Chapter 4 -Crisis Prevention
Chapter 4 of the Coombs text discusses Crisis Prevention. The chapter kicks off with the main point that 1) “an organization avoids crises by taking action on crisis warning signs and reducing its risk factors.” This seems like a no-brainer, but as communicators we know that this task can only be accomplished by trained and educated communication professionals, ones who have diligently been doing environmental scanning and keeping in close contact with stakeholder publics in times of non-crisis.
With that said, not all risks can be avoided or completely eliminated…and I add to that “foreseen.” However, in the case of the Ford Pinto, internal documents prove that Ford knew they could explode in rear-end collisions. A cost-benefit analysis of the corrective action was performed and it was determined that the recall/corrections would cost more than the potential litigation. Ford made a terrible mistake in placing its customers at risk of injury. The point here is that 2) “ignoring risk can be a more costly move than anticipated.”
The text talks about the benefits of credibility. We all know the importance of this, but the text puts it in almost scientific terms. 3) “A reputation is the sum of the credibility transactions between an organization and a stakeholder. Positive credibility transactions lead to favorable reputations.” The text goes on to mention that “organizational reputation is like a bank account; favorable reputation builds up the account, whereas crisis subtracts from the account.” However, depending on how stakeholders perceive the organization to be trustworthy and credible, the stakeholders may listen to the bad news but ignore it…basing their opinions instead on the reputation and credibility an organization has put forth in their relationship.
Credibility is built through action and must be sustained and maintained regularly. Communicators and organizations must constantly “identify expectations and check promise fulfillment.” Here, “matching words to deeds” is key. Stakeholders that already hold a favorable opinion of an organization still needs to be constantly affirmed that the organization is acting in the stakeholder’s best interest. “Organizations must know where the relationship stands, why it is in that sate and how it might be improved.”
Questions:
1.
When contemplating a new procedure or policy, can you assume that change is best?
2.
McDonald’s illustrated the point of the importance of listening to stakeholders when making changes in the elimination of polystyrene clamshell burger boxes. Can you think of other examples of an organization testing consumers and making changes based on their response?
3.
On the other hand, Nike didn’t listen to the Arabic community’s negative reactions about a new design and it had to do a costly recall and suffered reputation damage. Can you think of other organizations that didn’t listen to its publics and suffered the consequences?
4.
Why are all kinds of credibility – initial, derived and terminal – all important in the long run?
With that said, not all risks can be avoided or completely eliminated…and I add to that “foreseen.” However, in the case of the Ford Pinto, internal documents prove that Ford knew they could explode in rear-end collisions. A cost-benefit analysis of the corrective action was performed and it was determined that the recall/corrections would cost more than the potential litigation. Ford made a terrible mistake in placing its customers at risk of injury. The point here is that 2) “ignoring risk can be a more costly move than anticipated.”
The text talks about the benefits of credibility. We all know the importance of this, but the text puts it in almost scientific terms. 3) “A reputation is the sum of the credibility transactions between an organization and a stakeholder. Positive credibility transactions lead to favorable reputations.” The text goes on to mention that “organizational reputation is like a bank account; favorable reputation builds up the account, whereas crisis subtracts from the account.” However, depending on how stakeholders perceive the organization to be trustworthy and credible, the stakeholders may listen to the bad news but ignore it…basing their opinions instead on the reputation and credibility an organization has put forth in their relationship.
Credibility is built through action and must be sustained and maintained regularly. Communicators and organizations must constantly “identify expectations and check promise fulfillment.” Here, “matching words to deeds” is key. Stakeholders that already hold a favorable opinion of an organization still needs to be constantly affirmed that the organization is acting in the stakeholder’s best interest. “Organizations must know where the relationship stands, why it is in that sate and how it might be improved.”
Questions:
1.
When contemplating a new procedure or policy, can you assume that change is best?
2.
McDonald’s illustrated the point of the importance of listening to stakeholders when making changes in the elimination of polystyrene clamshell burger boxes. Can you think of other examples of an organization testing consumers and making changes based on their response?
3.
On the other hand, Nike didn’t listen to the Arabic community’s negative reactions about a new design and it had to do a costly recall and suffered reputation damage. Can you think of other organizations that didn’t listen to its publics and suffered the consequences?
4.
Why are all kinds of credibility – initial, derived and terminal – all important in the long run?
posted by Lauren at
3/31/2007 06:44:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home