Master Thesis
Changing threats into chances: How can organizations turn crises
into opportunities?
Master’s program: Communication Science
Track: Corporate Communication
Student: Violeta Alina Alexandra Geosanu
Student Number: 10544100
Thesis Supervisor: Piet Verhoeven
Submitted on: January 30, 2015
Abstract
Organizational crises are considered moments of truth, in which companies are able to
demonstrate their power to wisely manage critical situations; apart from the dangers that
crises pose to organizations, there are also benefits that a crisis can bring. The aim of the
current study is to provide insight concerning the perceived benefits of crises. A qualitative
study using semi-structured interviews was conducted with the participation of 15
communication professionals, either communication managers or communication consultants
specialized in issue and reputation management. The majority of the interviewees had over 15
years of experience in the crisis communication field and talked about crises experienced
both at their current workplace and about crises experienced at former employers that were
large multinational organizations from various industries. The findings of the study show that
due to the limited time of reaction, communications professionals perceive crises only as
threats and do not even think of them as opportunities, although they argued that a crisis
could have advantages for organizations as well. The perceived benefits are internal, external,
reputational and there are also renewal opportunities. The research showed that the most
common crisis benefits are the ones concerning the internal activity of the organization, as
they are indirect and not planned. The findings discuss the differences between practices in
crisis communication from fifteen years ago and the practices nowadays. New implications
for crisis communication were developed from the study, concerning the challenges and
opportunities that the increased connectivity of social media offer to organizations in crisis
situations.
Introduction
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an
opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” These were the words of Rahm
conference that a crisis could represent an opportunity and not only a threat if people know
how to take advantage of it.
Organizational crises are defined as events that usually have a high impact on the
activity and reputation of organizations. Crises are considered threats that endanger the
survival of companies. They are said to be critical points in the lifecycle of organizations, as
they can easily determine their future. Although crises are usually perceived as causing
consequences to companies, they can also represent opportunities for them.
Crises usually occur without warning and do not depend on the type of company, its
stage of development or its dimensions (McCray & Gonzalez & Darling, 2011). Seeger,
Sellnow and Ulmer (2001) suggested that such negative events might be needed for the
development and structure of organizations. Thus, the chaos produced by the crisis situation
may actually serve as a way to organize the activities, events and procedures in a more
productive and better way in the company (Seeger & Sellnow & Ulmer, 2001). The degree to
which an organization is affected by the crisis is dictated by the company’s perception of the
crisis situation; crises can be perceived either as threats or as opportunities (Penrose, 2000).
Crisis management can turn a crisis into an opportunity for the organization, building the
reputation and learning from mistakes (Kovoor-Misra, 2009). Moreover, if organizations
communicate with their external stakeholders in a proper way, they can have a very positive
public perception, which in turn can improve the corporate image (Penrose, 2000).
Due to the fact that companies are no longer in control and that crises are sometimes
unpredictable, organizations might want to take into account how they can make use of the
crisis situations and even transform them into opportunities for their activity and reputation.
These chances are usually identified either by communication managers that work in the
company or by communication consultants that constantly work with companies in regard to
consequences that crises have on the wellbeing of companies and also how should
organizations act during crises (Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Johansen & Aggerholm &
Frandsen, 2012; Coombs, 2007). However, there are no studies that examine the possible
benefits of crisis situations from the perspective of experienced communication professionals.
The way they perceive the advantages of crises is very important since communication plays
a very important role within the organizational management nowadays. Their perspective and
experience with organizational crises provide both theoretical and practical implications,
extending the knowledge in the field of crisis communication and also offering advice for
organizations concerning how to manage and make use of potential crises that might appear.
Therefore, the proposed research question is: How do communication professionals perceive
the benefits of organizational crises?
Theoretical Background
Crisis perception
Past research has argued that the organizational perception of crises plays an essential
role in determining the outcome of a crisis (Kovoor-Misra, 2009; Xie & Wang, 2003; Jackson
& Dutton, 1988; Penrose, 2000). Specifically, it was argued that individuals manifest very
different perceptions under conditions of threat and opportunity (Xie & Wang, 2003). Under
threat, they might experience rigidity and they might have a preference for using learned
responses, routines and are also reluctant to take risks. On the other hand, when confronted
with opportunities, individuals tend to expand their perceptions and examine different
approaches. At the same time, they are more willing to take risks (Xie & Wang, 2003). Thus,
if crisis situations or change are perceived as opportunities, organizational members will tend
of learning and change (Kovoor-Misra, 2009).
Moreover, the organization’s perception of the crisis has a high influence on the way
the crisis is handled (Penrose, 2000). If the problematic situation is perceived as a threat, it
will allow the management to make use only of certain information and also communicate a
limited amount of information to the stakeholders (Penrose, 2000). This type of approach
triggers the stakeholders’ impression that the company is not trustworthy (Penrose, 2000). In
contrast, viewing a crisis as an opportunity enables the organizations to reflect over various
aspects, which leads to a more proactive planning (Jackson & Dutton, 1988). By displaying
an interest towards the benefits that a crisis can offer, companies can influence the public
opinion and calm stakeholders concerning the negative effects and the severity of the crisis
(Penrose, 2000).
Crisis management
Most of the times organizations can undergo positive and negative consequences due
to the ways in which crises are managed and not actually by the crisis itself (James &
Wooten, 2005). The manners in which crises are handled and the approaches that are used to
solve the problematic events have a high level of influence on the organizational activity and
reputation (James & Wooten, 2005).
According to Bernstein (1990), good and consistent communication in times of crisis
should be the main focus for organizations. Therefore, accurate information should be
transmitted in a fast and effective way to stakeholders who are involved in the situation
(Bernstein, 1990). This type of communication protocol that involves training the
spokesperson, preparation of key messages and the most suitable communication channels
should be included in the crisis communication plan (Gorney, 1990). In addition, Penrose
the organization. Generally, the crisis management teams include the following senior
executives: the CEO, the chief financial officer, the communication executive, the legal
executive and the safety advisors (Mitroff, Pearson, Clair & Misra, 1997).
