Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication - Term Paper Example

Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Introduction Communication is a highly imperfect art and a broad science, which is applicable in everyday life. However, it is often used inappropriately, which leads to problems or the compounding of the problems being communicated (CDC 10). Communication is particularly important during times of crisis or emergency, especially during cases related to health and wellbeing. Through effective crisis and emergency communication, the community or group in question can aid in the dissolution of problems, but a failure of communication during a crisis can compound the problems. This is because sound crisis communication is necessary to the process of intervention planning (CDC 11). Well-planned and executed emergency risk communication, which is blended into the different phases of the crisis response continuum, can increase the potential of addressing the crisis, particularly where the resources available for risk resolution are limited and should be channeled to areas where they are critically needed (CDC 13). Crises necessitating groups or organizations’ to employ effective risk communication Crises include national, multi-state investigations on disease outbreak, or the exploration of environmental crisis (CDC 14). Examples of these crises include waterborne, airborne, food borne, vector borne, chemical, toxic material, natural disaster, infectious agent, and radiological-related risks (Coombs 242). One example is the case of a natural disaster that requires the immediate attention of the government and other authorities. The agents of crisis communication could include the relief organizations that respond and provide aid to those affected by the crisis, or the NGOs that come to offer aid. The aid may entail retrieving the victims that are most vulnerable to the risks arising from the crisis situation. The second form of crisis is triggered by an unknown infectious compound, which has the potential to spread to other parts of the country or region. Examples include water-related and large-scale ecological crises. The third form of crisis, which requires effective risk communication, is site specific crisis, where the crisis takes place at a given area, and the crisis can be controlled at the site (Coombs 242). Examples include laboratory incidents, the death of an employee or a student at the campus grounds, hostage event at campus, bomb threats and a fire or explosion incident. The last form of crisis, which calls for effective crisis communication, includes terrorist attacks – whether chemical or biological – after the terrorist activities are suspected or declared (Combs 165). The risk of disaster or emergency is worsened by a number of factors that come into play within the society with each requiring effective crisis communication, and in a timely manner, in order to avoid the expansion of the threat to a larger group. These factors include the global increase in population density, the increment of settlements at risk-prone locations, the increment of technological risks in the society, and the emergency of infectious illnesses. Other factors include the increment of international travel and the escalating threat posed by terrorism globally (Coombs 241). Due to the increase in the risk factors that contribute to the development of a crisis in society, risk communication is required at any site of emergency or risk. Crisis communication – for this context – is defined as the process of communicating about the situation facing the given organization or setting, to the stakeholders of the organization and the public (Combs 164). Crisis or emergency communication is initiated after the incidence of an emergency, crisis or a disaster. Emergencies, crises, and disasters have one thing in common, which is that they all relate to the incidence of an adverse event, which has either taken place or which is taking place. After any event, which is adverse or unexpected happens, it is possible to refer to the given incidence as an emergency, crisis or a disaster – depending on the impacts of the given event or the particular phase of the event in question (Rousseau 256). The lifecycle of Crisis communication Comprehending the pattern of crisis can aid communicators in planning for problems and responding to critical events effectively. Among crisis communicators, it is important that any crisis, disaster, and emergency mitigation plans evolve through different stages. Therefore, the communication process will also evolve in response. Through splitting the emergency or crisis into different stages, the communicator can foresee the information demands of the different stakeholders, media, and the general public (Paraskevas 892). Each of the different stages has its unique information demands (see fig. 1). Fig. 1 The Communication Life Cycle (Seeger “Crisis and Emergency” 5) At the pre-crisis phase, communicators prepare for the crisis; they develop strategic alliances; they draw consensus-based recommendations; and then they do the testing of the messages. At the initial phase, communicators acknowledge the incidence of the risk event in an empathetic manner. They inform and explain the issue to different stakeholders and the public in the simplest form regarding the emergency or the risk in question (Seeger “Crisis and Emergency” 7). The next step is developing spokes-person credibility, presenting the emergency action course to be taken – including that on where additional information about the crisis can be collected. Later, in the same phase, communicators commit the public and different stakeholders so that they can maintain communication. The maintenance phase entails assisting the public in a more accurate manner, which is guided by a detailed understanding of their risks, offering the public with a background about the risk and dispensing information to those who need it (Seeger “Crisis and Emergency” 7). The communicators should develop a comprehension of the necessary support actions in response to the recovery plans to be employed by consulting stakeholders and the audience for feedback, which helps in the correction of misinformation. At this phase, communicators should also discuss emergency recommendations with the different stakeholders and also empower decision-making related to risk mitigation (Coombs 245). At the resolution phase, the communicators should improve the response from the public, to similar events through education. The phase entails examining mishaps and problems, and then reinforcing the areas that worked during the recovery and the response processes (Coombs 245). The public is persuaded to offer support for public policy, and in resource allocation, throughout the problem. At this phase, the competencies and the activities of the agency are promoted through internal reinforcement and corporate identity. The evaluation phase entails evaluating the performance of the communication plan, taking note of the lessons learnt, and determining the actions that could improve the crisis plan and the crisis system (Paraskevas 895). The process of going through the different phases will depend on the event that triggered the crisis plan. It is not possible to create all crisis plans in the same manner. Further, the intensity or the degree, as well as the longevity of the crisis influences the staffs and the resources required for the crisis communication and the crisis planning. Role of crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Emergencies, crises, and disasters happen. Disaster