According to SCCT, “as attributions of crisis responsibility increase, the crisis managers should use crisis response strategies that progressively accept more responsibility for the crisis” (p. 187). The crisis management response strategy must vary by the level of responsibility acceptance, from full apology (very high acceptance) to corrective action, ingratiation, justification, excuse, denial or attack (no acceptance). As shown in Table 7.3, such outcomes are also applicable to public diplomacy.
Crisis response strategies–
Corporation
Crisis response strategies–
National govern-ment
Application example (to pub-lic diplomacy)–Case:
Afghan-based American soldiers burning the Qur’an Corrective
action Organization takes steps to solve the problem and/
or prevent a repetition of the crisis
National gov-ernment takes steps to solve the problem and/or prevent a repeti-tion of the crisis
Prevent any future wrongdo-ings by Afghanistan-based American soldiers via education, and ensure strict punishment to those soldiers and officials who violate such rules
Mortifica-tion Organiza-tion accepts responsibility and apologizes
National govern-ment accepts responsibility and apologizes
The Qur’an burning by Afghanistan-based American soldiers resulted from the lack of proper education and control of action (was not able to prevent it from hap-pening); accepts responsibil-ity and apologizes on behalf of the United States
Separation Organization explains that the act violat-ed its policies, identifies a separate scape-goat within the organiza-tion, and initi-ates corrective action
National govern-ment explains that the act vio-lated its policies, identifies a sep-arate scapegoat from the relative government par-ties, and initiates corrective action
The identified Afghani-stan-based American soldiers are responsible for the burning of Qur’an. The United States (government and military) respects the culture and religion of Afghanistan and took neces-sary educational measures to prevent any acts originated from misunderstanding.
In addition, the American government will strengthen its efforts to prevent such violation of policies from taking place in the future
Table 7.3. Crisis response strategies by level of responsibility acceptance (Coombs, 2006, 2011) and application to public diplomacy.
Crisis response
strategy Content Level of
re-sponsibility acceptance
Application to public diplomacy
Full
apol-ogy Organization takes full responsibility for the crisis and request forgiveness from stake-holders. It can also include some form of compensation.
Very high
acceptance National government takes full responsibility for the crisis and re-quest forgiveness from the international pub-lics. It can also include some form of compen-sation to victims and related stakeholders.
Corrective
action Organization takes steps to repair the crisis damage and/or prevent a recurrence of the crisis.
High
acceptance National government takes steps to repair the crisis damage and/or prevent a recurrence of the crisis.
Ingratiation Organization reminds stakeholders of past good works by the organization or praises the stakeholders in some fashion
Mild
acceptance National government reminds international publics of past good works by the national government or the friendly relationship between countries.
Justification Organization tries to minimize the per-ceived damage related to the crisis. Includes claiming that the damage was minimal or that the victim deserved it.
Mild
acceptance National government tries to minimize the perceived damage related to the crisis.
Includes claiming that the damage was mini-mal or that the victim deserved it.
Excuse Organization tries to minimize its respon-sibility for the crisis.
Includes denying intent or control over the crisis event.
Mild
acceptance National government tries to minimize its responsibility for the crisis. Includes denying intent or control over the crisis event.
Crisis response
strategy Content Level of
re-sponsibility acceptance
Application to public diplomacy
Denial Organization maintains that no crisis occurred.
The response may include efforts to explain why there was no crisis.
No
acceptance National government maintains that no crisis occurred. The response may include efforts to explain why there was no crisis.
Attack Organization confronts the people or group who say that a crisis ex-ists. The response may include a threat such as lawsuit.
No acceptance National government confronts the people or group who claim that a crisis exists. The response may include a threat such as international lawsuit.
The recent release of confidential information from WikiLeaks has raised controversial debates on public access to national government’s confiden-tial information, i.e., national security versus freedom of speech (Hirshman, 2011). As these contents are not limited to domestically confidential informa-tion, but reach far greater to international affairs, each governmental response was to affect the perception of international publics and of its citizens. Each government had to decide its position considering all possible responses and counter-responses.
