Public Relations - Essay Example

Public Relations – Issues and Crisis Communication Name Institution Date Public Relations: Issues and Crisis Communication Introduction Public Relations (PR) is a broad field plagued with numerous definitional difficulties especially in regard to the relation between issue management and crisis management. The ambiguity regarding the two disciplines points to the need for developing commonly understood and agreeable definitions that not only enhances meaningful discourse, but fosters a more integrated approach and interplay between the two processes (Larkin & Regester, 2008). The significance of effective issues management to an organization is to minimize the occurrence and impact of a crisis. In the event of a crisis, an organization has to employ crisis management processes aimed at enabling the organization to minimize the impact of such an unexpected negative occurrence. The focus of this paper is to discuss the interrelation between issues communication and crisis communication, which  refer to the specific practices that the PR function will utilize to enable the organization avoid or emerge from a crisis situation.   Issues management According to Heath (2002), issues management refers to the anticipatory and strategic communication that an organization utilizes for early detection and response to changes and trends emerging in the social and political environment. It involves an organizations initiative to develop and maintain effective stakeholder and public relationships. Such initiatives include direct operational adjustments, negotiations with lawmakers, and involvement of the media to influence stakeholder and public perception of the issues that affect an organization (Heath, 2002). In public relations discourse, issues are known to develop in a lifecycle of five stages. The cycle begins with the early stage, followed by the emerging stage, the current stage, and finally, the dormant stage. As issues progress through these stages, they draw more attention and become more difficult to resolve (Heath, 1997; Wartick & Mahon, 1994). It is therefore of significant importance for an organization to become aware of these issues in their initial stage, as more effective decisions can be made to resolve the situation. This may involve collaboration with key stakeholders, or modification of the products and processes (Kwanash-Aidoo, 2005).   Issues management in the modern corporate environment is not just an opportunistic and offensive tool.  It has steadily progressed from a reactive crisis prevention measure, to an established strategic management regulation. Today, Issue management incorporates the common concerns and interests of stakeholders and publics such as governmental agencies, advocacy organizations, the media, and nongovernmental organizations. In essence, issue management has become a public agenda, where organizations have to cautiously consider how their actions should be perceived in the public domain (Heath, 2002).   Crisis management Crisis management broadly involves the management of information that is released to the public during and at the end of a crisis (Ogrizek & Guillery, 1999). Crisis communication was reinforced by W. Timothy Coombs when he posited the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT). SCCT is based on scientific evidence that is meant to provide communicators with a guideline for making public relations decisions. Coombs suggested that decisions and actions taken by organizations during and after a crisis are largely influenced by the nature and scope of the crisis itself. SCCT, according to Coombs, enables an organization to identify how key features of a crisis influence an organizations reputation among stakeholders. SCCT was founded on the Attribution Theory, which holds that in the event of an unexpected or negative occurrence in an organization, people will more often than not make attributions or find causes for the crisis. Attributions in organizational context cause emotional reactions especially from stakeholders. Such negative emotions influence how stakeholders interact with organizations, thus impacting negatively on business and personnel matters (Kwanash-Aidoo, 2005).   The comparison between issues communication and crisis communication Issue management and crisis management are intimately linked both in theory and practice. In as  much as  the link between the two disciplines is convenient and appropriate, an understanding of interrelations and differences between the two is essential in determining which positions they are best applicable in an organization and  the resources that are critical for their successfully implementation (Anthonissen, 2008).   Issues are events that build up over time, and mainly focus on a specific situation or topic. They arise normally from a mismatch in understanding or expectations between organizations and their stakeholders. In the event that an organization fails to evaluate and manage issues in time, they develop with time into crises. In PR discourse, it is said that ‘an issue ignored is a crisis invited’. The point at which issues develop into crises is referred to as the tipping point (Heath, 2002).   