response is challenging to plan due to the differences in the emergencies arising out of daily activities. The difference goes beyond the magnitude aspect of disaster, mainly because they cannot be fully managed, only through the mobilization of material and human resources. During crisis communication, decision-makers are likely to be unable to gather and process information at the right time, and in ways that are effective. Communication during an emergency cannot be actualized, solely, through the mobilization of material and human resources because the communication process will be different. This is the case due to the high-impact nature of the crisis. Nonetheless, low-probability events can also result to a breakdown in established communication frameworks (Combs 167). Emergency and crises communication are critical components that help people to cope with the event, as well as start reconstructing the sense of order and understanding the events. The communication process can help correct the harmful behaviors that arise during the time of emergencies and crisis. Crisis and risk communication can help limit the stakeholders’ tendencies towards damaging behavior, which can help in preventing adverse response outcomes in different areas such as health. Crisis communication does this through communicating the solid crisis communication outlook. In this regard, it offers information at the time of need, it communicates care and empathy, and it communicates the expertise and the competence of the communicators (Combs 167). Crisis limits detrimental human tendencies through increasing commitment levels to crisis response and the recovery process. It communicates the issue in an open and honest manner and integrates risk communication principles into the communication of the message. Human behavior during crisis and emergency communication Many of human beings' behavior anticipated, after a crisis, can be mitigated through effective emergency and crisis communication. However, the communicator must foresee the mental stresses that may be experienced by the people affected by the victims of the crisis so that they can employ appropriate risk communication strategies to contain stress levels. Therefore, risk communication is a highly useful response and recovery tool, which works like other risk mitigation approaches employed after a crisis. It is a mature and well-thought-out communication outlook to the message to be delivered, the messenger to communicate the message and the delivery method to be employed (Paraskevas 894). It is important to note that many victims of incidences of emergency or crisis are able to reason and act rationally during the crisis. However, there are some psychological manifestations and stresses that are depicted among the victims of a crisis, but many of them can be addressed through well-planned crisis communication (Seeger “Crisis Communication” 232). The first response manifestation is vicarious rehearsal, which is evident from the assumption of less rational reactions among the people that are far from the emergency when compared to those that are directly affected by the crisis. These people that are distant from the crisis rehearse the events of the crisis mentally, in a way that is similar to their exposure to the crisis, and adopt the course of action that is recommended to those that are affected by the crisis directly (Seeger “Crisis and Emergency” 15). Due to the fact that they will have enough time to choose their preferred course of action, they are likely to be more critical about the value of the crisis to their case. In some cases, these people are likely to decline the proposed course of action, and pick another for their case, or insist that they are at a higher risk and in need of the recommended remedy (Seeger “Crisis Communication” 235). Examples of these behaviors include requiring vaccination or visiting the emergency care center. Other victims of the crisis will deny the situation, which is demonstrated by failing to accept action recommendations or warnings. Other victims will become confused by the warnings while others will hold the view that the threat is real. The big problem is that the communicator should know how to deal with the people that will embrace denial since they are likely to deny the recommended action steps, which are offered to safeguard their life or welfare (Paraskevas 893). As a result, the denial can place them at a higher risk especially when the threat of the crisis is at its highest. Stigmatization is another common response, particularly in cases where the victims are denied the services or the public provisions they need, towards dealing with the situation (Seeger “Crisis Communication” 234). For example, the isolation of a group, which is perceived as likely to be affected or contaminated, is likely to hamper the recovery of the community. It may also affect the evacuation process and the efforts of relocating the victims in instances where the crisis warrants these measures (Paraskevas 892). After the crisis, and throughout the crisis communication process, some victims will express fear and avoidance. Fear is a critical psychological aspect to be addressed during the response to crisis process. The fear of the uncertainty rising from the crisis may be the most incapacitating response to the disaster since it can make an individual act in an irrational, and sometimes in an extreme manner in order to evade the real or the perceived threat (Seeger “Crisis Communication” 233). Throughout the crisis communication process, the communicators should anticipate withdrawal, helplessness and hopelessness among the victims. These cases are real among the victims that feel that the crisis is real, and perceive that the situation is hopeless, and are likely to feel that the situation cannot be corrected. As a result, they withdraw from the entire communication and the recovery process (Seeger “Crisis Communication” 232). Conclusion Communication is a very wide science, which can help eliminate the problems related to crisis recovery. Different crises require effective crisis communication, including human, technological, and natural disasters. The lifecycle of crisis communication entails five phases that include pre-crisis, initiation, maintenance, resolution, and evaluation. Crisis communication plays a major role in risk resolution since it offers the measures of containing the crisis as well as the strategies of resolving the situation. People react differently during times of crisis. The responses include vicarious rehearsal, denial, stigmatization, fear and avoidance, and withdrawal. Works Cited CDC. Crisis & Emergency Risk Communication, 2012 Edition. Web. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012: 10-15. Combs, Timothy. “Protecting Organization Reputations during a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory.” Corporate Reputation Review 10 (2007): 163–170. Coombs, Timothy. “The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets during a crisis.” Journal of Promotion Management 12 (2006): 241–250. Paraskevas, Alexandros. “Crisis Management or crisis response system? A complexity science approach to organizational crises.” Management Decision 44. 7 (2006): 892- 895. Rousseau, Denise. “Is there such a thing as evidence-based Management.”Academy of Management Review 31(2006): 256–260. Seeger, Mathew. Best Practices in Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication. Wayne State University, 2011. Web. 24 April 2013, . Seeger, Mathew. “Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 34. 3 (2006): 232-235. Read More