), counterattack (denial combined with pointing the finger at the accuser), differentiation (we are to some degree responsible but it was an accident/an anomaly,nothing representative of who we are), apology (engaging in corrective action), and legal (no comments-talk to our lawyers!).
Regardless of which of these strategies an organization chooses to combine and employ in its attempts of image restoration, the performance of an apologia is but a public performance of a ritual that aims at propitiating the guilt through confession, the reacceptance of the societal values, and of the current order. More precisely, the organization affirms its adherence to the values it broke and hence apologia is a confirmation of the norms and the societal values by which organizations need to abide. Apologia completes a cycle of order, guilt, and redemption and the community can move forward with the recognition that the values are vital and valid.
Apologia as a ritual implies not only delivering the right content that would extricate organizations from their guilt, but also making use of aesthetical modes of communication, demonstrating communication competence and meeting generic expectations:did the performer really mean he was sorry? Was that a bona fide concern? Additionally, apologia needs to be delivered at the right time. Regrets that are displayed too early could lead to the conclusion that the corporation did not ponder enough on its wrongdoing, whereas regrets expressed too late might show that the apologist is condescending and not caring. In crisis management, time does not heal wounds but rather, it makes new ones (Tavuchis, 1991). Further on, apologia as a ritual also implies that it needs to be delivered voluntarily while at the same time it should be socially constructed and reproduce the prevailing social structure. Lastly, apologia has to be characterized by gravity and sincerity; it is a serious ritual that lacks levity and its sincerity and seriousness lend it a sacred dimension.
With regard to the public relations ethics that should determine the decision-making process in crisis management, Hearit (2006) proposes that casuistry be more in depth dealt with in developing paradigms of judging apologetic communication. Further on, he suggests an ideal paradigm that would help determine the morality of the apologia that corporations delivered. By comparing crisis management responses to the ideal paradigm and empirical data regarding the (in)effectiveness of the response in the media coverage that followed, researchers are able to determine the tactics and strategies to be shunned in the future.
Unlike other models of crisis communication, casuistry lays a primary emphasis on the victims of the crisis and, similarly, on stakeholders who have been the least willing to consent to the injury risk. The paradigm consists of two elements: the manner and the content of communication. However,it acknowledges that there could complicating circumstances (catastrophic financial losses, grave liability concerns, a moral learning curve, the problem of full disclosure, and discretion) that avert an organization from coming close to the ideal and that, such situations should be taken into account when analyzing apologetic discourse.
Hearit’s (2006) paradigm entails means of communication such as truthfulness and sincerity and seeks to determine whether the corporate response was delivered in a timely fashion, voluntarily and whether it addressed all the stakeholders. Equally important is that apologia be performed in the appropriate context (site, location, medium). Additionally, apologia should acknowledge the wrongdoing, accept responsibility, express regret and ask for forgiveness. An apologetic discourse is effective if it accomplishes to create a bond between the corporation and the injured and help the former identify with the stakeholders affected by the crisis. For this purpose, the content of apologia should be comprised of a full disclosure of the information related to the tragic event, and it should explain and inform on compensation and corrective action.
From the perspective of this paradigm, apologetic discourses of individuals (Bill Clinton), institutions (The Catholic Church), non-profit organizations (The Red Cross), as well as corporations (Toyota) can be analyzed to determine the extent to which their response was (un)ethical for the final purpose of statistically evaluating how aplogia affected its performance to follow.
The importance of further studies on apologia lies in the fact that, by aiming at restoring their image,their relationships with stakeholders, and their social legitimacy, corporations also reestablish the legitimacy of the capitalism as an economic order.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Benoit, W.L. (1995). Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies. Albany: State University of New York.
Benoit (1995) brings a rhetorical perspective to crisis communication by asserting that, similarly to individuals, organizations and institutions enact image restoration attempts when they perceive that their reputation/image/face comes under threat.
Face is an important commodity and, similarly to individuals, organizations want to be perceived by various stakeholders in a certain way. Hence, they engage in a communicative behavior whose final aim is "to reduce, redress, or avoid damage" to their face.
Drawing from Burke (1973), Rosenfield (1968) as well as from the work of Ware and Linkugel (1973) Benoit (1995) developed a taxonomy of defensive accounts that organizations can employ when struck by crises. The strategies fall under the umbrella of the Theory of Image Restoration and can be employed in a myriad of ways in order to increase their effectiveness. Additionally, their enactment in influenced by the cultural mores in which the discourse aimed at image renewal is performed.
The Theory of Image Restoration entails five main categories of strategies: denial, evading of responsibility, reducing offensiveness of the event, corrective action, and mortification.
When engaging in denial, an organization can totally deny that a crisis occurred (simple denial), but Benoit's (1995) definition of the term makes also allowances for instances in which an organization shifts the blame (scapegoating) and thus denies its implication in an unpleasant event.
Evading of responsibility refers to instances in which organizations will resort to the use of provocation (the act was induced by a third party and the organization only responded to an external provocation), defeasibility (the organization lacked the ability or the information to avert the crisis), accident, or good intentions (the initial intent was honorable, favorable etc, but the situation turned into a crisis). Additionally, representatives of an organization that face media when a crisis strikes can, depending on the situation, make use of strategies that aim at reducing the offensiveness of an event. Such strategies are: bolstering (emphasizing the good relationship that the company has been having with its stakeholders, its good deeds, etc), minimization (the magnitude of the crisis is not what the media describes), differentiation (the company differentiates itself from who/what caused the crisis--an employee, etc. and tries to show that the person/act is not representative of the whole organization), transcendence (the company places the crisis in a broader context so as to diffuse it and be able to appeal to higher values), attack the accuser (kategoria)and compensation (the organization helps the victims of the crisis, thus showing sympathy and proving itself to be responsible).
When the response provides information on what the company plans to do to avoid such crises from reoccurring, it makes use of what Benoit (1995) calls corrective action. Making use of the corrective action proves an important strategy of image restoration because it shows that the organization is responsible and in control of the situation. Hearit (2006) stresses the importance of corrective action asserting that the strategy can be used without fear of litigation, conversely to the early use of compensation that allows stakeholders to assume that the corporation is to be held accountable.
Finally, an organization can engage in mortification (full apology) which should be done after close consulting with the legal department. Specifically, press releases can be used as evidence in court, and hence should only be employed after more information about the crisis comes to the attention of the management.
Benoit (1995) applied the theory of image restoration to several crisis responses and critically analyzed their effectiveness. As he suggests (Benoit, 1995) the critical study should be coupled with empirical evidence (statistics, surveys,etc.) that are available and that demonstrate the impact of the crisis response on sales, stakeholders' perceptions, etc.
