CHAPTER 5

Crisis Communication

Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

1. define crisis communication;
2. have a crisis management plan;
3. identify causes of crises and lessons for managing crises;
4. apply the uses of argument in crises;
5. discuss the dangers of managers talking off the cuff;
6. discuss the implications of management failure to identify public sentiment;
7. explain ways in which managers fail to unify empathy.

Introduction

Crises tend to take the form of disasters; problems with products or services; issues with personnel, political, or social upheavals; or ethical breaches. Regardless of the root cause, the organization must work its way out of the crisis successfully if it is to survive. The terror attack of September 11, 2001, tested companies housed in the New York Twin Towers on their responsiveness to a crisis. Fortunately, many of those companies had crisis management plans.

Crisis by definition is a turning point, with momentum heading toward a debacle. Fink (1986) describes this turning point from a business-oriented point of view. He argues that any prodromal, or a precursor situation runs the risk of (1) escalating emotions, (2) drawing harsh media or government scrutiny, (3) disrupting daily business operations, (4) tarnishing the business’s image or the image of its executives, or (5) causing profits to plummet.

Crisis communication occurs when stakeholders look at the organization in crisis to determine if there are victims, if the crisis was accidental, and if the crisis was preventable (Coombs 2007), and then, at how the management responds to the crisis variables. When a crisis happens, people often respond emotionally, on who is responsible for the crisis, the history of responsible parties, and the reputation of those responsible. If stakeholders believe that the organization caused the crisis, they will hold it and its management responsible. If the firm has experienced prior crises, stakeholders tend to be unsympathetic. If the firm has a good reputation, it may be given more leeway to make things right. Social media has changed where people get their information from and how quickly information, correct or incorrect, can travel. Organizations must now build positive social media relationships with their constituents so that if they do have a crisis, the peoples’ sensemaking—how individuals and groups adjust their thinking based on their knowledge—will be positive and not negative toward the organization.

Crisis Management Plan

All organizations need a crisis management plan. First, you need a crisis management team. It will be their responsibility to understand and build relationships with the constituents before a crisis occurs. Second, they will identify different possible crisis situations. Third, they will formalize a plan for dealing with the crises. Fourth, they will develop a communications strategy. Fifth, they will hold simulations of a crisis. And sixth, they will be in charge of updating the plan (Kessel and Masella 2016).

The core crisis management team may change from one type of crisis to the next. However, the person heading the team must have strong leadership skills and the authority to activate both internal and external resources. After identifying possible crises, an action plan should be developed, along with clarifying the responsibilities of each team member. The communication strategy is next. It is important that all members of the organization know what they can and cannot say in public, as well as who the spokesperson is. The spokesperson must be able to react quickly to get the correct, accurate information out to everyone using multiple media hosts. Organizations can utilize two-way posts such as Google Alerts, Twitter Search, TweetBeep, Tweet Deck, Hootsuite, and Social Mention. It is recommended that a firm develop a before-the-crisis communication strategy, a during-the-crisis communication strategy, and a post-crisis communication strategy. The importance of simulating a crisis is crucial, as it will tell you if you have the correct people in place to deal with the situation. Engaging in the simulation will also help employees overcome the jitters they might otherwise have when a real crisis happens. The simulation also allows the team to make changes to the plan before a crisis happens. Finally, the crisis management team should review the plan on a regular basis.

Social media greatly influences group sensemaking. We start out with a perspective, viewpoint, or framework, and how we receive new information changes those parameters (Klein, Moon, and Hoffman 2006). People today have access to many more media choices, and the information on social media travels very rapidly. Add to that the fact that most of the platforms have no editor overseeing the content for accuracy, and you can see how not only correct but also incorrect information can travel so quickly. The social media phenomenon has made it essential for organizations to develop a relationship with their different constituent groups and develop their trust. Thus, if there is a crisis, the organization will be the first to be believed rather than the last. It has been shown that a firm’s involvement in social media before a crisis can reduce the effect of the inaccuracies that spread during a crisis (Veil, Buehner, and Palenchar 2011).

Crises and Management

Not all crises are created equally. Meyers and Holushas (1986) describe nine types of crises as shown in Figure 5.1, together with nine lessons of managing crises offered by Witt and Morgan (2002).

