Thevalueofcommunicationduringacrisis.pdf

The value of communication during a crisis:
Insights from strategic communication
research

W. Timothy Coombs

Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 161344, Orlando,
FL 32816-1344, U.S.A.

Business Horizons (2015) 58, 141—148

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

KEYWORDS
Crisis communication;
Evidence-based;
Crisis response
strategies;
Crisis

Abstract The field of strategic communication encompasses a burgeoning crisis
communication literature that seeks to identify effective and ineffective
crisis communication efforts. Strategic communication has identified an array of
crisis response strategies and the factors that determine when these response options
are effective or ineffective. This article extracts key lessons from the crisis commu-
nication research to develop a set of guidelines managers can use to inform their
crisis communication efforts. The analysis includes an examination of the crisis
response strategies and their desired outcomes, the timing of crisis responses, and
the situational factors that have proven to affect the effectiveness of crisis response
strategies. The research results provide the foundation for evidence-based crisis
communication. The guidelines help managers to understand how their communica-
tive choices will impact the corporate reputation and other important crisis out-
comes, and will help managers to make informed choices about crisis communication.
# 2014 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.
1. Crisis communication

On July 6, 2013, a Canadian Pacific Railway locomo-
tive carrying crude oil derailed in Lac-Mégantic,
Quebec, Canada. The ensuing explosions and fires
resulted in 42 deaths, five people missing and pre-
sumed dead, and evacuation of the town. Edward
Burkhardt, the CEO of parent company Rail World
E-mail address: [email protected]

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2014 Kelley School of Business, I
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003
Inc., proved a key point about crisis communication:
just because you communicate during a crisis does
not mean you necessarily make the situation better.
In fact, a leading business journal noted that
Burkhardt’s coping tactics made the situation worse
for the organization. Crisis communication should
be strategic; efforts should be designed to improve
the situation for stakeholders and the firm in crisis.
What was Burkhardt’s Achilles heel? As this article
will demonstrate, the problem was ineffective crisis
communication.
ndiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00076813

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003

142 W.T. Coombs
I will resist use of the label ‘best practices’ for
crisis communication. Best practices implies bench-
marking and uniformity in a process. While we can
identify crisis types and similarities between crises,
it is misleading to assume uniformity. Each crisis has
the potential to create unique communication de-
mands. What we can identify are lessons from the
strategic communication analyses of crisis that pro-
duce consistent results. The evidence-based crisis
communication research provides guidance regard-
ing what is typically effective and ineffective in a
crisis. As a whole, this guidance can help crisis
managers make informed decisions about the stra-
tegic use of communication during their own crises.

The explication of evidence-based crisis commu-
nication will begin with an examination of basic crisis
response strategies, move on to a discussion of crisis
communication outcomes, and end with consider-
ation of how various situational factors affect the
effectiveness of basic crisis response strategies. This
final section reviews primary lessons derived from the
strategic crisis communication research.

2. Crisis response strategies

Crisis response strategies represent the words and
actions managers employ in dealing with crises
(Coombs, 2007). We can view crisis response strate-
gies as the options crisis managers have available to
them when responding to a crisis. The strength of
the strategic communication approach to crisis com-
munication is the explication of crisis response
strategies. Crisis response strategies are only part
of the larger fabric of crisis communication. Broadly,
there are two strategies for crisis communication:
(1) managing information and (2) managing mean-
ing. Managing information involves the collection
and dissemination of crisis-related information.
Managing meaning involves efforts to influence
how people perceive the crisis and/or the organiza-
tion involved in the crisis (Coombs, 2010). Crisis
response strategies are primarily about managing
meaning. Hence, the discussion of crisis response
strategies must consider the effects the crisis re-
sponse strategies are intended to have upon stake-
holder perceptions of the crisis situation. Crisis
response strategies can be divided into three cate-
gories: instructing information, adjusting informa-
tion, and reputation repair.

2.1. Instructing information

Instructing information helps stakeholders to pro-
tect themselves physically from a crisis. Crises cre-
ate a unique set of stakeholders: victims that are
negatively affected by the crisis. Instructing infor-
mation prevents stakeholders from becoming vic-
tims (Sturges, 1994) by warning people to evacuate,
to not use a product, or to shelter-in-place. The
strategic objective is public safety.

2.2. Adjusting information

Adjusting information includes efforts to help stake-
holders cope psychologically with a crisis (Sturges,
1994). Expressions of sympathy, information about
the crisis event, counseling, and corrective action
are all variations of adjusting information. Crises
can create anxiety (Jin & Pang, 2010) and anger
(Coombs & Holladay, 2005). Information about the
crisis event reduces anxiety by reducing ambiguity.
Corrective action helps stakeholders by explaining
how the organization is working to reduce the like-
lihood of a repeat of the crisis. Expressions of
sympathy help to reduce anger while counseling
helps with extreme anxiety.