Thus, Benoit (1995) analyzed "The Cola Wars" and applied the theory of image restoration to the advertisements of Coca Cola and Pepsi that seemed to fire direct salvos at one another for a period of three years (1990,1991, 1992).
The analysis of the coke wars showed that Coke's advertisements were more effective in employing defensive strategies and also in attacking the accuser. Pepsi's ads, on the other hand, were replete with suspicion and innuendo and failed in strong arguments. Further on, empirical evidence is adduced consistent with the results generated from the critical analysis of the Coke wars.
Benoit (1995) also applied the typology of image restoration strategies to analyze the Exxon's defensive discourse after the former's reputation suffered substantially as a result of Valdez crisis. Thus, Exxon, made use of blame shifting after tests revealed that the captain of the Valdez had in fact been intoxicated. The strategy was risky because the captain was hired by Exxon and thus, the company could not successfully engage in scapegoating. Additionally, Exxon engaged in minimization and asserted that it did not expect major environmental damages after the spill. Unfortunately, the strategy proved ineffective because evidence that emerged in the media proved the contrary. Moreover, despite Exxon's discourse that stressed the velocity with which the company was present at the place of the spill media coverage showed the contrary: a three day delay.
Thus, Exxon's image restoration attempts are a proof that words without proper actions do not help reputation in times of crisis. Every image restoration strategy employed needs to be backed up with evidence.
In December 1984, a Union Carbide chemical plant released poisonous gas in Bhopal, India. Media reported that over 2,000 were killed and approximately 200,000 injured. Thus, Union Carbide had to respond to accusations of being callous and uncaring. Media made use of emotional appeal to describe the tragedy caused by the company:
"Hundreds died in their bed, most of them children and old people...Thousands more awoke to a nightmare of near suffocation, blindness and chaos. Many would die later. By the thousands, they stumbled into streets, choking, vomiting, sobbing burning tears, joining human stampedes fleeing the torment of mist that seemed to float everywhere. Some were run down by automobiles and trucks in panic. Others fell, unable to go on, and died in the gutters. (1984, p.A1)
In responding to this tragedy, Union Carbide made use of statements serving to bolster its image. It proved itself caring and concerned about people. It immediately engaged in corrective action by contributing to the treatment and rehabilitation of the injured and the families of the lost ones. According to Benoit (1995), compensation may imply guilt, but the company voluntarily contributed with money in an attempt to prove it was caring. Yet, Union Carbide made use of differentiation strategies precisely when it asserted that they would help the injured and emphasized that by allocating money for medical supplies they did not acknowledge guilt. Empirical evidence suggested that this statement, along with failure to engage in corrective action, as well as the use of scapegoating (blaming the Indian employees and the Indian government) did not engender a positive reaction on behalf of the stakeholders. More precisely, evidence showed that only 18 percent of the stakeholders did not hold Indian employees entirely responsible for the tragedy.
Critical analyses of the image restoration discourses that dovetail with empirical evidence can successfully show what strategies an organization should employ and under what circumstances so that it increases its effectiveness in saving/restoring/renewing its face/reputation.
As Benoit (1995) points out other strategies of responses can be further added to the theory and future research on crisis communication can best do so by critically analyzing a variety of crises responses along with their effects.
Face is an important commodity and, similarly to individuals, organizations want to be perceived by various stakeholders in a certain way. Hence, they engage in a communicative behavior whose final aim is "to reduce, redress, or avoid damage" to their face.
Drawing from Burke (1973), Rosenfield (1968) as well as from the work of Ware and Linkugel (1973) Benoit (1995) developed a taxonomy of defensive accounts that organizations can employ when struck by crises. The strategies fall under the umbrella of the Theory of Image Restoration and can be employed in a myriad of ways in order to increase their effectiveness. Additionally, their enactment in influenced by the cultural mores in which the discourse aimed at image renewal is performed.
The Theory of Image Restoration entails five main categories of strategies: denial, evading of responsibility, reducing offensiveness of the event, corrective action, and mortification.
When engaging in denial, an organization can totally deny that a crisis occurred (simple denial), but Benoit's (1995) definition of the term makes also allowances for instances in which an organization shifts the blame (scapegoating) and thus denies its implication in an unpleasant event.
Evading of responsibility refers to instances in which organizations will resort to the use of provocation (the act was induced by a third party and the organization only responded to an external provocation), defeasibility (the organization lacked the ability or the information to avert the crisis), accident, or good intentions (the initial intent was honorable, favorable etc, but the situation turned into a crisis). Additionally, representatives of an organization that face media when a crisis strikes can, depending on the situation, make use of strategies that aim at reducing the offensiveness of an event. Such strategies are: bolstering (emphasizing the good relationship that the company has been having with its stakeholders, its good deeds, etc), minimization (the magnitude of the crisis is not what the media describes), differentiation (the company differentiates itself from who/what caused the crisis--an employee, etc. and tries to show that the person/act is not representative of the whole organization), transcendence (the company places the crisis in a broader context so as to diffuse it and be able to appeal to higher values), attack the accuser (kategoria)and compensation (the organization helps the victims of the crisis, thus showing sympathy and proving itself to be responsible).
When the response provides information on what the company plans to do to avoid such crises from reoccurring, it makes use of what Benoit (1995) calls corrective action. Making use of the corrective action proves an important strategy of image restoration because it shows that the organization is responsible and in control of the situation. Hearit (2006) stresses the importance of corrective action asserting that the strategy can be used without fear of litigation, conversely to the early use of compensation that allows stakeholders to assume that the corporation is to be held accountable.
Finally, an organization can engage in mortification (full apology) which should be done after close consulting with the legal department. Specifically, press releases can be used as evidence in court, and hence should only be employed after more information about the crisis comes to the attention of the management.
Benoit (1995) applied the theory of image restoration to several crisis responses and critically analyzed their effectiveness. As he suggests (Benoit, 1995) the critical study should be coupled with empirical evidence (statistics, surveys,etc.) that are available and that demonstrate the impact of the crisis response on sales, stakeholders' perceptions, etc.
Thus, Benoit (1995) analyzed "The Cola Wars" and applied the theory of image restoration to the advertisements of Coca Cola and Pepsi that seemed to fire direct salvos at one another for a period of three years (1990,1991, 1992).
The analysis of the coke wars showed that Coke's advertisements were more effective in employing defensive strategies and also in attacking the accuser. Pepsi's ads, on the other hand, were replete with suspicion and innuendo and failed in strong arguments. Further on, empirical evidence is adduced consistent with the results generated from the critical analysis of the Coke wars.
