The state of strategic organizational crisis communication research in the context of global and digital communication

Abstract

publication of specialized journals such as the Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication indicate the ongoing institutionalization of the field (Schwarz, Seeger, & Auer, 2016a). Moreover, an increasing number of academic and public research centers, primarily at American and European universities, point to the rapid growth and societal relevance of the field (Palenchar, 2010). Within the field of public relations and strategic communication research the management of crisis communication already counts as a vital sub-discipline (Coombs, 2012b). This gain in importance can also be explained by the numerous devastating crisis events which do not only have tremendous social, political, ecological, and economic impact, but also reveal in many cases the complexity and limitations of managing crisis communication as practiced by organizations in various fields of society. This complexity and scope of crises go along with the interdisciplinarity and multiperspectivity of the research field, which in most cases lacks reciprocal reference (Coombs, 2012a; Löffelholz & Schwarz, 2008). However, the key role of communication in the context of crisis situations and especially the role of strategically planned and research-based communication by organizations before, during and after crisis situations have been recognized in practice as well as in academia. This has stimulated further efforts of developing a stronger conceptual and theoretical basis of crisis communication research. Compared to past ontological descriptions of crises, scholars now emphasize the social construction of crises as well as the role of individual and organizational observers and their perceptions. Pearson and Clair (1998, p. 66) defined organizational crisis as "low-probability, high-impact situation that is perceived by critical stakeholders to threaten the viability of the organization and that is subjectively experienced by these individuals as personally and socially threatening." Hearit and Courtright (2004) argued that communication is a constitutive element of the construction of social reality in crisis contexts. Applying this to organizational crises, the authors concluded that "[c]rises are terminological creations conceived by human agents, and consequently, are managed and resolved terminologically. As such, instead of being one component, communication constitutes the quintessence of crisis management" (p. 205). Hence, crises and their interpretations

Optimizing the Organizational Crisis Communication Portfolio

“…As company spokesperson and respondent gender similarity have an effect in crisis communication reactions (Crijns et al 2017 ), influencer gender might be checked for, as well. In addition, more cultural comparisons are required (Luoma-aho et al 2017 ; Schwarz 2019 ; Ulmer and Pyle 2016 ) as in today’s world messages often must target a global audience (Griffin Padgett et al 2013 ; Ulmer and Pyle 2016 ).…”

“…We opted to describe nonexistent companies to ensure comparability and reduce bias based on prior knowledge. Moreover, we did not examine different organizational types (Schwarz 2019 ), an element that can be added to the general evaluation criteria put forward by (Coombs 1995 ), but only studied companies.…”

“…The bases for the evaluation of a crisis are described in various theoretical approaches. Applying a symbolic-relational perspective on crisis communication, those that provide the most important theoretical foundations to base adequate organizational reactions on are Image Repair Theory, Attribution Theory, Framing Theory, the Situational Theory of Publics, and Situational Crisis Communication Theory (Schwarz 2019 ). Image Repair (or: Restoration) Theory assumes that something the organization is responsible for occurred that may harm or has already marred the organization’s image and lists five possible actions (denial, evasion, reduction of the offense, corrective action, mortification) (Benoit 1997 ), without going into detail regarding applicability aspects (Anderson-Meli and Koshy 2020 ).…”

“…Crisis communication can be described as an element of sense making (Pearson and Clair 1998; Weick 1995 ; Weick et al 2005 ) since crisis perception is also socially constructed (Pearson and Clair 1998; Schwarz 2019 ). Like in change management 1 (Böhnisch 1979 ; Christensen 2014 ), stakeholder reaction depends on the amount of clear, transparent information that allows personal evaluation and subsequent behavioral response (Aldoory et al 2010 ; Auger 2014 ; Böhnisch 1979 ), which very much depends on the emotions elicited (Brummette and Sisco 2015 ; McDonald et al 2010 ) as reactions to aspects described above (see Sect.…”

Comunicación gubernamental y emociones en la crisis del Covid-19 en España

“…Álvarez (2009) destaca que la gestión moderna de las crisis pasa, sobre todo, por el estudio de los públicos, situando el foco de atención en sus percepciones y en el modo en el que reciben la información que les llega, la canalizan emocionalmente, la interpretan y, con arreglo a todo ello, se comportan. Es una opinión que también sustenta Schwarz (2019), para quien la calidad de las relaciones con los públicos entre una organización y sus stakeholders tiene un impacto sustancial en las evaluaciones y atribuciones de responsabilidad hacia una organización.…”