Holtzhausen and Roberts (2009) have argued that taking full responsibility in a crisis
situation is not always the best solution. On the other hand, taking an irresponsible position to
avoid public criticism would not help the organization in recovering its damaged image (Lee,
2004). At the same time, as Holtzhausen and Roberts (2009) point out, proactive
communication actions can trigger positive media coverage for the organization in a time of
crisis. Therefore, the crisis response strategies should be carefully chosen, taking into
consideration the large impact that they have on both organizations and publics. According to
Coombs and Holladay (2002), the crisis response strategy must be chosen depending on the
type of crisis and thus, on the level of responsibility that the organization has. Therefore, in
crisis situations in which the organization holds a low level of responsibility or none, it
should act accordingly and use defensive response strategies. Conversely, in crises in which
the company is the principal responsible, full responsibility responses such as corrective
action and full apology should be used (Coombs & Holladay, 2002).
Transformational crisis management
Organizations that practice transformational crisis management have an effective
approach to handle crisis situations and at the same time, they are able to identify the
opportunities that a crisis could have for their future. Such opportunities could be meaningful
and creative decisions for change and organizational development (McCray & Gonzalez &
Darling, 2011). In order to take advantage of the benefits that a crisis might have, it is very
important that the organization consistently examines its activity, the circumstances and the
Leaders who are oriented towards opportunities and seek to transform problems into
opportunities are said to practice positive transformational management. This type of leaders
rely on self-talk and have the ability to focus on expected outcomes. At the same time, they
have confidence in events and processes that take place when changes occur in the
organization (Gabrielsson & Seristo & Darling, 2009). Positive transformational managers
have positive perceptions, associations and attitudes that help them to have internally
controlled reactions to crisis situations (Hawkins, 1998). They are said to use crises to the
benefit of their organizations (McCray & Gonzalez & Darling, 2011). In addition, Nystrom
and Starbuck (1984) argue that managers tend to experiment during organizational crises in
order to diminish the damages produced by the organization’s failures. According to them,
experimenting in times of crises can trigger benefits for the companies, as managers tend to
pay more attention to feedback, they evaluate problems more objectively and they try to
implement new approaches.
Internal and external crisis benefits
Downing (2007) states that a crisis situation can have opportunities for the internal
stakeholders of the company. Management has the opportunity to develop a better
relationship with employees and the emotions and feelings that occur during a crisis are
shared by the members of the organization and might bring them together. In some crises, the
employees feel united as a “family”, who tries to fight against the cause that produced the
crisis situation. That happens in the strategy of identification by antithesis (Downing, 2007).
Cheney (1983), DiSanza and Bullis (1999) argued that this strategy is used to unite the
employees in an organization against a shared enemy.
The authors James and Wooten (2005) talked about various competencies that
them in order to promote change in the company. First of all, resolving a crisis situation
involves building a foundation of trust towards the stakeholders. Second, a crisis can be an
opportunity of creating a new corporate mindset. Third, during a crisis, management can
identify more easily the organizational vulnerabilities because the company experiences great
challenges and reveals its weaknesses. Fourth, the organization can regain its positive
reputation and credibility by proving to make wise and fast decisions in a time of crisis; in
this case, the company will prove its capability to successfully handle difficult situations.
Fifth, taking courageous action during a crisis period may also represent an advantage for the
organizational reputation (James & Wooten, 2005). In addition, Meyers and Holusha (1986)
discussed some other benefits as well; they state that during crises, new leaders can show
their abilities to fight against the crisis and that some new and effective strategies might
appear. Moreover, in times of crises, people and procedures can be changed. Meyers and
Holusha (1986) also argue that organizations can gain positive publicity as the crisis is well
handled and the relationships with stakeholders may grow stronger in such moments. Coombs
(2000) claimed that strong relationships with the publics act as a “buffer” during crises,
defending not only the organizational reputation, but also future relationships.
Therefore, crises can offer many opportunities for companies to change in a positive
way and to be viewed in a good light by their public, media and shareholders. For instance,
some organizations could introduce a more advanced technology or could develop safer
products in the future in order to avoid other problems and crises (Ulmer & Sellnow &
Seeger, 2007). These opportunities are possible only because problems appear and need to be
Learning behavior
Organizational crises offer a choice to the management of the company, between
rehabilitation and reorientation (Weitzel & Jonsson, 1989). Based on these assumptions,
Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2008) argue that an organizational crisis represents a critical
situation for the company that can either destroy or positively change the entire organization.
The authors suggest that there is a possibility to avoid crises or at least minimize the damage
on the reputation and activity if organizations have a learning behavior. Organizational
learning means that the management and employees of a company actively use information to
control the behavior in order to improve the organization’s possibility to adapt to new
conditions. (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008). By learning, the company tries to make sense of
the new settings and tries to adjust its activity (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1999).
Learning from failures does not only contribute to solving the imminent issues to
restore the organizational activity, but also investigates the causes that produced the crisis and
also helps the organization to prevent other similar events from happening (Tucker &
Edmondson, 2003). This helps the company to adapt to the new conditions of the
environment and to change according to them. There are suitable aspects of the learning
phase of crisis, which managers should take into consideration in order to make use of a crisis
situation (James & Wooten, 2005). Such aspects refer to the features that the organization
learned from the crisis, whether management took into consideration past behavior and
mistakes and whether the company took action in preventing future crises from happening
(James & Wooten, 2005).
Learning from failures or mistakes represents an important facilitator of preparation for both present and prospective crisis (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008). On one hand,
learning behavior from failures is important for preparing an organization for crises (Carmeli
crisis situations and be more cautious in detecting problems likely to turn into crises. On the
other hand, organizations that already experience crises might respond more efficiently to a crisis event (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008).