2.3. Reputation repair

Reputation repair seeks to reduce the negative
effects a crisis has on the organization’s reputation
and related assets. Reputation repair strategies can
be organized into four groups: (1) denial, (2) reduc-
ing offensiveness, (3) bolstering, and (4) redress.
Each strategy offers a slightly different means for
reputation repair.

2.3.1. Denial
Denial seeks to sever any connection between the
organization and the crisis, with the objective of
establishing no responsibility. Simple denial argues
that the organization is not involved in a crisis and
that misperception links the two. An example would
be a rumor (untrue information) about a crisis or
confusing the organization with a similar firm that is
experiencing a crisis. A scapegoating strategy seeks
to shift the blame to another actor; here, the
organization is connected to the crisis but lays fault
upon another entity. Either way, if the organization
is not responsible for a crisis, the crisis should not
damage the organization (Benoit, 1995; Coombs,
1995). Less damage is inflicted on an organization
if people believe the organization is not connected
to the crisis.

It is important to note a critical caveat of the
denial strategy. If an organization uses denial and
then later is found to bear some responsibility for
the crisis, damage inflicted upon the organization is
intensified. Hence, manager should avoid using de-
nial if they are at all unsure about the organization’s
true culpability. Moreover, stakeholders generally

The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 143
have a negative view of the scapegoating strategy.
Stakeholders want organizations to take responsi-
bility rather than try to pass the buck. Consider
when a crisis is caused by a supplier. The company
whose name is on the product is expected to take
ultimate responsibility and not pass that responsi-
bility down the supply chain. For example, when
Mattel attempted to blame the use of lead paint in
its toys on a supplier, customers reacted negatively.
Because stakeholders assume Mattel should be re-
sponsible for its final products, they wanted the
company to take responsibility for the ensuing recall
and crisis.

2.3.2. Reducing offensiveness
Reducing offensiveness strategies acknowledge an
organization bears some responsibility for the crisis.
However, the organization claims it had little con-
trol over the situation or the crisis was not as bad as
people perceived. Arguing lack of control or minimal
damage to others serves to reduce attributions of
crisis responsibility (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). In
reality, organizations seldom utilize reduce offen-
siveness crisis response strategies.

2.3.3. Bolstering
Bolstering strategies seek to add positive informa-
tion to the crisis situation. Managers might remind
stakeholders of the organization’s past good works
or thank those who helped combat the crisis, such as
first responders or loyal customers. Bolstering works
by adding positive information to help offset nega-
tive information generated by a crisis.

2.3.4. Redress
Redress strategies include actions designed to pri-
oritize victim concerns. Compensation offers money
or other types of rewards to victims. Apology ac-
cepts responsibility for the crisis and asks victims for
forgiveness. The idea behind redress strategies is to
engage in positive actions toward victims in to
offset negatives from the crisis.

3. Outcomes

Outcome variables are the second set of variables
that are important to understanding the effects of
crisis communication. Outcome variables represent
the different factors that crisis communication
strategies can influence, and reflect efforts to man-
age meaning. The five most common outcome var-
iables are reputation, emotion, purchase intention,
stock prices, and word of mouth. Reputation is easily
the most studied outcome variable in crisis commu-
nication research. As defined by Fombrun and van
Riel (2004), in the corporate sense, reputation is an
evaluation of an organization driven by the percep-
tions of stakeholders. Crises damage reputations,
and crisis communication is one resource that can be
used to repair that damage (Benoit, 1997). Because
reputation is a valued intangible asset, reputational
damage should be avoided (Fombrun & van Riel,
2004). The two dominant emotions that emerge in
the crisis communication research are anger and
anxiety. Stakeholders are angry that organizations
allowed a crisis to occur and to harm others (Coombs
& Holladay, 2005). Crises produce anxiety because
people are afraid the crisis may harm them or worry
about a recurrence of the crisis (Jin & Pang, 2010).
Anger and anxiety can alter how stakeholders inter-
act with an organization. Therefore, crises can have
direct financial costs through declines in purchase
intentions and stock prices (Jones, Jones, & Little,
2000). Anger has been shown to increase the likeli-
hood of negative word of mouth after a crisis, and
negative word of mouth can damage an organization
in many ways (Tucker & Melewar, 2005). However,
crisis communication can be used to reduce the
negative effects of a crisis on a range of outcome
variables. The challenge lies in connecting the crisis
communication strategies to the outcome variables.
The question becomes: How can crisis communica-
tion reduce the negative effects of a crisis? The
key to addressing that question is the cluster of
situational factors that shape how crises create
negative outcomes for organizations.

