A Crisis Communications Reflective

Crisis

Logic dictates that an exploration of the management of a crisis should be proceeded by identifying what is a crisis.  What constitutes a crisis has been vetted in literature from the outcome, event, threat, impact, and organizational perspectives. Among the definitions:

• “A crisis is an unstable time or state of affairs in which decisive change is impending…” (Heath & Palenchar, 2009).
• A crisis is defined as “an event that brings or has the potential for bringing, an organization into disrepute and imperils the future profitability, growth, and possibly, its very survival,” (Lerinberger, 1997).
• “A crisis is a major occurrence with potentially negative outcomes affecting an organization as well as its publics, services, products, and/or good name,” (Fearn-Banks, 2001).
• A crisis is a “low-probability, high-impact event that threatens the viability of the organization,” (Pearson and Clair, 1998).

Coombs amalgamated these definitions into the definition that “a crisis is a perceptual, unpredictable, but not unexpected; violates expectations of stakeholders about how organizations should act; has a serious impact; has potential to create negative or undesirable outcomes; and causes environmental damage as an outcome of the accident,” (Heath & Palenchar, 2009).

While these form the basis of the denotative definitions of crisis, there were also connotative meanings constructed to characterize degrees of crisis, locus of responsibility, phases of crisis, and typography.

Degrees of Crisis. Literature has metaphors for degrees of severity, such as the hospital patient or the banana index. The latter is green for a new and emerging issue or problem, yellow for current and ripe, and brown for old and moldy, according to Cutlip, Center, and Broom (2000). Essentially, these metaphors represent emerging, immediate and sustained crisis.

Locus of Responsibility. The locus of responsibility from an organizational standpoint is either internal or external and filtered through intentional and unintentional considerations, according to Heath and Palenchar (2009).

Phases of Crisis. Fink (1986) created an early model of a crisis as having four stages: 1) the prodromal stage that hints of a coming crisis, 2) acute triggering crisis event stage, 3) chronic stage of lingering effects of the crisis, and 4) resolution. Meyers’s (1986) conceptualized crisis as pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis, which was expanded upon by Seeger, Sellnow, and Ulmer (1998).

Types of Crisis. Ten types of crises compiled in literature are natural disasters, workplace violence, rumors, malevolence, challenge, technical error accidents, technical error product harm, human error product harm, organizational misdeeds, Heath and Palenchar (2009).

Crisis in America. Crisis in the collective consciousness of Americans can be traced back to the 1960s with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The aftermath of the issue of this political affair may have been the first application of crisis communication. Two decades later, a prominent crisis was seen in the organizational setting with the consumer safety crisis Tylenol experienced with cyanide poison tampering of products, as well as the environmental disaster of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In more recent history, there was the national security crisis of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the large-scale disaster of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Crisis Communication

Similar to how the definition of crisis emerged from both abstract and tactical paradigms, so did the discussion about the management of a crisis. At the high, abstract level there was the rhetorical perspective to crisis management discussion best evangelized by Heath and seen in the Discourse to Renewal Model that informs communicators during post-crisis to be ethical. This effective organizational rhetorical approach was exemplified by Cantor Fitzgerald post-Sept. 11, among other examples, (Ulmer, et. al. 2008). The CEO’s response to the death of 658 employees in the terrorist attack was to vow to rebuild and support the families of the employees. Seeger, Ulmer, Novak, and Sellnow (2005) found that framing the crisis with this vision helped key stakeholders. “When Cantor Fitzgerald reopened on the Monday following the attacks, it experienced one of the busiest days ever as money…” (Ulmer, et. al., 2008).

At the tactical perspective to crisis management, there was mitigating blame from an organizational perspective discussion, as seen in Apologia and Image Restoration. There was also a host of models and best practice lists put forth. One of the more noteworthy models was Mitroff’s (1994) five crisis management stages of:

1. signal detection,

2. probing and prevention,

3. damage and containment,

4. recovery, and

5. learning and evaluation.

Theories put forth that focused on a response, predominantly in defense of the organization include Benoit’s Image Restoration/Repair Theory. This theory stems from Corporate Apologia, which asserts four stages (denial, bolstering, differentiation, and transcendence), Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger (2008). More specifically, Image Restoration/Image Repair crisis theory focuses on response message options, offering five broad categories for an organization’s image repair strategies, Benoit (1997) as:

• Denial (Simple and Shift the Blame)
• Evasion of Responsibility (Provocation, Defeasibility, Accident, Good Intentions)
• Reducing Offensiveness of Event (Bolstering, Minimization, Differentiation, Transcendence, Attack Accuser, Compensation)
• Corrective Action
• Mortification

These low-level, response-focused theories, approaches, and models may be indicative of how young a field crisis communication is in relation to others in communication. And to some, crisis communication is part of risk management and issue management communications. For example, Heath and O’Hair (2010) bracketed crisis and risk management together labeling crisis as “risk manifested” or simply a risk that was not well managed. Heath (1997) also linked crises to issues management stating “if a company is engaged in issues management before, during, and after a crisis (in other words, ongoing), it can mitigate – perhaps prevent – the crisis…”

• However, the undeniable emergence of the field is evident with more sophisticated theoretical groundwork being developed specific to crisis communication. Namely, the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT). This theory focuses on planning and communicating during all phases of a crisis, Heath and Palenchar (2009). “SCCT utilizes three factors to assess the reputational threat of a crisis: crisis type (frame), crisis history, and prior reputation. Crisis type is the frame used to define the crisis. The literature has identified a set of three crisis types/frames for categorizing crises victim, accidental, and intentional.

