CRISIS AND PUBLIC RELATION IN TERTIARY INSTITUTION OF AKWA IBOM STATE

Introduction

Crisis management is a critical organizational function.  Failure can result in serious harm to stakeholders, losses for an organization, or end its very existence.  Public relations practitioners are an integral part of crisis management teams.  So a set of best practices and lessons gleaned from our knowledge of crisis management would be a very useful resource for those in public relations.  Volumes have been written about crisis management by both practitioners and researchers from many different disciplines making it a challenge to synthesize what we know about crisis management and public relations’ place in that knowledge base.  The best place to start this effort is by defining critical concepts.

Definitions

There are plenty of definitions for a crisis.  For this entry, the definition reflects key points found in the various discussions of what constitutes a crisis.  A crisis is defined here as a significant threat to operations that can have negative consequences if not handled properly.  In crisis management, the threat is the potential damage a crisis can inflict on an organization, its stakeholders, and an industry.  A crisis can create three related threats:  (1) public safety, (2) financial loss, and (3) reputation loss.  Some crises, such as industrial accidents and product harm, can result in injuries and even loss of lives.  Crises can create financial loss by disrupting operations, creating a loss of market share/purchase intentions, or spawning lawsuits related to the crisis.  As Dilenschneider (2000) noted in The Corporate Communications Bible, all crises threaten to tarnish an organization’s reputation.  A crisis reflects poorly on an organization and will damage a reputation to some degree.  Clearly these three threats are interrelated.  Injuries or deaths will result in financial and reputation loss while reputations have a financial impact on organizations.

Effective crisis management handles the threats sequentially.  The primary concern in a crisis has to be public safety.  A failure to address public safety intensifies the damage from a crisis. Reputation and financial concerns are considered after public safety has been remedied.  Ultimately, crisis management is designed to protect an organization and its stakeholders from threats and/or reduce the impact felt by threats.

Crisis management is a process designed to prevent or lessen the damage a crisis can inflict on an organization and its stakeholders.  As a process, crisis management is not just one thing.  Crisis management can be divided into three phases:  (1) pre-crisis, (2) crisis response, and (3) post-crisis.  The pre-crisis phase is concerned with prevention and preparation.  The crisis response phase is when management must actually respond to a crisis.  The post-crisis phase looks for ways to better prepare for the next crisis and fulfills commitments made during the crisis phase including follow-up information.  The tri-part view of crisis management serves as the organizing framework for this entry.

Pre-Crisis Phase

Prevention involves seeking to reduce known risks that could lead to a crisis.  This is part of an organization’s risk management program.  Preparation involves creating the crisis management plan, selecting and training the crisis management team, and conducting exercises to test the crisis management plan and crisis management team.  Both Barton (2001) and Coombs (2006) document that organizations are better able to handle crises when they (1) have a crisis management plan that is updated at least annually, (2) have a designated crisis management team, (3) conduct exercises to test the plans and teams at least annually, and (4) pre-draft some crisis messages.  Table 1 lists the Crisis Preparation Best Practices.  The planning and preparation allow crisis teams to react faster and to make more effective decisions.  Refer to Barton’s (2001) Crisis in Organizations II or Coombs’ (2006) Code Red in the Boardroom for more information on these four lessons.

Crisis Management Team

Barton (2001) identifies the common members of the crisis team as public relations, legal, security, operations, finance, and human resources.  However, the composition will vary based on the nature of the crisis.  For instance, information technology would be required if the crisis involved the computer system.  Time is saved because the team has already decided on who will do the basic tasks required in a crisis.  Augustine (1995) notes that plans and teams are of little value if they are never tested.  Management does not know if or how well an untested crisis management plan with work or if the crisis team can perform to expectations.  Mitroff, Harrington, and Gia (1996) emphasize that training is needed so that team members can practice making decisions in a crisis situation.  As noted earlier, a CMP serves only as a rough guide.  Each crisis is unique demanding that crisis teams make decisions.  Coombs (2007a) summaries the research and shows how practice improves a crisis team’s decision making and related task performance.  For additional information on the value of teams and exercises refer to Coombs (2006) and the Corporate Leadership Council’s (2003) report on crisis management strategies.

