There are many different types of crises, personal, economic, environmental, or political just to name a few. Regardless of the source, the general consensus for a crisis is negative: that it is damaging and affects multiple parties. Consequently, there are many different ways or theories to deal with crises. Thus, crisis communication is crucial to navigating how to respond and rebound. One of the main crisis communication theories is Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), which we will be diving in deeper to investigate how to manage and implement into real life. What is Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)?
SCCT helps to categorize the crisis into different situations and identifies ways to respond accordingly. It is based on evidence gathered to yield an educated and well-thought-out response strategy. We use this as a way to project scenarios and anticipate how different people will react to the crisis itself and the response strategies. Now to properly understand SCCT we have to introduce attribution theory, which explains the connection between crisis types and their corresponding response. Attribution theory is based on the notion that people search for causes of negative events and feelings and then associate an attribution with it. Common emotions attributed are anger and sympathy since responsibility for the crisis events can be rashly distributed. Of course, making attributions are natural and normal, but a crisis-triggered attribution can be more biased and judgemental, especially when clouded with emotions. Now, SCCT comes into play here by extrapolating the implementations that Attribution Theory brings by predicting crisis-induced threats and providing evidence-based crisis response strategies. A common crisis threat is reputational damage, which is assessed through SCCT and prescribes a response strategy to protect reputational assets. Types of Crisis There are three types of crisis: victim, accidental, and preventable, categorized by where the responsibility for the crisis lies. Victim crisis is when the organization is the perceived victim in the crisis, applicable to the current situation of COVID-19 and other natural or environmental disasters. This is the lowest responsibility cluster and has little to no reputational threat. Higher up in the responsibility rung is the case of accidental crisis, which is a case of the organization being at fault for the incident, but was unintentional. This applies to technical difficulties, product threat and equipment failure, or challenges (moral, ethical, legal). Although accidental crises technically hold the organization at fault, it still has minimal reputational threat since it is perceived as unintentional. Lastly, preventable crises hold organizations at the utmost responsibility since these situations should be avoidable with a little more attention. Compared to accidental crises, preventable crises are deemed intentional and thus lead to high stakes of reputational damage. These include human-error incidents, law/rule violating misdeeds, or product harm. The multiple factors that make up a crisis are what help form attributions of responsibility. Crisis type is one affecting variable, but crisis history and performance reputation are other variables to consider. This diagram below shows some of the different factors and inputs into how crises are managed. Types of Crisis Response Strategies There are four corresponding response strategies to take based on the crisis type and other attributing factors mentioned above. This is the bulk of what SCCT brings to the table. Denial Strategy The first response strategy is denial. This strategy dismisses the blame upon themselves and can also re-assign or scapegoat the blame to the accuser or another party. While it may be a perfectly sound situation to use denial, it must be used with caution, as in only denying when there is truly no fault or partake in the situation. It is successfully conducted when the crisis type is victim in the situation of an invalid accusation such as harmful rumors. Deny strategy can also claim no crisis. Diminishment Strategy Another crisis strategy is diminishment strategy, where instead of denying all fault, you try to minimize the degree of responsibility taken upon the organization. This comes in the form of putting up excuses or finding justification in their actions. Again, it is most seen used in victim crisis types but can also be used for accident crisis types. Taking into consideration the prior reputation, an accident crisis can more easily be diminished if the past reputation was predominately clean and/or positive. This can be ideal since you’re minimizing the repercussions while managing to keep your reputation relatively unscathed. Rebuilding Strategy Rebuilding strategy may be helpful when you cannot deny or diminish and the situation is prone to rapid escalation, left unaddressed. It is used in efforts to redeem an organization’s reputation, usually in the form of an apology or compensation. Regardless, the main reform is owning up and taking responsibility for the crisis to prevent further or permanent damage. Rebuilding strategy corresponds to a situation of higher responsibility and threat to reputation level such as accident or preventable type crises. Keep in mind that using a rebuilding strategy is not an automatic fix into the relationship. It may allow for a recovery, but the focus should really be on taking responsibility and offering a genuine apology and sincere remorse and reflection. Bolstering Strategy The last strategy, bolstering strategy, is a good add-on to other strategies but also works on its own. Bolstering strategy relies on praising, ingratiation, and victimage. It is achieved by reminding stakeholders of its history and previous good deeds. They attempt to influence the majority by becoming more likeable, i.e. complimenting stakeholders’ dedication and loyalty. It is predominantly used for victim crisis type but again, also in conjunction with other strategies and crisis types. These strategies help prepare your organization for different types of crisis and how to respond amidst panic and pressure. When your response strategy is outlined accordingly, the categorization allows for ease of mind when the unexpected pops up. While these strategies keep public opinion on the forefront, it is imperative to remind yourself that you will never know exactly how the public will react. These strategy responses are only to the crisis itself. You still have to consider the public’s reaction to your response as well. If you do not respond with the proper corresponding crisis-type-response, your strategy response may harbor critical reactions and may even lead to the need for another response to that (ex. A follow-up to an apology). SCCT is structured based on many examples of case studies focusing on reputation. It is experimental research backed up by quantitative data and can be applied to a multitude of contexts. It is a valuable resource and provides helpful guidelines when navigating unknown areas when crisis hits. Remember to respond wisely according to the crisis type when gathering the public opinion. For more information on how to apply crisis management into the business, visit our blog for more articles.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
|