Effective Crisis Communication Chapters 9 and 12

Chapter 9 from Effective Crisis Communication

Chapter 9 brought up some interesting points about the importance of learning from failure. Too often organizations try to avoid failure all together and do not view it as a learning experience. Some lessons can only be learned from failure and by figuring out what went wrong and why. According to the chapter, there are several ways to learn from failure. The first way is to learn directly from a failure that was experienced by the organization. The second way is to learn vicariously from a failure which was experienced by another organization. Another way organizations can learn is from a process called “unlearning”. With unlearning, organizations change or “unlearn” their previous behaviors that are outdated due to changes in the environment.

If organizations and their leadership learn from failure and environmental changes, they may have these opportunities:

· “Opportunity 1: Organizations should treat failure as an opportunity to recognize a potential crisis to prevent a similar crisis in the future.”(p.150)
· “Opportunity 2: Organizations can avoid crises by learning from the failures and crises of other organizations.” (p. 150)
· “Opportunity 3: Organizational training and planning should emphasize the preservation of previous learning in order to make organizational memory a priority.” (p.150)
· “Opportunity 4: Organizations must be willing to unlearn outdated or ineffective procedures if they are to learn better crisis management strategies.” (p.150)

The authors used Johnson & Johnson and the Tylenol crisis as an example of failure. According to them, Johnson & Johnson handled the crisis well, but did not learn from failure because they did not handle future crises with the same speed and effectiveness. This brings me to my first discussion question:
Do you agree with the authors’ claims?

I do not necessarily agree because while they may not have handled future crises as well, they could not have learned nothing from the Tylenol crisis. Tylenol is still a trusted brand and Johnson & Johnson is still a trusted company, so the future crises they had to handle were not handled completely wrong. The way they handled the future crises may have been due to several facts, such as a change in leadership and a change in public relations practitioners working for the company.

Chapter 12 from Effective Crisis Communication

Chapter 12 discussed how to return to business again after a crisis. Depending on the crisis and the severity of it, an organization may be able to return to business as usual or the organization may have to return to a “new normal”. The case studies in the chapter discussed how the organizations could return to a “new normal” after a crisis and the one thing they had in common was the fact that the organizations were committed to their stakeholders.

Four ways for organizations to have effective crisis responses are:

“Opportunity 1: Organizations that set strong ethical standards before crises can create opportunities for renewal.” (p. 186)
“Opportunity 2: Organizations that emphasize developing strong stakeholder relationships prior to a crisis have opportunities to experience renewal after one occurs.” (p. 186)
“Opportunity 3: Organizations that focus on moving beyond crises rather than shifting blame or escaping blame are more likely to experience renewal.” (p. 186)
“Opportunity 4: Organizations that focus on effective crisis communication strategies have better opportunities to create renewal.” (p. 186)

Now for my discussion questions:
Can you think of an example of an organization that had a crisis and during the crisis information about the organization’s poor ethical decisions prior to the crisis was made public? What organization was it? What was the end result?

What other important factors, other than commitment to stakeholders, would be important in handling a crisis and in helping an organization return to a “new normal” after a crisis?

P.S. I apologize for the formatting issues. I typed this is Word first and I just could not get the formatting to look as pretty as it did in Word.

Chapter 8 and 9 (actually, 8 mostly) from Coombs

Postcrisis Concerns

So you’ve been dealing with a crisis, and it is finally over. What do you do after the dust has settled? Coombs says when things have returned to normal, it is time to evaluate your efforts. Learning from what you did right, what you did wrong, and what you could do better is a key part of crisis management. First, the crisis is examined through every phase of how it was handled. Then the impact of the actual crisis is measured, including physical and financial damage, and reputational damage (Coombs).

Coombs brings up Crisis Management Performance (CMP) evaluation as important to determining how the situation has been handled. Evaluating the CMP will help the communicators figure out there downfalls and learn for the future.

