Principles of Effective Crisis Communication - Literature review Example

Crisis Communication Student’s Name Code + Course Name Professor’s Name University Name City, State Date Introduction Coombs (2014) defines a crisis any perceptively unforeseeable situation or event that threatens significant organizational expectations and those of its stakeholders and has the potential to severely affect the performance of the organization. Business and other entities face numerous crises and other situations with the potential to degenerate into crises on a day to day basis. As a result, when it comes to crises, it all comes down to when rather than if they will be faced by a particular crisis (Coombs, Frandsen, Holladay & Johansen 2010). Although many organizations engage in crisis prevention measures, crises will most likely rather than not occur. As such, it becomes mandatory for the management to be prepared at all times to institute various responses in times of crises. Coombs et al. (2010) note that as part of a crisis response mechanism, whatever the management team articulates and does during and in the aftermath of a crisis, is basically communicative. As such, crisis communication has the potential to either improve or worsen a particular crisis condition for both the organization as well as its stakeholders regards the financial, physical or emotional states of those affected. Best practice for effective crisis communication Seeger (2006) identifies a number of best practices that should inform effective crisis communication. The first best practice is the need to fully integrate crisis communication into the day-to-day decision making process in an organization (Seeger 2006). This ensures that an effective, all-inclusive and systematic plan for and response to a crisis situation in an organization is mapped out before the occurrence of a particular crisis and encompasses an entire array of strategies ranging from the pre-crisis to the post-crisis period (Ulmer, Sellnow & Seeger 2014). The second best practice regards effective crisis communication is pre-crisis planning (Seeger 2006). This includes potential risk identification with the aim of eliminating it or reducing any negative outcomes. Crisis communication plans should include details such as the responsibilities of each member of the crisis management and response team, other crisis management agency coordination procedures as well as preferred channels for disseminating relevant information that relates to a particular crisis (Coombs 2014). Partnering with the public in managing a crisis is the other best practice in crisis communication (Seeger 2006). Organizations should recognize that the public has an inherent right to access information regards the kind of risks that it faces as well as accept their concerns regards particular risks as legitimate (Seeger 2006). As such, organizations should appreciate the fact that the public have a right to receive information of what is happening through timely and accurate information dissemination regards a particular crisis (Veil, Buehner & Palenchar 2011). This is related with the fourth crisis communication best practice that requires organizations to gain an understanding of the members of the public it is dealing with so as to respond accordingly during a crisis (Seeger 2006). Understanding the public, dialoguing with them and incorporating their concerns in a crisis communication plan create goodwill and credibility during and after a crisis (Seeger 2006). The organization should be involved in the ongoing monitoring of the public’s opinion regards a particular risk in the period prior to a crisis. In addition, the public’s perception about the severity of the outcomes of a crisis is necessary as it ensures that crisis communication messages are effectively adapted to the public’s dynamic concerns (Veil, Buehner & Palenchar 2011). Another best practice in crisis communication is the need to communicate relevant and accurate facts in a quick and responsible manner that informs all the relevant stakeholders and indicates organizational concern for the victims and stakeholders (Ulmer, Sellnow & Seeger 2014). Such communication should be effected in an honest, sincere and open manner so that there is a sense of legitimacy for the kind of information that is being disseminated (Ulmer, Sellnow & Seeger 2014). Circulating false and exaggerated information results in the loss of trust and credibility. Circulating accurate and relevant information in an open and honest manner before and during a particular crisis helps in the minimization of further threats. Moreover, it does well to address and satisfy the public’s need for information regards a particular crisis thereby preventing them from turning to alternative sources that may be disseminating inaccurate information (Ulmer, Sellnow & Seeger 2014). Where the organization is considered as the only source of reliable information, it becomes relatively easier to manage a crisis without degenerating into further threats (Veil, Buehner & Palenchar 2011). Another important best practice in crisis communication is the need to remain continuously accessible to the media and provide them with accurate and reliable information as and when they request and probe for it (Veil, Buehner & Palenchar 2011). This is informed by the fact that normally, other than official communications from the concerned organization, the public usually acquires information regards a particular risk or crisis situation from the media fraternity (Ulmer, Sellnow & Seeger 2014). Furthermore, it is not uncharacteristic that the public most often expects an organization to have more details concerning a crisis than that which is available to them. This makes it imperious that they only disseminate only the information that is accurate rather than speculating in an effort to satisfy the demands of the media. Regardless of this aspect, it is vital to remain accessible