Benoit (1995) also applied the typology of image restoration strategies to analyze the Exxon's defensive discourse after the former's reputation suffered substantially as a result of Valdez crisis. Thus, Exxon, made use of blame shifting after tests revealed that the captain of the Valdez had in fact been intoxicated. The strategy was risky because the captain was hired by Exxon and thus, the company could not successfully engage in scapegoating. Additionally, Exxon engaged in minimization and asserted that it did not expect major environmental damages after the spill. Unfortunately, the strategy proved ineffective because evidence that emerged in the media proved the contrary. Moreover, despite Exxon's discourse that stressed the velocity with which the company was present at the place of the spill media coverage showed the contrary: a three day delay.
Thus, Exxon's image restoration attempts are a proof that words without proper actions do not help reputation in times of crisis. Every image restoration strategy employed needs to be backed up with evidence.
In December 1984, a Union Carbide chemical plant released poisonous gas in Bhopal, India. Media reported that over 2,000 were killed and approximately 200,000 injured. Thus, Union Carbide had to respond to accusations of being callous and uncaring. Media made use of emotional appeal to describe the tragedy caused by the company:
"Hundreds died in their bed, most of them children and old people...Thousands more awoke to a nightmare of near suffocation, blindness and chaos. Many would die later. By the thousands, they stumbled into streets, choking, vomiting, sobbing burning tears, joining human stampedes fleeing the torment of mist that seemed to float everywhere. Some were run down by automobiles and trucks in panic. Others fell, unable to go on, and died in the gutters. (1984, p.A1)
In responding to this tragedy, Union Carbide made use of statements serving to bolster its image. It proved itself caring and concerned about people. It immediately engaged in corrective action by contributing to the treatment and rehabilitation of the injured and the families of the lost ones. According to Benoit (1995), compensation may imply guilt, but the company voluntarily contributed with money in an attempt to prove it was caring. Yet, Union Carbide made use of differentiation strategies precisely when it asserted that they would help the injured and emphasized that by allocating money for medical supplies they did not acknowledge guilt. Empirical evidence suggested that this statement, along with failure to engage in corrective action, as well as the use of scapegoating (blaming the Indian employees and the Indian government) did not engender a positive reaction on behalf of the stakeholders. More precisely, evidence showed that only 18 percent of the stakeholders did not hold Indian employees entirely responsible for the tragedy.
Critical analyses of the image restoration discourses that dovetail with empirical evidence can successfully show what strategies an organization should employ and under what circumstances so that it increases its effectiveness in saving/restoring/renewing its face/reputation.
As Benoit (1995) points out other strategies of responses can be further added to the theory and future research on crisis communication can best do so by critically analyzing a variety of crises responses along with their effects.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Coombs, W.T. (2007). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. California: Thousand Oaks.
Coombs, W.T. (2007). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. California: Thousand Oaks.
Coombs (2007) offers a comprehensive analysis of the crisis management process through the perspective of communication. He emphasizes the role of communication in crisis management and thus, he takes a proactive approach that explores the entire crisis management process. He considers that crisis management is a cyclic, ongoing process that never ends, a process that entails three stages: precrisis, crisis event, and postcrisis.
According to Coombs (2007) crisis management should integrate knowledge from a myriad of areas such as small-group decision making, media relations, environmental scanning, risk assessment, crisis communication, crisis plan development, evaluation methods, and reputation management. Yet, this integration is made difficult because most of the research focuses on one single area such as crisis communication or media relations and ignores a possible convergence of various expertise which will make it easier for a practitioner to manage a crisis effectively. For this reason, Coombs' book offers an integrative framework which aims at simplifying the organization of the crisis management knowledge.
Despite past research studies in crisis management, there is no one accepted definition of what constitutes a crisis although, defining a crisis would indicate the way in which the latter is approached. Coombs (2007) defines a crisis as a “perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes.” Coombs’ definition encompasses various perspectives and traits that previous writers used when they approached crises. Hence, according to Coombs’ definition, a crisis is perceptual and unpredictable. In other words, if stakeholders perceive and define an event as a crisis, regardless of whether an organizations considers the opposite, the crisis management team needs to respond. Moreover, crises are unpredictable but not unexpected because organizations know that crises will befall them one day. Yet the manner in which crises strike and when they strike are hard to predict.
Crisis management, an area which developed from emergency preparedness makes use of four interrelated factors (prevention, preparation, response, and revision) in order to “combat crisis and lessen the actual damage inflicted. “
Prevention, which is also known as mitigation, implies the steps taken by an organization in order to detect the warning signs and prevent crisis from occurring. Prevention is a factor rarely known by the public because issues that were solved and did not develop into a crisis are seldom mediated.
The preparation factor includes the development and testing of the crisis management plan (CMP), “diagnosing of the crisis vulnerabilities, selecting and training a crisis management team (CMT) , creating a crisis portfolio, and refining a crisis communication system.” The application of the CMP either in actuality or as in an exercise fall under the response factor along with the recovery or the business continuity –the efforts employed in order to restore operations to normal and help the organization return to its regular operations.
The fourth crisis factor is revision and it refers to the evaluation of what the organization and the CMT did well during real/simulate crises with the purpose of improving the prevention, preparation, and the response efforts. Hence all the factors are linked in a spiral.
The use of the four factor increases the chances of managing crisis which, in turn, can safe lives, preclude loss of sales, limit reputational damage, prevent the development of public policy issues, and save money.
Outline for an ongoing approach for crisis management
The stages approaches in crisis management refer to the fact that each crisis is characterized by a life cycle. Hence, the job of the crisis manager is to perform a segmentation of the crisis and to deal with each discrete segment in a certain order.
For example, Fink (1986) identified four stages in the crisis life cycle: (1) prodromal, hints of a potential crisis begin to emerge, (2) crisis breakout or acute, a triggering event occurs, (3) cronic, the effects of the crisis linger while efforts to clean up the crisis progress, and (4) resolution-the crisis is over and there are clear signs that indicate that the crisis is no longer a concern for stakeholders
Consequently, a crisis does not just happen, it evolves and crisis managers should not just enact a crisis management plan, but rather try to seek out for hints and signs that would indicate that a crisis will befall on the organizations. In other words, they should take a proactive approach every day, scanning for possible issues and risks that, if not resolved, would evolve into crises.