International relations have inarguably become more complex and in-tertwined. In particular, thanks to the Internet and social media, the inter-national publics are not only more informed and empowered, but they also affect the decisions regarding a national government’s international policy through group alliances and social networking sites. To cope with this phe-nomenon, public diplomacy has emerged as an indispensable area that can complement existing elite diplomacy. Consequently, because of the complex and uncertain nature of public diplomacy, issues and crisis management is becoming more important as national governments communicate with in-ternational publics.
Despite the similarities, applying the issues management and crisis man-agement used by corporations to public diplomacy is a challenging task.
While issues management and crisis management for corporations focus on managing direct influential stakeholders mainly for economic reasons, pub-lic diplomacy is more related to international pubpub-lics who are more diverse, loosely tied, remote, and different in characteristics, culture and perspectives.
However, as issues management and crisis management research developed in
the area of international public relations, it is worthwhile to attempt to apply these frames to public diplomacy, i.e., the issues and crisis communication and management for a national government targeting international publics who reside both in other countries and in the host territory.
In public diplomacy, the basic assumption of issues and crisis manage-ment is not different from that of a corporation, that issues and crisis can be detected, and therefore, can be prevented or at least managed through close preparation and well-prepared issues and crisis management programs.
More specifically, issues management is based on a national government’s finding issues through environmental scanning and solving/preventing the issue before it occurs. Crisis management is no different. The key for a na-tional government is to detect signs of a crisis through systematic monitoring systems, eliminate the cause or the crisis itself in advance or prevent it from intensifying, and mitigate or minimize the negative effects of an unfolding crisis. Furthermore, a system that can track and prevent any recurrence of such a crisis is necessary.
Comprehensive and versatile crisis response strategies should be estab-lished that can work most effectively, depending on the type and severity of a crisis and the level of responsibility of a national government. The basic principle is that a national government should take more apologetic and cor-rective strategies as the level of its responsibility increases, and may choose denial strategies as the level decreases. Still, not all crises can be managed this way.
For instance, the level of responsibility may not be initially apparent. As the crisis escalates or new information is uncovered, however, the level of responsibility attributed to a national government may increase. Converse-ly, some crises may have started with large speculation of governmental responsibility, where later the government is proven to be the victim. Some crisis, despite the level of responsibility, may still require compensative ac-tion on the part of the naac-tional government due to the severity of the crisis or its negative past history. Optimal response strategies should not only focus on minimizing damage, but on what is most favorable for all, including a national government and international publics in other nations.
Most of all, its crisis response strategies should be based on strong ethical consideration.
Crisis response strategies may begin at national government level, but its scope may soon be expanded to the regional level (e.g., the European Union) depending on the nature and severity of the crisis.
Suggestions for Future Research
This chapter attempts to define issues and crisis management from the per-spective of public diplomacy, and apply them to public diplomacy scholarship and practices. Even though issues management and crisis management were developed as part of organizational communication strategy, it is worthwhile to apply these concepts and cases to public diplomacy, more specifically, to mediated public diplomacy as a short- to medium-termed communication strategy that will lead to better nation branding and country reputation in the long term. However, this chapter is only a kindling attempt. Further research on issues and crisis management will enhance issues and crisis communication scholarship and will facilitate interdisciplinary research on both sides. Some research idea suggestions follow:
1. Use of international opinion to persuade its own citizens: In general, a national government utilizes public diplomacy to inform and change perception of the international publics. Issues and crisis management can be a critical part to its public diplomacy. Conversely, a national government may utilize an issue or crisis of its own or of another na-tion to its benefit by persuading its citizens and drawing out their sup-ports. The different viewpoint on the death of Kim Jong-Il of North Korea is an example. People in South Korea were concerned of the possibility of invasion and an unfortunate war, initiated by leaderless and cornered North Korea. On the other hand, pro-North Korean Chinese government saw utmost importance in maintaining stability in North Korea by acknowledging Kim Jong-Eun as a new legitimate leader. The international community kept a concerned eye on this incident and on the security of the Korean Peninsula. Amidst such concerns, the South Korean government may need to advocate the situation as normal and stable to the world, especially to those govern-ments and corporations in trade with South Korea as well as to current and potential tourists. Internally, the South Korean government may need to urge its citizens to engage in their works without apprehen-sion and support/trust of the government policies by strengthening public communication with them. Here, a possible crisis management card that the Korean government could play is to inform and ask the Korean people about how people in other nations would perceive the situation, and how Korean people should act in such situation.
