The Public Expectation and the Crisis Management Strategy - Article Example

Name: Institution: Crisis Management In the contemporary business domain, crises are often prevalent and present in dynamic and complex forms. Contextually, a crisis in business management connotes a situation that threatens to adversely affect assets, interrupt business or significantly damage the organization’s reputation (Coombs 2007). The effective crisis communication strategies can be simplistic and often not difficult; however, crisis managers require advanced understanding of proactive communications in order to minimize reputational damages. Of unparalleled importance to the managers is the Coombs’s Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (Coombs 2007), which underpins the comprehensive framework for understanding the dynamics of crisis management. The SCCT concept emphasizes on the understanding of how crisis response strategies can be best applied to guard or restore corporate reputation. Analyses of response strategies adopted by crisis managers provide an avenue of understanding the efficacy of SCCT framework in offering alternative image-mending communication strategies. Case Organization To contextualize the application of SCCT framework in crisis management, this paper analyses the Toyota car recall crisis that imparted unprecedented reputational challenges to the Japanese auto giant in 2009. According to Seeger (2010), Toyota Motor Corporation faced an historical tough crisis that sparked millions of car recalls from its trusted American market, which was attributed to failing floor mats and gas pedals. The failing components in some of Toyota models involved in the series of recalls were associated with sudden and uncontrollable acceleration that in some instances resulted into fatal crashes. In particular, the accidents and the ensuing wave of damaging media coverage proved utterly costly in many ways. The crisis triggered unanticipated financial costs through reduced sales volumes and direct repairs. Although the company had a track record of high quality and safety standards, the crisis was adverse on its reputation for quality and credibility (De Blasio & Veale 2009). This reputational dent proved difficult for the Japanese automaker because of lack of experiential response strategies for crises of this scale. Response Strategies: Rebuild It is apparent from the initial response approaches by Toyota leadership that Akio Yoyoda tried the SCCT’s rebuild strategy that is often preferred to repair some reputational damages. As provided by Coombs (2007), rebuild crisis response strategies are characterized by offering of compensatory assurances and extending apologies to the victims or those affected by the crisis in situations where the burden of problem responsibility is higher from the organization. Compensation and apologies are presented in the SCCT model as crisis management facets that persuade stakeholders to see the organization as taking responsibility for the crisis and being concerned about the welfare of the victims. Such bold and positive approaches help to replenish the image repository of the company. However, it is crucial to note that scenarios for use of apology should be scaled based on the nature and extent of the crisis impact and the level of responsibility from the organization’s side. Although apology can be integrated with other response measures when the responsibility is higher from the company, it can be an over-response to a crisis when there is minimal or no responsibility for the crisis (Sturges 1994). In his responsive addresses, Akio Toyoda reflected the rebuild response approach through repetitive apologies to the families of the victims of the fatal crashes that were attributed to the crisis, and assured the public of his commitment to preventing such problems in future. The chief executive officer (CEO) appeared to explain that the company’s fast growth may have compromised its core values of quality and safety. Toyota CEO on the Spot over Crisis Response The Toyota CEO, Akio Toyoda and the grandson of the founder was the speaker at focus in the company’s worst crisis period. Seeger (2010) argues that the CEO was one of the crisis communication constraints that lay bare during the Toyota’s 2009 crisis. In general, crisis managers should be at the forefront in helping other stakeholders appreciate what happened and understand the meaning of the resulting impact on the company. Additionally, crisis managers should strategically seize the earliest opportunities to let the audience understand what happened, the reasons underlying the occurrence, and importantly what is being done to solve the problem (Sturges 1994). Toyoda in this context came across as an inexperienced crisis communication manager; he initially appeared to be confused and unaware of the nature and extent of the impact of the problem to the corporation. A leader ought to be proactive in analysing crisis contexts and filtering the potential attributing factors in order to strategise on progressive response measures. Though focus was largely