Companies Must Develop Effective Crisis Communication Techniques to Respond to Problems or Dangers - Example

Companies must develop effective Crisis Communication techniques to respond to problems or dangers Name ID no: Unit code and name: Lecturer: Assignment: Due date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 1.1 Background statement 4 1.2 Report purpose and structure 4 2.0 Crisis Communication 4 2.1 Definition 4 2.2 Situational Examples 5 3.0 Reasons for Crisis communication 5 3.1 Restore consumer trust 5 3.2 Promote organizational autonomy 5 3.3 Promote favorable public relations 6 4.0 Strategies for communicating to the public during crisis 6 4.1 Corporate apologia 6 4.2 Mass communication paradigm 6 4.3 Partnering with the public 6 5.0 Recommendations 7 5.1 Corporate apologia 7 5.2 Supported reasons 7 6.0 References 8 Executive Summary Crisis communication by organizations is an emerging field of social research and practice. Lack of proper strategies to communicate during crisis can result to loss of trust, negative reputation as well as make the organization to fall into a state of disrepute. The purpose of this report is to establish reasons why companies must develop effective crisis communication techniques to respond to problems or dangers. Earlier researchers and literature are reviewed on crisis communication and crisis management. A range of communication strategies and techniques exist that organizations can use to protect their corporate identities and reputations in the event of crisis. This report recommends the use of corporate apologia to communicate to the public when a crisis occurs. 1. Introduction 1.1 Background statement Catastrophic incidences in the life cycle of organizations present decisive moments when companies have to change their management strategies and select the best communication options to respond to the crisis (Hale, Dulek & Hale 2005). In addition to compromising the operational self-sufficiency of an organization, such changes may disrepute the organization. This calls for best practices in crisis communication (Veil, Buehnerer & Palenchar 2011). Greenberg and Elliot (2009) define crisis information as attempts aimed at controlling information and allaying negative public reaction in situations when abrupt and drastic changes occur within the environment of an organization. 1.2 Report purpose and structure The purpose of the report is to develop effective crisis communication techniques to respond to problems or dangers. This report presents the recent definitions ascribed to crisis communication. Further, it discusses the major reasons why companies need effective crisis communication. Other areas explored include the effective techniques and strategies that companies can use to communicate to the public during crisis. Recommendations on the most effective technique are also presented. 2.0 Crisis Communication Crisis management requires that organizations use various communicative techniques to align their identities and reputation with the expectations of stakeholders (Robertson 2012). Crisis management forms an effective tool for crisis management. 2.1 Definition Crisis communication refers to the attempts made by organizations to control information and dispel negative public response in the event of abrupt and drastic changes within the organizational environment as a result of a crisis (Greenberg and Elliot 2009). 2.2 Situational Examples During the summer of 2008, cases of food contamination were reported in Canada. The contamination was confirmed by Maple Leaf Foods and Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who later issued health hazard alert to the public to refrain from consuming Sure Slice brand cold cuts. The warning by Canadian Food Inspection Agency however caused negative response as panic fast spiraled into “a major listerioisis epidemic.”Twenty deaths were reported and thousands of people reported an illness due to the contamination (Greenberg & Elliot 2009). Positive reaction to the communication has further been reported during the 2007 and 2008 California wildfires when rescue organizations used the social media to communicate to the victims of the disaster. The same trend of crisis communication was noted during the 2010 Haiti earthquake when first hand reporting using mobile phones by the victims on the scene helped save thousands of deaths, as organizations used the information for rescue purposes (Veil, Buehnerer & Palenchar 2011). 3.0 Reasons for Crisis communication In a landmark study by Herman (1963), three features separating crisis from other unpleasant occurrences were identified. These include threat, surprise and short response time. Organizations need effective crisis communication to control the three. 3.1 Restore consumer trust Crisis communication is effective in restoring consumer trust and confidence on an organization during crisis. Additionally, crisis communication serves to disrupt the distribution of risk and blame to other stakeholders during crisis. This is because it serves to address the anxieties and uncertainties characterized by the crisis (Greenberg & Elliot 2009). 3.2 Promote organizational autonomy Crisis communication serves to promote organizational autonomy. This is since crises and their disastrous implications can be translated into grievances that claim on an organizations, resources, actions and plans. These have the potential to interfere with the organizational autonomy (Falkheimer & Heide 2009; Greenberg & Elliot 2009). 