Spokesperson

A key component of crisis team training is spokesperson training.  Organizational members must be prepared to talk to the news media during a crisis.  Lerbinger (1997), Feran-Banks (2001), and Coombs (2007a) devote considerable attention to media relations in a crisis.  Media training should be provided before a crisis hits.  The Crisis Media Training Best Practices in Table 2 were drawn from these three books:

Crisis Response

The crisis response is what management does and says after the crisis hits.  Public relations plays a critical role in the crisis response by helping to develop the messages that are sent to various publics.  A great deal of research has examined the crisis response.  That research has been divided into two sections:  (1) the initial crisis response and (2) reputation repair and behavioral intentions.

Initial Response

Practitioner experience and academic research have combined to create a clear set of guidelines for how to respond once a crisis hits.  The initial crisis response guidelines focus on three points:  (1) be quick, (2) be accurate, and (3) be consistent.

Be quick seems rather simple, provide a response in the first hour after the crisis occurs.  That puts a great deal of pressure on crisis managers to have a message ready in a short period of time.  Again, we can appreciate the value of preparation and templates.  The rationale behind being quick is the need for the organization to tell its side of the story.  In reality, the organization’s side of the story are the key points management wants to convey about the crisis to its stakeholders.  When a crisis occurs, people want to know what happened.  Crisis experts often talk of an information vacuum being created by a crisis.  The news media will lead the charge to fill the information vacuum and be a key source of initial crisis information.  (We will consider shortly the use of the Internet as well).  If the organization having the crisis does not speak to the news media, other people will be happy to talk to the media.  These people may have inaccurate information or may try to use the crisis as an opportunity to attack the organization.  As a result, crisis managers must have a quick response.  An early response may not have much “new” information but the organization positions itself as a source and begins to present its side of the story.  Carney and Jorden (1993) note a quick response is active and shows an organization is in control.  Hearit’s (1994) research illustrates how silence is too passive.  It lets others control the story and suggests the organization has yet to gain control of the situation.  Arpan and Rosko-Ewoldsen (2005) conducted a study that documented how a quick, early response allows an organization to generate greater credibility than a slow response.  Crisis preparation will make it easier for crisis managers to respond quickly.

Obviously accuracy is important anytime an organization communicates with publics.  People want accurate information about what happened and how that event might affect them.  Because of the time pressure in a crisis, there is a risk of inaccurate information.  If mistakes are made, they must be corrected.  However, inaccuracies make an organization look inconsistent.  Incorrect statements must be corrected making an organization appear to be incompetent.  The philosophy of speaking with one voice in a crisis is a way to maintain accuracy.

Speaking with one voice does not mean only one person speaks for the organization for the duration of the crisis.  As Barton (2001) notes, it is physically impossible to expect one person to speak for an organization if a crisis lasts for over a day.  Watch news coverage of a crisis and you most likely will see multiple people speak.  The news media want to ask questions of experts so they may need to talk to a person in operations or one from security.  That is why Coombs (2007a) emphasizes the public relations department plays more of a support role rather than being “the” crisis spokespersons.  The crisis team needs to share information so that different people can still convey a consistent message.  The spokespersons should be briefed on the same information and the key points the organization is trying to convey in the messages.  The public relations department should be instrumental in preparing the spokespersons.  Ideally, potential spokespersons are trained and practice media relations skills prior to any crisis.  The focus during a crisis then should be on the key information to be delivered rather than how to handle the media. Once more preparation helps by making sure the various spokespersons have the proper media relations training and skills.

Quickness and accuracy play an important role in public safety.  When public safety is a concern, people need to know what they must do to protect themselves.  Sturges (1994) refer to this information as instructing information.  Instructing information must be quick and accurate to be useful.  For instance, people must know as soon as possible not to eat contaminated foods or to shelter-in-place during a chemical release.  A slow or inaccurate response can increase the risk of injuries and possibly deaths.  Quick actions can also save money by preventing further damage and protecting reputations by showing that the organization is in control.  However, speed is meaningless if the information is wrong.  Inaccurate information can increase rather than decrease the threat to public safety.