directed at Toyoda, he seemed a reluctant spokesman and lacked consistency in responding accordingly to the American public and stakeholders. However, national industrial culture surfaced as a factor that can confound effective crisis communication especially for multinational like Toyota. According to Seeger (2010), Toyoda confronted a conflict of cultural demands that characterize Toyota as a multinational. Japanese culture prefers harmony and avoidance of publically solving organizational problems, but favours private management of crises through consensual processes. In a typical Japanese style, Toyota appeared to favour audience with Congressional leadership as opposed to treating the general public as equally crucial stakeholders in the car crisis. Message Strategy Organizational communication during a crisis management is vital in bolstering desired end of the problem especially moulding the corporate image. In this respect, the content of the communication should be selected to address the crisis at different levels of resolution. Sturges (1994) argues that the message strategy should progressively fulfil the principles of first preparing the different speakers on how to behave during the different stages of the problem, creating rapport with the affected stakeholders in for them to cope with the adverse effects precipitated by the crisis. Additionally, the communication content should harbour the aspect of problem internalization that creates capacity for the organization to investigate and remedy solutions sustainably. Although there appears to have been consistency in the apologetic tone of the messages from different speakers at Toyota, the messaging strategies varied progressively. The message varied with the company’s vice president signalling acknowledgement of the crisis responsibility, which culminated in a full apology by the CEO, Akio Toyoda in 2010. Although the message communicated directly or indirectly through different channels by Toyota sought to secure the image of the company, the manner in which American public interpreted the meaning reflected inefficiency in the hierarchy of message styles. According to Bensinger and Vartabedian (2009), the Toyota initial response was indirect and inadequate. The first message was the public safety advisory that warned owners of affected models of a potential risk from an ill-fitted floor mat, which the advised car owners to remove. This message at a time when a crisis was looming did not reflect full commitment from the auto giant. The company reacted by recalling cars from some selected models only after utter outcry from the public following the Lexus ES 350 fatal accident. The recall was preceded by delays in action on complains about the unintended acceleration, and the public viewed the response as less re-assuring. An apologetic rhetoric characterized Toyota crisis communication after media reports indicated that the company may have been aware of the problem all along and failed to act timely and effectively. Upon the recall measures, the crisis message was characterized by apologies and promises to improve. The company engineers corroborated the promises by rushing to dealers around the world with fix for the accelerator pedals (Welch, 2010). Toyota’s top leadership started sending a full apology message with the group vice-president and the general manager urging the company’s commitment to ensure customer safety and confidence in Toyota products (Toyota 2010). Moreover, the topology of apologies followed a message from the company president in the US Company who conceded embarrassment for the corporation that had taken decades to build its image only for its credibility to be compromised by the crisis. Akio Toyoda’s public apology emphasized the message of acknowledgement of full responsibility and the commitment to remediate the acceleration conclusively and improved standards. The content of the message communicated at different leadership levels of the crisis management varied inherently as stakeholders sought Congressional report about the assertion by Toyota that that acceleration fault was not intentional and did not associate with any electronic problems. Although the communication was confounded by the delayed response, the exoneration of Toyota US by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from allegations that it was hiding information about the problem changed the public view. Message Change over Time The Toyota crisis management hierarchy of events shows a topology of message strategies over time. The strategies varied from the initial issuance of an advisory warning, the official recalls of affected models, and the progressive apology from different administrative and managerial levels. At the height of increased public complaints and heightening government pressure from the investigations on the sudden acceleration problem in certain Toyota models, the Toyota American Sales organization (TMS) sought to let the public understand that the problem was attributable to an incompatible floor mat (Bensinger & Vartabedian 2009). The message appeared