3.3 Promote favorable public relations Crisis communication serves to promote favorable corporate public relations. During crisis, haphazard communication can present a deep challenge for an organization. This is since image-threatening risks or negative publicity is likely to emerge (Greenberg & Elliot 2009). Crisis communication is therefore applied in influencing the perceptions on the crisis in a way that is favorable to the organization. In essence, it serves to deliver a positive opinion about the organization to the stakeholders with respect to the crisis (Robertson 2012). 4.0 Strategies for communicating to the public during crisis Effective strategies or techniques for communicating to the public during crisis can enable an organization to protect its corporate image, reduce apportioning blame arising from uncertainties and build trust with the public (Falkheimer & Heide 2009). The three strategies or techniques include: 4.1 Corporate apologia Corporate apologies as a crisis communication strategy although designed to protect the company’s identity as well as help repair damaged relations of trust. Greenberg and Elliot (2009) argue that it can as well serve the strategic role of enabling an organization to mitigate the potential for political intervention. 4.2 Mass communication paradigm Mass communication paradigm is also an effective strategy. Organizations can take advantage of the mass media with messages based on sender-oriented perspectives or rational ones. Messages with audience-oriented perspective may also be sent alternately (Phillips 2013). Diversity in mass media, internet and the social media has presented new opportunities to adjust messages relevant to micro-audience (Taylor & Perry 2004). 4.3 Partnering with the public Partnering with the public is also an effective strategy. Since the public has the right to know about the risks they face during crisis, organizations should share available crisis information in accurate measures and in a timely manner (Greenberg & Elliot 2009). Catastrophic incidences create a need for organizations to provide information to avoid incidences of uncertainties and apportioning of blame. On the other hand, the public gets to provide effective information and assist in mitigating the effects of the crisis (Veil, Buehnerer & Palenchar 2011). 5.0 Recommendations 5.1 Corporate apologia This report recommends the use of corporate apologia to communicate to the public when a crisis occurs. Corporate apologia is not only an apology but a strategic response to criticism by presenting persuasive parallel account of organizational accusations (Greenberg & Elliot 2009). 5.2 Supported reasons When crisis threatens the reputation of organizations, corporate apologia could be effective in defending and restoring corporate reputations. Corporate apologia is multifaceted and encompasses a range of communication strategies that can be used to counteract the accusations leveled by corporate actors (Greenberg & Elliot 2009). These strategies – such as counterattack, denial, apology, differentiation and legal – can be effective in building trusts and protecting the corporate image during crisis (Greenberg & Elliot 2009). Additionally, while corporate apologia is specifically designed to protect an organization’s identity and repair damaged relations, it can help mitigate the potential for political intervention. Through corporate apologia, when an organization is accused by the corporate actors of committing certain wrongdoings resulting to crisis, it can claim it did not do it, accept responsibility and seek forgiveness (Hale Dulek & Hale). Indeed, corporate apologia has been extensively used by organization during crisis. Most organizations accused of wrongdoings or violations have often either denied or acknowledged responsibility and apologized (Greenberg & Elliot 2009). This has been in order to protect their corporate identities and reputations from the public. 6.0 References Falkheimer, J & Heide, M 2009, 'Crisis Communication in a New World: Reaching Multicultural Publics through Old and New Media,' Nordicom Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 55-65 Greenberg, J & Elliot, C 2009, 'A Cold Cut Crisis: Listeriosis, Maple Leaf Foods, and the Politics of Apology,' Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 34, pp.189-204 Hale, J, Dulek, R & Hale, D 2005,'Crisis Response Communication Challenges,' Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.112-134 Hermann, C 1963, ‘Some consequences of crisis which limit the viability of organizations,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp.61–82 Phillips, B 2013, Eight Truths of Crisis Communication, Financial Executive Robertson, J 2012, 'Tell It All?: Challenging Crisis Communications’ Rules,' Public Relations Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.1-16 Taylor, M & Perry, D 2004, 'Diffusion of traditional and new media tactics in crisis communication,' Public Relations Review, Vol. 31, pp.209–217 Veil, S, Buehner, T, Palenchar, M 2011, 'A Work-In-Process Literature Review: Incorporating Social Media in Risk and Crisis Communication,' Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp.110-122 Read More