to the media fraternity at all times during and after a crisis. This effectively avoids dissemination of speculative information that is most often inaccurate and non-factual (Veil, Buehner & Palenchar 2011). In addition, crisis communication should be handled in a manner that recognizes the fact that uncertainty and ambiguity during a crisis is inevitable. Such a situation creates room for speculation and second-guessing by members of the public and the media. Available facts should be communicated quickly and regularly updated as more information becomes available (Ulmer, Sellnow & Seeger 2014). Principles of Effective External Crisis Communication External crisis communication involves disseminating information to audiences outside the organization such as external consumers, regulatory bodies and the media (Sazonova 2014). The first principle of effective external crisis communication is that of public safety (Coombs et al. 2010). An organization’s stakeholders should be informed of how best to protect themselves before, during and after a crisis (Coombs et al. 2010). The second principle is the Stealing Thunder principle (Coombs 2014). As per this principle, organizations are required to be the first ones to report a crisis rather than waiting for the media or any other source to do so. Although it is not uncommon for organizations to reason that nondisclosure of a possible crisis is preferable where the information is negative and may tarnish its reputation particularly where it is probable that the public has no chance of learning about it (Coombs 2014). However, failure to report a crisis is perilous since doing so knowingly forms the notion that an organization does not care about its stakeholders (Coombs 2010). The other principle in external crisis communication is to accept responsibility so as to avoid organizational reputation damage (Carroll 2015). As Coombs et al. (2010) notes, there is a positive correlation between responsibility acceptance, expression of regret and the level of organizational reputation protection. However, such a decision should be well thought out since taking responsibility may expose an organization to legal liabilities (Carroll 2015). In addition, the information being disseminated should be factual and accurate (Coombs 2014). This is because telling lies that comprise inaccurate and non-factual information results in the erosion of crisis communication message validity (Carroll 2015). Moreover, misinformation places organizational stakeholders at risk and may degenerate into further crises (Coombs et al. 2010). Another principle in crisis communication is to be consistent (Coombs 2010). Disseminating inconsistent crisis related messages creates unnecessary confusion and presents perceptions of incompetence on the part of an organization’s crisis management members of staff (Coombs et al. 2010). Crisis communication should be carried out in a manner that avoids exaggeratedly confident statements that shuns room for needful adjustments of information where relevant (Heath & O’Hair 2010). For instance, it is necessary for the crisis communication spokesperson to articulate to the fact that whatever is believed to be certain at a particular instance may turn out to be incorrect at a later time as more information becomes available (Heath & O’Hair 2010). Such an act will ensure that the credibility of further information is not Heath affected in the event that what was claimed as being true turns out to be false. Specific principles of effective internal crisis communication Sazonova (2014) states that internal organizational crisis communication takes place within a company between and among its employees. Internal crisis communication is vital because it contributes to the alleviating or minimizing the level of stress among employees in a crisis situation (Frandsen & Johansen 2011). One of the principles of internal crisis communication is the need to formulate an official version that spells out the facts about the crisis for the employees (Sazonova 2014). In addition, the organization should clarify its position regards the crisis and reiterate its commitment to managing the crisis (Coombs 2014). Another principle is to communicate remedial as well as accommodative strategies to the employees (Frandsen & Johansen 2011). Reference List Carroll, CE 2015, The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Reputation: Volume 50 of Handbooks in Communication and Media. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, West Sussex. Coombs, TW 2014, Crisis Management and Communications (Updated September 2014) - Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved January 26, 2015, from http://www.instituteforpr.org/crisis-management-communications/ Coombs, WT 2010. Parameters for crisis communication. The handbook of crisis communication, 17-53. Coombs, W. T., Frandsen, F., Holladay, S. J., & Johansen, W. (2010). Why a concern for apologia and crisis communication?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(4), 337-349. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2011). The study of internal crisis communication: towards an integrative framework. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 347-361. Heath, R & O’Hair, D 2009. Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Routledge: New York Sazonova, A 2014, Role of internal organizational communication in crisis and risk management. Retrieved January 26, 2015, from https://prezi.com/g9o183zsrbkn/role-of-internal-organizational-communication-in-crisis-and-risk-management/ Seeger, MW 2006, Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232-244. Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2014). Effective crisis communication. Sage. Veil, SR., Buehner, T & Palenchar, MJ 2011, A Work‐In‐Process Literature Review: Incorporating Social Media in Risk and Crisis Communication. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 19(2), 110-122. Read More