For an effective learning, the evolution of the company and the organizational history,
which inevitably contains failures, have to be taken into account (Greiner, 1998). Weick and
Sutcliffe (2001) argued that organizations, which are concerned with failures, show a higher
ability to manage the unexpected, as they pay more attention to mistakes. The study of
Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2008) suggests that managers could be more organized for crisis
situations by helping employees to unlearn behavior adopted in the past that is no longer
suitable. For that it is necessary to have a culture based on learning from failure that
facilitates new reactions and eliminates the old ones. Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2008) also
emphasize that good leaders know how important it is to detect crisis signals before they are
too strong in order to prevent them, as the crisis recovery strategies are more expensive and
time consuming than preventing actions. The authors also propose that managers should
explain how the learning from failures approach helps to improve organizational reliability
and promotes competitiveness. Nutt (2004) discussed how important it is for a company to
encourage its employees to report failures in order to detect incorrect activities and
procedures. This allows the organization to be more alert regarding its environment.
Renewal opportunities
Although crises pose serious threats to the survival of organizations, they also imply
the opportunity to rebuild a competitive reputation that will enable the company to be
stronger and manage the new challenges that might appear (Regester, 1987). Ulmer and
Sellnow (2002) consider that crises are somehow part of the organizations’ lifecycle and that
the authors, some types of crises might offer opportunities for organizational renewal, which
they consider a form of crisis communication. Renewal entails rebuilding confidence by
taking corrective action, which represents taking certain measures to avoid similar crisis
situations in the future. Ulmer and Sellnow (2002) also argue that renewal is usually based on
stakeholder commitment, core values and commitment to correction. Renewal can imply
returning to the organization’s core values to reconnect the history with the present and to
remember the old behavior in the new one (Hurst, 1995). A characteristic of renewal is the
organization’s ability to rebuild itself by taking advantage of the opportunities that the crisis
fosters (Meyers & Holusha, 1986). The renewal process is optimistic, as stakeholders have to
be motivated by a positive behavior (Meyers & Holusha, 1986).
Due to the fact that crises can also pose opportunities to companies, the apology
discourse that organizations often employ can be replaced with a more optimistic discourse of
rebuilding and renewal (Seeger & Ulmer, 2002). This type of discourse helps the organization
to illustrate its position after it has overcome the crisis, its attempts and plans to rebuild and
improve its activity and reputation (Hurst, 1995). Moreover, the renewal discourse underlines
the advantages that a crisis can have for an organization and it is often present in the CEO’s
responses towards crisis situations (Seeger & Ulmer, 2002).
Despite the possible benefits and opportunities that crises can bring, few companies
manage to identify and take advantage of them (Penrose, 2000).
Method
The current study proposes to extend the knowledge in the field of crisis
communication by investigating how communication professionals perceive the benefits of
organizational crises. The research also attempts to investigate whether nowadays the
from their experiences. The interviewees were able to talk about how crisis situations were
handled, what was the general perception of crises and also about the perceived benefits that
crises can have for organizations. The sample used in the study has a valuable contribution to
the crisis communication field due to the extensive experience that communication
professionals have with organizational crises. This experience allows comparisons between
the crisis communication approaches and perceptions from fifteen years ago and the ones
nowadays, affected with the advance of social media channels and the extended connectivity
between the organizations and their publics. Changes in the behavior of organizations could
be observed and analyzed to establish how crises could have a positive influence on
organizations’ internal and external activity and reputation.
Research design
The present study has a qualitative, exploratory approach and made use of
semi-structured interviews for the data collection. The aim of the study was to gain an
understanding of the perspectives and perceptions of communication professionals
concerning the benefits of organizational crises. Therefore, the study investigated a
subjective, personal input of respondents, which could only be achieved by using qualitative
research. The method and the type of research facilitated the collection of in depth, rich data,
obtained from complex responses, which provided a larger picture of the crisis effects on
organizations. The semi-structured interviews allowed an interaction between the researcher
and respondents and also a certain degree of flexibility for the discussion. Thus, participants
were able to focus on what was important from their perspective and were not restricted to a
Interviewees
Fifteen communication professionals with extensive experience in the domain of crisis
communication were interviewed regarding the benefits of organizational crises. The study
participants were either communication managers from multinational companies or
communication consultants specialized in reputation and issue management. The
communication professionals had experience both in external and internal communication.
They had completed higher education either in communication, political science, economics,
humanities or journalism. The majority of them worked at companies or consultancy firms
that were based in the Netherlands. Only one particular communication manager worked at a
company, headquartered in Belgium.
Most participants had over 15 years of experience in the crisis communication field.
They either spoke about their current workplace or/and referred to examples from their
former employers. The companies to which they referred in the interviews activated in the
following industries: telecommunications, insurance, banking, electronics, food, delivery
services, chemicals, travel, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals and transport, as presented in Table
1-Interviewee Demographics. All organizations that were mentioned in the study belong to
the private sector and are operating in the area of either business or
business-to-consumer. The sample of participants included eleven men and four women. Two of the
interviewees (respondents #2 and #15) were accompanied by another communication officer
who worked with them in the department and who also participated in the discussion. They
Instrument
The present research made use of an interview guide (appendix) with six categories
that included open questions with several follow-up questions. The interviews began by
informing the interviewees that all the data would be used anonymously and that no names
would be mentioned in the paper. After that, they were asked for their permission to record
the discussion. Participants answered to a few demographic questions concerning their years
of experience, level of education, organization in which they worked and also the position
they held in that organization.
The first part of the interview guide (appendix) concerned the general experience that
communication professionals had in the crisis communication field, such as: the importance
of corporate culture during a crisis (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008; Nutt, 2004), crisis
preparedness activities (Gorney, 1990) and communication between the company and its Table 1
Interviewee Demographics
Respondent Gender Current Job Position Industry
#1 F Public Relations Manager Banking; Telecommunication
#2 M Corporate Communication Director Chemicals
#3 M External Communication & External Relations Manager Oil & Gas
#4 F Senior Communication Consultant Pharmaceuticals
#5 M External Communication Manager Electronics
#6 F Head of Global Internal Communication Transport
#7 M External Communication Manager Delivery Services; Technology
#8 M Corporate Communication Manager Food
#9 M Media Relations Manager Oil & Gas
#10 M Head of Corporate Communication Insurance
#11 M Founding Partner of Communication Consultancy Aviation
#12 M Head of Media Relations Insurance
#13 M Head of Press & Public Affairs Banking
#14 M Head of Public Relations & Public Affairs Electronics; Travel Agency
stakeholders in times of crisis (Holtzhausen & Roberts, 2009; Coombs & Holladay, 2002).