4. Situational factors

To protect an organization from crisis harms, we
must comprehend how a crisis inflicts harms on an
organization. Research has identified four situation-
al factors that help us understand the damaging
effects of crises: (1) crisis responsibility, (2) compe-
tence and integrity, (3) long-term and short-term
threat assessment, and (4) timing.

4.1. Crisis responsibility

Crisis responsibility represents the amount of respon-
sibility for a crisis that stakeholders attribute to the
organization (Coombs, 1995). Crisis responsibility is
derived from attribution theory. The more people
attribute a negative event to the person involved, the
more negative they are toward that person. Similarly,
the more stakeholders attribute crisis responsibility
to an organization, the more damage the crisis inflicts
upon the organization–—including reputational dam-
age, purchase intention, anger, and negative word of
mouth (Coombs & Holladay, 1996, 2002, 2005;

144 W.T. Coombs
Schwarz, 2008). Situational Crisis Communication
Theory (SCCT) has mapped critical variables that
shape attributions of crisis responsibility.

SCCT uses a two-step process to assess attribu-
tions of crisis responsibility. The first step entails
determining the crisis type. The crisis type is the
general frame that is being used to define the crisis
situation. For example, a victim crisis frame posi-
tions the organization as a victim of the crisis and
thus produces minimal attributions of crisis respon-
sibility, while a preventable crisis frame produces
strong attributions of organizational responsibility.
Examples of victim crises include workplace vio-
lence, rumors, product tampering, and outside at-
tacks. Preventable crises include management
misconduct that knowingly places stakeholders at
risk and/or violates laws or regulations. The second
step entails evaluating intensifying factors in the
situation. A history of similar past crises or a nega-
tive prior reputation will intensify attributions of
the organization’s crisis responsibility (Coombs,
1995, 2004, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002). The
two-step assessment allows crisis managers to de-
termine if stakeholders are likely to view the orga-
nization as bearing little or significant responsibility
for the crisis.

4.2. Competence and integrity

Competence and integrity are two critical elements
of corporate reputation (Brown & Dacin, 1997).
Psychological research demonstrates that people
are more willing to forgive trust violations related
to competence than trust violations related to in-
tegrity; this is similar to the difference between
accidental acts (competence) and intentional acts
(integrity). Research shows that apologies are very
effective at addressing trust violations resulting
from competence. However, apologies serve to in-
tensify damage from trust violations resulting from
integrity. The damage intensifies because the apol-
ogy reinforces that the person is guilty of a moral
violation. Denial was found to prevent trust prob-
lems with integrity violations (Kim, Dirks, Cooper, &
Ferrin, 2006; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004). A
similar pattern has been found with organizational
crises when using denial. The dilemma is that when
an organization is guilty of an integrity-based crisis
(has some responsibility for the crisis), denial is an
ineffective option. If managers deny any responsi-
bility for a crisis and are then found to bear some
responsibility for it, damage to the organization will
be intensified (Coombs & Holladay, 2014). This
means that crisis managers must use a strategy–—
or some combination thereof–—that is perceived to
accept a level of responsibility for the crisis, if
indeed the organization bears any responsibility
for the crisis.

4.3. Long-term and short-term threat
assessment

The threat appraisal model, drawing upon Contin-
gency Theory from the field of public relations, finds
that long-term threats are perceived as stronger
than short-term threats. If a crisis can be classified
as a long-term threat, it will require greater atten-
tion and a more victim-oriented, accommodative
response than would a short-term crisis (Jin, 2009;
Jin & Cameron, 2007).

4.4. Timing

Timing refers to timing of the release of information
acknowledging that a crisis exists. This line of re-
search is known as ‘stealing thunder.’ Stealing thun-
der is a concept derived from legal studies and
refers to situations in which a defense attorney will
bring up a weakness before opposing counsel has the
opportunity to do so. Being the first to address a
weakness reduces damage to the legal case
(Williams, Bourgeois, & Croyle, 1993). Stealing
thunder in crisis communication occurs when the
organization in crisis is the first entity to report the
existence of the crisis. Stealing thunder research
consistently demonstrates that a crisis inflicts sig-
nificantly less reputational and other damage to an
organization when the organization is the source of
the initial report about the crisis compared to when
another party, such as the news media, is the first to
release the information (Arpan & Pompper, 2003;
Claeys & Cauberghe, 2010). It benefits the organi-
zation to release initial information about a crisis
occurrence because reputational damage is intensi-
fied if another party is instead the first to do so.