Data collection is key to this process. Analyze the media, stakeholder opinions and any other records you may have, such as transcripts, interviews, eyewitnesses if applicable. Impact evaluation is what evaluates the damage to the organization. Coombs says that the financial damage is pretty cut and dry, and can be evaluated easily. However, reputational management is not so easy to define. Coombs says that reputations are built on stakeholder experience with the organization. Some of that experience comes from what the media portrays about the crisis, especially when it is the stakeholder’s primary source of information. Reputation is often defined by what the media thinks about organization. Media audits are important, as well as analyzing what could have been communicated differently to the media. Coombs does say that the stakeholders will not just believe everything that media says and that “the media are not all powerful” (p.140). If an organization already has a strong reputation, it will be less susceptible to the media interpretation. What do you think about this? Is the media all powerful? Or is it only powerful in certain situations with certain organizations?

Institutional memory is important to not repeating the same mistake twice. Coombs says, “a crisis should not be wasted.” (p.144). Some lessons, unfortunately, can only be learned through experience. This should be taken advantage of so that it will not happen again, and that similar crises can be avoided. One very important point Coombs makes is not to “become a slave to memory” (p. 145). Be willing to use other measures when needed, do not think that it is the same as the last crisis. Can you think of any times where institutional memory actually prevented an organization to make a poor crisis management move? What were the implications of the decision?

Follow-up communication must be pursued as much as possible, along with cooperation with investigations, and crisis tracking. It is important to open in these situations, it gives the organization creditability. Then, the post crisis phase ends with going back to pre-crisis preparations, and the cycle continues.

Chapter nine was basically the highlights of what we have learned about crisis management this semester, at least from Coombs point of view. Crisis management is ongoing, and training your communicators well is important, and the crisis management procedures summarized. What d you believe is the most overarching thing about crisis management that you have learned this semester? For me, it has been reinforced that crisis management is an ongoing cycle. Just because the crisis is over, does not mean that the crisis management lets down its guard.

April 10 - Coombs 8 & 9

Coombs – Chapter 8 “Postcrisis Concerns”

The crisis may be over but the work is not done. Evaluation is in order. How well did the Crisis Management Plan (CMP) work in theory? How well was the CMP executed? How well did the Crisis Management Team (CMT) perform?

If these three components were effective, crisis damage should not exceed what was anticipated. An actual crisis is an opportunity for an organization to learn.

Evaluation

Data from crisis records, stakeholders and media coverage should be collected and assessed in order to determine the effectiveness of crisis performance. Assessments of overall crisis performance should include a systems analysis:

A) Technical – Was the CMT hampered by a lack of technical system support for crisis management?

B) Human – Were crisis management problems a function of a poor match between people and technology?

C) Infrastructure – Did the CMT fail because it is not considered a functioning part of the organization?

D) Cultural – Were any problems the result of constraints imposed by corporate culture?

Did crisis management protect the organization from damage in the following areas?:

Financial, Reputational, Human, Environmental, and Media.

All aspects of crisis performance should be summarized into a final report indicating:

A) whether the CMT performed effectively

B) if the CMP proved useful in anticipating and resolving situations created by the crisis

C) whether structural features facilitated or hindered the crisis management effort

D) if the completed evaluation provides a full assessment of the crisis damage

Learning

Remember to remember….and remember to forget. Institutional memory is both good and bad. For the next crisis, use what was learned from this crisis. But don’t blindly follow past successes.

Postcrisis Actions

Though the crisis may be over, follow-up communication with stakeholders and cooperation with ongoing investigations is a valuable component of any Crisis Management Plan.

Coombs – Chapter 9 “Final Observations and Lessons”

Coombs….Coombs….Coombs

Everything comes in 3s with Coombs. Coombs illustrates crisis management with a 3-stage model:

Precrisis Crisis Event Postcrisis

Each of these stages has 3 substages: (relevant chapter in parenthesis)

1) Precrisis: a) signal detection (3); b) prevention (4); c) preparation (5)

2) Crisis Event: a) recognition (6); b) containment (7); business resumption (7)

3) Postcrisis: a) evaluation (8); b) learning (8); c) postcrisis actions (8)

Coombs also wants us to remember a particular number of valuable lessons in his pedagogy of crisis management. Guess how many? You cheated. You looked ahead. Or behind.