The second part of the interview guide focused the questions on the behavior and strategies
that the organization adopted after its recovery from a crisis situation in order to see if the
organization had a learning mindset (Tucker & Edmonson, 2003; Carmeli & Schaubroeck,
2008). There were also a few questions that triggered the respondents to describe the type of
approach they had when managing crisis situations (Gabrielsson & Seristo & Darling, 2009;
McCray & Gonzalez & Darling, 2011). These questions were meant to identify positive
transformational managers or approaches that are focused on the benefits that a crisis
situation can create for the organization. Lastly, the interviewees were directly asked what
was their opinion regarding the fact that a crisis can also imply advantages for the
organization regarding both its internal (Downing, 2007; James and Wooten, 2005) and
external (James & Wooten, 2005; Penrose, 2000) activity and reputation (James & Wooten,
2005; Seeger & Ulmer, 2002). The interview questions were formulated based on the
previous studies on the subject, which were mentioned earlier in the paper in the theoretical
Data collection
All interviewees have been recruited via the professional website LinkedIn, with a
message stating that the interviewer was a corporate communication master student who was
investigating the benefits of organizational crises and that they were invited to participate in
an interview. They were asked to write back for more details if they were interested to
participate. The conversation with the respondents continued either on LinkedIn or on e-mail
and appointments were made for the interviews. Participants were informed before the Table 2
Interview topics and used references
Interview topic Reference
Topic 1: Corporate Culture Learning is facilitated by a culture focused on learning from failures (Carmeli &
Schaubroek, 2008). It is important that a company encourages employees to report failure in order to prevent problems (Nutt, 2004).
Topic 2: Crisis Preparedness A crisis communication plan should include preparation of key messages, training of the spokesperson and a choice for the most suitable communication channels (Gorney, 1990). Topic 3: Communication
during crisis Proactive communication can trigger positive media coverage during crisis situations (Holtzhausen & Roberberts, 2009). Crisis response strategies should be chosen depending on the type of crisis and the level of responsibility that the organization has (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). Topic 4: Post crisis
organizational behaviour The damage on the organizational reputation can be minimized if organizations have a learning behaviour (Carmeli & Schaubroek, 2008). Learning from failures contributes to solving the imminent problems, but also
investigates the causes that produced the crisis and prevent other similar events from happening again (Tucker & Edmonson, 2003).
Topic 5: Management Style Positive transformational managers are said to use crises to the benefit of their
organizations (McCray & Gonzalez & Darling, 2011). This type of managers have confidence in changes within the organization (Gabrielsson
& Seristo & Darling, 2009).
Topic 6:Perceived Benefits Crisis situations might represent opportunities for the organization's internal stakeholders.
Crises might bring employees together (Downing, 2007). If companies communicate in a proper way with external stakeholders, they will have a
positive perception, which will have a positive effect on the corporate image (Penrose, 2000). During a crisis, many organizational vulnerabilities can be revealed because the companies usually show their weaknesses during such situations (James & Wooten, 2005).
Taking courageous action during crises might have a positive impact for the
organizational reputation (James & Wooten, 2005). Some crises might offer renewal opportunities for organizations (Seeger & Sellnow,
2002).
interviews that the research project was carried out under the conditions of ASCoR research
institute and details about the institute and ethical regulations were offered. The interviewer
especially stressed the fact that the data would be anonymously presented in the paper and
that no names would be used.
The data collection started on November 17, 2014 and ended on December 18, the
same year. Most of the interviews took place at the office of the communication
professionals. One interview took place via the Face Time application and another one on the
phone. The interviews lasted between 30 minutes and one hour.
Analysis
The interviews were transcribed and analyzed based on guidelines of qualitative
research (Bryman, 2012). The first phase of the data analysis was open coding, done by hand
in Microsoft Word. Every line answered by the interviewees was given an appropriate code
that reflected the content.
The second step of the analysis was focused coding. During that stage, the coding was
refined and some assigned codes were renamed after others due to the fact that they were
describing the same concepts. After the focused coding, the following step was finding
relations and similarities between codes and concepts and make categories with the codes that
referred to the same dimensions.
In the last phase of the analysis, a concept indicator model as presented in Figure
1-Concept indicator model, was drawn with the purpose of illustrating the results that emerge
from the data analysis. The relationships between categories were emphasized in the model in
order to reconstruct the data collection and to explain the findings in a better way. During all
the steps of data analysis memos were written in order to keep record of the decisions that
establishing relationships between the formed categories.
Figure 1. Concept indicator model representing the benefits of organizational crises and processes that explain them
Findings
The main findings of the paper are illustrated in the model under the categories
Benefits and Crisis Management Style, presenting the advantages that crises could have for
organizations and also the approach of communication professionals in crisis situations. The
model includes also two other categories Corporate Culture and Crisis Management that
Corporate culture
The first category from the model outlined information related to the corporate culture
that communication professionals have encountered in the crises they talked about. The
dimensions assigned to this category were importance, purpose that the corporate culture of
an organization can have during a crisis situation and also preparedness mindset.
Respondents agreed that a strong corporate culture plays an important role in a crisis
situation, helping the employees trust each other and work better together, in order to solve
the crisis situation. Interviewee #12 mentioned: “if you trust one another, it’s easy to
accomplish things”, suggesting that trusting one another and working together towards
solving the crisis situation is easier and helpful.
Respondent #11 mentioned that ‘people have shared values on which they can rely on
when there is uncertainty in the outside world’, meaning that a strong organizational culture
has strong values, which have the purpose of providing help and guidance in a time of crisis.