Later on, in 1994, Mitroff divided crisis management into five phases: (1). Signal detection: new crisis signs should be scanned and acted upon in order to preclude a crises, (2) probing and prevention: crisis managers should be aware of the crisis risk factors and work to reduce their potential harm, (3) damage containment: a crisis has hit an organization but the organization members are working to prevent its spread in other parts that have not yet been contaminated, (4) recovery: organization members work to return the organization to its normal activity as soon as possible, (5) learning: organization members review and critique their crisis management efforts, thus adding to the organization’s memory
While the two models entail many similarities and Mitroff’s model (1994) seems to be an extension of Fink’s (1986), the difference between the two lies in Mitroff’s (1994) model aiming at actively identifying crises and engaging into preventing them. Moreover, for Mitroff (1994) a crisis does not end once the normal operations of an organizations are restored: the end of a crisis represents a new beginning of the crisis management process since the crisis will be evaluated and will add to past experiences from which an organization will learn and improve to better cope with future crises.
Additionally, Richardson (1994) divided the crisis management process into: (1) precrisis or predisaster phase, where signs of a crisis appear and people try to eliminate the risk; (2) crisis impact or rescue phase, where the crisis hits and people provide support for those affected or involved in it; and (3) recovery or demise phase, where the organization tries to regain the stakeholders’ support.
Drawing from Mitroff (1994), Fink (1986), and Richardson (1994), Coombs (2007) divided the crisis management process into three macro stages: precrisis (crisis preparation—prodromal signs, signal detection, probong), crisis (the actions taken to cope with the event), and postcrisis (learning and resolution).
The precrisis stage involves: (1) signal detection (crisis managers should identify sources for warning signs) , (2) prevention (issues management, risk aversion, and reputation management) and (3) preparation (CMPs, crisis teams, crisis portofolios).
The crisis event stage starts with a trigger event that marks the beginning of the crisis and entails two substages: (1) crisis recognition (how is the event labeled and accepted, how do you sell a crisis to the top management) (2) crisis containment (the crisis response of the organization, contingency plans and follow-up concerns).
The post crisis stage involves (1) making the organizations better prepared for the next crisis, (2) making sure that stakeholders are left with a positive impression of the organization’s crisis management efforts, and (3) check to make sure that the crisis is truly over.
Prevention: Finding warning signs
In the crisis management literature, the search for warning signs is referred to as signal detection. A crisis can be shunned if appropriate action is taken on the warning signs. Coombs (2007) considers that crisis management must develop a crisis-sensing mechanism, a system designed to scan and monitor for crisis warning signs. The basic element of the crisis-sensing mechanism is scanning, an active search for information. The signal detection includes collecting and analyzing information that may contain warning signs and is composed of three stages: (1) the identification of the sources of information that will be scanned, (2) collecting the information, and (3) the information is evaluated for crisis potential (How likely is the situation to develop into a crisis?)
The signal detection is a process that organizations must enact both internally and externally. The scanning of the environment can be performed with the help of issues management, risk management, and reputational management. Issue management tries to lessen the negative impact of an issue (According to Moore [ 1979] an issue is a trend or condition that, if continued, would have a significant negative effect on how a company is operated). Thus issues management is a proactive approach intended to shape how an issue develops and is resolved. Because certain issues have the potential to develop into crises, issues management contributes to crisis scanning.
On another note, it is harder for the organizations to scan for issues externally because such issues are societal and political and are related to standards of corporate social performance.
Risk assessment identifies risks factors or weaknesses and tries to assess the likelihood that a weakness will be exploited or developed into crises (Levitt, 1977). Some examples of risk factors include personnel, products, the production process, competition, regulation, and customers (Barton, 2001). Yet risk factors are part and parcel of an organization’s everyday life and therefore can never be eliminated completely. Additionally it is important to notice that risk management has more of an internal rather than external focus.
Reputation management plays an important role in the precrisis stage because past research in crisis management showed that a good relationship with the stakeholders increases the chances of an organization to successfully face a crisis. Alsop (2004) asserted that organizations “build up ‘reputational capital’ to tide them over in turbulent times. It’s like opening a saving account for a rainy day. If a crisis strikes…reputation suffers less and rebounds more quickly.”
The relationship history represents the way an organization has treated stakeholders in the past and thus, is a function of whether organizations are meeting or failing to meet the expectations of their stakeholders. Coombs (2004) showed that organizations build favorable relationship histories and reputations by meeting and exceeding stakeholder expectations.
Representative in this respect is the stakeholder theory which posits that an organizations survives or thrives by managing the stakeholders that populate the environment in which the organizations functions. The stakeholders are primary (those people or groups whose actions can be harmful or beneficial to the organization: employees, investors, customers, suppliers, and the government) and secondary stakeholders or influencers (those people or groups who can affect or be affected by the organization: media, activist groups). Unlike the primary stakeholders, the influencers cannot stop an organization from functioning. However they can damage it (Clarkson, 1995).
In sum, issue management, risk management, and reputation management are part of the crisis scanning performed with the purpose of scanning and preventing issues and vulnerabilities form developing into crises.
Crisis preparation
Coombs (2007) stressed the importance for all organizations to prepare for crisis. Crisis preparation should involve: (1) diagnosing vulnerabilities, (2) assessing crisis types, (3) selecting and training a crisis team, (4) selecting and training a spokesperson, (5) developing a crisis management plan (CMP), and (6) reviewing the communication system.
The type of crisis that can befall an organization could be categorized as follows: natural disaster, workplace violence, rumors, malevolence (when an opponent or outsider employs extreme tactics to harm the organization—terrorist acts, product tampering, etc), challenges (the organization is accused by stakeholders that it does not act in an appropriate manner), technical-error accidents, technical-error product harm, human-error product harm, human-error accidents, and organizational misdeeds (when the management takes actions though they are aware that the latter could harm a group of stakeholders). The CMP could be developed in such a way as to address any type of crisis that could strike a specific organization.
The crisis management team (CMT) according to Coombs (2007) should be formed as a cross-functional group, representing each department within the organization such as : marketing, technical. PR, etc, However, apart from their expertise in a certain area, the CMT members should have or be trained to develop skills such as: decision-making and working in a team abilities, listening skills, being able to handle stress, and being able to talk with the media without engaging in verbal aggressiveness.
Crisis recognition; crisis response
The fact that crisis management acknowledge there is a crisis is not enough for the organization to admit to it. Crisis managers need to possess persuasive skills in order to convince the dominant coalition of the potential of the crisis. Hence, they should make use of credibility, emotion, and reason in order to gain the acceptance of the management. It is the way in which crisis managers frame the crisis that helps them gain the management attention and involvement.