5. Crafting evidence-based crisis
communication

Crisis communication research has been generated
in public relations, corporate communication, mar-
keting, management, and psychology. I reviewed a
range of this research when identifying the key
factors involved in crisis communication: crisis
response strategies, situational factors, and
outcomes. Using the research as a foundation, we
can construct a fairly substantial set of evidence-
based recommendations for crisis communicators.
What follows is a discussion of guidance that can be
distilled from the extant research. Again, this guid-
ance represents not best practices but rather

The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 145
insights regarding which crisis response strategies
can be beneficial in a particular crisis and which can
actually make the crisis situation worse. The guid-
ance discussion is divided into three sections:
(1) recommendations for action, (2) warnings, and
(3) long-term versus short-term gain. The recom-
mendations for action section is the longest and
seeks to identify the best available advice about
how crisis managers might communicate during spe-
cific crisis situations. The warnings section discusses
the dangers inherent in utilizing a denial strategy.
Finally, the long-term versus short-term gain section
considers the consequences of flying low or being
aggressive with crisis communication.

5.1. Recommendations for action

This section identifies key situational factors and
how these factors should shape the selection of
crisis response strategies, as well as subsequent
effects of chosen crisis response strategies on crisis
outcomes. Table 1 provides a quick summary of the
crisis communication guidance.

No Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In this
situation, the organization bears no responsibility
for the crisis. The crisis could be based on false
information (a rumor) or be a case of mistaken
identity (a different firm is involved). Crisis
Table 1. Overview of crisis response strategy guidance

Crisis Situation Crisis Response Strategies

No Crisis Responsibility Denial

Minimal Crisis Responsibility Instructing and Adjusting
Information

Strong Crisis Responsibility Instructing and Adjusting
Information
apology, compensation,
or both

Integrity-based Crisis Instructing and Adjusting
Information
apology, compensation, or

Competence-based Crisis Instructing and Adjusting
Information
apology

Long-term Threat Instructing and
Adjusting Information
apology, compensation,
or both

Timing Instructing and Adjusting
Information
managers should use the denial strategy and provide
evidence against the erroneous perception that the
organization was in crisis. If successful, the denial
strategy separates the organization from the crisis,
thereby protecting organizational assets from
damage.

Minimal Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In
this situation, the organization does have some link
and responsibility for the crisis. The crisis will in-
volve some external attack such as product tamper-
ing, workplace violence, or terrorism. Instructing
and adjusting information are necessary to address
the needs of victims or potential victims. When
there are victims, crisis managers must emphasize
what is being done to help the victims. Public safety
and welfare must be shown as the organization’s top
priorities. Victim focus is what will help limit dam-
age to organizational assets.

Strong Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In
this situation, the organization is the source
of the crisis and could have taken actions to reduce
the likelihood of the crisis. Examples include man-
agers knowingly sending an unsafe product to mar-
ket or purposely violating laws or regulations.
Instructing and adjusting information is the initial
response, as these crises produce victims. Crisis
managers must determine if they will add compen-
sation, apology, or both to their response. Given the
Outcomes

� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth

� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
word of mouth

� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
word of mouth

both

� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
word of mouth

� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth

� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth

� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth

146 W.T. Coombs
high level of crisis responsibility in this situation,
crisis managers–—if interested in maximizing the
reputation repair potential of crisis response
strategies–—must go beyond instructing and adjust-
ing to enact the most accommodative strategies
possible. Simply using instructing and adjusting in-
formation is a viable response, but less optimal than
adding an accommodative strategy. By seeking to
help the victims, crisis managers can lessen damage
suffered by the organization.

Integrity-based Crisis Situation. In this case, the
crisis situation will be similar to the attribution of
strong crisis responsibility crises. The two crisis
situations are very similar but not isomorphic. In
integrity-based crises, managers demonstrate little
regard for morality. Examples include knowingly
sending a dangerous product to market or embez-
zling. Instructing and adjusting information is the
initial response. Crisis managers then must deter-
mine if they will add compensation, apology, or both
to their response. Again, a victim focus is what will
help to reduce the amount of damage an organiza-
tion suffers from the crisis.

Competence-based Crisis Situation. In this situa-
tion, the crisis will reveal a problem arising from an
error that stems from the organization’s lack of skill.
The organization exposes a competency gap be-
tween what is required of its duties and how the
organization performs those duties. Industrial and
transportation accidents can be competence-based.
Instructing and adjusting information is the initial
response if there are victims. An apology is strongly
recommended because of its ability to rebuild trust
for competence violations. The addition of an apol-
ogy should significantly help to repair damage done
by the crisis.