When asked about crisis preparedness activities, respondents referred to Issue
Management and Risk Management. In addition, the majority of interviewees mentioned
several times during the interview how important it is to build very good relations with all
stakeholder categories, as this is generally very important, but even more important in a crisis
situation. Therefore, stakeholder management was also considered as being part of the crisis
preparedness activities.
Interviewees indicated that stakeholder relations take time and effort and sometimes
organizations need to establish relations with certain stakeholders even before they start to
activate in the location of those stakeholders: “you really have to be there before you drill”.
Respondent #5 explained that sometimes it might be possible that the interests of companies
the necessity of the organizations to establish a solid relationship with them and collaborate
because that might be of great support in a crisis situation:
I think most of the crises you can prevent by investing in your ecosystem and […]
even if you do not like them and when there is a potential issue you can see it coming
and you can collaborate with them. Even when we do not like their message or their
actions we can be prepared. (Respondent #5)
Crisis Management
The findings related to crisis management were divided into two subcategories since
all interviewees argued that there are two perspectives to manage a crisis situation, which are:
operational and communication.
Operational. Communication professionals mentioned that the operational crisis
management involves a designated team of specialists that manage the incident crisis
response. The crisis response involves activities as “putting out a fire or saving people’s
lives” and solving technical problems. According to the interviewees, the operational team
has to stay in contact with the communication team, but they have very different tasks: “they
should be aware of each other’s activities, so you have liaison officers in both teams to the
other team”.
Communication. Interviewees emphasized that in a crisis situation, there are both a 30
minutes communication rule and a 10 golden seconds rule for a company to prepare the
public statement, otherwise social media will take over. Interviewee #9 argued that “a big
crisis with very good communication is a crisis that one might contain”, thus, external
communication plays a very important role in a crisis situation and it can dictate whether or
not the issue will turn into a crisis, or on the contrary, a potential crisis could be avoided with
Most interviewees perceived the crisis situations that they have experienced merely as
threats than opportunities either because during crisis the organization can barely focus on
other aspects due to the lack of time or uncertainty concerning the crisis situation. Only
respondent #10 said: it is better not to “spoil a good crisis” and take advantage of it.
However, most of the times communication professionals have limited time for solving the
crisis and therefore, they cannot perceive and analyze the crisis as an opportunity as well: “a
crisis happens and you don’t have any agenda around the crisis other than how do we handle
this” (respondent #2).
The majority of respondents indicated that the crisis messages include information
concerning “what is happening, what are you doing and when you think [it] is going to be
solved”. Most communication professionals said that the crisis situation was framed in a
“neutral and honest” way because if organizations “lie, people will see”. Interviewee #10
stressed the importance of the crisis message content by saying that one has to:
Be very careful what you communicate, how you communicate that you are
genuine…not too positive and not too negative…make sure you are authentic and
communicate the facts and only the facts you know you can communicate.
(Respondent #10)
When asked about the crisis response strategies that are usually used by companies,
interviewees explained that it is very important to apologize, to talk about taking corrective
action and also about the causes that produced the crisis situation. Apart from these general
strategies, respondents emphasized that companies should behave more like humans during
crises: “the most important is to be human, it has to be seen, as well”. Respondent #2 added
that when responding to crisis situations, companies should be “on top of [their] values” and
All communication professionals that participated in the present study mentioned that
social media have a significant influence on the way companies act and communicate in crisis
situations. This influence is both positive and negative for organizations, representing both
challenges and opportunities for them. Respondent #1 explained that it is easier for
companies to connect with stakeholders through social media and “it is easier than going on
TV” to offer a crisis statement. In addition, she said that “the media does not catch the CEO
unprepared” like it would have in the past because nowadays, companies can prepare the
CEO’s statement and share the video on social media channels, not depending on traditional
media channels. Moreover, interviewees stated that social media are “a blessing to open up
and to communicate on the things that happen in the world”, but at the same time, “it is also
so open […] that you cannot control it”. Another opportunity posed by social media
especially in times of crisis is the fact that it offers the organizations the chance to respond to
the negative comments and to react to what people are saying about them. On the other hand,
the great challenge that social media bring for companies is the demand for speed and
transparency: “you have to act much quicker, you have to be more transparent, there is not
room to tell parts of the truth because people will find out immediately” (respondent #14).
Crisis Management Style
The category Crisis Management Style has two assigned dimensions, which refer to
the style of management that communication professionals indicated to have in crisis
situations and the qualities that communication professionals should have in order to properly
manage a crisis situation.
Approach. All interviewees, apart from two exceptions mentioned that they were on
the realistic side, down-to-earth side of management for many reasons. First of all,
concerning the perception that the external world has on a company in a crisis situation: “you
have to be very realistic in the sense that you have to accept what people outside your fence
of your company think about you”. In addition, respondent #5 outlined that “in times of crises
you cannot make it better than it is so you need to be realistic, open, down to earth and handle
it proactively when possible”. This indirectly indicates that communication professionals do
not think about benefits when handling a crisis situation. Moreover, one of the
communication consultants (respondent #11) stressed the fact that it is a requirement to have
a critical thinking in a crisis situations because otherwise one might do not be aware of the
actual risk that a problematic situation might pose to the company:
When corporations or boards of management hire us, they want us to be critical and
not too positive because when we are too positive, we might underestimate the risk of
a potential crisis. (Respondent #11)
Another reason for adopting a realistic crisis management style is the fact that the
organization’s credibility depends on the approach with which the crisis is managed, as one
interviewee mentioned:
You have to be realistic and with realistic I mean factual, telling the truth…if you
don’t do that they won’t believe you anymore, so your credibility is at stake. (Respondent
#13)
On the other hand, there were two communication professionals (respondents #3 and
#12) who mentioned having an optimistic approach to solve crisis situations. Respondent #3
indicated that he had a mix of realistic and opportunity seeking approach; He stressed the
importance of being realistic just like the other interviewees added that in crisis situations
there can also be opportunities, although it is very difficult to think about them. He added that
in his organization there is a special group of people who are named scenario thinkers; their
may appear along a crisis situation: “you have to try to bring people into that corner: Think
positive.” Interviewee #12 expressed that he was on the opportunity seeking side and that his
team was more on the realistic side. He explained that having both approaches in a crisis
situation insures a balance for the team:
If everybody is too realistic or too gloomy and depressed […] then you won’t get any
further. And if people are too optimistic: -Oh, well, we’re going to fix it, we’ll going
to do it-…think of this and think of that, the balance is very important. (Respondent
#12)
Crisis Management Qualities. When asked about their approach to manage crisis
situations, communication professionals also talked about how people in this field should act
in these problematic situations. First of all, communication specialists indicated that a crisis
situation is characterized by stress and pressure to solve the problems that appear. Moreover,
communication professionals emphasized that in a crisis situation one must be calm, flexible,
“adaptive to changes, situation and people” and also “keep an eye on the bigger picture” in
order to take the right decision for the company. Interviewees also added that one should be
open, transparent and honest “for managing a crisis well”. In addition, crisis situations require
courage, especially from managers, who must take the best decisions for the companies: “in a
crisis a bad decision is better than no decision”. Respondent #9 argued that communication
managers “will start taking better decisions because they know they have to decide…you
cannot wait with decisions”.