These situations are not simple portrayals of issues or crisis man-agement, but are examples of how a national government may lever-age the viewpoint of international publics (i.e., what news is covered on international media and what information is shared via social media
websites, etc.) in persuading its own citizens, which is opposite to normal public diplomacy practices. Further research on the subject would illustrate how public diplomacy could benefit from issues and crisis management.
2. Public diplomacy from the perspective of traditionalists: Public diplo-macy and public relation can be viewed from the perspectives of be-havioralists and traditionalists (Signitzer & Wamser, 2006, p. 445).
These viewpoints may apply to public diplomacy and crisis manage-ment as well. Behavioralists assert that a crisis can be managed with prior preparation and relevant crisis response strategies. As L’Etang (1996) declared, “all assumptions should be clearly spelt out and only empirically verifiable hypotheses should be produced” (p. 27).
This viewpoint is portrayed in the study of Coombs (2011), Coombs
& Holladay (2002, 2012), and Fearn-Banks (2011). On the other hand, traditionalists view a crisis to be unpredictable in essence and disprove the credibility of a crisis management program because a national government cannot prevent all crises or escape from these crises. Including Seeger (2002) who asserted, “precise, accurate and unequivocal communication about the behavior of complex systems is inherently inaccurate” (p. 332), some scholars (Gilpin & Murphy, 2006; Murphy, 1996, 2001; Seeger, 2002) advocate this view based on chaos theory or complexity theory. Follow up research on these viewpoints and review on how crisis management can be applied to public diplomacy would bestow justification on this attempt, and help strategize issues and crisis management as part of public diplomacy planning and deployment.
3. Public diplomacy and crisis management: Crisis management today is not exclusively dependent on mainstream media such as television and newspapers. As the terms public diplomacy or cultural diploma-cy represent, future crisis management depends on how it can best utilize social media via the Internet. How will a national government carry out crisis management using social media? This question calls for future research on social media as a critical communication tool for issues and crisis management in public diplomacy. Looking at the recent Arab Spring movement that swept the regions of North Africa and the Middle East, most of these national governments fell short of reading the wave of democratic revolution (although they share a long history of dictatorship). From these dictators’ point of view, they failed to predict the crisis, but from a broader lens, they failed to read the trend that is the yearning for democracy. Their largest
mistake is overlooking or underestimating the uncontrollability of information sharing on the Internet, propagation of news through the Internet, and above all, the power of social media, in particular, Twitter and Facebook.
4. Public diplomacy and international public relations: Although not thoroughly covered in this chapter, international public relations and public diplomacy have many similarities. In fact, they are rather par-allel in nature. Given the character of public diplomacy as an activity that deals with international publics, further research is required on how differences in culture, history, geography, language and percep-tion affect the practices of internapercep-tional public relapercep-tions, issues and crisis management and how they can be applied to public diplomacy–
the causal relationships or correlations among them.
Notes
1. International publics include the publics and stakeholders in other nations as well as foreign people in a host country. They may include travelers, businessmen, diplomats, students, residents and non-residents with foreign nationalities.