Yet, communication not only plays a role in framing the crisis, but also in the way in which the organization responds to it since, the first respond could avoid the spread of the crisis and also reduce the damage the crisis could cause to the organization’s reputation. In this respect, organizations should avoid the “no comment” since passiveness and media avoidance only increase ambiguity. The role of the crisis manager is to make sure that enough information is delivered to the media and the stakeholders and to continuously inform on the developments of the crisis. Certainly, the crisis manager should consult with the legal department so as to avoid statements that may further damage the company and caused later trials.
Coombs (2007) emphasized the distinction between partial apology and full apology. Partial apology refers to a statement that the organization makes in which the latter shows sympathy and understanding for the victims of a crisis, while full apology refers to the organization admitting that its responsibility for what caused the crisis. Hence, it is important to avoid full apology until investigation shows that an organization is indeed guilty for a tragic event. Acknowledging guilt and responsibility prior to final investigations could determine stakeholders to sue the organization.
Throughout a crisis, the CMT needs to informal not only external stakeholders on the latest findings but also its employees since the response needs to be consistent and avoid the creation of the rumors which in turn may affect the credibility of the company.
The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) developed by Coombs (2006) “organizes the response strategies by determining if the intent of the strategy is to change perceptions of the crisis or of the organization in the crisis.” The strategies fall under four clusters: denial posture (attacking the accuser, denial, and scapegoating), diminishing posture (excusing, justification), rebuilding posture (compensation, apology), and bolstering posture (reminding, ingratiation, victimage). The strategies could be employed once the reputational threat is assed by the CMT and posits that, once the reputational threat increases, organizations should use more accommodative strategies.
The Business Continuity Plan (BCP) allows the organization to get back to return to its business as soon as possible. The fact that a crisis is over can be measured by the media coverage dedicated to the organization. The fact that media coverage decreases, is a sign that the crisis comes to an end and that stakeholders received as much information as needed to fill in the blanks caused unknown facts about the crisis such as by who was responsible and what happened.
The postcrisis stage
Coombs(2007) considers that it’s critical for the CMT to evaluate their performance during the crisis while, at the same time, despite the fact that the crisis is over, to continue to perform the two-way communication with their stakeholders with the purpose of keeping them up to date with information about the crisis.
Evaluation is the key to improvement and crisis managers should collect data from media, stakeholders, etc in order to assess their perceptions of the crisis and evaluate what the organization’s strengths and weaknesses were in handling the crisis. Surveys and focus groups can be performed with external and internal stakeholders while media data can be collecting by outsourcing, i.e. the organization could hire a PR measurement company to scan media and new media and determine the results of the crisis management efforts.
The evaluation of the crisis will allow for new changes in the crisis management plan and team that aim at better preparedness for the next crisis that may strike and thus, crisis management is a cyclical, ongoing process that should never end. If organizations view crisis management from this perspective and perform scanning for risks and issues on a daily basis, they have higher chances of avoiding a crisis and of building a reputation which will decrease damages caused by future crises.
Coombs (2007) offers a comprehensive analysis of the crisis management process through the perspective of communication. He emphasizes the role of communication in crisis management and thus, he takes a proactive approach that explores the entire crisis management process. He considers that crisis management is a cyclic, ongoing process that never ends, a process that entails three stages: precrisis, crisis event, and postcrisis.
According to Coombs (2007) crisis management should integrate knowledge from a myriad of areas such as small-group decision making, media relations, environmental scanning, risk assessment, crisis communication, crisis plan development, evaluation methods, and reputation management. Yet, this integration is made difficult because most of the research focuses on one single area such as crisis communication or media relations and ignores a possible convergence of various expertise which will make it easier for a practitioner to manage a crisis effectively. For this reason, Coombs' book offers an integrative framework which aims at simplifying the organization of the crisis management knowledge.
Despite past research studies in crisis management, there is no one accepted definition of what constitutes a crisis although, defining a crisis would indicate the way in which the latter is approached. Coombs (2007) defines a crisis as a “perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes.” Coombs’ definition encompasses various perspectives and traits that previous writers used when they approached crises. Hence, according to Coombs’ definition, a crisis is perceptual and unpredictable. In other words, if stakeholders perceive and define an event as a crisis, regardless of whether an organizations considers the opposite, the crisis management team needs to respond. Moreover, crises are unpredictable but not unexpected because organizations know that crises will befall them one day. Yet the manner in which crises strike and when they strike are hard to predict.
Crisis management, an area which developed from emergency preparedness makes use of four interrelated factors (prevention, preparation, response, and revision) in order to “combat crisis and lessen the actual damage inflicted. “
Prevention, which is also known as mitigation, implies the steps taken by an organization in order to detect the warning signs and prevent crisis from occurring. Prevention is a factor rarely known by the public because issues that were solved and did not develop into a crisis are seldom mediated.
The preparation factor includes the development and testing of the crisis management plan (CMP), “diagnosing of the crisis vulnerabilities, selecting and training a crisis management team (CMT) , creating a crisis portfolio, and refining a crisis communication system.” The application of the CMP either in actuality or as in an exercise fall under the response factor along with the recovery or the business continuity –the efforts employed in order to restore operations to normal and help the organization return to its regular operations.
The fourth crisis factor is revision and it refers to the evaluation of what the organization and the CMT did well during real/simulate crises with the purpose of improving the prevention, preparation, and the response efforts. Hence all the factors are linked in a spiral.
The use of the four factor increases the chances of managing crisis which, in turn, can safe lives, preclude loss of sales, limit reputational damage, prevent the development of public policy issues, and save money.
Outline for an ongoing approach for crisis management
The stages approaches in crisis management refer to the fact that each crisis is characterized by a life cycle. Hence, the job of the crisis manager is to perform a segmentation of the crisis and to deal with each discrete segment in a certain order.
For example, Fink (1986) identified four stages in the crisis life cycle: (1) prodromal, hints of a potential crisis begin to emerge, (2) crisis breakout or acute, a triggering event occurs, (3) cronic, the effects of the crisis linger while efforts to clean up the crisis progress, and (4) resolution-the crisis is over and there are clear signs that indicate that the crisis is no longer a concern for stakeholders
Consequently, a crisis does not just happen, it evolves and crisis managers should not just enact a crisis management plan, but rather try to seek out for hints and signs that would indicate that a crisis will befall on the organizations. In other words, they should take a proactive approach every day, scanning for possible issues and risks that, if not resolved, would evolve into crises.