Benefits of organizational crises
When directly asked about the benefits that an organizational crisis can have on the
company, interviewees talked about internal, external, reputational benefits and also renewal
communication professionals stated that most of them are indirect because it is “more by luck
than design” (respondent #2). Thus, they are not planned or thought about because in a crisis
situation the time is limited and the main objective is to solve problem in order to protect the
organizational reputation. Respondent #2 specifically mentioned that in crisis situations,
communication professionals do not have anything else in mind except for minimizing the
damage on both business and reputation: “you don’t go into crises saying -what else could I
do during this crisis”. The responses showed that the urgency to solve the problems that
endanger the company take all the time, effort and attention of communication professionals.
Thus, in a time of crisis there are no time or resources left for communication specialists to
think also about the advantages that the crisis might bring along. Respondent #1 emphasized
this by arguing that in a crisis, “there is a lot to win but […] that is not what you think during
crisis”.
Internal Benefits. The internal benefits that companies usually have due to a crisis
situation, are related to Operational Improvements, Communication Improvements and
Learning.
The benefits that most interviewees mentioned first were the improvements that the
company made in its internal activity, involving: procedures, rules and operations.
Interviewee #15 explained that after a crisis situation, the company would focus on improving
the internal procedures related to the crisis and would actually be even stricter than the
policies demand regarding its operations: “They will check more often and they will dig more
into the procedure, maybe more thoroughly than normal regulations require”.
Most interviewees said that a crisis situation could create trust, cohesion and
collaboration between employees. One communication professional (respondent #2)
emphasized that in a crisis there is a certain aspect that unites the employees: “there’s an
added that employees become more united during crisis because they “work together on
something […] very long hours, no stops” and “that creates certain ties.” In addition, the
same communication professional said that “a crisis situation makes a bond…a team bond
[…]” between “the people who have dealt with it and have a common history” because they
remember how it was when they experienced the crisis situation.
Moreover, a communication professional working in the oil and gas industry
(respondent #3) mentioned that a crisis could “make people really start working very hard and
very dedicated for the company to solve the issue, to solve the crisis”, strengthening the team
spirit. There are also cases when this benefit depends on the strength of the crisis team, as
interviewee #9 argued: “if the crisis team is strong, performing well and looking at the
reputation and incident response, then people will start talking about “we”. In this case,
employees would identify themselves with the company and possibly show support for it in
the external world. As interviewee #4 mentioned, in crisis situations, “the key is to inspire
[employees] and to have with them an emotional connection to get closer to them”. Doing
that would create some attachment between them and the company, which is very important
because as all communication professionals stressed, employees are the organizations’
ambassadors.
Study participants indicated that if a crisis situation is well handled and the company
overcomes the critical situation, the employees could feel “pride of the company” because
they work there. Respondent #2 offered an example in which a crisis was handled very well,
in an honest, transparent way and the company recovered very quickly. He explained that this
particular crisis had a positive impact on the employees:
When they saw the success of this in the media and people were commenting, it
changed the culture internally. People felt proud to be open and honest. (Respondent
Interviewee #12 also mentioned a case when employees felt proud of the way the
company handled the crisis situation: “people are proud that we overcame the crisis […] that
we were the first company to solve this problem”. He also added that despite the difficult
situation that the company experienced, it became stronger after the crisis: “we didn’t need
any external help…we paid a lot of money to the customers, but we came out stronger”. This
represents a very important indirect benefit that a crisis situation can have on the company.
Interviewees #10 and #14 said that the main benefit that a crisis brought to their
companies was the fact that the situation made clear the way that staff was organized to work.
For instance, the crisis determined who was responsible for what because before that “the
organization had difficulties to act quickly due to the fact that they were working a bit in
silos”. One communication professional (respondent #2) mentioned that a crisis situation
could also favor changes internally because “everybody is now in that framework”. Thus, it
would be easier to take internal decisions regarding staff during crisis because it is a good
context: “I would find it easier to do change management”, as the interviewee expressed.
The improvement of employee behavior was also considered an internal benefit that
crises could bring to companies. Respondent #8 stressed the fact that “the behavior of people
sometimes has to change” and to be improved in order to avoid future potential crises.
One communication manager working in the transport industry (respondent #6)
mentioned that a crisis situation helped her to demonstrate the added value that internal
communication had in the company where she worked. She explained that the internal
communication department in that organization was underestimated and thus, it was not seen
as a strategy partner. Her department managed a crisis that involved change among
employees; the crisis was successfully handled and the board members started to offer more
much work to do in order to make people from other departments understand how important
internal communication was but at least she managed to offer them a good example:
It’s better now, I’ve been here for four years and it was really a battle to sit at the
decision table...because in the past they didn’t invite me at the meetings…it was like
-we will tell you when -we have something to say or when -we have something to put on
intranet. (Respondent #6)
Another internal benefit that a crisis can have for companies is analyzing the internal
communication and way of informing staff and then improving these processes so that the
company can operate better both in general and also in case of a future crisis situation, as
respondent #10 outlined:
Did I have the right tone to my staff. […] how were [they] informed, were [they]
informed in the right way, what was the impact, would it have been easier to inform in
a different way. (Respondent #10)
Communication professionals also mentioned crisis planning and training when asked
about the internal benefits that crises can pose to organizations. Interviewee #10 said that the
necessity of crisis planning and training becomes more prominent after companies experience
crisis situations: “Once you have gone through crises it becomes more and more apparent that
you have to train for crisis considerations.”