1) Crisis management is an ongoing process. Organizations should routinely test and revise the various elements of crisis preparation.

2) Specific knowledge, skills and traits are associated with effective crisis managers. Spokespersons should be selected for their knowledge base or media skills. The selection and training of crisis team members must seek to maximize the knowledge, skills and traits that facilitate group performance.

3) Crisis management involves the development and maintenance of procedures designed to improve the flow of information before, during and after the crisis. A crisis-sensing network should operate everyday as organizational units scan the environment and internal operations for potential crises. An organization should monitor its actions to see if it is meeting key stakeholder expectations and delivering on promises during crises.

Coombs also wants you to reflect on your status as a student at the center of the collegiate athletic universe. How many major national championships has your university won in the past year?

For discussion:

As previously mentioned, I’m not a PR major, so my discussion point for Chapter 8 is a question directed to those of us who are. Chapter 9 touched a bit on this, but I imagine in the real world only the very largest organizations employ full-time crisis management personnel. Even then, if the company is any good at what it does, worst case scenario would have a crisis occurring very infrequently. What do these people do between crises? It could be years in between. Or is it the norm that a crisis team consists of employees who have regular jobs in the organization and come together as a crisis management team only when a crisis is imminent?

With Chapter 9, we finish the Coombs book. I would ask our PR majors to highlight—­in short—what they’ve learned from Coombs. What new ideas presented in this book appear to have the potential to be applied to the practice of Public Relations in the real world?

mic brookshire

Final readings -- April 10

Just a reminder that there is no research paper part 2 due this week. It is now folded into the final paper which is due by 9am, Tuesday May 1st (latest I can give you & get grades in).

Don't forget in your reaction blog to raise at least 3 discussion questions as well as summazing the few key points you think it's essential for others to read.

Everyone should read the two Team 7 readings available on WebCT. The individually assigned readings for this week are:

Coombs Ongoing Crisis Communication chapters 8-9
Catherine, Lauren, Liz, Mic, Tolo, Ronnie

US&S Effective Crisis Communication chapters 9, 12
Jennifer, Meredith, Minji, Nadya, Ramon

Reynolds & Seeger article from J Health Communication (available in Team 7 folder on WebCT)
Courtney, Jiun-Yi, Min, OT, Wes

Major article from Public Relations Review (available in Team 7 folder on WebCT)
Emel, Gisele, Katie, Paul, Sooyeon

One less statistic may not be everything.

While I was waiting for my favorite show to come on, I saw the TV advertisement for Gardasil once again. This made me think of the content analysis we did during class, and led
me thinking deeper about the “symbolic system” of our culture. Recalling from the heated debate on Tuesday, the TV ad clearly targets to young women and pose to stir their emotions. By displaying series of active young women (they’re skateboarding, jumping ropes, painting, etc) with serious faces, the message clearly strikes you that if you care enough, you can be one less person to suffer from the disease that annually kill thousands of women in America. By emphasizing the phrase “one less” throughout the whole commercial, there is a prevalent tone in the message that if you do not get vaccinated, you fall behind from the current trend, which happens to be a social suicide for teenage girls. As Wes pointed out with his (rather confusing :p) graph chart, the message in the commercial is structured so that it provokes enough anxiety to make the target audience concerned about the issue, but prevent outrage by giving them an option to act upon. While it is important to provide a point of action during risk situations in order to prevent outrage, the intentions behind this certain vaccine is questionable because the manufacturers are (were) lobbying to state legislators to pass the bill to mandate it for schoolgirls (NYT).

The NYT article notes that Merck has stopped lobbying to pass the bill when objections towards their acts rose beyond their anticipation. Merck is saying that this fueled objection may hinder the adoption of the vaccine. According to the article, public health officials do favor the vaccine, but feel that it is “too early” to make it mandatory; they fear Merck’s lobbying damaged the intention to “reach and educate as many females as possible and prevent cervical cancer.” However, considering the fact that the majority of American’s were not aware of cervical cancer threats in the previous year, Gardasil advertisements did a great job setting the issue forth.

