with the crisis so that it can mitigate and prevent it from further developing into a larger crisis, and terminate the crisis situation with least damage.
For these reasons, it is necessary to understand crisis management. A general agreement on the difference between issues management and crisis management is that while issues management is a proactive method, crisis management is about an organization’s (and a national government’s) reac-tive response to a crisis (Gaunt & Ollenburger, 1995). Similar to that of a cor-poration, a national government’s management of a crisis changes a nation’s reputation and image among international publics.
this, it is not enough to depend on well-executed communications; a prop-erly designed system must be put in place in advance of the crisis. In other words, there must be a system to anticipate and analyze a crisis and a well-pre-pared crisis management program (including a crisis management manual) that should be used as a guideline for effective communications in times of crisis. In reality, numerous multinational corporations and Fortune 500 com-panies have these crisis communications management systems and carry out crisis management with the aid of outside crisis communication professionals and consultants. Crisis management, furthermore, should not be a one-time treatment, but continuously be managed and modified.
In his book, Coombs (2011) attempts to understand crisis management by pre, during, and post stages, and suggests necessary crisis management preparation and response strategies in each stage. Fink (1986) also divides crisis into a prodromal stage, acute stage, chronic stage, and resolution stage according to their occurrence in the crisis life cycle model. In general, the quintessence of crisis management is to detect a signal of a crisis, and take necessary prevention measures during the prodromal stage, so that the crisis moves directly to the resolution stage, skipping the acute and chronic stag-es, and minimize the damage even if the crisis develops through the various stages (Figure 7.2).
Then, how can crisis management and crisis communications be applied to public diplomacy? The following definitions were developed and modi-fied based on several existing definitions (Coombs & Holladay, 2002, 2012;
Fearn-Banks; 2011). First, a crisis in public diplomacy can be defined as “a major occurrence with a potentially negative outcome affecting reputation of a nation and its government among the international publics.” Crisis man-agement, in turn, is “a process of strategic planning for a crisis or negative turning points; a process that removes some of the risk and uncertainty from a negative occurrence and thereby allows a national government to be in con-trol of the situation.” Finally, crisis communication is “the dialog between a national government and its international publics prior to, during, and after the negative occurrence. The dialog details strategies and tactics designed to minimize damage to the reputation and image of the country and its govern-ment.”
Figure 7.2. Crisis Life Cycle (Fink, 1986) vs. the objective of crisis management.
In public diplomacy, the targets of crisis management and crisis com-munication are the publics in other (targeted) countries as well as foreigners in that country. Here, “other countries” could be one or more countries or regions depending on the crisis type, involvement with the affected nations, and the proximity. Because the results of a crisis situation not only affect a na-tion’s reputation, but also its economy and culture, it is critical for a national government to develop strategic crisis communication plans and to under-take them promptly and relevantly when a crisis occurs. Furthermore, as the
publics are located in foreign countries with different cultural backgrounds, a national government should consider these characteristics to ensure an effec-tive and relevant crisis management and crisis communication process.
Research on Crisis Response Strategies
Coombs (2006) argued that existing literature on crisis response strategies can largely be categorized into research on form and research on content.
Research on form looks at “what should be done” before, during and after a crisis, while research on content analyzes “what is actually said in the mes-sages” (p. 171). This chapter takes Coombs’s study further and expands the frame of crisis management research to public diplomacy.
Research on form. After analyzing previous literature on form, Coombs (2006) suggested three principles that a corporation should follow in times of crisis: be quick, be consistent, and be open.
The foremost crisis response principle is quick response in order to con-trol information. A corporation should announce its position within the first two hours of crisis, and the first 24 to 48 hours are most crucial. If not exe-cuted properly, a corporation may lose control of information and may not be able to effectively manage a crisis due to incorrect information and rumors.
This applies to the crisis response strategies for a national government as well. Today, with the Internet, where information is instantly disseminated through social media such as Facebook and Twitter, quick response to a crisis is even more important. While previous crisis management was at the mercy of media deadlines, a national government’s response to crisis today is under a tighter watch in real time. The government must release its position as early as possible and immediately undertake necessary follow-up activities.
Secondly, a corporation should disseminate consistent messages to raise its trustworthiness and to effectively control information. Generally referred to as a one-voice rule, one view advocates for the use of only one spokesperson–
typically a CEO–to increase the credibility and consistency of a message, while another view says the consistency of a message matters more, thus multiple spokespersons are allowed (Coombs, 2011). In reality, it is difficult to appoint only one spokesperson to represent a multinational corporation, therefore the corporation may choose multiple spokespersons depending on the region and the issue, and still maintain consistency of messages through media training and communication efforts.
Thirdly, when a corporation releases information during a crisis, it should reveal complete information. It should carefully consider whether or not full disclosure is the best strategy. The decision should be ethical and beneficial
to both the corporation and the publics. In reality, depending on issues and situations, full disclosure of information is not always achievable (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1. Crisis response principles (Coombs, 2006) and application to public di-plomacy.