Learning. All respondents attributed a great significance to the process of learning
from crisis situations. They stressed that the organizations where they worked were focused
on learning from crises that they experienced. One communication professional (respondent
#13) mentioned that one of the core values of the company where he worked was constant
learning: “the organization is focused on learning from its mistakes. We learn every day and
Respondent #9 indicated that he considers improved preparation as a crisis benefit for
the company; at the same time, he asserted that organizations could learn how to handle crises
better “in a way that the impact is controllable or minimized”. That is because companies
cannot learn how to prevent crises, since as he mentioned, “we are humans, so things will go
wrong always”. Respondent #15 said that based on what happened during the crisis,
employees at the local plant, where the problem appeared, would be more cautious “because
they are more prepared”.
Furthermore, interviewees asserted the importance of experience that companies could
benefit from only by undergoing a crisis situation, since they would know what happens, and
they would also be aware of the stakeholders’ reactions. As respondent #11 argued:
In the end you will be sadder and wiser, though the bad thing is that you’re sadder, but
the good thing is that you’re wiser. It’s like in life, you need experiences that…the
experiences that you have in your life will not all be as positive as you would like
them to be, but you can also learn from challenging experiences and go to the next
level. (Respondent #11)
Awareness represents another internal benefit that crises can bring to organizations.
Interviewee #8 indicated that “the awareness of the situation is very important, that people
recognize it”. Respondent #1 mentioned that a crisis situation “makes people more alert”,
which can be considered an internal benefit because it essential that all employees are alert
concerning potential problems and not only the ones in charge of issue monitoring.
Respondents argued that there are certain latent problems that organizations have and which
are visible only in crisis situations, along the other problems. They mentioned that being
aware of such problems is very important, but however, these issues come across only in a
problematic situation: “after a crisis situation, things can come up that did not come before”
crisis was a revelator because “it really reveals all the shortcomings or what does not function
within a company”.
Furthermore, communication professionals explained that after experiencing a crisis,
companies usually carry out investigations in order to discover the causes and factors that
produced the problematic event. According to the interviewees, these investigations are later
discussed with employees and also used to learn and “not do the same mistakes again”. One
communication manager #10 emphasized that it is very important that companies learn about
the following aspects when it comes to a crisis situation: “what caused the crisis, what were
the effects, how did you deal with the crisis”.
External. Communication professionals also talked about crisis benefits from an
external perspective, referring to the improvements that took place in the communication with
external stakeholders and also to stakeholder perceptions towards the company after the
crisis.
Improvements in external communication. One communication manager
(respondent#3) talked about a crisis that was a “wake up call”, which helped the company
realize that improvements were needed concerning the communication with all external
stakeholders: “we learned a lot how to rearrange or reorganize our crisis communications or
crisis management”. The interviewee added that the crisis situation that the company
experienced made them understand the important role that external communication and
stakeholder relations have both in general and during crisis. After the crisis, communication
and external relations were included in the strategy planning, being valued in a proper way: “I
think that’s one of the big changes that brought communications and external relations
together at a better place at the table, where the decisions are made.”
Apart from the improvements made concerning the external communication,
crisis and explain to the public that they are well prepared and that they will do what is
necessary to protect their employees. The respondent mentioned that this was how the local
team from her company acted in a crisis situation:
It’s also important to take the opportunity of this attention to say […] you know that
we have this and this in place and we do everything in order to expose in the less
possible way our employees and we have this and this internal rule. (Respondent #15)
Stakeholder perception. Interviewees argued that if companies handled a crisis
situation in a proper manner, stakeholders would have a positive perception towards them.
One of the respondents indicated that handling a crisis very well could bring credibility to
companies in the eyes of external stakeholders. Explaining a crisis situation in which a bank
institution was involved, the communication professional #9 said:
If you handle your crises very well […] you can use some credibility. If they had
immediately responded, the customers would have been -okay, that’s a responsible,
that’s a fine bank. (Respondent #9)
Interviewee #12 added that the shareholders could also understand the efforts that the
company made to overcome the crisis and appreciate their work because “they had a very
thorough knowledge of [the] company”. In contrast, respondent #13 said that if a crisis is well
handled, it would not become “afterwards a big issue in the external world” because external
stakeholders would say: “Okay, they did well” or ”Okay, that’s good, that’s how it should be
done”. This suggests the fact that positive news about organizations are not so tackled by
journalists as negative news because the media tends to have more interest in the latter.
Reputational. When asked about benefits that crises can have on the organizational
reputation, interviewees explained that handled well, crises can bring positive effects to the
image and reputation of the company. According to the communication professionals that
be able to communicate about these situations quite well. If the two conditions are met, the
company could “gain trust and people will be more understanding the next time”.
Interviewees argued that the reputational benefits can be seen both in the short and long term,
depending also on the impact that the crisis had on the organization. Respondent #7
mentioned that “If the company takes responsibility and takes action to solve it, […] it can be
credited for it […] right away”.
