Crisis Communication
...ication in detail. He states that crises are avoided by recognizing warning signs, which indicate that a situation could develop into a crisis. Further, he identifies three management tools that need to be employed in order for the crisis prevention system to work. Those are: issues management, risk management and relationship building. An issue can be defined as “a trend of condition…that, if continued, would have a significant effect on how the company is operated” (Moore 1979: 43). Issue Management tries to identify, analyze and resolve those issues in a way that is not a crisis. The communication tools applied are for example advocacy, grassroots lobbying, direct lobbying or publicity. A risk is a possible weakness that could trigger a crisis. The aim of risk management is to reduce the risks faced by an organization. “The midst of a disaster is the poorest possible time to establish new relationships and to introduce ourselves to new organizations…” (Augustine 1955: 151). Therefore, an organization should try to strengthen favorable relationships before a crisis, by first identifying its stakeholders and then upholding a two-way communication. Many crises are the result of stakeholder perceptions. When Nike wanted to introduce a new athletic shoe with a fashionable flaming logo in the Middle East, its distributor raised concerns that the logo looked a lot like the Arabic word Allah and would offend Muslims. Nike still released the shoe in September 1996. In June 1997 Nike had to recall those shoes from all Islamic markets and apologize to the Muslim community, since CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) had protested in public. If they had heeded their stakeholders concerns, they would have been able to resolve the problem before it became a crisis. Companies need to stay close, instill credibility and to meet stakeholder’s expectations (Coombs 1999: 45-50). 2.1.2. Preparing to manage the crisis Of the 89% senior executives of the study mentioned before, only 50% said that they had established a plan for tackling a crisis. Nevertheless 97% felt confident that they would respond adequately in case of a crisis. This can be strongly doubted. True “there is no magical 9-1-1 number” for dealing with a crisis, however even when improvising, it is most effective to have a plan already in place that serves as a guide (Augustine 1995: 148). After all, a “firm will be judged on how it handles the crisis” (Reid 2000: 68). There are four major tasks every organization should focus on when preparing for the worst case scenario. Those are: forming a crisis management team, assigning spokespersons, drafting a crisis management plan and setting up a crisis communication centre. The crisis management team (CMT) The main tasks of the CMT include compiling the crisis management plan, enacting it and dealing with problems outside the CMP. Podolak (2002) stresses that a CMT should consist of a team leader, a finance director, a legal representative, a security director, a risk manager, a communications specialist, a human resources representative and a security specialist or consultant. The team leader should ideally be a senior executive that has the support of the board and the majority of shareholders. The spokesperson Much has been written about the spokesperson: all sources agree that he or she is the voice of the organization and should be able to instill credibility with reporters, broadcasters, employees, customers and shareholders. Johnson (1993) recommends also including the spokesperson in the crisis team so that he or she knows what is going on. Further, Coombs (1999) stresses the importance of having multiple spokespersons, since a single person cannot be around 24/7. In general, it seems to make sense to assign the CEO as the primary spokesperson with the intention that “the listener has reason to think that the full weight of the company stands behind whatever promises and assurances are being made” (Argenti 2002: 104). On the other hand, this should also be seen with some caution. Sometimes it is better to not “call on the court of last resort until you are at your last resort” (Augustine 1995: 155) A crisis is a very stressful situation and managers are sadly often expected to wing it and “display the same leadership and grace under pressure that they automatically show in familiar business surroundings” (Johnson 1993: 62). The spokesperson must be able to answer questions effectively, present crisis information clearly and handle difficult questions next to looking pleasant on camera. To be able to do that “extensive training must be conducted on media presentation skills” (Moore 2002: 18). The crisis management plan (CMP) “The core sermon preached by crisis converts is the need for a detailed but usable CMP” (Coombs 1999: 78). According to Hoffman (2001), the aim is to be capable of controlling crisis once it hits through effective planning. Coombs (1999) adds that a CMP helps to reduce the response time. Further he explains that sometimes the CMP is also referred to as the crisis communication plan. However, the CMP takes on a broader approach including, next to contact lists also for example an incident report, a business resumption plan or post crisis evaluations. All authors stress the importance of continuous rehearsals, since an outdated plan is no plan at all. The crisis communication centre (CCC) Coombs (1999) describes the CCC as a separate area in the organization devoted solely to crisis management that is not only a place for the crisis team to meet and discuss, but also an information collecting centre. Further it can be used as an area for briefing the media in case of a crisis. Argenti (2002) delivers in his article a perfect example of what he referrers to as being a crisis command centre: “At American, the strategic command centre is a vast room featuring a large, horseshoe-shaped table with fully equipped workstations and a conference call line that can accommodate as many as 200 outside callers. Large-screen televisions set up to receive satellite broadcasts allow command centre employees to monitor all news coverage of the crisis” (Argenti 2002: 108). 