The news media are drawn to crises and are a useful way to reach a wide array of publics quickly.  So it is logical that crisis response research has devoted considerable attention to media relations.  Media relations allows crisis managers to reach a wide range of stakeholders fast.  Fast and wide ranging is perfect for public safety—get the message out quickly and to as many people as possible.  Clearly there is waste as non-targets receive the message but speed and reach are more important at the initial stage of the crisis.  However, the news media is not the only channel crisis managers can and should use to reach stakeholders.

Web sites, Intranet sites, and mass notification systems add to the news media coverage and help to provide a quick response.  Crisis managers can supply greater amounts of their own information on a web site.  Not all targets will use the web site but enough do to justify the inclusion of web-base communication in a crisis response.  Taylor and Kent’s (2007) extensive analysis of crisis web sites over a multiyear period found a slow progression in organizations utilizing web sites and the interactive nature of the web during a crisis.  Mass notification systems deliver short messages to specific individuals through a mix of phone, text messaging, voice messages, and e-mail.  The systems also allow people to send responses.  In organizations with effective Intranet systems, the Intranet is a useful vehicle for reaching employees as well.  If an organization integrates its Intranet with suppliers and customers, these stakeholders can be reached as well.  As the crisis management effort progresses, the channels can be more selective.

More recently, crisis experts have recommended a third component to an initial crisis response, crisis managers should express concern/sympathy for any victims of the crisis.  Victims are the people that are hurt or inconvenienced in some way by the crisis.  Victims might have lost money, become ill, had to evacuate, or suffered property damage.  Kellerman (2006) details when it is appropriate to express regret.  Expressions of concern help to lessen reputational damage and to reduce financial losses.  Experimental studies by Coombs and Holladay (1996) and by Dean (2004) found that organizations did experience less reputational damage when an expression of concern is offered verses a response lacking an expression of concern.  Cohen (1999) examined legal cases and found early expressions of concern help to reduce the number and amount of claims made against an organization for the crisis.  However, Tyler (1997) reminds us that there are limits to expressions of concern.  Lawyers may try to use expressions of concern as admissions of guilt.  A number of states have laws that protect expressions of concern from being used against an organization.  Another concern is that as more crisis managers express concern, the expressions of concern may lose their effect of people.  Hearit (2007) cautions that expressions of concern will seem too routine.  Still, a failure to provide a routine response could hurt an organization.  Hence, expressions of concern may be expected and provide little benefit when used but can inflict damage when not used.

Argenti (2002) interviewed a number of managers that survived the 9/11 attacks.  His strongest lesson was that crisis managers should never forget employees are important publics during a crisis.  The Business Roundtable (2002) and Corporate Leadership Council (2003) remind us that employees need to know what happened, what they should do, and how the crisis will affect them.  The earlier discussions of mass notification systems and the Intranet are examples of how to reach employees with information.  West Pharmaceuticals had a production facility in Kinston, North Carolina leveled by an explosion in January 2003.  Coombs (2004b) examined how West Pharmaceuticals used a mix of channels to keep employees apprised of how the plant explosion would affect them in terms of when they would work, where they would work, and their benefits.  Moreover, Coombs (2007a) identifies research that suggest well informed employees provide an additional channel of communication for reaching other stakeholders.

When the crisis results in serious injuries or deaths, crisis management must include stress and trauma counseling for employees and other victims.  One illustration is the trauma teams dispatched by airlines following a plane crash.  The trauma teams address the needs of employees as well as victims’ families.  Both the Business Roundtable (2002) and Coombs (2007a) note that crisis managers must consider how the crisis stress might affect the employees, victims, and their families.  Organizations must provide the necessary resources to help these groups cope.

