Assignment Help on Crisis Communication
Crisis Communication
There is no universally accepted definition of crisis however some famous authors have defined crisis in their research the most famous being that crisis is a major event with a possible unfavorable outcome for an organization, public, brand, people, service or an industry as a whole, It can damage to an extent where an organizations existence is threatened (Fearn-Banks 1996). However Friedman (2002) concluded that crisis, in general, is not a bad state, it may be stepping stone for a good positive change. Mitroff & Anagnos (2001) defined crisis as an occurrence which has a potential to affect the whole company, if there is a minor occurrence which occurs in a part of organization it may be considered as a minor crisis, whereas a major crisis will be referred to a situation where human lives are affected financially, health-wise, environment is affected and reputation of the whole industry or organization is at stake. Coombs (1999:2) defined it as an event which occurs unannounced where a major threat can affect the whole organization and its stakeholders if mismanaged.
Coombs (2004) has characterized crisis in 3 categories; (1) Victim Crisis Cluster which requires low acknowledgment of crisis responsibility, where the organization itself is viewed as the victim of its occurrence, due to the fact that these are driven by external forces (Coombs et al. 1995) it can be divided into four part being (1.1) natural disaster, where any ecological or environmental disaster can occur and affect the organization. (1.2) Rumors/False news can be damaging for an organization when being circulated; the digital age of media makes it difficult to control this crisis. (1.3) Violence in the workplace can be due to confrontation taking place internally and externally by employees, Last part of the victim crisis cluster is (1.4) Product tampering and malevolence, where an external source or an internal source has tampered with the product of the organization, or information is sourced out with the intent to damage the organization reputation. (2) Accidental Crisis cluster requires nominal attribution of the crisis responsibility, and it can be a factor of moderate reputation damage due to the limited control in the occurrence of the crisis (Perrow 1999). Accidental crisis cluster is further broken into 3 parts first being (2.1) Challenges when a stakeholder states that corporation is running in an inappropriate manner this is not a legal crisis but rather a moral and ethical crisis. (2.2) Technical error accident can occur when technology is failed this crisis does not refer to an accident that will physically harm an individual. (2.3) Technical error recalls is a product failure where the results can be harmful of its stakeholders, a recall is initiated to rectify the failure. Last category of Crisis is (3) Intentional Crisis Cluster where organizations or an individual violates law, and are involved in negligence of work, producing and delivering products with known defects are in violation of the law (Mitroff & Anagnos 2001; Morris, Moore & Sim, 1999; Coombs & Holladay 2001) it is divided into three parts the first being (3.1) Human error accidents where crisis occurs due to the individual mishaps, it can lead to an industrial accident. (3.2) Human error recalls, where similar to technical error recalls this is initiated due to the inefficiency or negligence of an employee. (3.3) Organizational misdeeds where laws are not followed intentionally or organization tries to bend the law for their favor this could result in a massive crisis for an organization.
For an organization assessing the crisis and its threat is essential there are three factors; crisis history whether the organization itself or similar organization has faced a similar crisis, relationship history with stakeholders has been positive or negative, and the damage inflicted during the crisis. The intensity of crisis is on a high when there is a history of crisis or the organization has a negative relationship with its stakeholders, it has a direct impact on the organizational reputation (Coombs 1995; Coombs & Holladay 2001). Organizations with no history of crisis and positive relationship with its stakeholders can have minimal intensity.
Crisis history has some successful examples and some unsuccessful ones, in 1993 Pepsi was hit by a crisis when the syringe was found in a can of diet Pepsi of an elderly couple, followed by more incidents occurring in the same vicinity of Tacoma, Washington. The company decided a product recall but decided against it in consultation with FDA, the claims of foreign objects being found in their drinks were pouring in from all over the country, Pepsi decided to make a team of 12 company executive and investigate and rectify the crisis. The fourth day into the crisis Pepsi was in engagement with TV newsrooms, company initiating a press release, a video was released to show its stakeholder the manufacturing process where an impossibility of inserting foreign objects was concluded. Assistance of FDA was essential to convince the retailers throughout the crisis as Pepsi has maintained a healthy relationship with FDA, when it was revealed that these foreign objects were intentional attempts to disrupt the reputation of Pepsi, CCTV footage was released to a women tampering with the product, an arrest was made to and reported to the public of the guilty person involved in this hoax. Pepsi came out clean and during the crisis and post-crisis the sales of Pepsi were unharmed, Pepsi took a step forward in thanking the people for their cooperation during this time.