Later on, in 1994, Mitroff divided crisis management into five phases: (1). Signal detection: new crisis signs should be scanned and acted upon in order to preclude a crises, (2) probing and prevention: crisis managers should be aware of the crisis risk factors and work to reduce their potential harm, (3) damage containment: a crisis has hit an organization but the organization members are working to prevent its spread in other parts that have not yet been contaminated, (4) recovery: organization members work to return the organization to its normal activity as soon as possible, (5) learning: organization members review and critique their crisis management efforts, thus adding to the organization’s memory
While the two models entail many similarities and Mitroff’s model (1994) seems to be an extension of Fink’s (1986), the difference between the two lies in Mitroff’s (1994) model aiming at actively identifying crises and engaging into preventing them. Moreover, for Mitroff (1994) a crisis does not end once the normal operations of an organizations are restored: the end of a crisis represents a new beginning of the crisis management process since the crisis will be evaluated and will add to past experiences from which an organization will learn and improve to better cope with future crises.
Additionally, Richardson (1994) divided the crisis management process into: (1) precrisis or predisaster phase, where signs of a crisis appear and people try to eliminate the risk; (2) crisis impact or rescue phase, where the crisis hits and people provide support for those affected or involved in it; and (3) recovery or demise phase, where the organization tries to regain the stakeholders’ support.
Drawing from Mitroff (1994), Fink (1986), and Richardson (1994), Coombs (2007) divided the crisis management process into three macro stages: precrisis (crisis preparation—prodromal signs, signal detection, probong), crisis (the actions taken to cope with the event), and postcrisis (learning and resolution).
The precrisis stage involves: (1) signal detection (crisis managers should identify sources for warning signs) , (2) prevention (issues management, risk aversion, and reputation management) and (3) preparation (CMPs, crisis teams, crisis portofolios).
The crisis event stage starts with a trigger event that marks the beginning of the crisis and entails two substages: (1) crisis recognition (how is the event labeled and accepted, how do you sell a crisis to the top management) (2) crisis containment (the crisis response of the organization, contingency plans and follow-up concerns).
The post crisis stage involves (1) making the organizations better prepared for the next crisis, (2) making sure that stakeholders are left with a positive impression of the organization’s crisis management efforts, and (3) check to make sure that the crisis is truly over.
Prevention: Finding warning signs
In the crisis management literature, the search for warning signs is referred to as signal detection. A crisis can be shunned if appropriate action is taken on the warning signs. Coombs (2007) considers that crisis management must develop a crisis-sensing mechanism, a system designed to scan and monitor for crisis warning signs. The basic element of the crisis-sensing mechanism is scanning, an active search for information. The signal detection includes collecting and analyzing information that may contain warning signs and is composed of three stages: (1) the identification of the sources of information that will be scanned, (2) collecting the information, and (3) the information is evaluated for crisis potential (How likely is the situation to develop into a crisis?)
The signal detection is a process that organizations must enact both internally and externally. The scanning of the environment can be performed with the help of issues management, risk management, and reputational management. Issue management tries to lessen the negative impact of an issue (According to Moore [ 1979] an issue is a trend or condition that, if continued, would have a significant negative effect on how a company is operated). Thus issues management is a proactive approach intended to shape how an issue develops and is resolved. Because certain issues have the potential to develop into crises, issues management contributes to crisis scanning.
On another note, it is harder for the organizations to scan for issues externally because such issues are societal and political and are related to standards of corporate social performance.
Risk assessment identifies risks factors or weaknesses and tries to assess the likelihood that a weakness will be exploited or developed into crises (Levitt, 1977). Some examples of risk factors include personnel, products, the production process, competition, regulation, and customers (Barton, 2001). Yet risk factors are part and parcel of an organization’s everyday life and therefore can never be eliminated completely. Additionally it is important to notice that risk management has more of an internal rather than external focus.
Reputation management plays an important role in the precrisis stage because past research in crisis management showed that a good relationship with the stakeholders increases the chances of an organization to successfully face a crisis. Alsop (2004) asserted that organizations “build up ‘reputational capital’ to tide them over in turbulent times. It’s like opening a saving account for a rainy day. If a crisis strikes…reputation suffers less and rebounds more quickly.”
The relationship history represents the way an organization has treated stakeholders in the past and thus, is a function of whether organizations are meeting or failing to meet the expectations of their stakeholders. Coombs (2004) showed that organizations build favorable relationship histories and reputations by meeting and exceeding stakeholder expectations.
Representative in this respect is the stakeholder theory which posits that an organizations survives or thrives by managing the stakeholders that populate the environment in which the organizations functions. The stakeholders are primary (those people or groups whose actions can be harmful or beneficial to the organization: employees, investors, customers, suppliers, and the government) and secondary stakeholders or influencers (those people or groups who can affect or be affected by the organization: media, activist groups). Unlike the primary stakeholders, the influencers cannot stop an organization from functioning. However they can damage it (Clarkson, 1995).
In sum, issue management, risk management, and reputation management are part of the crisis scanning performed with the purpose of scanning and preventing issues and vulnerabilities form developing into crises.
Crisis preparation
Coombs (2007) stressed the importance for all organizations to prepare for crisis. Crisis preparation should involve: (1) diagnosing vulnerabilities, (2) assessing crisis types, (3) selecting and training a crisis team, (4) selecting and training a spokesperson, (5) developing a crisis management plan (CMP), and (6) reviewing the communication system.
The type of crisis that can befall an organization could be categorized as follows: natural disaster, workplace violence, rumors, malevolence (when an opponent or outsider employs extreme tactics to harm the organization—terrorist acts, product tampering, etc), challenges (the organization is accused by stakeholders that it does not act in an appropriate manner), technical-error accidents, technical-error product harm, human-error product harm, human-error accidents, and organizational misdeeds (when the management takes actions though they are aware that the latter could harm a group of stakeholders). The CMP could be developed in such a way as to address any type of crisis that could strike a specific organization.
The crisis management team (CMT) according to Coombs (2007) should be formed as a cross-functional group, representing each department within the organization such as : marketing, technical. PR, etc, However, apart from their expertise in a certain area, the CMT members should have or be trained to develop skills such as: decision-making and working in a team abilities, listening skills, being able to handle stress, and being able to talk with the media without engaging in verbal aggressiveness.
Crisis recognition; crisis response
The fact that crisis management acknowledge there is a crisis is not enough for the organization to admit to it. Crisis managers need to possess persuasive skills in order to convince the dominant coalition of the potential of the crisis. Hence, they should make use of credibility, emotion, and reason in order to gain the acceptance of the management. It is the way in which crisis managers frame the crisis that helps them gain the management attention and involvement.
Yet, communication not only plays a role in framing the crisis, but also in the way in which the organization responds to it since, the first respond could avoid the spread of the crisis and also reduce the damage the crisis could cause to the organization’s reputation. In this respect, organizations should avoid the “no comment” since passiveness and media avoidance only increase ambiguity. The role of the crisis manager is to make sure that enough information is delivered to the media and the stakeholders and to continuously inform on the developments of the crisis. Certainly, the crisis manager should consult with the legal department so as to avoid statements that may further damage the company and caused later trials.
