The Critical Perspective of the Restoration Rhetoric Approach - Essay Example

The Crisis Management and Communication Introduction There are number of crises which emerge on a daily basis that require the intervention of leaders as far as the restoration of the company’s reputation and financial losses are concerned. Although leaders are faced with diverse crises in different settings, it is evident that the crises require almost a similar approach to handling the situation. Similar to the restoration of trust and confidence among the employees in an organization in the face of a crisis, the extreme environmental and technological disasters require an effective crisis management in the light of the affected individuals and the general public needs (Palttala, & Vos, 2012). Due to the increasing technological and environmental catastrophes there is a need to develop the best practice of a crisis management. One of the situations that call for dire management is associated with the explosion of a bomb in a populous region. The explosion of a bomb and other explosives result in death and other physical injuries, as well as the destruction of various structures. Additionally, the individuals that are related to the victims and properties that are destroyed are normally left with emotional traumas. During this event, the local and national leaders are faced with the task of handling the crisis. This paper is focused on evaluating the best practice that should be employed in a crisis management in the event of an explosion which results to death, physical injuries, destruction of properties and emotional injuries. The paper will attempt to employ the Restorative Rhetoric approach in managing an explosion that results in injuries, death and property destruction; the analysis will be executed in the light of the local and national leaders who are tasked with the responsibility of managing the crisis. The Critical Perspective of the Restoration Rhetoric Approach The Restoration Rhetoric approach emerged as an effective approach with respect to the management of the Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of the World Trade Center which occurred in September 2001(Griffin-Padgett, 2010). The restoration rhetoric was used by Mayor Ray Nagin and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the management of the terrorist attack and natural disaster respectively (Griffin-Padgett, 2010). This model indicates that, unlike other approaches of crisis management, the restoration of image is not the chief objective; in this respect, there is a need to manage risk while ensuring the safety of the public is restored. As a result, this approach calls for an intensive examination of the leadership skills and aptitudes in crisis management. With respect to the Hurricane Katrina and the terrorist attack, Griffin-Padgett (2010) shows that the restoration rhetoric model demonstrates that five stages are deemed imperative as far as managing a crisis is concerned. These include initial reaction, evaluation of the crisis, aspects of blaming, healing and absolution, remedial action and the rebuilding via a rhetoric vision. The initial reaction is associated with the definition of the prevailing situation, a statement regarding the level of management of the destruction, as well as the expression of grief with respect to the occurrence. Griffin-Padgett (2010) argues that this stage is important as far as the public needs are concerned; the public is normally in a dire need to hear from the local or national leader with respect to a certain disaster. Normally, a leader is deemed to be aware and in control of the situation an aspect that creates the public confidence. The second stage involves the evaluation of the destruction; at this level a leader is expected to provide a statement of the urgent needs that are required to enhance the management process as far as the damage is concerned; typically, a statement of the urgent resources is important to improve confidence in the public sphere. The third stage is concerned with the aspect of blame; at this stage, a leader is expected to tackle the aspects of accountability and responsibility. Additionally, a leader speaks to the past factors which might have led to the occurrence of a given crisis. In the second last stage, a leader should deal with the issue of healing and forgiveness. Following the establishment of the blame, an effective leader should lead the process of healing and forgiving. The last stage is associated with the corrective action and reconstruction via a rhetorical vision; reconstruction is deemed an important element since the crisis involved the physical destruction. The reconstruction does not only involve the rebuilding of the destroyed structure but also establishment of a rhetorical vision with a view of setting up a new state of existence. For instance, following the destruction of the World Trade Center, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani engaged the public on a discussion concerning whether to erect a new financial building or use the space for the memorial of the September 2001 terrorist-attack (Griffin-Padgett, 2010). The Application of the Restoration Rhetoric Approach in a Bomb Explosion Crisis The restoration rhetoric approach is significant as far as managing the public crisis is concerned; unlike the organizational crisis, the main goal of a restoration rhetoric model is not to restore the public image. Primarily, the restoration rhetoric focuses on the management of the risk and the restoration of the public safety; as a result, this approach is deemed as the best model in managing local and national disasters since they affect a large community. In this respect, it is evident that the restoration rhetoric theory can help to manage the crisis that is associated with the explosions which causes death, injuries and property destruction. Typically, there are concerns among the public with respect to the experienced loss and their safety; notably, the public is also