I turn first to the BP crisis as archetype. The choice of business crises as objects for linguistic research is persistently relevant, as business crises appear regularly on both the front and business pages of news publica- tions (and their online equivalents). Over the last 30 years our perception of global events has changed considerably: the speed of communications technology and the proliferation of online and offline media channels have allowed us virtually instant access to information about events across the world. Events such as natural disasters that were once considered entirely
out of our control are now subject to scrutiny as we become aware of our own part in environmental change. In the world of business, an aware- ness of unpredictability has been incorporated into the fabric of corporate strategic thinking. At a time when many organisations operate in a diverse global environment, when the pace of technological development is accel- erating and when corporate actions are more visible and more deeply scru- tinised than ever before, most business organisations practise some form of crisis planning. Business studies students are taught that flexibility will be a key skill in the “real” world, and that business strategies that prioritise ongoing learning are replacing the linear planned strategies of the twen- tieth century, as the operating environment becomes more volatile and unpredictable (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 1998).
However, even against a backdrop of chronic flux, certain business crises stand out. Over the past few years alone, there has been consider- able public attention paid to, for example, the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the collapse of various financial institutions, including Lehman Brothers, AIG and Northern Rock, unethical practices within some divi- sions of News International and fraudulent claims by Volkswagen about the emission levels in its vehicles. Crises that stand out in the media are often not only those that are significant in size or impact, but those that appear to exemplify some particular aspect of modern life. For whatever reason, certain crises are given more attention and move from controlled private setback to major public affair. It is worth noting at this point that I regard the word “crisis” as contentious. Since I take the viewpoint that social phenomena are both shaped by and shape discourse, it follows that my calling the phenomenon a “crisis” (rather than, say, “disaster”, or
“event” or “set of events” or any alternative descriptor) already implies a set of presuppositions. I address this point through an investigation of naming practices for the BP events.
Organisational crises are defined as events characterised by high conse- quence and low probability, ambiguity and decision-making time pressure.
An organizational crisis is a low-probability, high-impact event that threat- ens the viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and means of resolution, as well as by a belief that decisions must be made swiftly. (Pearson & Clair, 2008: 3)
Within this general definition, writers have found types of crisis to be significant in determining business response. Coombs (2004) proposes typologies based on attribution of responsibility: Victim Crisis (e.g. natu- ral disasters); Accidental Crisis (e.g. technical errors); Intentional Crisis (e.g. human error and misdeeds). In media coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, all three of these have been suggested as relevant at certain points, but the most applicable category would seem to be the
“Accidental Crisis”. In Accidental Crises, the organisation may be per- ceived as potentially negligent but not wilfully damaging.
A crisis is not viewed as a single event, but as a process, consisting of a number of phases (Hale, Dulek, & Hale, 2005; Pearson & Mitroff, 1993), most commonly characterised as crisis prevention, crisis response, and recovery from the crisis. Fink (1986) amplifies the prevention stage to propose five stages: crisis mitigation, planning, warning, response and recovery, and in keeping with business priorities the focus of attention here is on planning and prevention. My area of interest, which is media coverage, only starts at the point when the crisis is made public, and relates only to the final two of Fink’s five stages—response and recov- ery. This view of progressive stages can imply that the set of responses to a crisis follows a linear pattern from start to finish. However, Hale et al. (2005: 123) suggest that an iterative pattern is more likely, whereby responses are made, assessed, revised and made again. It is self-evident that the language used to describe and inform stakeholders about a crisis can be critical to how it progresses. These assessment and revision stages of crisis response often relate to the success or otherwise of particular communication strategies, as well as the technical and logistical handling of crisis consequences.
With regard to communication and message strategies, it is clear that the type of crisis will affect the organisational response in terms of tone and content, as stakeholder views are generally determined by the compa- ny’s perceived role in originating the crisis. These organisational responses are typically communicated to the media through press releases, press con- ferences, and television and press interviews. In the case of the BP events, television and press interviews were frequent and high profile. What is ultimately published in the media (our area of interest here) is of course not under the control of the organisation, although research shows the
significant presence in media writing of corporate press releases, which are often reproduced more or less verbatim. The tone of the organisa- tional response is likely to be picked up and either endorsed or dismissed by the publication depending on its political stance and likely readership response. Response strategies are tailored to the intended audience, and Stephens, Malone, and Bailey (2005) draw on stakeholder theory to dis- cuss the shifting importance of varying stakeholders at a time of crisis.
The intended audience for crisis response communication is found to make a difference to structure and tenor, as well as content and level of detail.
This is particularly crucial for crises that require technical explanation, as is the case for BP Deepwater Horizon. Just as media writing is multi- voiced, so business communication is co-created by individuals, includ- ing the Chief Executive Officer, the Communications Director and other writing professionals involved, as well as by the company culture, and the norms of the industry within which it operates. The balance between the corporate and the personal in crisis communications is a potentially inter- esting aspect for language study. BP itself encountered well-publicised dif- ficulties in finding an effective public communications approach.