Coombs (2007) emphasized the distinction between partial apology and full apology. Partial apology refers to a statement that the organization makes in which the latter shows sympathy and understanding for the victims of a crisis, while full apology refers to the organization admitting that its responsibility for what caused the crisis. Hence, it is important to avoid full apology until investigation shows that an organization is indeed guilty for a tragic event. Acknowledging guilt and responsibility prior to final investigations could determine stakeholders to sue the organization.
Throughout a crisis, the CMT needs to informal not only external stakeholders on the latest findings but also its employees since the response needs to be consistent and avoid the creation of the rumors which in turn may affect the credibility of the company.
The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) developed by Coombs (2006) “organizes the response strategies by determining if the intent of the strategy is to change perceptions of the crisis or of the organization in the crisis.” The strategies fall under four clusters: denial posture (attacking the accuser, denial, and scapegoating), diminishing posture (excusing, justification), rebuilding posture (compensation, apology), and bolstering posture (reminding, ingratiation, victimage). The strategies could be employed once the reputational threat is assed by the CMT and posits that, once the reputational threat increases, organizations should use more accommodative strategies.
The Business Continuity Plan (BCP) allows the organization to get back to return to its business as soon as possible. The fact that a crisis is over can be measured by the media coverage dedicated to the organization. The fact that media coverage decreases, is a sign that the crisis comes to an end and that stakeholders received as much information as needed to fill in the blanks caused unknown facts about the crisis such as by who was responsible and what happened.
The postcrisis stage
Coombs(2007) considers that it’s critical for the CMT to evaluate their performance during the crisis while, at the same time, despite the fact that the crisis is over, to continue to perform the two-way communication with their stakeholders with the purpose of keeping them up to date with information about the crisis.
Evaluation is the key to improvement and crisis managers should collect data from media, stakeholders, etc in order to assess their perceptions of the crisis and evaluate what the organization’s strengths and weaknesses were in handling the crisis. Surveys and focus groups can be performed with external and internal stakeholders while media data can be collecting by outsourcing, i.e. the organization could hire a PR measurement company to scan media and new media and determine the results of the crisis management efforts.
The evaluation of the crisis will allow for new changes in the crisis management plan and team that aim at better preparedness for the next crisis that may strike and thus, crisis management is a cyclical, ongoing process that should never end. If organizations view crisis management from this perspective and perform scanning for risks and issues on a daily basis, they have higher chances of avoiding a crisis and of building a reputation which will decrease damages caused by future crises.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Barton, L.(2004).Crisis Management: Master the Skills to Prevent Disasters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Barton (2004) offers a comprehensive guide of avoiding/tackling crises and also emphasizes the importance of communication in the process of managing disasters. Hence, communication plays a paramount role starting with the preparation of a systematic program of crisis avoidance (issues management) end ending with the crisis resolution.
The way in which an organization communicates and the moment when it communicates in times of crises exhort influence on its reputation. By being the first to acknowledge a crisis, an organization has the opportunity of defining it, thus framing the story so as to save its reputation. According to the framing theory, also known as the second level agenda setting, "media tells us how to think about something" -McCombs & Shaw,1972-by making salient certain aspects/frames of an event over others. Consequently, by being the first to acknowledge a crisis, a corporation has control over it by emphasizing certain aspects over others to such an extent to which the crisis has a less detrimental effect on its reputation. The chances of having the story framed in a way that does not distort the information provided is for a company to provide as much information as possible so as to minimize the eventuality of the journalists seeking out details of the crisis from other sources. Certainly, the same information that corporate representatives provide to the media (external communication) must be equivalent with the information about the crisis that the company provides to its other stakeholders (employees, shareholders, etc) so as to avoid a discrepancy that may impede the crisis management process and further tarnish the reputation of the organization.
Interestingly, a crisis comes to an end when corporations confirm that it is over: it is through communication that the crisis ends.Media will stop covering a crisis the moment corporate representatives declare that the crisis is over. According to Barton (2004) a person in authority that talks to the media and asserts that the crisis is over should also recap the crisis by explaining what happened and why it happened as well as provide a "clear and candid picture" of what was resolved and let media know how things stand as of the day of the conference. Additionally, the spokesperson should also offer the plan that the company aims to put into practice so as to achieve its strategic goals and also to encourage everyone to do their best in order to move forward.
In times of crisis, the messages provided to the media should be clear, accurate, and candid. Additionally, negative coverage can be thwarted by the availability of the spokespersons. In most of the cases, the spokespersons of an organization should be identifiable leaders, such as the CEO, the PR manager, etc. Yet, if the crisis involves technical issues for examples both the presence of the CEO and a person with technical knowledge are encouraged to be present. Moreover, it is also recommended that the leader of an organization be present at the very place where a tragic event occurred. However, his or her presence is not necessarily required only for the sake of the media and getting good coverage, though the latter also helps preserve a good reputation but also because, in times of crises, people seek for a true leader whose presence and encouragement ease the healing process and the recovery. Rudy Giuliani's presence in the aftermath of 9/11 helped build a spirit of togetherness: not only did he talk to the media, but he also interacted with people in the street, etc appearing at the place of the tragedy within minutes after the Twin Towers had collapsed.
Prior to delivering media messages, organizations need to perform a public segmentation (what medium to use for what public). In times of crisis, media and other stakeholders demand exigent responses and there may be little time for such preparation. Therefore, it is advisable that the public segmentation is part of the contingency plan that is incessantly updated by organizations before issues morph into full-blown crises.
Among others, the contingency plan should entail the organization of a team, the assessment of the issue, and the development and testing of the plan (training simulations). Yet, there are many issues that can arise within a company and can lead to impending crises how can the management be aware of them? Barton (2004)asserts that many times the best way to find out about issues is to give voice to all your stakeholders whether employees on entry-level jobs such as customer or sales representatives. Employees in such positions are the ones that come in contact with customers on a regular basis and thus, they can alert of flaws in products etc. Additionally, alerting of issues of either internal or external concern could be encouraged by establishing a target that each employee has of signalizing problems that they further discuss with the crisis management team. Certainly, the organizational culture needs to permit the freedom of speaking up and pointing at issues that affect the employees or the consumers.