Bibliography
BBC News (2009). Gaza prompts boycott in Malaysia. BBC News. Retrieved January 28, 2014, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7819561.stm
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Benson, J. A. (1988). Crisis revisited: An analysis of the strategies used by Tylenol in the second tampering episode. Central State Speech Journal, 39, 49–66.
Brinson, S. L., & Benoit W. L. (1999). The tarnished star: Restoring Texaco’s damaged public image. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 481–510.
Coates, J. F., Coates, V. T., Jarratt, J., & Heinz, L. (1986). Issues management: How you can plan, organize and manage for the future. Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond.
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 211–227.
Coombs, W. T. (2006). Crisis management: A communicative approach. In C. Botan &
V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 171–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coombs, W. T. (2011). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and respond-ing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping managers protect reputational assets:
Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communica-tion Quarterly, 16, 165–186.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). The handbook of crisis communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and foreign policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fearn-Banks, K. (2011). Crisis communications: A casebook approach. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Fink, S. (1986). Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. New York, NY: American Management Association.
Gaunt, P., & Ollenburger, J. (1995). Issues management revisited: A tool that deserves another look. Public Relations Review, 21(3), 199–210.
Gilpin, D., & Murphy, P. (2006). Reframing crisis management through complexity. In C.
Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 375–392). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Golan, G. J. (2013). Introduction: An integrated approach to public diplomacy. American Behavioral Science, 57(9), 1251–1255
Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challeng-es, and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Verčič. (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp.3–48). London: International Thomson Business Press.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Guardian (2011). Retrieved May 18, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/
2011/mar/22/middle-east-protest-interactive-timeline.
Hallahan, K. (2000). Inactive publics: The forgotten publics in public relations. Public Relations Review, 26(4), 499–515.
Hallahan, K. (2001). The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 27–59.
Hiebert, R. E. (2005). Commentary: New technologies, public relations, and democracy.
Public Relations Review, 31(1), 1–9.
Hirshman, R. (2011). WikiLeaks controversy raises questions about freedom of speech, the nature of journalism and the conduct of diplomacy. Quinnipiac Law, 17(1), 12–15.
Hobbs, J. D. (1995). Treachery by any other name: A case study of the Toshiba public relations crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 323–346.
Ice, R. (1991). Corporate publics and rhetorical strategies: The case of Union Carbide’s Bhopal crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 341–362.
Lee, S. (2012, July 12). Ending the ‘comfort women’ euphemism. Stars and Stripes. Re-trieved from http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/ending-the-comfort-women- euphemism-1.182823.
L’Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as diplomacy. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 14–34). London: International Thomson Business Press.
Memory and Reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific (2012). Retrieved June 11, 2012, http://
www.gwu.edu/~memory/research/bibliography/comfortwomen.html.
Murphy, P. (1996). Chaos theory as a model for managing issues and crises. Public Rela-tions Review, 22(2), 95–113.
Murphy, P. (2001). Symmetry, contingency, complexity: Accommodating uncertainty in public relation theory. Public Relations Review, 26(4), 447–462.
Nye, J. S., Jr. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 153–171.
Nye, J. S., Jr. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. ANNALS of the American Acad-emy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94–109.
Seeger, M. W. (2002). Chaos and crisis: Propositions for a general theory of crisis commu-nication. Public Relations Review, 28(4), 329–337.
Sheafer, T., & Gabay, I. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy: A strategic contest over inter-national agenda building and frame building. Political Communication, 26, 447–467.
Sheafer, T., & Shenhav, S. R. (2010). Mediated public diplomacy in a new era of warfare.
Communication Review, 12, 272–283.
Signitzer, B., & Wamser, C. (2006). Public diplomacy: A specific governmental public relations function. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp.
435–464). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
USA Today (2008). Retrieved June 19, 2012, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/
2008–06–12-korea-usbeef_N.htm.
Wilcox, D. L., & Cameron, G. T. (2009). Public relations: Strategies and tactics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.