We can take a specific set of both form and content lessons from the writing on the initial crisis response.  Table 4 provides a summary of the Initial Crisis Response Best Practices.  Form refers to the basic structure of the response.  The initial crisis response should be delivered in the first hour after a crisis and be vetted for accuracy.  Content refers to what is covered in the initial crisis response.  The initial message must provide any information needed to aid public safety, provide basic information about what has happened, and offer concern if there are victims.  In addition, crisis managers must work to have a consistent message between spokespersons.

Reputation Repair and Behavioral Intentions

A number of researchers in public relations, communication, and marketing have shed light on how to repair the reputational damage a crisis inflicts on an organization.  At the center of this research is a list of reputation repair strategies.  Bill Benoit (1995; 1997) has done the most to identify the reputation repair strategies.  He analyzed and synthesized strategies from many different research traditions that shared a concern for reputation repair.  Coombs (2007a) integrated the work of Benoit with others to create a master list that integrated various writings into one list.  Table 5 presents the Master List of Reputation Repair Strategies.  The reputation repair strategies vary in terms of how much they accommodate victims of this crisis (those at risk or harmed by the crisis).  Accommodate means that the response focuses more on helping the victims than on addressing organizational concerns.  The master list arranges the reputation repair strategies from the least to the most accommodative reputation repair strategies.  (For more information on reputation repair strategies see also Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger, 2006).

Table 5: Master List of Reputation Repair Strategies

1.Attack the accuser: crisis manager confronts the person or group claiming something is wrong with the organization.

2.Denial: crisis manager asserts that there is no crisis.

3.  Scapegoat: crisis manager blames some person or group outside of the organization for the crisis.

4.  Excuse: crisis manager minimizes organizational responsibility by denying intent to do harm and/or claiming inability to control the events that triggered the crisis.

Provocation: crisis was a result of response to some one else’s actions.

Defeasibility: lack of information about events leading to the crisis situation.

Accidental: lack of control over events leading to the crisis situation.

Good intentions: organization meant to do well

5.  Justification: crisis manager minimizes the perceived damage caused by the crisis.

6.  Reminder: crisis managers tell stakeholders about the past good works of the organization.

7.  Ingratiation: crisis manager praises stakeholders for their actions.

8.  Compensation: crisis manager offers money or other gifts to victims.

9.  Apology: crisis manager indicates the organization takes full responsibility for the crisis and asks stakeholders for forgiveness.

It should be noted that reputation repair can be used in the crisis response phase, post-crisis phase, or both.  Not all crises need reputation repair efforts.  Frequently the instructing information and expressions of concern are enough to protect the reputation.  When a strong reputation repair effort is required, that effort will carry over into the post-crisis phase.  Or, crisis managers may feel more comfortable waiting until the post-crisis phase to address reputation concerns.

A list of reputation repair strategies by itself has little utility.  Researchers have begun to explore when a specific reputation repair strategy or combination of strategies should be used.  These researchers frequently have used attribution theory to develop guidelines for the use of reputation repair strategies.  A short explanation of attribution theory is provided along with its relationship to crisis management followed by a summary of lessons learned from this research.

Attribution theory believes that people try to explain why events happen, especially events that are sudden and negative.  Generally, people either attribute responsibility for the event to the situation or the person in the situation.  Attributions generate emotions and affect how people interact with those involved in the event.  Crises are negative (create damage or threat of damage) and are often sudden so they create attributions of responsibility.  People either blame the organization in crisis or the situation.  If people blame the organization, anger is created and people react negatively toward the organization.  Three negative reactions to attributing crisis responsibility to an organization have been documented:  (1) increased damage to an organization’s reputation, (2) reduced purchase intentions and (3) increased likelihood of engaging in negative word-of-mouth (Coombs, 2007b; Coombs & Holladay, 2006).

Most of the research has focused on establishing the link between attribution of crisis responsibility and the threat to the organization’s reputation.  A number of studies have proven this connection exists (Coombs, 2004a; Coombs & Holladay, 1996; Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Coombs & Holladay, 2006).  The research linking organizational reputation with purchase intention and negative word-of-mouth is less developed but so far has confirmed these two links as well (Coombs, 2007b; Coombs & Holladay, 2006).

