Revisiting the Effectiveness of Base Crisis Response Strategies in Comparison of Reputation Management Crisis Responses

Abstract

This experimental study found that employing reputation management crisis-response strategies was no better than adopting only the base crisis-response strategy (i.e., instructing and adjusting information) in terms of generating positive responses from the public. Two-sided messages (i.e., sharing both positive and negative information) in crisis communication were found to be more effective than one-sided messages in a victim crisis. In addition, even in a preventable crisis, one-sided messages (i.e., sharing only positive information) were not more effective than two-sided messages. Finally, the study found little support for Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)'s recommendations for the best crisis response strategy selections.No organizations are free from crises. A company's reputation can be destroyed in seconds by a single incident. Mishandled and sluggish corporate crisis responses often allow a single trigger event to result in a full-blown crisis, tarnishing a sterling reputation built by stellar performance and hard work. For instance, Toyota had enjoyed a positive reputation before the recall crisis in 2010. Toyota spent decades working to earn the respect of US customers through quality control and continuous improvement of its products (Goodman, 2010). However, the company confronted the biggest reputational implosion in its history after the crisis, despite its enormous reputation-repair efforts. Due to the tremendous reputational threat associated with a crisis, corporations tend to emphasize reputation repair as a main goal for their crisis responses (Kim, Avery, & Lariscy, 2011), often resulting in negligence in providing base crisis responses (i.e., instructing and adjusting information). This predominant emphasis on reputation management also drives the crisis communication of organizations reluctant to share negative information about themselves. This is why the most common reputation management strategies adopted by organizations in crises are denial (i.e., denying any responsibility for the crisis) and bolstering (i.e., emphasizing the company's previous good deeds) strategies (Kim, Avery, & Lariscy, 2009).

Effects of attributed responsibility and response strategies on organizational reputation: A meta-analysis of situational crisis communication theory research

“…In addition, organizational reputation is better protected by matching response strategies, as compared to mismatching response strategies, no responses, and only information aiming at protecting publics physically and psychologically. Although some individual studies concluded that matching response strategies with crisis clusters do not better protect organizational reputation (e.g., Claeys et al, 2010;Grappi & Romani, 2015;Kim & Sung, 2014), on average, responding to crises strategically based on crisis clusters better protects organizational reputation.…”

“…The mixed findings on the efficacy of response strategies have not provided sufficient empirical support for this SCCT proposition, because some found that the SCCT-recommended strategies were effective (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 1996;Sheldon & Sallot, 2008), but others found that matching response strategies with crisis clusters provided no better protection than mismatching response strategies or information disseminated to protect publics physically or psychologically (e.g., Grappi & Romani, 2015;Kim & Sung, 2014). Verhoeven, Van Hoof, Ter Keurs, and Van Vuuren (2012) also found that corporate reputation suffered to the same degree whether the corporation apologized or didn't, both for accidental and preventable crises.…”

“…With the conversion of different test statistics (e.g., F statistics, path coefficients) to correlations, the magnitude of correlations has ranged from small (Griffin et al, 1991) to large (Coombs, 1998;Coombs & Holladay, 2002;Dean, 2004;Lee, 2005). Although the responsibility-reputation association makes intuitive sense, Kim and Sung (2014) also pointed out that attribution of responsibility is a rational judgment based on a one-time situation, but an organization's reputation is publics' holistic, synthetic, and long-term evaluation of the organization. Organizational reputation is "based on not only rational analysis of the specific crisis situations but also social learning and affective components of attitudes" (Kim & Sung, 2014, p.74-75).…”

“…Coombs and Holladay (1996) found that matched responses better protected organizational image in crises regardless of organizational intentionality, as compared to mismatched responses and no responses. But other scholars have reported that matched and mismatched response strategies did not differ in protecting organizational reputation from the negative impact caused by crises (Claeys, Cauberghe, & Vyncke, 2010;Grappi & Romani, 2015;Kim & Sung, 2014).…”

“…Scholars (e.g., Claeys et al, 2010;Kim & Sung, 2014) have provided various possible explanations for these inconsistent findings. These explanations, however, were post hoc and generally had no pointed empirical evidence.…”