Long-term Threat Crisis Situation. In this situa-
tion, the crisis has staying power and can inflict
harm on an organization for an extended period of
time. Instructing and adjusting information is the
initial response if there are victims. An apology
should be added to quicken the end of the crisis.
An apology is an effective way to end media interest
in a crisis and shorten attention span regarding the
crisis (Hearit, 2006). The combination of strategies
should provide some level of repair to organizational
damage created by the crisis.

Timing Crisis Situation. In this situation, the crisis
manager has the opportunity to be the first to
release information about the crisis. It is not always
possible for the firm to be the first source of infor-
mation: the news media or some social media source
might be the first to report the crisis, or legal
requirements might dictate that a government
agency is the entity that must report it. For exam-
ple, most product harm events in the United States
must be reported first by the federal government. As
part of the organization’s initial statement, it is still
useful to provide instructing and adjusting informa-
tion. By stealing thunder, crisis managers can sig-
nificantly reduce the damage a crisis inflicts on the
organization.

Except for No Crisis Responsibility, the seven
aforementioned crisis situations are not mutually
exclusive. Crisis managers may face crisis situations
that entail a combination of the situational factors,
such as an integrity-based crisis that produces
strong attributions of crisis responsibility and
presents the opportunity to steal thunder. Table 1
demonstrates overlap in the optimal crisis response
strategies; hence, overlaps between the crisis sit-
uations are easily accommodated. In other words,
there is a consistency to the pattern of crisis re-
sponse strategies that will help crisis managers
repair organizational damage caused by crises. That
central pattern is a base response of instructing and
adjusting information–—when there are victims–—
and then a decision as to whether or not to include
an apology, compensation, or a combination of the
two. The unique features of each crisis will help to
guide the final crisis response strategies crisis man-
agers employ.

5.2. Warnings

In addition to actions that should benefit the orga-
nization during a crisis, two warnings should be
heeded in to avoid creating additional prob-
lems. First, avoid scapegoating, even if another
organization bears some responsibility for the crisis.
Crisis managers can mention involvement of another
firm (share blame), but should not shift all or most of
the burden to the other party. Crisis managers must
indicate that they understand the situation is theirs
to deal with. Second, denial represents a major risk.
If any evidence emerges linking an organization to
the crisis after a denial strategy is used, damage will
be intensified (Coombs & Holladay, 2014). In fact,
researchers have identified the ways in which de-
nials can trigger additional damage to an organiza-
tion as a type of ‘double crisis.’ A double crisis
occurs when the crisis response is so ineffective
or inappropriate that it appears to create a second
crisis for the organization (Frandsen & Johansen,
2010; Grebe, 2013).

5.3. Short-term versus long-term gain

A crisis can inflict damage on an organization’s
reputation and its stock price. ‘Fly low’ approaches
can help minimize initial damage to both reputa-
tions and stock prices. The fly low approach is when

The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 147
crisis managers say little about the crisis (Moran &
Gregory, 2014). However, the fly low approach is
risky in that it seems to suppress the ability of both
reputations and stock prices to rebound. Aggressive
responses can intensify initial damage to reputation
(Moran & Gregory, 2014) and stock price (Raithel,
2014), but also seem to produce a quicker rebound.
An aggressive response involves immediately talking
about the crisis and may even include the use of an
apology. Crisis managers need to decide if they want
a short-term or long-term gain from their crisis
communication efforts.

6. Limitations

One criticism of crisis communication research is
that it forgets about the actual constraints manag-
ers face in crisis situations. Financial and legal
concerns can limit how crisis managers respond to
a crisis (Fitzpatrick & Rubin, 1995; Tyler, 1997). That
is why it is important to address the crisis response
strategies that crisis managers should avoid. While
constraints might prevent the selection of optimal
crisis response strategies, crisis managers should
know how to avoid making the situation worse
and which strategies provide a minimal amount of
repair potential.

7. Conclusion

Crisis communication is an applied discipline be-
cause it seeks to find solutions to real-world prob-
lems. The earliest publications in the crisis
communication body of knowledge were based on
practitioner advice; practitioners who underwent
crises wrote about their experiences and con-
structed lists of what to do and what not to do.
These lists appear in practitioner-oriented publica-
tions (Coombs, 2010). The early and foundational
crisis communication research publications re-
flected personal experience rather than systematic
knowledge (Erez & Grant, 2014). In the United
States, crisis communication emerged as a practice
in the late 1980s. However, serious research on crisis
communication did not appear until the 1990s. As is
a common …