Coombs (1995) pioneered the application of attribution theory to crisis management in the public relations literature.  His 1995 article began to lay out a theory-based approach to matching the reputation repair strategies to the crisis situation.  A series of studies have tested the recommendations and assumptions such as Coombs and Holladay (1996), Coombs & Holladay, (2002) and Coombs (2004a), and Coombs, (2007b).  This research has evolved into the Situation Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT).  SCCT argues that crisis managers match their reputation repair strategies to the reputational threat of the crisis situation.  Crisis managers should use increasingly accommodative the reputation repair strategies as the reputational threat from the crisis intensifies (Coombs & Holladay, 1996; Coombs, 2007b).

Crisis managers follow a two-step process to assess the reputational threat of a crisis.  The first step is to determine the basic crisis type.  A crisis managers considers how the news media and other stakeholders are defining the crisis.  Coombs and Holladay (2002) had respondents evaluate crisis types based on attributions of crisis responsibility.  They distilled this data to group the basic crises according to the reputational threat each one posed.  Table 6 provides a list the basic crisis types and their reputational threat.

Table 6: Crisis Types by Attribution of Crisis Responsibility

Victim Crises:  Minimal Crisis Responsibility

Natural disasters: acts of nature such as tornadoes or earthquakes.

Rumors: false and damaging information being circulated about you organization.

Workplace violence: attack by former or current employee on current employees on-site.

Product Tampering/Malevolence: external agent causes damage to the organization.

Accident Crises:  Low Crisis Responsibility

Challenges: stakeholder claim that the organization is operating in an inappropriate manner.

Technical error accidents: equipment or technology failure that cause an industrial accident.

Technical error product harm: equipment or technology failure that cause a product to be defective or potentially harmful.

Preventable Crises: Strong Crisis Responsibility

Human-error accidents: industrial accident caused by human error.

Human-error product harm: product is defective or potentially harmful because of human error.

Organizational misdeed: management actions that put stakeholders at risk and/or violate the law.

The second step is to review the intensifying factors of crisis history and prior reputation.  If an organization has a history of similar crises or has a negative prior reputation, the reputational threat is intensified.  A series of experimental studies have documented the intensifying value of crisis history (Coombs, 2004a) and prior reputation (Coombs & Holladay, 2001; Coombs & Holladay, 2006; Klein & Dawar, 2004).  The same crisis was found to be perceived as having much strong crisis responsibility (a great reputational threat) when the organization had either a previous crisis (Coombs, 2004a) or the organization was known not to treat stakeholders well/negative prior reputation (Coombs & Holladay, 2001; Coombs & Holladay, 2006; Klein & Dewar, 2004).  Table 7 is a set of crisis communication best practices derived from attribution theory-based research in SCCT (Coombs, 2007b, Coombs & Holladay, 1996; Coombs & Holladay, 2001; Coombs & Holladay, 2006).

Table 7:  Attribution Theory-based Crisis Communication Best Practices

1.  All victims or potential victims should receive instructing information, including recall information.  This is one-half of the base response to a crisis.

2.  All victims should be provided an expression of sympathy, any information about corrective actions and trauma counseling when needed.  This can be called the “care response.” This is the second-half of the base response to a crisis.

3.  For crises with minimal attributions of crisis responsibility and no intensifying factors, instructing information and care response is sufficient.

4.  For crises with minimal attributions of crisis responsibility and an intensifying factor, add excuse and/or justification strategies to the instructing information and care response.

5.  For crises with low attributions of crisis responsibility and no intensifying factors, add excuse and/or justification strategies to the instructing information and care response.

6.  For crises with low attributions of crisis responsibility and an intensifying factor, add compensation and/or apology strategies to the instructing information and care response.

7.  For crises with strong attributions of crisis responsibility, add compensation and/or apology strategies to the instructing information and care response.

