Historical Trends of Strategic Issues Management, Risk & Crisis Communication

Based on the following readings:
Heath, R.L., & Palenchar, M.J. (2009). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kim, J-N, Ni, L. & Sha, B-L (2008). Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations research. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 751-768.

Palenchar, M. J. (2010). Historical Trends of Risk and Crisis Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 31-52). New York: Routledge.

Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Public Relations and Crisis Communication: Organizing and Chaos. In R. L. Heath, Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 155-165). Sage Publications, Inc.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.


Palenchar’s chapter “explores the historical trends of risk and crisis communication research unraveling the rapid growth and evolution of both fields while noting similarities and differences between them, and reviews the development of academic research centers related to advancing the study and practice of risk and crisis communication” (Palenchar, p. 31). This interdependent relationship between key functions of risk and crisis communications is focused on “…the better managed risks and crises are likely to result in less financial and social capital damages… a good organization can and should utilize risk communication and crisis communication…” (Palenchar, p. 48). A merged definition is Risk Communication + Crisis Communication = Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication.

“This type of communication differs from risk communication because of the narrow time constraint, decisions may be irreversible, decision outcomes are uncertain and often made with incomplete or imperfect information, while this type of communication differs from crises communication because the communication is not perceived as a participant in the crisis or disaster except as an agent to resolve the situation…” (Palenchar, p. 47). “This combination of perspectives is demonstrated in their crisis and emergency risk communication model in five stages are Pre-crisis (risk messages, warnings, preparations); Initial Event (uncertainty reduction, self-efficacy, reassurance); Maintenance (ongoing uncertainty, self-efficacy, reassurance); Resolution (updates regarding resolution, discussions about cause and new risks/new understandings of risk); Evaluation (discussions of adequacy of response/consensus about lessons and new understandings of risks)” (Palenchar, p. 47).

Present-day crisis communication research has developed from theoretically grounded models from apologia and impression management, as well as comprehensive approach to a crisis incorporates issue management, risk communication, crisis management plans and post-crisis communication. Future research in the growing field of organizational crisis and its corresponding expanding role for practitioners suggested by Seeger, et. al. is rooted in Chaos theory and Weick theory for future research. Practitioners need an understanding of crisis, specifically Organizational Crisis, Crisis and Issues Management, Risk Communication, Crisis Management Plans, Post-crisis Communication, and Organizational Crisis. Crisis is a fundamental to an organization’s life cycle. Therefore can represent an opportunity for development, which is a paradigm shift from being perceived solely as an organizational threat (Seeger, et. al., p. 156).

Issues management calls for organizations to identify, monitor, and analyze trends in key publics opinions… (Seeger, et. al., p. 156). An issue can evolve into a crisis in the form of “public policy, regulative/legislative constraint” (Seeger, et. al., p. 157). Issue management post-crisis pertains to the cause and responsibility. Risk communication is largely considered a pre-crisis function of establishing appropriate perceptions and understandings and creating positive stakeholder relations. It also has a role in crisis (that of providing information, mitigating harm) and in post-crisis (establishing new norms and practices). Crisis planning includes “the development of a crisis management team, development of preset responses and checklists, and maintenance of a crisis response and mitigation capability” (Seeger, et. al., , p. 158). The crisis management team should “create a designated group responsible for crisis planning and management; reduce crisis-induced stress and uncertainty; and separating the crisis management function from other operations so that, following a crisis trigger event, the rest of the organization can concentrate on returning to routine operations as quickly as possible (Seeger, et. al., p. 159). In post-crisis communication “a primary concern of traditional public relations research is determining effectiveness of post-crisis responses” (Seeger, et. al., p. 159). The strategies are rhetorical strategies and public relations strategies. Rhetorical strategies for post crisis communication are essentially rooted in apologia. Benoit’s expanded self-defense typology that aims to restore image for organizations are Denial; Evasion of Responsibility (misdeed result of provocation); Redirection of the Offensiveness of Event (bolstering, differentiation, transcendence); Corrective Action (restoring to before or preventing act in future); and Mortification (admit wrong and ask for forgiveness). The public relations strategies are about being fast and efficient; flexible in approach; and responsive to feedback.

Future Study seems to be following two theories are “well suited to describing the ambiguity, uncertainty, and disorder of crisis communication…” (Seeger, et. al., p. 164). In other words, Chaos Theory and Weick’s Theory of Organizational Enactment.