non-committal with the company only issuing a safety advisory asking them to remove the ill-fitting floor mats. The message strategy changed when the complaints morphed into a public outcry following serious accidents potentially associated with the faulty floor mats. The response and the content of the communication this time was characterized by direct recalls of the affected models and suspending their production and sales in the US. This approach was meant to assure the public that the company was tracking the cause of the problem and seeking traffic safety by removing from the highways cars that could experience uncontrollable acceleration. This was a gradual signage of consideration of some problem from the side of the car maker. According to Welch (2010), the strategy adopted another perspective when the top leadership started issuing public apologies and assurances. The apologies were integrated with a contingent action in which Toyota engineers shuttled the world markets hawking a fix for the accelerator pedals through their dealers. The full apology by the CEO capped the apology rhetoric that was followed by intense quality and standards improvement strategies to curb the crisis. How SCCT Model was followed An analysis of the Toyota crisis management approach reveals that the corporation did not systematically employ the SCCT model. However, the rebuild strategy as provided by Coombs (2007) appears to have been followed through first informing the public about the potential acceleration resulting from an ill-fitted floor mat. The safety advisory concurs with the model’s requirement for providing stakeholders with information about the cause of a problem and the potential solution that can be adopted to remediate the problem. Although Toyota has been widely criticised for its delayed and unsatisfactory response to the crisis, it utilized SCCT model’s strategy that sought acceptance of its responses by the affected stakeholders. According to Coombs (2007), the full apology by the CEO was a mortification strategy that promotes high acceptance. Akio Toyoda and other managers that addressed the crisis acknowledged full responsibility for the crisis and asked for forgiveness from stakeholders. Additionally, the promise for corrective measures and the deployment of engineers to fix the problem and the massive recalls of the affected car models was a strategic public reassurance measure. Summary The actions adopted by Toyota to manage its most damaging crisis were consistent with the provisions of the SCCT model. The communication warning the public about the risk of the ill-fitted floor mat, and the advice that car owners remove it was an advance step to create duly awareness. However, the delay in taking up the matter and responding to the public expectation reflects a lapse in the crisis management strategy. Things would have been different if the CEO has considered an internalized crisis management strategy that would have deliberated and planned adequately on how to manage the public while safeguarding the company’s decade’s old reputation (Weiner 2006). The company should have initially packaged information that appealed to the public and sought media support for proper communication. An investigation about what was happening with the isolated acceleration reports would have been the beginning point in order to respond to media reports and public concerns with reasonable and truthful answers (Watson 2007). The apology should have been the last response strategy for reassuring the public. References Bensinger, K & Vartabedian, R 2009, Oct 25, ‘New details in crash that prompted Toyota recall’, Los Angeles Times, Available: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/25/nation/na-Toyota-crash25 2010-03-09 [23/11/2013]. Coombs, W. T 2007, ‘Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: the development and application of situational crisis communication theory’, Corporate Reputation Review, vol.10, no.3, pp.163-176. De Blasio, A., & Veale, R 2009, ‘Why say sorry? Influencing consumer perceptions post organizational crises’, Australasian Marketing Journal, vol.17, no.2, pp.75-83. Seeger, M.W 2010, ‘Image restoration and the Toyota recall’, Communication Currents, vol. 5, no. 2, Available: http://www.natcom.org/CommCurrentsArticle.aspx?id=967 [23/11/2013]. Sturges, D. L 1994, ‘Communicating through crisis: a strategy for organizational survival’, Management Communication Quarterly, vol.7, no.3, pp. 297-316. Toyota 2010, Feb 1, Toyota announces comprehensive plan to fix accelerator pedals on recalled vehicles and ensure customer safety, Available: http://pressroom.toyota.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1854 [23/11/2013]. Watson, T 2007, ‘Reputation and ethical behaviour in a crisis: predicting survival’, Journal of Communication Management, vol.11, no.4, pp.371-384. Weiner, D 2006, ‘Crisis communications: managing corporate reputation in the court of public opinion’, Ivey Business Journal, March/April 2006, pp.1-6. Welch, D 2010, ‘Oh, What a (Hideous) filling’, Business Week, New York: no. 4166, pp.21. Read More