Two interviewees offered examples of crises that they experienced and which
positively affected the reputation of companies. The first one, respondent #2 said that the
company where he worked did not have a very impressive reputation, but the way that a crisis
was managed, changed completely the company’s reputation, giving it a more human
approach:
[the organization] was considered very old, very conservative, very slow, very legal
and very reactionary and by overnight, it was saying: -We had a terrible accident, our
CEO is on the site, we’ll support the families, we’ll keep you updated-It made [the
company] more human. (Respondent #2)
The second crisis case involved a technology company that experienced a product
recall. Interviewee #14 argued that the way the recall was handled, brought so many benefits
for the organization: “the recall was handled so well that in the end it was positioned as much
better that the brand and the reputation of the company went up and even the sales of the TV
went up.” The respondent added that “the crisis was handled so well, it did not harm the
company, but instead the company benefitted from it”. In his opinion, being honest and
telling the entire story would positively influence the organizational reputation.
Opportunity. Seven communication professionals that participated in the current study
argued that companies need a crisis every now and then. That is because “it makes clear
it is the same for both people and organizations: “what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger
and every organization needs crises from time to time”. Asked whether they believed that a
crisis situation could also bring opportunities for a company, interviewees responded with an
affirmative answer. Respondent #13 said that a huge crisis can represent an opportunity to set
aside the negative reputation and to start again; however, the communication professional
insisted that: “in managing reputation, […] you only get one chance and you have to prove
then forward that you are really working on your reputation”. He further explained that
organizations are allowed to make mistakes, but after a crisis, they have to work on a positive
reputation. That implies from the organizations to act quick, transparent and honest. As the
communication professional explained, if organizations experienced a crisis situation and
they also handled it in a very unsuitable manner, they would have only one chance to start
again and they can no longer do mistakes, they “really have to prove that [they are]
responsible and capable of starting over”. Interviewee #11 offered a similar answer to this
question, motivating his response with the fact that “the society changes, people change, the
competition changes, everything changes” and building a new reputation after a crisis is
possible.
On the other hand, communication professional #10 mentioned that a company could
not start with a brand new reputation because according to him, a crisis “will always be part
of [the] reputation”. He also added that large companies that activate nowadays are still
associated with their past crises because such events cannot be erased from the experience of
the company, since probably it affected the business and reputation.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to gain insight into how communication
study was to investigate whether organizations have an opportunity seeking mindset and
whether they are focused on learning from their negative experiences. Although crises are
problematic situations that endanger the activity and reputation of organizations, they can
also have benefits of which companies can take advantage.
The findings indicate that communication professionals perceive crisis benefits from
an internal, external and reputational perspective and additionally, renewal opportunities.
Internal benefits referred to improvements in the operational and internal communication
department and also to learning from mistakes. External crisis benefits were related to
improvements made by organizations concerning the communication and relations with
external stakeholders and also to the perception of stakeholders regarding the organization.
Lastly, reputational benefits were associated with organizational credibility and a positive
influence on the organizational reputation; renewal opportunities were also identified for
organizations as the possibility of building an entire new positive reputation after a serious
crisis. Communication professionals attributed very much importance both to corporate
culture and crisis management when discussing the benefits that crises can have for
organizations. Such benefits could only be achieved whether the organization had a very
strong corporate culture, with a learning mindset and also able to properly manage the crisis
situation.
Communication professionals insisted that corporate culture plays a very important
role in a crisis and helps the organization to overcome the situation because employees work
closely together to solve the problem. They also argued that a strong, open culture, with a
learning mindset helps the company to recover faster from the crisis and also be able to not
repeat the same mistakes. The finding was in line with what Carmeli and Schaubroek (2008)
discussed about corporate culture: that it is crucially for an organization to have a culture
also complement the study of Nutt (2004), who argued the importance of having an open
culture in the company, in which employees are encouraged to report failures.
The results indicated that in the opinion of communication professionals a
well-managed crisis refers to solving the problem from both an operational point of view, related
to technical procedures, and also from a communication point of view, related to how the
organization exposes the crisis externally. Communication professionals argued that
organizations should take responsibility in crisis situations, apologize to the involved
stakeholders and take corrective action in order to prevent it from happening again. They also
emphasized the importance of being honest, transparent and acting human, expressing
empathy. In addition, it is very important that organizations frame the situation in a factual
and neutral way to stakeholders. The findings complement the studies of Holtzhausen and
Roberts (2009) and Coombs and Holladay (2002), who argued that proactively
communicating during crises is beneficial for the organizational reputation and also that the
crisis response strategy must be carefully chosen in order to be efficient and help in solving
the situation.
Communication professionals stressed the fact that the benefits derived from a crisis
concern more the internal activity of the organization than from the other perspectives. That
is because internal benefits are indirect and not planned. They appear after the crisis situation
has passed and the organization starts to recover and return to its normal activity. After the
crisis, companies perform investigations to discover the causes and factors that produced the
crisis. Later, these investigations are used to plan and decide what improvements need to be
made both from an operational and from an internal communication point of view. Moreover,
the investigations are also used to acknowledge and learn not to do the same mistakes again
The findings showed that communication professionals perceived the corporate
culture as having a very strong effect on internal crisis benefits. That is because an open
culture focused on learning facilitates the change and improvements and also learning in the
organization. Communication professionals argued that the changes made on procedures
might be a very positive aspect since the quality of the organizational activity might be
improved. This is in line with the study of Ulmer, Sellnow and Seeger (2007), who argued
that organizations could introduce a more advanced technology or develop better products to
prevent future problems. The very difficult and stressful situations created by crises also have
the role to create trust between employees in organizations, unite them and facilitate a good
collaboration between them. Downing (2007) also indicated that crises could have benefits
concerning the companies’ the internal stakeholders, facilitating a better relation between
management and employees and uniting them as a “family” against a common enemy.
Crisis management was also considered an important factor regarding internal benefits
because a properly handled crisis can have many positive effects on employees.
Communication professionals argued that employees might identify with the organization and
show support for it in the external world if they see that the company has a good approach for
managing the crisis situation. Moreover, the same condition might positively change the
attitude of employees towards the organization and they might feel proud of their workplace.
These findings could be considered new implications, since there were no previous studies in
line with them.
Another internal benefit that communication professionals identified was the fact that
crisis situations represent a proper context to promote change in the company concerning
staff just because the framework offers the possibility to introduce change. James and Wooten
(2005) discussed that managers could take advantage of crisis situations to promote change in