The advice from Meyers and Holushas (1986) focuses more on crises affecting larger firms, based on Meyers’s extensive experience as chairman of American Motors. On the other hand, Witt and Morgan’s examples are derived from experiences with both small and large companies. However, some similarities can be noted in the two bodies of thought concerning crisis management.

A company in crisis must quickly find out how much the crisis has hurt their constituents and consequently their organization. They must efficiently correct the problem and calculate how much they are willing or obligated to pay to make things right with stakeholders. If the management team or members of it are a part of the problem, the management must swiftly make changes. Advice to managers involved in a crisis response includes these steps:

• Figure out how to rectify the problem without having to go out of business.
• Try to protect your stakeholders.
• Negotiate from a position of strength as much as possible. Go for a win–win outcome but be careful about emotions getting in the way. Find people who can understand and turn the situation around.
• Always look at all options and make new plans for the future.

The Use of Argument in Crises

As a manager responding to crises, you must persuade stakeholders to agree to what the management advocates—an end to the crisis and preservation of the company’s good image. When speaking to the public during a crisis, you will need to use techniques of arguing effectively, including presenting the (1) basic argument, (2) persuasion, (3) syllogism, (4) enthymeme, and (5) Toulmin’s model.

To argue is to declare. Consequently, a basic argument can be any simple declarative sentence the speaker uses to make a claim that requires proof; for example, Jane has a cute baby; Mark will eventually get cancer because he smokes a pack of cigarettes each day; that quick rabbit will always elude that dumb hound. All the aforementioned declaratives need further proof to convince others to advocate the same sentiment. To persuade is to convince outside listeners to advocate that which you advocate. The Greek philosopher Aristotle devised methods for testing claims.

The deductive syllogism is a logical argument in which the primary and secondary premises include all the information (facts or truths) needed to form a necessary logical conclusion. If the primary and secondary premises are true, the conclusion is certain. As can be seen in Figure 5.2, in a deductive syllogism one can argue with certainty.

The problem with a deductive syllogism is that, in reality, rarely do we find ideal situations in which the information we draw upon to arrive at conclusions is complete.

The enthymeme was Aristotle’s solution to the problem he recognized with the deductive syllogism: it is not completely realistic, because people do not tend to argue that way. Deductive conclusions require perfect information on the premises, which rarely exists in real life. The enthymeme is a form of inductive syllogism in which the premises include “visible links,” and the “missing links” are provided by the audience. The conclusion, therefore, is only a probable outcome and can never be certain one. The assumption is that audiences are reasonable, and thus worthy to supply the missing links of the argument (see Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, 1-2). In more modern terms, audiences connect the dots.

To invalidate a claim, all we need is a counter example or proof to the contrary. For example, if, in Figure 5.3, we can establish that Frank, Laura’s husband, took the umbrella 5 minutes earlier than when Laura left for work, the conclusion is invalid. Therefore, the illustrated enthymeme allows one to argue inductively with merely probable conclusions. The links between the data and claim are easily broken in the enthymeme shown in Figure 5.3.

Toulmin (1969) found the enthymeme to be lacking in several important ways and created an extension of the argument that differs from Aristotle’s enthymeme. Toulmin considers reservations or counter arguments contrary to the advocate’s claims. Not all outside listeners will be in favor of the advocate’s argument. In some cases, audiences will fill in the missing links to show proof to the contrary—the media or government can be counted on to provide this type of rebuttal. While Aristotle’s enthymeme did not account for this consideration, Toulmin developed a way to incorporate these elements into an inductive argument.

Let us examine a declarative sentence made by the president of a hypothetical company—XYZ—which is in crisis communication mode. The company has been accused of illegally dumping a banned substance which is a toxin. The main elements of the Toulmin model are data, the facts of the argument; a qualifier, which is an estimate of the degree of certainty attributed to a claim; claims, which are conclusions to be established; warrants, which are general statements authorizing the inductive leap from data to claim; backing, which is more specific information that helps support the warrant; and reservation, which is a possible exception to a claim or warrant (Sproule 1980). The main line of proof in the Toulmin model is derived from data, warrants, and qualifiers. How Toulmin’s model differs from Aristotle’s enthymeme is the additional attention given to the links between the data and claim. Figure 5.4 illustrates Toulmin’s extended argument.

