Why Managers Should Make Effective Communication A Priority: Crisis Communication And The Development Of Communication Strategies

Importance of Reputation in Crisis

Crisis Communication And The Development Of Communication Strategies

An important tool that determines the quality of survival of any business or an organization is its reputation in the market. Reputation directs to the confidence and trust that customers develop with the connotation of each business that they associate themselves with. This has a profound and direct effect on the bottom line of the company (Utz, Schultz and Glocka2013). In the events of crisis, the reputation of an organization may be under threat. As such, there are numerous theories and models which can help organizations protect their reputation during such situations. This paper discusses the idea of Situational Crisis Communication Theory and how it shapes the path for developing communication strategies to protect the reputation of the organization in crisis.

It is becoming clearer with every new dawn that the reputation of any company will determine its future success in the business market. Previously in the past scenarios, it has been seen that the reputation of a company depended only on the word of mouth of their stakeholders and thus gave stakeholders the sole power to make or break the reputation of any business. In this modern epoch, different channels like social media, review pages and the methods of instant communication, any business is at a greater risk to have a lasting effect by any crisis that they may be hit with. Being an intangible concept, a good reputation can determine certain aspects through a business must go through, for example, the future value of any business in the marketplace, customer preference and gaining support from different organizations in the time of crisis. As Coombs (2013) says, often in the time of any kind of crisis that may suddenly hit an organization, it is of utmost necessity that there would be counter-strategies to reverse the effects of the crisis.

To protect the reputational asset of any organization, it is mandatory that one must have an in-depth knowledge of Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT). Situational Crisis Communication Theory helps to implement a mechanism that will let the organization anticipate the behaviour which the stakeholders will showcase towards them after a crisis has hit and has well affected the reputational asset of any organization.  Besides, this theory also reveals the hypothetical reactions of people to the crisis management and handling strategies that have been implemented to manage the crisis at hand. SCCT helps the risk manager to assess proactively about the level of damage can any crisis can possess to the reputational asset (Liu and Fraustino2014).  Besides, superior crisis response has its root deeply embedded in the correct assessment of the situation as well as the reputational threat and its nature (Timothy Coombs and Jean Holladay 2014).

Situational Crisis Communication Theory

There are three clusters of crises present in the crisis situation which gives shape to the reputational threat. According to Claeys and Cauberghe (2014),the first and foremost is the Victim cluster. In this scenario, falls an organization which is under threat and a victim of natural disasters such as an earthquake, tsunami or a tornado. In this cluster falls other organizations who may also face a threat like having to face rumours that have been spread about the organization to slightly malign their image. The second cluster of crisis can be termed as an accident where remains reputational threats which are prompted by actions taken by the company. Any action or step taken by the company can also lead to organizational failure or reputational crisis. The factors affecting such a situation would be a product or equipment failure or accusations received from external stakeholders (Ki and Nekmat 2014). The threat possessed by this cluster comes with a medium intensity. Apart from these, there is a third cluster that is known by the name of the intentional cluster. This comes with a high intensity where the organization risks to lose a major value of their built reputation. Actions in which, a company indulges by knowing themselves, that it would be a risky move or when a company ventures into randomly taking inappropriate risks, then, they automatically risk this severe blow.

It should also be remembered that crisis history has the power to either positively intensify or negatively intensify the reputational threat.  According to Xu and Li (2013), it could only mean one thing, which is if the organization handled such a crisis situation in the past and how proactively was the crisis dealt with. Besides, the prior relational reputation is also taken into consideration.  The relationship that the organization maintains with the stakeholders also play a major role in determining the intensity of the reputational crisis (Sohn and Lariscy 2014). An organization must determine the level of crisis responsibility and identify the reputational threats before using the SCCT model which takes inferences from William L. Benoit’s image restoration model (Van der Meer and Verhoeven 2014). The model identifies a set of strategies that can be used to respond to primary crises scenarios.

 According to Ma and Zhan (2016), the first crisis response strategy is the strategy of denial. Following this strategy, the organization must deny the existence of the story or start the procedure of scapegoating any other source. Besides, often a defensive attack on the accuser is also done while following this crisis response strategy.  The second response strategy of diminishment helps in dealing with the reputational crisis by the methods of offering excuses or giving a detailed justification of the occurrences. The most effective way that leaves a lasting impression is the method of rebuilding a reputation. In this method, an organization thrives to compensate the victims as well as offers apologies. In this method, the organization takes full responsibility for the source of the crisis and acknowledges it.

Clusters of Crises

Olsson (2014) says that a secondary crisis response strategy can be used to deal with the reputational crisis. Known as the strategy of bolstering or reinforcing, it helps the organization to remind the stakeholders about the supremacy of the organization. To prove its supremacy, an organization can either remind the stakeholders about the past good deeds or it can justify the channels through which it could be proved easily that the organization is just a victim in the whole scenario. The pioneer of the SCCT, Coombs recommends that the crisis response strategies highly depends on the way the organization acts in the pre-crisis phase to prevent the crisis and to be prepared to face the crisis. It also depends heavily upon the post-crisis phase where the organization showcases success and a will to learn from past mistakes.