8.  The compensation strategy is used anytime victims suffer serious harm.

9.  The reminder and ingratiation strategies can be used to supplement any response.

10.  Denial and attack the accuser strategies are best used only for rumor and challenge crises.

In general, a reputation is how stakeholder perceive an organization.  A reputation is widely recognized as a valuable, intangible asset for an organization and is worth protecting.  But the threat posed by a crisis extends to behavioral intentions as well.  Increased attributions of organizational responsibility for a crisis result in a greater likelihood of negative word-of-mouth about the organization and reduced purchase intention from the organization.  Early research suggests that lessons designed to protect the organization’s reputation will help to reduce the likelihood of negative word-of-mouth and the negative effect on purchase intentions as well (Coombs, 2007b).

Post-Crisis Phase

In the post-crisis phase, the organization is returning to business as usual.  The crisis is no longer the focal point of management’s attention but still requires some attention.  As noted earlier, reputation repair may be continued or initiated during this phase. There is important follow-up communication that is required.  First, crisis managers often promise to provide additional information during the crisis phase.  The crisis managers must deliver on those informational promises or risk losing the trust of publics wanting the information.  Second, the organization needs to release updates on the recovery process, corrective actions, and/or investigations of the crisis.  The amount of follow-up communication required depends on the amount of information promised during the crisis and the length of time it takes to complete the recovery process.  If you promised a reporter a damage estimate, for example, be sure to deliver that estimate when it is ready.  West Pharmaceuticals provided recovery updates for over a year because that is how long it took to build a new facility to replace the one destroyed in an explosion.  As Dowling (2003), the Corporate Leadership Counsel (2003), and the Business Roundtable (2002) observe, Intranets are an excellent way to keep employees updated, if the employees have ways to access the site.  Coombs (2007a) reports how mass notification systems can be used as well to deliver update messages to employees and other publics via phones, text messages, voice messages, and e-mail.  Personal e-mails and phone calls can be used too.

Crisis managers agree that a crisis should be a learning experience.  The crisis management effort needs to be evaluated to see what is working and what needs improvement.  The same holds true for exercises.  Coombs (2006) recommends every crisis management exercise be carefully dissected as a learning experience.  The organization should seek ways to improve prevention, preparation, and/or the response.  As most books on crisis management note, those lessons are then integrated into the pre-crisis and crisis response phases.  That is how management learns and improves its crisis management process.  Table 8 lists the Post-Crisis Phase Best Practices.

Table 8:  Post-Crisis Phase Best Practices

1.  Deliver all information promised to stakeholders as soon as that information is known.

2.  Keep stakeholders updated on the progression of recovery efforts including any corrective measures being taken and the progress of investigations.

3.  Analyze the crisis management effort for lessons and integrate those lessons in to the organization’s crisis management system.

Conclusion

It is difficult to distill all that is known about crisis management into one, concise entry.  I have tried to identify the best practices and lessons created by crisis management researchers and analysts.  While crises begin as a negative/threat, effective crisis management can minimize the damage and in some case allow an organization to emerge stronger than before the crisis.  However, crises are not the ideal way to improve an organization.  But no organization is immune from a crisis so all must do their best to prepare for one.  This entry provides a number of ideas that can be incorporated into an effective crisis management program.  At the end of this entry is an annotated bibliography.  The annotated bibliography provides short summaries of key writings in crisis management highlighting.  Each entry identifies the main topics found in that entry and provides citations to help you locate those sources.

 
Reference

Argenti, P. (2002, December).  Crisis communication:  Lessons from 9/11.  Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 103-109. This article provides insights into working with employees during a crisis.  The information is derived from interviews with managers about their responses to the 9/11 tragedies.

Arpan, L.M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. (2005). Stealing thunder: An analysis of the effects of proactive disclosure of crisis information. Public Relations Review 31(3), 425-433.

Augustine, N. R. (1995, November/December). Managing the crisis you tried to prevent. Harvard Business Review, 73(6), 147-158.

Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in organizations II (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: College Divisions South-Western.