It is no surprise that many people are concerned surrounding the vaccine; the vaccine itself, bombarding amount of product advertising, and the legislation acts. Parents are noting that mandatory vaccination preempts their rights and are concerned that the vaccine will encourage promiscuity among young females. Many are concerned of the long term effects of the vaccine that has yet to be proven. Like many newly introduced vaccines and medicines, not enough research has been conducted to know if the vaccine is applicable and effective enough to be taken. I’ve heard that the research done regarding Gardasil was 5 years, and this is too short in my opinion. It is said that there needs to be at least a 15 year period in order to ensure minimum level of safety of the medical product, and Gardasil doesn’t even come close to this. Our class discussion brought up the topic of the three series of shots being too expensive; hence, people who may need it the most may not receive the benefits of it. This cost issue can also be tied in with the fervent legislation act since Merck holds exclusive petition for the vaccine only for a short period of time.

A final factor that strikes me is the men’s perception of the “women who get the shots.” In my culture, discussing sex and being sexually active before marriage is considered a sin. Only promiscuous women with thin morals would engage in such behavior. If you approach your parents informing them that you would like to take the shots, many of them will in turn preach about the importance of “staying a virgin” before you marry and emphasize the fact that “a normal girl” like you do not need the shot. I did a little research on my own and discovered an interesting statistic. According to a health report in 2001 conducted by National Institute of Health, 23 women out of a million are diagnosed with cervical cancer annually, and this is three times more than America, which happens to be 7. The report notes that while HPV examination is available in Korea, MDs do not mandate this due to economical reasons. Alongside with the report was a newspaper article that emphasized that more than 47% of the prostitutes are infected with HPV. Returning to the symbolic structure of the society, it is clear that the Korean society almost automatically relate the vaccine with promiscuity, which brings guilt to those who wish to protect themselves from potential life threatening danger.

The various issues surrounding Gardasil isn’t just about making money or preventing loss from death related to HPV. This is, in fact, an issue that carries mixed messages and intentions that act differently upon cultural structures and socioeconomic systems.

Chapter 3: Signal Detection

Since prevention is always better than cure, crisis managers should be able to detect signals pointing to a potential crisis and work towards averting it. Most if not all crisis always gives early warning signs (clues or prodromes) which if heeded and managed well can avert a lot of crisis. The draw back is that in most cases than not, the signals are either ignored or we simply fail to understand their meaning. The signal detection stage as presented by Coombs (1999) in this chapter falls under a precrisis phase and is considered as a sub-stage. For Mitroff (1994) five-phased and Fink (1996) four-staged models of crisis communication, this stage will be the first phase defining a crisis. The chapter is an attempt to provide necessary tools and tips for detecting potential crisis (scanning process) and responding to them.

Points to consider are 1) examination of scanning resources 2) the crisis sensing process and 3) monitoring to avert the crisis.

1. Examination of existing scanning resources: In order to effectively work towards detecting potential areas of crisis, it is important to know where and how to start looking so as to have a clear ‘feel’ of possibilities. Three areas for consideration here are;

Issues management – any problem or issue with a potential of ruining an organization should be identified and proactively addressed to avert or lessen the potential impacts. While issue management mostly focuses on concerns regarding organizational external environment, internal concerns can also play a critical role. Consider issues and their link to potential areas of crisis.
Risk assessment – since risk factors are part and parcel any organizational operations, it becomes imperative to identify the risk factors and asses their potential of developing into crisis. Examples of risk factors are competition, production process and personnel. Risk assessment mainly emphasis on the internal environment of an organisation.
Stakeholder relationships – organizational stakeholders can be classified into two, primary and secondary. In practice all organizations exhibit a form of relationship or interdependence with its stakeholders. The power of the primary stakeholders lies in the fact that it is “difficult and often impossible to replace the contributions that they provide the organizations’ (p. 21). This however, does not undermine the role of secondary stakeholders because history has shown the power of media and other secondary stakeholders. Coombs (1999) notes that the organizational-stakeholder relationship is a direct measure of how stakeholders feel about an organization.