Being elucidated about the SCCT and its helpful gestures into managing a crisis situation effectively, it is also important to elaborate on the different communication strategies that one can derive from it (Coombs2014). The three options that should be kept in mind while developing effective communication strategies are as follows.

This response option empowers the organization in three ways. As Choi and Chung (2013) say, the first option calls to attack the accuser in which the crisis manager confronts the group of people or organization that are claiming about the abnormal conditions within the organization in question. In this method, often the organization or group of people who are accusing the company must be sued. The second option that is denial where the crisis manager will outrightly dismiss the possibility or occurrence of any crisis. The third way out is the scapegoating option in which the crisis manager puts the blame on some other individual or organization for the occurrence of the crisis. Often, the risk manager would put a blame on the supplier.

Following this option, the crisis manager can easily dilute the effect of a large crisis at hand. For example, the manager may express condolences to the after effect of the crisis and claim that inability on the behalf of the company to control the damage (Sellnowand Seeger2013). To diminish, the manager must also take the path of justification, where, the organization in question justifies the occurrence by claiming that the crisis created minimal damage.

This crisis management strategy empowers the company the most and creates the most impressive post-crisis effect. According to Coombs and Holladay (2014) a crisis manager appeases the stakeholders and reminds them of the good deeds and past achievements of the company by following this method. The crisis manager may also thank the stakeholders and remind them of the social or corporate responsibility of the organization and how it surpassed excellence in each field. It also includes bringing up ventures which are ecologically conscious and environmentally friendly. The crisis manager can also express concern in which he or she may express deep grief for the victims. Besides, that, the crisis manager also offer compassion to the victims in the form of money, kind or gifts. They could also appease the victims and appease them with products that are manufactured by the company. The crisis manager must also speak on behalf of the company and gently remind everyone around about the intensity of regret and guilt that the company has for the unforeseen events. A crisis manager also apologizes for the unfortunate events and publicly accepts the guilt. In fact, the stakeholders are often asked to look past the mistake of the company as a gesture of forgiveness.

Crisis Response Strategies

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be inferred that or Situational Crisis Communication Theory helps any crisis manager to understand the essence of crisis communication on a basic strategic level.  It places a strong emphasis on the corporate reputation repair. There are different factors which the SCCT does not make obvious but these factors are also important when considering the application of SCCT. The role which culture plays as well as the visual and audio media and its coverage of the crisis might also be considered when applying the SCCT. In a crisis situation, SCCT can offer refuge through certain communication techniques which are thoroughly efficient and which saves the organization from loss of projects, contracts and bankruptcy. Besides, it also focuses on rebuilding the reputation by certain development models through which a company can reinforce the power that it once had at a pre-crisis level.

References

Choi, J. and Chung, W., 2013. Analysis of the interactive relationship between apology and product involvement in crisis communication: An experimental study on the Toyota recall crisis. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27(1), pp.3-31.

Claeys, A.S. and Cauberghe, V., 2014. What makes crisis response strategies work? The impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), pp.182-189.

Coombs, W.T., 2013. Situational theory of crisis: Situational crisis communication theory and corporate reputation. The handbook of communication and corporate reputation, pp.262-278.

Coombs, W.T., 2014. State of crisis communication: Evidence and the bleeding edge. Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 1(1), pp.1-12.

Ki, E.J. and Nekmat, E., 2014. Situational crisis communication and interactivity: Usage and effectiveness of Facebook for crisis management by Fortune 500 companies. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, pp.140-147.

Liu, B.F. and Fraustino, J.D., 2014. Beyond image repair: Suggestions for crisis communication theory development. Public Relations Review, 40(3), pp.543-546.

Ma, L. and Zhan, M., 2016. Effects of attributed responsibility and response strategies on organizational reputation: A meta-analysis of situational crisis communication theory research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(2), pp.102-119.

Olsson, E.K., 2014. Crisis communication in public organisations: Dimensions of crisis communication revisited. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis management, 22(2), pp.113-125

Sellnow, T.L. and Seeger, M.W., 2013. Theorizing crisis communication (Vol. 4). John Wiley & Sons.

Sohn, Y.J. and Lariscy, R.W., 2014. Understanding reputational crisis: Definition, properties, and consequences. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(1), pp.23-43.

Timothy Coombs, W. and Jean Holladay, S., 2014. How publics react to crisis communication efforts: Comparing crisis response reactions across sub-arenas. Journal of Communication Management, 18(1), pp.40-57.

Utz, S., Schultz, F. and Glocka, S., 2013. Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relations Review, 39(1), pp.40-46.

Van der Meer, T.G. and Verhoeven, J.W., 2014. Emotional crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 40(3), pp.526-536.

Xu, K. and Li, W., 2013. An ethical stakeholder approach to crisis communication: A case study of Foxconn’s 2010 employee suicide crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), pp.371-386.