Each crisis type has been found to generate predictable amounts of crisis responsibility, Coombs (2010). The level of responsibility for each crisis type is seen by Coombs (2010) as:

• Victim Crisis = Minimal Responsibility
• Accident Crisis = Low Crisis Responsibility
• Preventable Crisis = Strong Crisis Responsibility

SCCT also has the construct of four major postures with various responses, which was detailed in Heath and Palenchar (2009) as:

1. Posture 1: Denial (attacking accuser, denial that the crisis exists and scapegoating)
2. Posture 2: Diminishing (excusing and justifying)
3. Posture 3: Rebuilding (compensation and apology)
4. Posture 4: Bolstering (reminding, ingratiation, and victimage)

The theory, while more sophisticated than others, still is focused on protecting the reputation of the organization and is rooted in “response.”

Future Directions for Crisis Communication

The lack of grand overall theory, such as Excellence Theory in public relations, has yet to be developed in the field of crisis communication. Crisis communications can also embrace the newest communication niche of activism public relations by researching conflict from an activist group perspective. Additionally, crisis communication could benefit from more international, cross-cultural theories. For example, in health communications, there is the Integrated Behavioral Model, which guides research that can be customized to any culture and population. It also provides predictive insight. This leads to another suggested future direction for crisis communication theoretical framework; more predictive theories that inform from a strategic level the management of a large-scale disaster. This author (KN) had originally proposed the expansion of Chaos Theory to crisis communication as a thesis.

Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory, which has been broadly applied to the sciences, has the potential to provide a broad theoretical framework to crisis communication, Sellnow, Seeger, and Ulmer (2002). Chaos Theory, in the simplest terms, is the concept that small deviations in a system can result in huge and often unsuspected results. Sellnow et. al. (2002) studied Chaos Theory through the prism of a system-wide analysis of crisis communication in natural disasters. The theory was shown to point the way to how communication processes relate to systems moving in and out of chaos and order. So, the collapse of a pre-existing structure leads to the self-generation of new communication structures, relationships, etc. Literature supports the notion of crisis as an opportunity for emergence of new opportunities, leaders, and processes (Penrose, 2000; Brock, Sandol, & Lewis, 2001).

References

Benoit, W.L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23, 177-186.

Brock, S.E., Sandoval, J., & Lewis, S. (2001). Preparing for crisis in the schools: A manual for building school crisis response teams (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Coombs, T.W. (2010). Conceptualizing Crisis Communication. In R.L. Heath, H. D. O’Hair (eds.), Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 99 – 118). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective Public Relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Fearn-Banks, K. (2001). Crisis communication: A review of some best practices. In R.L. Heath ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 479-485). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Heath, R.L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L., & O'Hair, H. D. (2010). The Significance of Crisis and Risk Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Hanbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 5-30). New York, NY: Routledge.

Heath, R.L. & Palenchar, M.J. (2009). Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Leinberger, O. (1997). The crisis manager: Facing risk and responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meyers, G.C. (1986). When it hits the fan: Managing the nine crises of business. New York: Mentor.

Mitroff, I.I. (1994). Crisis management and environmentalism: A natural fit. California Management Board, 36 (2), 101-113.

Pearson, C.M., Clair, J.A., Misra, S.K., & Mitroff, I.I. (1997). Managing the unthinkable. Organizational Dynamics, 26 (2), 51-64.

Penrose, J.M. (2000). The role of perception in crisis planning. Public Relations Review, 26 (2), 155-171.

Seeger, M.W, Sellnow, T.L., & Ulmer, R.R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis. In Michael Roloff (Ed.) Communication Yearbook 21 (pp. 230-275). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seeger, M.W., Ulmer, R.R., Novak, J.M., & Sellnow, T.L.(2005). Post-crisis discourse and organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 78-95.

Sellnow, T., Seeger, M. & Ulmer R. (2002). Chaos theory, informaitonal needs, and natural disasters. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 269-292.

Ulmer, R.R., Sellnow , T.T., Seeger, M.W. (2008). Post-crisis Communication and Renewal: Understanding the Potential for Positive Outcomes in Crisis Communication. In R.L. Heath, H. D. O’Hair (eds.), Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 302-322). New York, NY: Routledge.