2. Crisis sensing process – from the three organizational areas identified above, a three staged process of crisis sensing process can take place. The process entails the following:

i) Identification of information sources – for each of the three organizational units examined above, potential crisis sources are identified. Table 3.3 (p.23) outlines various sources relevant for each of the three organizational units. Sources showing emerging issues, trends, and stories from similar organizations, thread of discussions, organizational ethical climate, stakeholders’ dissatisfaction and rumors should be identified.
ii) Information collection – the second step is data or information collection. Accurate and reliable information is collected by way of using appropriate tools and methods common to any basic research such as interviews, surveys, content analysis etc.
iii) Information analysis and evaluation – the step entails making sense of data collected and finding meaning and implication of the information found to the organization viability. During analysis, both the issues, risks and stakeholders are subjected to an evaluation criterion that will determine both the likelihood and the impact of the crisis potential. If both the likelihood and the impact are considered to be high enough to spark a crisis, preventative strategies are developed.
3. Monitoring – after identifying the potential of a warning sign developing into a crisis, its development is followed and assessed with time. The process is continuous and will be repeated but this time very detailed and focused.

A schematic flow diagram illustrates the process (failed to paste...unfortunately).

Coombs Chapter 7 – Crisis Containment and Recovery

This was a very informative chapter on how to proceed once the organization is in crisis mode; that is, an incident has occurred, and now you must figure out what information to communicate to your stakeholders, how much information, and when. As Coombs points out, the timing and completeness of information given out is essential to maintaining the organization’s reputation and credibility throughout the situation, which is the particular point I'm going to focus on in this post.

Coombs says that the essential elements in any containment are compassion and control. “The crisis team must prove to stakeholders that it is in control of the crisis, and the team must remember to show concern for victims” (p.113). In addition, four topics must be addressed in the containment and recovery stages; initial response, reputational management concerns, enactment of the contingency and business resumption plan, and follow-up communication (p.113).

The initial response must be very carefully planned, as it’s the first public statement by the organization, and it sets the tone for the rest of the crisis. If the organization comes across as in control, yet compassionate in the initial response, the chances are much higher that they will be able to maintain that posture throughout the situation and that they have a better chance of surviving the crisis. It’s also key that the organization respond quickly. Especially in this era of 24/7 technology, “if the crisis team does not supply the initial crisis information to the media, some other group will” (p.115). Lack of information from the organization gives rise to speculation and rumors, which are very reputationally damaging in the long and short term. Also essential is providing at least some information – the “use of silence reflects uncertainty and passivity by an organization” (p.115), as well as a perceived lack of control over the situation. Heath & Kempner state that “a quick response is necessary to get the organization’s definition of the crisis – its side of the story – into the media and out to the stakeholders” (p.115).

The organization must deliver a consistent message – “speaking with one voice means coordinating efforts of the official spokespersons and discouraging other organizational members from becoming unofficial spokespersons” (p.117). By controlling who has access to the media, you ensure that consistent messaging is used, which reduces the chance of rumors and speculation. In addition, the organization must be as open with the media and its key stakeholders as possible.. “A typical struggle in crisis management is between the legal perspective for limited disclosure of crisis-related information and the public relations perspective for full disclosure of crisis-related information” (p.118). The important thing to remember is to be honest with whatever information you provide; “when delays are necessary, tell stakeholders why the question cannot be answered and when they might be able to expect a response” (p.118).

Finally, stakeholders must be kept informed as to how the crisis affects them. Coombs calls this instructing information, of which there are three main types: basic information about what happened (who, what, where, when, why and how), information that lets stakeholders know what they themselves need to do to protect themselves from the crisis (e.g boil drinking water, evacuate an area), and finally, the stakeholders must be kept informed about what is being done to correct the situation. Once this instructing information has been presented, the crisis team can begin to use crisis communication to address reputational concerns (p.120).

Just because there is a vaccine, doesn't mean everyone should have to have it.

There has been some debate about whether or not to require young children to get the Gardasil shot. According to the New York Times article, some parents do not want the government to require the shot because they feel it is an invasion of their privacy. There are also concerns about how the shot will affect children later on down the road. Parents do not want their children to be “guinea pigs” for Gardasil and find out later that it has harmed their children. One senator things it is a good idea to require the shot because she was affected by cervical cancer and wants others to avoid having to go through what she went through.