Crisis is considered as a process view which is also found in Fink (1986) model who examined the crisis in four stages; (1) prodromal, when warnings of crisis started to appear; (2) acute, when a crisis has occurred; (3) chronic, it is the recovery period with effects of crisis still ongoing; (4) crisis resolution, the organization is now unaffected by the previous crisis and normal operations are resumed. Similar to the fields model Smith (1990) proposed a three-step model (1) crisis management; where a crisis rises; (2) operational crisis, when the event occurs and response is initiated; (3) crisis of legitimization, the organizations are involved in responses, to media, government and stakeholders, the loop of feedback from legitimization and management will help organization move forward from the crisis phase. There are many other authors who have developed their own models like Mitroff (1994) who offers a 5 stage model consisting of detection, prevention, containment, recovery, and learning. One of the most famous and simple modes is presented by Coombs (2014) introducing the crisis in pre-crisis; crisis and post-crisis.
1. Crisis Communication only benefits the organization
Crisis communication research management is a practical concept, where theory and applicants must intersect; managers have a resource of case studies and literature to consult from. In its genuine nature crisis management is all about protecting the stakeholder/affected interest rather than the organization itself, however much research is emphasized on crisis benefiting the organization leaving out its real essence that is the protection of the stakeholder. Hefty corporations can get away with a crisis with previous reputation intact. It is essential to understand that crisis communication plan has an ethical and legal responsibility for an organization to address the matter in its true genuine form with keeping the affected in mind rather than the organization.
2. Lack of Leadership skills in crisis
In a crisis model by Coombs (2014) where we can clearly see the multiple effects of each occurrence or task, leadership plays a big role in building confident strategies, dealing with the crisis from the front line. The crisis at many times can result according to the nature of the leader handling it, importance and training with the expert consultant and developing a crisis management team rather than an individual dealing with the crisis. At many stages even with the existence of a crisis management team, the leadership fails to play its role for direction for the team, the motivation for the employees internally and management of other organizational function. Leadership is responsible for the crisis, where the crisis response strategies are developed to save the organizational reputation in conclusion a direct impact is seen in the behavioral intentions of the stakeholders involved in the crisis. It is essential for a leader to come up with contingency plans and adapt their leadership styles accordingly to re-route the organization out of the crisis phase. Keeping a stance in the crisis time is an important skill set a leader requires which gives the organization a whole direction (Cameron, Pang & Ying, 2008).
Hire Expert Writers at
Affordable Price
WhatsApp
Get Assignment Help
3. Lack of media training
Media relations before the crisis incurs is a key point in building positive relations with the media to provide an organizational point of view and convince the media from the standpoint of the organization, Lerbinger (1997), Feran-Banks (2016), and Coombs (2014) all have emphasized the importance of media relation in pre-crisis; crisis and post-crisis stage. Media training should be provided to the designated individuals to handle the crisis efficiently as soon as it arrives being professional will help lay the ground for an organization to develop a strategy to deal with the crisis, media relations often help an organization to buy some time to develop a crisis management plan. Many organizations fail to train their employees on media, and there is an inconsistent relationship with the media. The flow of information should be smooth for effective media relations.
Cameron, G.T., Pang. A., & Jin, Y. (2008). Contingency theory. Public relations: From theory to practice, pp.134-157.
Coombs, W.T. and Holladay, S.J., 2001. An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of public relations research, 13(4), pp.321-340.
Coombs, W.T., 1995. Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management communication quarterly, 8(4), pp.447-476.
Coombs, W.T., 1999. Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.
Coombs, W.T., 2004. Impact of past crises on current crisis communication: Insights from situational crisis communication theory. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 41(3), pp.265-289.
Coombs, W.T., 2014. Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.
Coombs, W.T., Hazleton, V., Holladay, S.J. and Chandler, R.C., 1995. The crisis grid: Theory and application in crisis management. New avenues in risk and crisis management, 4, pp.30-39.
Fearn-Banks, K., 2016. Crisis communications: A casebook approach. Routledge.
Fink, S., 1986. Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. American Management Association.
Friedman, M.L., 2002. Everyday crisis management. New Decision Press.
Lerbinger, O., 1997. The crisis manager: Facing risk and responsibility. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mitroff, I.I. and Anagnos, G., 2001. Managing crisis before they happen. AMACOM American Management Association.
Mitroff, I.I., 1994. Crisis management and environmentalism: A natural fit. California Management Review, 36(2), pp.101-113.
Morris, M.W., Moore, P.C. and Sim, D.L., 1999. Choosing remedies after accidents: Counterfactual thoughts and the focus on fixing “human error”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), pp.579-585.
Perrow, C., 1999. Organizing to reduce the vulnerabilities of complexity. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 7(3), pp.150-155.
Smith, D., 1990. Beyond contingency planning: Towards a model of crisis management. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4(4), pp.263-275.