In Figure 5.4, the invalidation of the president’s conclusion is by the reservation argument. If the reservation argument is found to be true, notice how it weakens both the president’s warrant (a nearly perfect Environmental Protection Agency record) and his backing (polluting risks the company’s reputation). In a crisis, managers are attempting to influence outside listeners, though journalists’ statements or the testimony from whistleblowers can break the links between data and claims made by the leaders of organizations under fire. Reservations will likely come from intense media and government scrutiny. During a crisis, managers should assume that the public is a group of outside listeners, who are not themselves advocates of the company’s side. Therefore, crisis communication arguments require managers to prove their claims.

Crisis Communication Mistakes

People who run large companies are intelligent people. Nevertheless, these intelligent people often make avoidable common mistakes when crises occur. These mistakes in crisis communication include (1) talking off the cuff to the media, (2) failing to identify the public’s sentiment, and (3) failing to garner empathy.

Talking Off the Cuff to the Media

Often managers are not poised to be proactive but are rather reactive after being shocked into response by the tumult of a crisis. Even though history has shown that off-the-cuff speaking is often detrimental during a crisis, managers continue to make such mistakes when talking to journalists (Hoffman and Moyer 2007). Because of the replaying of management errors by intense media attention and government scrutiny, the public typically offers little sympathy and can even rebuke harshly. Eventually, managers who make mistakes in speaking off-the-cuff lose rhetorical credibility. When this happens, the crisis takes a turn for the worse. Window into Practical Reality 5.1 is an example of how the off-the-cuff remarks of a British Petroleum (BP) executive made the BP crisis worse.

Failing to grasp the magnitude of the public’s sentiment is a pitfall for many executives reacting to a crisis-turned mega-tsunami. Following Hayward’s callous statement, he was demonized by the American public.

When managers recognize that a negative turning point has occurred, it is time for them to undertake targeted internal and external communication, before a debacle can occur. When managers make mistakes in talking to journalists before a strategy is in place, they inadvertently increase the risk that a prodromal crisis will occur, with even more devastating consequences.

Failing to Identify the Public’s Sentiment

The public’s receptivity to managerial arguments hinges on how the management responds in an attempt to influence sentiment, while at the same time resolving the crisis. As a manager, it is important that you understand how to structure the messages to manage crises from both the internal as well as external perspectives. When an organization is in crisis mode, it is easy for managers to forget that internal communications can be as important as external communications. Managerial crisis communication fails most often when managers misconstrue the public’s true sentiment surrounding a crisis. Managers fail to favorably influence outside listeners—the public—when they do not understand the use of argument in crisis situations. Window into Practical Reality 5.2 shares an example of football star Michael Vick’s interview with the media which ended in disaster for the athlete.

The media largely drives what people think, even when supporting facts are lacking. Public officials from the local to the federal levels were held in disdain by the American public due to their actions in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Illustrating this phenomenon are the media reports of New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin stating that someone had allegedly fired on a rescue helicopter; while not proven, the report stopped rescue attempts for many hours (Garnett and Kouzmin 2007). The media also chose not to report that the mayor and state governor would not allow federal troops to provide assistance.

President George W. Bush also received his share of the public’s ire in regard to his handling of relief efforts following Katrina. When President Bush prematurely praised the then Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael Brown by saying, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck-of-a-job,” the casual sounding statement started a domino effect of negative response. The public’s view was that he appeared disconnected from the magnitude of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. President Bush’s declaration that Michael Brown was “doing a heck-of-a-job” failed to resonate well with outside listeners, who saw so much of continuing human suffering.

President Bush describes in his memoirs that one of the worst days in his presidency was when he heard hip-hop star Kanye West tell journalists, during the height of the Katrina disaster, that “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people.” Although West never directly called Bush a racist, Bush and many others interpreted West’s argument to mean just that.