Barton (2004)also stresses the importance of a continuous scanning for issues both externally and internally and deals with the chances that the crisis management team has in prioritizing potential crises. He further proposes a mathematical function that calculates the expected value E(X), i.e. how much the crisis will detriment an organization financially. For example, the cost of the effects of an event K is $2 million and the odds that the crisis can occur is one in one thousand (.1 percent or .001). Thus, the impact of the event on the corporation will be $2 million X .001 which is $ 2,000. Yet, in order to calculate E(X) we need to have data on the estimated impact of the crisis and its probability of occurrence.
Barton (2004) encourages companies to have a crisis management team comprised of specialists from different fields (technical, communication, etc) that should meet regularly in order update a stock of potential perils and a contingency plan in case of a crisis that cannot be shunned.
The author also states that organizations are more likely to recover after a crisis if they put the human life first in the process of decision making.
Additionally, when crises strike it may be hard to estimate how much the costs will be and decisions are sometimes made by approximation. Therefore human life should be put first.
Finally, regardless of how much a company comes to grips with a crisis from a financial perspective, if it doesn't tackle communication well, it runs the risk of tarnishing its reputation and thus negatively impact its future sales. The way in which an organization communicates has the power to frame the crisis and thus gain public recognition and support. Further on, the crisis gets off the media's agenda the moment a spokespersons confirms that the crisis is over. Therefore, it is important to be cognizant of the effective way in which a company can communicate to dodge a crisis (issue management) or to weather it. What strategies of response can spokespersons adopt in order to effectively tackle smoldering problems and full-blown crisis?
Strategies of response are discussed by Coombs (Situational Crisis Communication Theory ---offers a PR perspective on crisis response strategies) and Benoit ( Image Restoration Discourse----brings in a rhetorical view).
The way in which an organization communicates and the moment when it communicates in times of crises exhort influence on its reputation. By being the first to acknowledge a crisis, an organization has the opportunity of defining it, thus framing the story so as to save its reputation. According to the framing theory, also known as the second level agenda setting, "media tells us how to think about something" -McCombs & Shaw,1972-by making salient certain aspects/frames of an event over others. Consequently, by being the first to acknowledge a crisis, a corporation has control over it by emphasizing certain aspects over others to such an extent to which the crisis has a less detrimental effect on its reputation. The chances of having the story framed in a way that does not distort the information provided is for a company to provide as much information as possible so as to minimize the eventuality of the journalists seeking out details of the crisis from other sources. Certainly, the same information that corporate representatives provide to the media (external communication) must be equivalent with the information about the crisis that the company provides to its other stakeholders (employees, shareholders, etc) so as to avoid a discrepancy that may impede the crisis management process and further tarnish the reputation of the organization.
Interestingly, a crisis comes to an end when corporations confirm that it is over: it is through communication that the crisis ends.Media will stop covering a crisis the moment corporate representatives declare that the crisis is over. According to Barton (2004) a person in authority that talks to the media and asserts that the crisis is over should also recap the crisis by explaining what happened and why it happened as well as provide a "clear and candid picture" of what was resolved and let media know how things stand as of the day of the conference. Additionally, the spokesperson should also offer the plan that the company aims to put into practice so as to achieve its strategic goals and also to encourage everyone to do their best in order to move forward.
In times of crisis, the messages provided to the media should be clear, accurate, and candid. Additionally, negative coverage can be thwarted by the availability of the spokespersons. In most of the cases, the spokespersons of an organization should be identifiable leaders, such as the CEO, the PR manager, etc. Yet, if the crisis involves technical issues for examples both the presence of the CEO and a person with technical knowledge are encouraged to be present. Moreover, it is also recommended that the leader of an organization be present at the very place where a tragic event occurred. However, his or her presence is not necessarily required only for the sake of the media and getting good coverage, though the latter also helps preserve a good reputation but also because, in times of crises, people seek for a true leader whose presence and encouragement ease the healing process and the recovery. Rudy Giuliani's presence in the aftermath of 9/11 helped build a spirit of togetherness: not only did he talk to the media, but he also interacted with people in the street, etc appearing at the place of the tragedy within minutes after the Twin Towers had collapsed.
Prior to delivering media messages, organizations need to perform a public segmentation (what medium to use for what public). In times of crisis, media and other stakeholders demand exigent responses and there may be little time for such preparation. Therefore, it is advisable that the public segmentation is part of the contingency plan that is incessantly updated by organizations before issues morph into full-blown crises.
Among others, the contingency plan should entail the organization of a team, the assessment of the issue, and the development and testing of the plan (training simulations). Yet, there are many issues that can arise within a company and can lead to impending crises how can the management be aware of them? Barton (2004)asserts that many times the best way to find out about issues is to give voice to all your stakeholders whether employees on entry-level jobs such as customer or sales representatives. Employees in such positions are the ones that come in contact with customers on a regular basis and thus, they can alert of flaws in products etc. Additionally, alerting of issues of either internal or external concern could be encouraged by establishing a target that each employee has of signalizing problems that they further discuss with the crisis management team. Certainly, the organizational culture needs to permit the freedom of speaking up and pointing at issues that affect the employees or the consumers.
Barton (2004)also stresses the importance of a continuous scanning for issues both externally and internally and deals with the chances that the crisis management team has in prioritizing potential crises. He further proposes a mathematical function that calculates the expected value E(X), i.e. how much the crisis will detriment an organization financially. For example, the cost of the effects of an event K is $2 million and the odds that the crisis can occur is one in one thousand (.1 percent or .001). Thus, the impact of the event on the corporation will be $2 million X .001 which is $ 2,000. Yet, in order to calculate E(X) we need to have data on the estimated impact of the crisis and its probability of occurrence.
Barton (2004) encourages companies to have a crisis management team comprised of specialists from different fields (technical, communication, etc) that should meet regularly in order update a stock of potential perils and a contingency plan in case of a crisis that cannot be shunned.
The author also states that organizations are more likely to recover after a crisis if they put the human life first in the process of decision making.
Additionally, when crises strike it may be hard to estimate how much the costs will be and decisions are sometimes made by approximation. Therefore human life should be put first.
Finally, regardless of how much a company comes to grips with a crisis from a financial perspective, if it doesn't tackle communication well, it runs the risk of tarnishing its reputation and thus negatively impact its future sales. The way in which an organization communicates has the power to frame the crisis and thus gain public recognition and support. Further on, the crisis gets off the media's agenda the moment a spokespersons confirms that the crisis is over. Therefore, it is important to be cognizant of the effective way in which a company can communicate to dodge a crisis (issue management) or to weather it. What strategies of response can spokespersons adopt in order to effectively tackle smoldering problems and full-blown crisis?
Strategies of response are discussed by Coombs (Situational Crisis Communication Theory ---offers a PR perspective on crisis response strategies) and Benoit ( Image Restoration Discourse----brings in a rhetorical view).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)