RUNNING TITLE: PROACTIVE CRISIS COMMUNICATION

Running head: PROACTIVE CRISIS COMMUNICATION
Beyond Maximum Disclosure, Minimum Delay:
Military Public Affairs Practitioners on Proactive Crisis Communication
Strategies
Rob Ivie
_________________________
Emma Krouser
_________________________
Shelly Stellwagen
_________________________
Department of Defense Communication Course
Class 2000-D
July 27, 2000 Abstract
This project extends previous research on public affairs crisis
communication (Hunter, Berry, Goodrich-Hinton, & Lincicome, 2000), by
combining crisis communication theory and actual military public affairs
practices. The 12 strategies of the Hunter, et al. (2000) typology were
vetted to a cross section of Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marine
public affairs professionals to determine which have the most utility in
military crisis communication situations. A online survey including
quantitative, qualitative and Likert scale questions was given to a sample
of military public affairs practitioners to gather data about which
strategies they have used, the perceived effectiveness of the strategy,
tactics employed in support of the strategy and which strategies have
application for future use in crisis communication situations. Forty-nine
respondents, officer, enlisted and civilian from all components and
branches of the service rated message, responsiveness, openness and release
coordination strategies as the most efficacious while the legal
implications: cultural strategy was of little value for them. More
research is needed to determine which strategies fit best with specific
crises and to template specific tactics to develop a proactive crisis
communication tool kit for military public affairs.
Beyond Maximum Disclosure, Minimum Delay:
Military Public Affairs Practitioners on Proactive Crisis Communication
Strategies
"When written in Chinese the word 'crisis' is composed of two
characters - one represents danger and the other represents
opportunity."
- John F. Kennedy, Address, April 12, 1959
This project extends previous research on crisis communication and
military public affairs (Hunter, Berry, Goodrich-Hinton, & Lincicome, 2000)
by attempting to translate crisis communication theory into military public
affairs practices. The 12 strategies of the Hunter, et al. (2000) typology
were vetted to a cross section of Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and
Marine public affairs professionals to determine which are most efficacious
in military crisis communication situations
A crisis can be defined as a major unpredictable event that has
potentially negative or positive results (Barton, 1993). The event and its
aftermath may significantly damage an organization and its employees,
products, services, financial condition, and reputation.
Compared to most civilian institutions, the U.S. military generally
enjoys a consistent record of high trust with the public. In a recent
public opinion poll (Harris, 1999), 54 percent of respondents said they
have "great confidence" in the people in charge of running the military,
this is a 10 percent increase over 1998. This figure was the second
highest level ever for the military over the 33-year history of the poll.
When crises occur in the military, they almost always make the news
because the taxpayers are stakeholders in the organization and American
lives may be involved (Cutlip, 1971). This presents unique challenge to
military public affairs practitioners. According to Meyer (1998):
"The principles learned at DINFOS: "Security, Accuracy, Policy,
and Propriety" and "Maximum Disclosure with Minimum Delay" (along with
a service-oriented attitude and a proactive approach), proved a base-
line of tools needed to get the job done in dealing with crisis
communications."
With more complex military missions and the explosion of news-
gathering operations, it will become increasingly more important that
military public affairs practitioners move beyond the old paradigm and
think strategically in order to preserve the trust and confidence of the
American public in the new millennium. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this research is to determine whether the Hunter, et
al. (2000) typology of proactive crisis communication can be validated by
examining the best practice of military public affairs professionals. In
doing so, the research takes another step on the journey toward developing
a proactive crisis communication toolkit to guide the thinking of military
public affairs professionals in developing and executing crisis
communications plans successfully. Review of Literature Hunter, et al. (2000), conducted a systematic analysis of extant
literature on crisis communication strategies, both in the civilian and
military environment to build a typology of effective crisis communication
for Department of Defense (DoD) public affairs professionals. They used
O'Connor's (1987) social-political theory to examine the advantage of a
proactive crisis communications plan over the more commonly used reactive
response to crisis. The resulting proactive crisis communication typology
identifies 12 key strategies to include or omit from an effective public
affairs crisis communication plan depending upon the crisis at hand (see
Appendix A).
There are several communication typologies used by corporations after
a crisis occurs. Since crisis situations often result in reduction of an
individual's or an organization's reputation, organizations are just as
eager to repair that damage as are individuals (Benoit & Brinson, 1994).
Strategies used in reputation restoration include; denial, evasion,
perceived offensiveness reduction, mortification, and correction. Denial
is the act of denying accusations about whatever incident caused the crisis
or shifting the blame for it outside the organization. This shifting of
blame is not quite the same as evasion. In evasion, the organization does
not move blame to another, but claims circumstances out of their control
led to the crisis. A third strategy for rebuilding a reputation is to
reduce the perceived offensiveness of the act. The organization can
actually admit responsibility and try asking for forgiveness. This is
known as mortification. The final strategy is correction, which also
includes admitting responsibility, with a vow to correct the situation.
Coombs (1999) adds another level to these strategies called "attack the
attacker", and places it before denial. This strategy calls for turning
denial into threats (such as legal action) against those who claim a crisis
exists.
Fearn-Banks (1996) notes several characteristics of organizations
that promote swift recovery from a crisis including; a good, positive
relationship with the public to include media, placing importance on good
public relations in and outside of the organization, and preplanning for
crises. Preplanning is the most important characteristic, since
organizations must be aware that crisis situations can occur and should
possibly have a list of crises that can affect the organization. This list
can prioritize the planning of crisis management, with the added benefit of
potentially reducing the likelihood of some types of crises.
People do not have time to interpret complicated plans during a
crisis, so a carefully developed crisis communications plan is the best
substitute for a fully functioning brain (Fearn-Banks, 1996).
Communication plans should be well organized, flexible guides, as small and
easily read as possible. Each plan needs to be set up for a specific
situation and must be practiced before any actual crisis.
An important aspect of a good proactive crisis communication plan is
to have key sets of information, such as safety records, quality control
reports, and bios on key personnel available for the media (Fearn-Banks,
1996). Media personnel will ask for these types of information and it is
better for the organization to be prepared and provide it, possibly even
before it is requested. Fink (1986) suggests this type of information
should even be assembled into background kits that can be physically
distributed to the media in crisis situations. Organizations must be ready
with the most current information possible to prevent the media from giving
the impression the organization does not know what it is doing. By having
this information ready, it frees the spokesperson to deal with the moment-
by-moment changes in the situation, creating a more proactive environment.
This information allows an organization to prepare the messages that will
be used in crisis communication and helps a spokesperson answer questions
from the media and present positive organizational messages, being
proactive instead of reactive (Dougherty, 1992).
The person who deals with the media must be carefully selected, since
the public sees this spokesperson as the organization (Fearn-Banks, 1996).
The spokesperson can change based on the crisis situation, but the head of
the organization should be one of the first choices. As Dougherty (1992)
says, the public does not remember the logical facts about an organization,
rather "perceptions and emotions."
Sometimes it is advantageous to have multiple spokespersons. Coombs
(1999) posits the organization should speak with one voice, not necessarily
one person, a trained team needs to work together to collectively speak for
the organization. Whether an individual or part of a team,