In commenting on the Hurricane Katrina disaster, Cole and Fellows (2008) noted that when certain types of communications fail and a crisis has become chronic, the situation evolves into a mega-tsunami. They drew several conclusions for responding effectively to a crisis that (1) effective care communication is of little value if the subsequent actions and crisis messages are inadequate; (2) message preparation before the crisis is essential; (3) messages must be credible to their recipient audiences; and (4) adaptation for ethnicity, class, gender, and similar demographic characteristics must occur, if risk communication messages are to be effective. They concluded that during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, message clarity was frequently lacking, and those speaking with journalists often lacked sufficient credibility. Post Katrina interviews by company spokespersons and government officials illustrate a classic failure to properly adapt to critical audiences, resulting in overall ineffective crisis communication.

A good example of responding appropriately to the public’s sentiment occurred when the Obama-appointed Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Tom Vilsack, had to eat crow over the Shirley Sherrod issue. Public officials had accused Sherrod of being racist, and Vilsack terminated her employment with the USDA without legal due process. It was learned that the charge was based on misinformation stemming from a 2-minute excerpt of a speech that Sherrod had delivered nearly 20 years earlier. Vilsack publicly apologized immediately to Sherrod and offered her job back. His actions were possibly driven by his own moral fortitude, but certainly by his sensitivity to the public’s sentiment. The public outcry was calmed when Vilsack (1) admitted fault, (2) acknowledged the truth, and (3) publicly apologized. President Obama also made it public knowledge that he had called Sherrod and apologized.

The prodromal crisis surge in the Sherrod case never did evolve into a mega-tsunami because of strategic actions taken by Vilsack and Obama. Argenti and Forman (2002) argue that a crisis has the elements of high drama and catharsis, crafted by journalists and readers alike. If Sherrod had been resolute in her anger toward the two government officials, who assumed responsibility for her wrongful termination, it is possible the public’s ire would have turned on her for being unreasonable.

Failing to Unify Empathy

The best way to avoid being insensitive during a crisis is to refocus managerial thinking into collective empathy. Empathy is having a direct emotional connection to the feelings and experiences of others’ suffering. Every single manager in the organization should read and understand the crisis plan, and general agreement should be reached among them about the internal perspective of the public’s sentiment (Wester 2009). Executives must make an attempt to genuinely feel a personal consequence for the problems their firm is associated with causing. Being empathetic means investigating and relating to hurt, with a deeper understanding of those who are hurting, regardless of culpability. It is likely that BP CEO Hayward never would have uttered those infamous words had he and his team of managers focused on a singular message of empathy for the families of the 11 people who died on the drilling platform.

Nevertheless, CEOs seeking to communicate empathy must be careful when they apologize to the public, because an apology perceived by the public to be disingenuous can backfire and worsen the crisis situation. Window into Practical Reality 5.3 provides an example of how a Wells Fargo CEO was forced to resign because his public apology seemed insincere.

The formulation of an effective internal communication strategy is essential to the survival of an organization following a crisis. Figure 5.5 shows four-step process that management should consider when developing an internal communication strategy.

Each of the steps in the process require careful consideration. Figure 5.6 shows four communication techniques needed while implementing a crisis strategy (Gasser 1989).

Because of the interdisciplinary nature of internal communications, an integrated approach to internal communication is beneficial in order to maintain crucial knowledge sharing between the organization units. An integrated perspective draws from the domains of business, management, corporate, and organizational communications. Both practical and theoretical knowledge are essential, as well as understanding the types of formal and informal communications taking place within the organization (Kalla 2005).

CEOs should not count on organizational spokespersons to single-handedly quash negative publicity. When Caliero, Taylor, and Ungureanu (2009) examined the image repair tactics of 17 fraud-related and mismanaged crises, they found that news releases posted on organizations’ websites were effective in responding to media news reports of the crises, thus giving organizations an opportunity to tell their sides of the stories.

Risk communication can be seen as a sister process to crisis communication, and achieving the goals for both processes depends on having a well-written risk and crisis communication plan (Ferrante 2010). Additionally, businesses that have engaged in socially responsible rhetoric appear better able to use this social responsibility history to their advantage. Companies with an established reputation for corporate social responsibility (CSR) have a better chance of integrating the crisis communication message aspects of their CSR message, and the public better receives this integration than companies that do not have an established record of CSR. Moreover, the length of a company’s involvement in CSR matters when it uses CSR claims during crisis communication to counter negative publicity. It also appears that religion, cultural similarity, and sensitivity impact the repair and rebuilding of the public’s perception in crisis management (Heath, Lee, and Ni 2009; Legg 2009).

