Crisis Communication and Public Relations Management: Reach, Conceptualization and Best Practices of Crisis Communication and Risk Communication

Based on the following readings:
Coombs, W. T. (2009). Conceptualizing Crisis Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 99-118). New York: Routedge.
Fearn-Banks, K. (2001). Crisis communication. A review of some best practices. In R.L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp.479-485). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Heath, R. L., & O'Hair, H. D. (2009). The Significance of Crisis and Risk Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 5-30). New York: Routledge.



Proper crisis and risk communication is inherently strategic, as well as entwined. However, reactionary crisis communications, which is not strategic communications, but rather simply a response to a crisis is still very much practiced today (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 5). In fact, Heath and O’Hair endorse the industry-standard crisis response practices, which calls for a spokesperson with a “respectful and neutral” style and the need for objectivity (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 24).

These current and long-standing notions of communications in crisis made the recent Tucson sheriff’s press conference all the more curious. In it Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, blamed the shooting on political rhetoric, which considering the mental instability of the accused gunman bears little relevance to the situation. By going “off script” however; Dupnik framed the discussion going forward. Was this the unintentional application of Chaos Theory to crisis communication in which the sheriff got out ahead of the inevitable bifurcation of sensemaking and assigning blame?

Other statements supporting the potential link with Chaos Theory are made by Adam and Van Loon (2004) when they “observed ‘risk culture as better conceived as a loose ensemble of sensemaking…” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 17); and in 2000 when they reasoned “risks are manufactured not only through the application of technologies, but also in the making of sense…” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 16). The National Research Council’s fault tree model may also have synchronicity with Chaos Theory since that it assumes “that events and choices (however random, probabilistic or causal) occur in some recognizable and manageable sequence” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 14), which is similar to Chaos theory’s fractals.

One of the standard statements heard when a crisis involves a death or injury is, “Our hearts and prayers go out to…” So often is this refrain heard that it can now have the opposite of its intended effect of sincere concern. The problem with expressing concern is the need to carefully avoid accepting legal responsibility. This is the presumed reason that “a number of states now have laws preventing statements of sympathy from being used as evidence…” (Coombs, 2009, p. 107). While statements of sympathy occur during the crisis, there is much to be communicated post-crisis, such as “updates on progress to recover from crisis, actions taken to prevent a repeat of the crisis, delivery of information promised to stakeholders during the crisis, release of reports about investigation of the crisis, and providing information to any governmental agencies that are investigating the crisis” (Coombs, 2009, p. 114).

Coombs’ observation that having one spokesperson for an extended crisis as being unrealistic was proven out with former BP CEO Tony Hayward’s statements connected to the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Most famously he stated, “I'm sorry. We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused their lives. There's no one who wants this over more than I do. I'd like my life back.”

Your thoughts?