Principle Crisis response principle–Cor-poration
Crisis response principle–National government
Application example (to public diplomacy) Case: Afghan-based
American soldiers burn-ing the Qur’an
Be quick A corporation should respond quickly when a crisis occurs
A national gov-ernment should respond quickly when a crisis occurs, target-ing international publics
When Afghanistan-based American soldiers burnt the Qur’an, the American government should have responded immediately–do apologize Be
consis-tent Consistent messages will in-crease credibility of a corporation
Consistent messages will increase credi-bility of a national government
The American govern-ment’s position should remain the same re-gardless of the situation Be open A corporation
should disclose full information for the benefit of both the corporation and its publics
A national govern-ment may disclose full information as long as it does not hurt the nation’s profit
As demonstrated in the case of WikiLeaks, full disclosure may not be the best policy for the benefit of a nation and international publics
Research on content. Coombs (2006) maintains that most research on crisis communication and crisis management employed case analysis and ex-perimental studies based on attribution theory. In the study on content, the crisis response strategy is of utmost importance, for it is posited that a certain type of crisis response strategy is more effective in a specific crisis situation (Benson, 1988).
According to Coombs (2006), literature on crisis response strategies looks at the following three areas: corporate apologia, corporate impression management, and image restoration theory.
First, corporate apologia says during a time of crisis, a corporation must develop various advocacy strategies acceptable to each stakeholder. A corpora-tion must aim to persuade its stakeholders as an individual strives to persuade others to understand his or her position. Ice (1991) lists denial, bolstering,
differentiation, and transcendence as general strategies of advocacy. Further developing these, Hobbs (1995) suggested four types of apologia strategies by combining each strategy, focusing on the improvement of relationships:
(1) absolution, differentiation, denial; (2) vindication, denial, transcendence;
(3) explanation, bolstering, differentiation; and (4) justification, bolstering, transcendence. While scholars vary on the specifics of corporate apologia, it can largely be divided into whether a corporation acknowledges its mistake and apologizes, or denies its responsibility to the crisis.
Similar to a corporation, a national government may take two different stances on a crisis such as accepting responsibility and apologizing (and fur-ther compensating the victims), or denying its responsibility depending on the level of responsibility. In many cases, it is not possible to dichotomize the response strategies in such manner as there are various internal and external variables that affect the national government’s position. A basic rule is that the government should analyze the crisis situation and determine the best strategy based on strict ethical standards for the benefit of both its national and international publics.
Historically, however, there have been numerous cases where a national government denied its responsibility in a case despite its fair share of blame, thus exacerbating and escalating a crisis. Similar to a corporation, the unethi-cal consideration of government officials or politicians can sway the outcome of a crisis situation in a negative way. In the case of a corporation, its pursuit of profits and responsibility to stakeholders may lead to unethical decisions.
Likewise, a national government taking into account voters’ opinions (votes) and the political dynamics with other nations may lead to similar outcomes.
For instance, it has been historically proven that during the early 20th century, the Japanese government forcefully took women from its colonies including Korea, China and several Southeast Asian countries in order to make them
“comfort women” (Japanese military sexual slavery) for its soldiers (Memory and Reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific, 2012). The Japanese government as-serts that these women “volunteered” to be “comfort women,” despite such proof that it is unethical and incorrect. Consequently, while the Japanese government may win the right-wing votes domestically, it may not escape the negative consequences of its unethical past internationally, especially in con-trast to the apologetic position of the German government on the Holocaust.
It is shown that denying responsibility, such as the position of the Japanese government, leads to more losses than benefits in the unfolding of public diplomacy. Recently, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the term “comfort women” to be wrong, and that they should be referred to as
“enforced sex slaves” (Lee, 2012).
Second, corporate impression management and third, image restoration theory further develop corporate apologia as a crisis management strategy.
Coombs (2006) differentiates corporate impression management and image restoration theory, but there seems to be little difference.
There are several theories on this, with the most inclusive image resto-ration theory being that of Benoit and Brinson (Benoit, 1995; Brinson &
Benoit, 1999). According to Benoit (1995), a corporation can choose any crisis response strategy proportional to the level of responsibility, from de-nial (least responsibility) to evasion of responsibility, reducing offensiveness of the event, corrective action or mortification (most responsibility). Brinson and Benoit (1999) later added separation to this list. Separation is not simply the denial of a corporation in its part in crisis, but acknowledging responsibility while choosing a scapegoat to overcome the crisis. Applying these response strategies to public diplomacy, examples of how a national government may respond to the actual case of Afghanistan-based American soldiers burning the Qur’an are shown in Table 7.2.
In particular, in their situational crisis communication theory (SCCT), Coombs and Holladay (2002) specifically sought to combine corporate apologia, impression management, and image restoration theory. For this, Coombs placed type of crisis into three categories by the level of crisis respon-sibility in the minds of stakeholders. They are:
(1) Stakeholders hold strong attributions of organizational crisis responsibility, such as organizational misdeeds (an organization purposefully places stake-holders at risk), human breakdown product recall (recall caused by human error), and human breakdown accident (industrial accident caused by hu-man error);
(2) Stakeholders hold moderate attributions of organizational crisis responsibility, such as technical breakdown product recall, technical breakdown accident, mega damage (significant environmental damage from a technical error), and challenge (confronted by stakeholders who claim the organization is operating in an inappropriate manner);
(3) Stakeholders hold weak attributions of organizational crisis responsibility, such as rumors, natural disasters, malevolence/product tampering and workplace violence (attack by an employee or former employee against co-workers and/or customers) (Coombs, 2006, p. 183).
To manage crisis effectively, a corporation should understand which cri-sis belongs in which category, then based on attribution theory, considering its performance history and crisis severity, it should evaluate the “modifiers:
variables that can alter attributions generated by the crisis type” (Coombs, 2006, p. 182). Finally, a corporation should develop a crisis response strategy depending on the level of crisis responsibility.
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.