A crisis is in most cases a dramatic and large-scale event, revelation, emergency or situation that can negatively impact on organization, a brand, or an individual. Crises, if not addressed in time result to damage of reputation or loss of business. In the context of PR, a crisis is deemed to be that point when an organization, company, institution, brand or individual is subjected to critical, intense and unwelcome limelight from the public and media as a result of an issue, incident or circumstance which leads to damage of reputation or loss of business (Kwanash-Aidoo, 2005). Issues and crises are defined by different factors. Firstly, where as issues develop slowly and are predictable, crises are largely regarded to be unforeseen events. Secondly, issues are likely to have an impact on an entire industry or product category, while crises in most cases affect specific organizations. Thirdly, issues are situations that can be identified and effectively managed, as opposed to crises where even though it may be possible to undertake pre-crisis planning, these preparations cannot be tailored or customized to a specific situation or case in future. Fourthly, issues are normally brought into limelight by interested stakeholders and activists, whereas crises are often revealed through negative media publications (Anthonissen, 2008). While issue management is regarded a recent form of corporate communication in reaction to the critics of  business activities of an organization, crisis management is a strategic initiative to protect a company’s reputation that could be otherwise be damaged by unusual situations or occurrences that can be expected, but may not be predicted. Issues management is hence more anticipatory and less action-oriented. While issues management and communication focuses on proactive measures to influence stakeholder and public interests that may negatively impact on an organisation in future, crisis management is reactive communication aimed at redeeming the reputation of an organization through strategic communication with the media and its stakeholders (Anthonissen, 2008). As pointed out by Ogrzek and Gillery (1999), although issues and crisis are not very precise concepts, .it is important to distinguish between the two and other situations which will require significantly different managerial requirements. Both processes are positioned within an organizations management structure. The difference is that crisis management is likely to be positioned together with emergency and security responses overseen by operational managers or technicians. This may well be aligned with the organizations strategic planning as a communication role to be undertaken by the public relations department. Issue management is not distinctively different, as it can be structurally positioned within the function of governmental affairs as a communication tool ((Fearn-Banks, 2010).    Significant differences in the management of the two are largely determined by organizational decisions on which management levels and functions are to be involved in their implementation. The increased focus on processes and language has a direct impact on how the two processes are understood in an organization, and who implements them. For instance, an organization that defines issue management as a mechanism for public policy participation may have it staffed and positioned differently than if it were understood to be a critical aspect of strategic management (Regester & Larkin, 2005). Issue management has in many organizations been characterized as crisis management aimed at creating attention, facilitating dialogue and freeing up resources. As suggested by recent research on the nature of issue and crisis management, relying on definitions of the two disciplines to distinguish them has proved ineffective. A better approach, as suggested in recent research, is to define and describe the processes involved in the two disciplines. According to Jacques (2007), issue management should be perceived as being a contributor and part of crisis management. Conclusion Issues management, risk management and reputation management all play a significant role in crisis scanning and management. A combination of these three functions enables an organization to institute a system for early detection of warning signs to an imminent crisis.  The main challenge that faces crisis managers is the successful integration of the three organizational functions into an efficient and effective mechanism for detecting a crisis. An attempt to discuss crisis management, issues management, risk management and reputation management as separate organizational functions has been regarded by several scholars and practitioners as more or less artificial. In reality, the four management functions are closely interconnected.         ‘     Bibliography Anthonissen, P., 2008, Crisis Communication: Practical PR Strategies for Reputation Management & Company Survival, London: Kogan Page Publishers. Fearn-Banks, K., 2010, Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach, Sydney: Routledge. Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public  policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath, R.L. (2002). Issues management: Its past, present and future. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(2), 209-214. Jacques (2005). Using best practice indicators to benchmark issue management. Public Relations Quarterly. Summer, 2005. Kwanash-Aidoo, K., 2005, Public Relations Issues and Crisis Management, Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia. Larkin, J & Regester, M., 2008, Risk Issues and Crisis Management in Public Relations: A Casebook of Best Practice, London: Kogan Page Publishers. Ogrizek, M. & Guillery, J-M. (1999). Communicating in crisis: a theoretical and practical guide to crisis management. New York: Aldine De Gruyter Regester, M. & Larkin, J. (2005). Risk issues and crisis management: A casebook of best practice. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page. Wartick, S. L., & Mahon, J. F. (1994). Toward a substantive definition of the corporate issue construct. Business & Society, 33(3), 293-311.  Read More