concerned about the extent of disaster’s impact in the event the crisis is not controlled in time (Palttala, & Vos, 2012). In this context, it is critical to establish the best approach which would enhance the management of the risk while ensuring public safety is guaranteed among the public. In the event of an explosion, the first reaction that should be demonstrated by a leader includes definition; at this point a leader should inform the public via media or other platforms about the explosion. According to Palttala and Vos (2012), the statement should include the exact region where the explosion has occurred; additionally, the leader should let the public that the disaster is under management. For instance, one should report that the military personnel have been deployed in the area to help the victims out of the situation, as well as driving them to the hospital for treatment of major injuries. The leader should report that nurses and mobile clinics are also at the venue to attend to the minor and major injuries. Moreover, the leader should report that the bomb experts are located at the venue to evaluate whether other explosives at the region; the leader should also report that tight security is strengthened in other regions that are not affected. More importantly, Scarcella, Antonelli and Gelatti (2013) provide it is essential to express sincere sorrow among individuals who have been affected by death of their relatives; additionally, the expression of sincere grief to individuals that lost their properties is also vital. This is first reaction that can enhance the public confidence with respect to their safety and control of the current risk; however, a leader should ensure he is accessible to media and other platforms that would to convey message to the entire public. The second stage involves the evaluation of the destruction; at this level a leader is expected to provide a statement of the urgent needs that are required to enhance the management process as far as the damage is concerned; typically, a statement of the urgent resources is important to improve confidence in the public sphere. For instance, a leader should inform the public about the need of donating blood to the victims in order to save their life; this step is viewed a critical measure since it improves the management process of the prevailing risk. This stage can also incorporate the seeking of help from other players in the management process, such as foreign bomb experts and the Red Cross Organization (Palttala, & Vos, 2012). At the third stage, should address the aspect of accountability and responsibility; in the event of a bomb explosion, a leader should inform the public that the government is commit to pursue the perpetrators of the criminal act and sue them according to the law. Additionally, the leader should address the aspect of the national intelligence department and its failure to identify the plan of the criminals in advance. Other factors that might have led to the crisis, such as ethnic and racial hatred should be addressed (Griffin-Padgett, 2010). After the establishment of the blame, the leader should be ready to lead the public in the process of healing and forgiveness. For instance, there is need for a leader to ensure the bad blood between individuals of different races and background is replaced with unity and love. A leader should emphasize on the need of being a brother’s keeper and importance of peace to the contribution of an individual’s welfare and that of the neighbor and the entire nation. Finally, Scarcella, Antonelli and Gelatti (2013) argue that a leader should demonstrate the commitment to the corrective action and reconstruction via a rhetorical vision. For instance, the leader can resolve to influence the government, in collaboration with other non-governmental partners, to establish new structures among the victims who suffered the crisis. Similarly, the affected individuals can be relocated to other places which are associated with significant peace. Conclusion The application of the restoration rhetoric model is deemed as the best practice in the light of managing a public crisis; it continues to gain momentum due to its effectiveness in managing a dire risk while upholding the public safety. The aspect of restoring the public image is deemed to be of less significance in the case of public disaster. In this regard, the restoration rhetoric approach is relevant as far as managing the crisis of a bomb explosion is concerned. The upshots of bomb explosions are associated with significant financial losses and death. In this respect, the management of the crisis is sensitive; as a result, an approach that responds to the immediate needs of the affected and the general public is crucial- this is the reason why the restoration rhetoric approach is perceived to be imperative among leaders. Fundamentally, the restoration rhetoric approach addresses crisis aspect in a chronological manner; this ensures both the risk and the public safety are managed. References Griffin-Padgett, D. (2010). Making a Case for Restorative Rhetoric: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani & Mayor Ray Nagins Response to Disaster. Communication Monographs, 77(3), 376-392. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=5cc38848-36fc-4fca- b750- 866d15215b1e%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4112 Scarcella, C., Antonelli, L., Orizio, & Gelatti, U. (2013). Crisis communication in the area of risk management: the CriCoRM project. Journal Of Public Health Research, 2(2), 118-121. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c083aa8f- 7d4a-4b0d-8f17-208d17b23837%40sessionmgr4002&vid=0&hid=4209 Palttala, P., & Vos, M. (2012). Quality Indicators for Crisis Communication to Support Emergency Management by Public Authorities. Journal Of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 20(1), 39-51. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=13fff2fb-9bf2- 40a3-93f0- bf76e21cede2%40sessionmgr4005&vid=0&hid=4209 Read More