Companies Must Develop Effective Crisis Communication Techniques to Respond to Problems or Dangers - Coursework Example

MРАNIЕS MUST DЕVЕLОР ЕFFЕСTIVЕ СRISIS СОMMUNIСАTIОN TЕСHNIQUЕS TО RЕSРОND TО РRОBLЕMS ОR DАNGЕRS. Full Name: ID No. Unit Code and Name: Lecturer’s Name: Assignment No: Due Date: Introduction Crises are a major concern worldwide and a fact of the organizational life. Organizational crises along with risk controversies have been known to not only consume financial and human resources, but also diminish the reputation/goodwill of a company instantly. Right from small non-profit agencies to global and multinational corporations, various crises have suddenly and significantly disrupted abilities to achieve organizational missions regardless of location and activity. As Darling et al (2005) affirm, if the world has learnt anything concerning crisis, it is specifically that any business may experience crisis anywhere and anytime with little or even no warning at all, hence the safest assumption remaining that crisis looms in the horizon. Woodyard (1998) describes crisis as generally inevitable, an equal-opportunity employer and the purest form of equality globally; blind to income, race, religion, culture, occupation and gender. While it could be argued that no particular individuals or companies are immune from any crisis, effective crisis communication, a strategic response component, has been argued to be the key in addressing any organizational crisis; especially when Companies experience major difficulties during a product’s or service’s failure to meet consumer expectation. This particular paper therefore explores the significance of effective communication during crisis while also providing effective communication techniques. Finally, the paper compares two companies that have faced organizational crisis. Crisis communication has been regarded as a basic fundamental and a strategic component in as far as organizational overall-response to any particular crisis goes. Often than not, the very significance of effective communication in the overall model of crisis management has been underestimated. According to Taylor & Perry (2005) however, this should not be the case as effective communication is essentially an imperative that is rapidly becoming a crucial strategy in the plan of any company. As stated by Várnai & Fojtik (2005), effective communication is essential to managing crisis since, apart from being the key to winning the involvement of people; it is fundamentally a basic element throughout the change activities. Regarding involvement, as argued by Várnai & Fojtik (2005), establishing a regular, effective and consistent communication process is capable of significantly reducing the level of uncertainty among the people involved. This has the profound impact of eliminating the main obstacle associated with the willingness of individuals to take part in the planned change process. However, Várnai & Fojtik (2005) are also quick to point out that the communication’s purpose is not only pinned on informing the staff/employees that change is under consideration, but also calls for drawing the staff to discussions and debating on the need for change and the type of change necessary. This implies that the staffs need to be accorded the freedom to discuss the involved issues openly in order to convince themselves of the necessity for change and become not only highly motivated but also productive. Hellerman & David (2005) further state that effective communication shapes the perception of the crisis among people. According to Hellerman & David (2005), public opinion is mainly pegged on perceptions more than reality hence internal as well as public communications of the affected company need to strongly emphasize on and establish the appropriate perceptions first. As highlighted Hellerman & David (2005), the public has often been very skeptical and the media has often been driven by the urge to tell captivating stories, hence effective communication strategies are essential. Within the public domain are the shareholders and the customers that must be supplied with the appropriate information, failure to which the company affected may loose the investors’ faith and consequently suffer a major blow from their withdrawal. Therefore, affected companies have the responsibility of providing detailed and planned information to shareholders and customers regarding the crisis, information that is far much beyond what the media provides. According to Greenberg & Elliott (2009), organizational crises, in as much as they might be perceived negatively, are really not intrinsically unconstructive/negative forces as may be assumed but can actually have positive impacts. While viewing crises as both periods of risk and time for strategic transformation, Greenberg & Elliott (2009) argue that corrective actions may be organized and later communicated in localised as well as generalised ways. Among the most effective techniques that companies can use to communicate to the public when a crisis occurs is taking responsibility. On top of the controversial crisis management tenets is the individual actor involved in the crisis being ready to empathize and publicly apologize for what transpired (Weiner, 2006). Greenberg & Elliott (2009) highlight apologia as an effective way of defending reputations while undergoing intense criticisms. While drawing on apologia strategies to understand the manner in which damaged reputations can actually be salvaged, Greenberg & Elliott (2009) claim that crises often threatens reputations hence actors can apply apologia in the defense and to regain their reputations. On the other hand, Weiner (2006) argues that taking responsibility should include communication of the company’s ongoing plans to remedy any situation that both the public and media associate with the company. Veil et al (2011) further highlight that listening to various concerns from the public and understanding the particular audience is of immense value. According to the argument presented by Veil et al (2011), the perception of the public, whether inaccurate or accurate, remains its reality. As stated by Veil et al (2011), a proper response to the public not only minimizes rumours but also protects the reputation of the company. Veil et al (2011) further emphasize on the significance of social media in facilitating this, citing that the social media provides various ways of direct engagement with the particular audience and that the outlets are well-suited not only for monitoring but also responding to any rumours. This has also been widely supported by Taylor & Perry (2005) who highlight internet as an emerging essential tool for organizational communications with both the journalists as well as the public. However, Taylor & Perry (2005) point out that regardless of the tremendous potential benefits, the internet’s adoption rate with regards to crisis communication is at a slower pace. As indicated by Seeger (2006) and Veil et al (2011), meeting the various needs of any media remains pivotal. Likewise, they argue that being accessible to these media serves to the advantage of the affected company. According to Seeger (2006) best crisis communication practice is grounded in the effective communication between the company and the media. Seeger (2006) further states that the media are actually the main conduits to the audience and public hence they are responsible for the detailed and accurate reporting of the crisis. As such, Seeger (2006) and Veil et al (2011) further state that instead of considering media as a general liability, the affected company should engage media in their communication, through openness and honesty, and use the same media as their strategic resource for the crisis management. However, Seeger (2006) is quick to warn that during communication with media, inconsistency should be avoided by accepting the uncertainties and avoiding highly reassuring messages. As such, Seeger (2006) suggests that media training is essential to the crisis communicators and that crisis spokespersons need to be identified and then trained, a significant part of the pre-crisis planning A Comparison of crisis communication between Barclays Bank and Toyota Company The recent years have actually been unhappy ones for the banking sector, struggling with issues regarding public trust due to their particular role in the recent global financial crisis. In 2012, Barclays bank took things to a new level when it was discovered that the particular bank participated in fixing the lending rates mainly to its advantage. Forced to be defensive, the bank’s initial response was waiving of the CEO’S bonuses, but the bank did not recover its initiative, with Bob Diamond as well as Marcus Agius (CEOs) resigning. Instead of coming clean and taking responsibility as Weiner (2006) states, the Bank became defiant and issued conflicting messages. The Bank also never apologized as Greenberg & Elliott (2009) state; instead it took three weeks to apologize. Initially it was no apology, then a weak apology, and finally a very late apology. The Obvious public anger was even worsened by the previous misgivings by the Bank in the year 2011, with the scandal dominating the financial coverage for several months while the high-profile probe found its way to the court (Sudhaman & Holmes, 2013). Toyota Company, on the other hand, has often maintained its flawless or fairly flawless track with regards not only to car companies, but also recalls. However, the company suffered a serious crisis and had to recall the accelerator pedals. The whole crisis involving the floor mat and the sticky accelerator pedals began to be noted in early 2010, where it had actually affected about 16 million automobiles and killed 34 drivers (Rechtin & Greimel, 201). With the obvious threat to the company’s identity, reputation and image, Toyota responded publicly during the course, making the unexpected accelerator issue become acceptable topic in various conversations, as supported by Veil et al (2011). The company updated customers on the recalls thereby gaining their trust, as Weiner (2006) indicates. Toyota Company later issued an apology and exuded confidence by giving details on the superior technology being used, a fact also supported by Greenberg & Elliott (2009). The company was understood by the public hence its reputation remained intact. Conclusion In conclusion, the analysis has highlighted how image of a company is often threatened during a crisis. Calling for crisis communication to restore the company’s threatened image is therefore a significant part of the whole crisis management process. In the above analysis, effective communication has been highlighted as a significant determinant of a company’s position after crisis where its role in the response to crisis has been highlighted, with Barclays Bank and Toyota Company presenting an excellent example. It is therefore without a doubt that responsible companies must respond responsibility to crisis by maintaining regular, effective communication. Reference Darling, J., Seristo, H., & Gabrielsson, M., 2005, Anatomy of Crisis Management: A Case Focusing on a Major Cross-cultural Clash within DaimlerChrysler, Journal of LTA Vol 3 (5) Pp. 343-360. Greenberg, J. & Elliott, C., 2009, A Cold Cut Crisis: Listeriosis, Maple Leaf Foods, and the Politics of Apology, Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 34 (2) Pp 189-204 Hellerman, J. & Lohr, D., 2005, The importance of crisis communications, Maritime Risk International Seeger, M., 2006, Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 34 (3) pp. 232-244 Sudhaman, A. & Holmes, P., 2013, The Top 12 Crises of 2012: Part 1, The Holmes Report. Weiner, D., 2006, Crisis Communications: Managing Corporate Reputation In The Court Of Public Opinion, IVEY Business Journal Várnai, S. & Fojtik, J., 2005, Role of Communication in Crisis Marketing As Effective Tool of Change Management. Also available electronically at Veil, S., Buehner, T. & Palenchar, M., 2011, A Work-In-Process Literature Review: Incorporating Social Media in Risk and Crisis Communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management Vol 19 (2) Pp. 110-122 Woodyard, T., 1998, Crisis Communication: A Commanders Guide to Effective Crisis Communication, also available electronically at Read More