There is also a public concern about Merck’s lobbying of state and federal governments because it is seen as something that is being done to benefit them. When Merck lobbies for the shot to be mandatory, it is seen as if they trying to make as much money as possible before their rights to the shot expire and other companies can begin to make it and sell it for less. While Merck claims they are just concerned about the public, their lobbying cannot help but look as something they are doing to benefit themselves.

The controversy over Gardasil fits in with the article about risk and trust when communication about health risks. Cervical cancer is something that affects some women, so wanting to protect people from it seems like a noble cause. The question then is, should we make everyone get the vaccine, or should we leave it up to each individual person to decide whether or not they want to get the vaccine? The article Risk and Trust in Public Health: A Cautionary Tale raises this same question. They used a fictitious disease but then asked that is people were tested for it and they tested positive, should they be given medicine. The medicine had some bad side effects and even if you tested positive, the test may not be %100 correct, so you may not have the disease anyway.

This scenario is somewhat the same for Gardasil. The actual percentage of women who get cervical cancer is quite low, but if there is a way to prevent cervical cancer, should we make everyone get the vaccine whether or not they may get the cancer.

I can see both sides of the issue, but I believe that people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to get the vaccine and if they want their daughters to get the vaccine. Cervical cancer is not an infectious disease, so children will not spread it to others at school, like they may spread polio or small pox. A vaccine is great for cervical cancer, but to me all the possible side effects of the vaccine are not well known. What if in 30 years it is decided that Gardasil had some adverse effect on the ability to have children? If that happened, there would be a national uproar and many unhappy people. I think that before we require children to get the vaccine before attending school, more research should be done into the long term effects of the vaccine and everyone should be free to choose for themselves whether or not they want the vaccine.

Coombs Chapter 6 – Crisis Recognition

One of the most important questions this chapter answered was: when does a situation become a crisis.

Coombs provided a simple response: a situation becomes a crisis when key stakeholders agree that it is. However, this answer is more complicated than it sounds – sometimes managers or people in the dominant coalition of an organization may not agree that a situation is a crisis, and the crisis management team or the public relations practitioner might have to make them accept that the organization is involved in a crisis. So it is true: a crisis is a crisis when key stakeholders accept is as such.

And crisis managers or the crisis team might need to sell the crisis to the managers in order to take action, however, the issue is how do you sell a crisis?
Crisis Framing is a strategy which crisis managers can use to sell the crisis to the dominant coalition. Crisis framing contains three important dimensions that need emphasis: crisis dimensions, the expertise of the dominant coalition, and the persuasiveness of the crisis framing argument or presentation.
Crisis dimensions include perceived importance, immediacy, and uncertainty. The importance of the crisis depends on value of the possible loss (impact of crisis) and the probability of the loss (likelihood). Immediacy involves time pressure, how quickly the crisis will hit and the amount of stakeholder pressure to take action. Uncertainty is the amount of ambiguity associated with the crisis situation and the potential results.
Expertise of the dominant coalition should be considered when framing a crisis. Using the dominant coalition’s jargon might be a strategy to use when trying to sell them the crisis. Persuasiveness of the crisis presentation is important for the acceptance of the crisis. The crisis presentation needs to include credibility, emotion and reason in order to persuade the dominant coalition.
Resistance to crisis is one of the challenges crisis managers or public relations practitioner face when trying to make the dominant coalition accept that the organization is involved in a crisis. Crisis managers need to consider all stakeholder groups’ arguments about a crisis and try to determine if other stakeholder groups will perceive the situation also as a crisis.

I understand that to sell a crisis for dominant coalition is important because it can give crisis managers the power to handle the situation proactively. This was an important point that crisis managers should keep in mind in their practice. On the other hand, I also think that crisis managers’ acute judgment about the situation is more important than selling the crisis to dominant crisis. If crisis managers’ judgment was not accurate and cause confusion to stakeholders, it can cause another problem. The book mentioned challenges and rumors as two crisis types in which contrasting interpretations abound. Therefore, crisis managers’ considerate sense is also needed significantly.