2.2 During the crisis “During a crisis communication is geared toward achieving normalcy as quickly as possible” (Davis, Gilman 2002: 40). The stages “recognizing the crisis”, “containing the crisis” and “resolving the crisis” all happen when a crisis has finally occurred. No clear line can be drawn between containing and resolving the crisis. It can however be observed that containing the crisis is more about “How to communicate”, while resolving the crisis deals with “What to communicate”. 2.2.1 Recognizing the crisis “This Stage of crisis management is often the most challenging” (Augustine 1995: 152). Before a company can try to contain or resolve a crisis it must first be classified as one. In this regard, stakeholder perceptions can matter greatly. When Shell decided to sink its oil storage rig Brent Spar, it was the general public’s opinion about the incident that generated a crisis. Unfortunately for Shell, mangers recognized it only after the company’s image had been tainted by pictures of Greenpeace activists, in their small boats, being attacked by water cannons. Recognizing a crisis can also have a lot to do with politics. Sometimes, the crisis needs to be sold to a predominant coalition in order to be recognized. In addition, this stage is about collecting information since crises tend to create an information void. However, several problems can surface during information collection processes in companies. Coombs (1999) mentions serial reproduction errors, the MUM Effect , message overload, information acquisition biases , and group decision making errors. 2.2.2 Containing the crisis As soon as a crisis is officially labeled as one, though decisions have to be made fast, as to prevent the crisis from becoming worse. The key is to communicate with all audiences, employees, customers, victims etc. Many guidelines on how to communicate have been published. The 10 Cs of good crisis communication referred to by Hoffmann (2001) mostly summarize other recommendations and offer a clear outline on “How to communicate”. Communicating with the victims “The victims must be taken into consideration as quickly as possible” (Ogrizek and Guillery 1997: 62). A company needs to take great care of first identifying victims and then assisting them in any possible way, especially in situations where human life is in peril. Ogrizek and Guillery (1997) go on by stressing the need for satisfying the victims’ and their families’ demand for truth and the legal acknowledgment of responsibility, in order to reduce stress, distress or disarray. Communicating with the staff Communicating with employees is often neglected during a crisis. Companies focus solely on talking to the media and employees receive their information by watching TV or reading newspapers, which may cause stress und dissatisfaction. Organizations should most definitely avoid this trap by keeping their staff informed at all times. Ogrizek and Guillery (1997) point out that employees are often the main spokespersons outside the company. It is therefore in the best interest of a company, when wanting to effectively resolve a crisis, to keep employees posted. Argenti (2002) goes even further by saying that in a time of extreme crisis, internal communication should take precedence and that a strong internal communications does not only contribute to weather the crisis, but also strengthens companies internally. Communicating with the media When questioned by the media, companies need to respond or reporters will find someone else who does. Ogrizek and Guillery (1999) state that preparation is essential. Spokespersons should be briefed, a company should present itself as a reliable source of real-time information and the media record of the company should be known amongst employees. Good relationships to important journalists that have been established previously, facilitate handling the media attention during a crisis. 2.2.3 Resolving the crisis This section will mainly focus on Coombs (2000) proposed Crisis Response Strategies as they offer an excellent guideline on what to respond under which circumstances, meaning a specific crisis type. Crisis Response Strategies (CRS) Coombs (2000) mentions seven different crisis response strategies: Attack the accuser, denial, excuse, justification, ingratiation, corrective action and the full apology. The first two CRS are the most defensive. They deny that there is a crisis. When apologizing, the company expresses regret but assumes no responsibility for the crisis. Justification refers to minimizing the damage associated with the crisis. “Ingratiation adds positives, unrelated to the crisis, in order to repair relational damage from the crisis” (Coombs 2000: 38). Corrective actions seek to repair the damages derived from the crisis. The full apology is most accommodative crisis response strategy, as the company accepts full responsibility for the crisis and places victims above organizational needs. In a second step, Coombs (2000) assigns each CRS to a specific crisis type. He distinguishes between five crisis types, namely: rumors, natural disasters, malevolence,...