A crisis management plan should address how the organization will control the situation and quickly gather information. It should also address the setup of a centralized crisis management center that will allow the company to communicate early and often to the media and different constituents, all while keeping the business operating. The plan should also address how to include local first-response teams.

Steps for maintaining continual backup of all IT and communications systems in an offsite location must be part of the comprehensive crisis management plan. When the Twin Towers went down, as well as during Hurricane Katrina, what saved many of the affected companies were their offsite backup systems. Using the web to get accurate information to the public as soon as possible is also a good idea. Some of the worst things a company can do during a crisis are pretending nothing is going on, letting your reputation take care of the situation, and treating the media as the enemy. Other errors in response include using language that the stakeholders do not understand and addressing only the issues and not the feelings. While prompt response is desirable, an organization should avoid guessing at the damages and wait for factual information. Probably the two most deadly errors an organization can make in a crisis are continuing to do the same thing when it is not working, and being reactive rather than proactive in their response (Bernstein 2004).

As presented in Window into Practical Reality 5.4, the Gettysburg Address can be viewed as a 2-minute crisis management speech that served two purposes: honoring fallen heroes, and appealing to the citizenry that they should continue support for fighting the Civil War.

President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address can be described as his recovery speech for the American Civil War. With the creative use of figures of speech (words that heighten rhetorical effect), Lincoln honored in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the 45,000 dead while at the same time attempted to persuade the North to continue with a war that many did not endorse. Lincoln used language devices to spark such visual clarity in the minds of his hearers that it became impossible for them to deny the truth value of his declarative sentences. One declarative sentence is sufficient to be an argument, and a collection of simple sentences is sufficient to constitute an extended argument. In other words, a great speech is persuasive because it appears to be a collection of undeniable declarative sentences that influences many people, even beyond its immediate end.

Lincoln was able to influence outside listeners through argument. It is apparent that Lincoln also understood the nature of proof by example and the importance of figures of speech in argument. Lincoln’s deliberate use of pictorial language is an example of the type of mental images executives should be attempting to impose on the minds of their hearers during a crisis in order to sway influence to the point of view they advocate. The best way to avoid drab, unemotional language is to plan for the use of stylistic touches when talking to internal constituents as well as journalists.

As unpopular as the Civil War was for Lincoln, with a nation on the brink of collapse, Lincoln was able to use an oratory opportunity to salvage commitment. When he uttered the declarative sentences “. . . dedicated here to the unfinished work . . . resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain” these sentences collectively represent what is now an immortal extended argument.

Summary

Crisis, from a business-oriented point of view, is a negative turning point. Crisis begins with a prodromal situation that runs the risk of (1) escalating emotions, (2) drawing harsh media or government scrutiny, (3) disrupting daily business operations, (4) tarnishing the business’s image or the image of its executives, or (5) causing profits to plummet. Crisis management planning is paramount in avoiding an escalation of a prodromal crisis situation to one where the CEO is pressured to resign from public outcries and stakeholder pressure.

The BP oil spill disaster evolved into a much larger crisis because of the various mistakes in communication which gave the impression to the public that BP was uncaring and unresponsive. When President Bush used casual language to praise FEMA director Michael Brown’s response to Hurricane Katrina while not acknowledging the horrors that people were facing, the public’s view was that he was disconnected with the magnitude of the disaster.

Managers who make mistakes when speaking to the media run the risk of losing their rhetorical credibility. This fact strikes at the heart of the importance of proper communication techniques in crises situations. Managers who address the public during such crises must not only be armed with facts but also be sure they have correctly identified with the feelings of the people involved and that they adequately project empathy. Managers speaking to the public must be sincere in their apologies and should apologize without denial of the facts. Insincere apologies coupled with denial can backfire and worsen the crisis situation.

USDA secretary Vilsack and President Obama were able to avoid the escalation of a prodromal situation to a full-blown crisis by (1) admitting fault, (2) acknowledging the truth, and (3) publicly apologizing.

Abraham Lincoln used various language devices to spark visual clarity in the minds of the listeners and inspire their acceptance of his declarative sentences. Managers engaged in crisis communication can learn valuable lessons from those who have successfully maneuvered through difficult situations by using carefully planned responses and masterfully crafted public messages.