In relation to issues management and crisis communications what is a positive aspect of social media

Written as a group project for University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism’s Master’s degree program in Communications Management. The group included:

Amanda L. Anderson

Carolyn S. Bentley

James J. Proulx

Kimberly A. Whitney

Crisis situations are some of the most challenging times for organizations and for their stakeholders — an organization’s reputation, market share, or even its very existence can be put at risk from a crisis situation (Fearn-Banks, 2009). It is a key role for communications leaders in an organization to lead the effort to respond in the most appropriate fashion for the situation (Coombs, 2006). The failure to communicate properly in a crisis situation can allow a crisis to fester and worsen over time (Coombs, 2007), or it even can create a new crisis of its own (Williams-Treadaway, 1992).

With all that is at stake at times of crisis, organizations and scholars have long studied and refined crisis communications theory and practice, drawing on scholarship and case study to create and enact more effective strategies and tactics for communicating effectively (Coombs, 2006).

At the same time that crisis communications theory and practice have been studied and refined, the rise of the online world has greatly changed the communications landscape (Ihator, 2001). From the birth of the World Wide Web in 1990 (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008) to the rise and spread of email tools (Turner, Qvarfordt, Biehl, Golovchinsky, & Back, 2010) to the exponential growth of the World Wide Web, the way people, news outlets, and organizations communicate have changed dramatically. According to a Pew Research (2014a) study, 82 percent of Americans receive news via computer. With this change has come the explosion of material available on the Web, from “traditional” news sources such as newspapers, television, and radio networks, etc., expanding their Web presence (Pew Research, 2014a), to corporate websites and blogs (Waters, Ghosh, Griggs, & Searson, 2014) to the growth of news aggregators such as Yahoo, BuzzFeed, and Google (Benton, 2012).

In the past decade, perhaps the most visible and discussed online growth has been in the area of social media (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008). Social media tools ranging from Facebook to Twitter to Instagram and on have grown exponentially — 64 percent of Americans are on Facebook (Pew Research, 2014b), roughly half are on YouTube (Pew Research, 2014b). As these tools have grown in usage, so too have they grown as major sources of news for Americans (Pew Research, 2014b) and people around the world (Statista, 2015).

As private citizens’ presence on social media has grown, so too have organizations, from non-profits (Kang & Norton, 2004) to government entities (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006) to major corporations (Callison, 2004). These organizations are using these new tools to communicate a wide variety of information to a multitude of different stakeholders, including consumers (Palou, 2003), investors (Geerings, Bollen & Hassink, 2003), communities (Saxton & Guo, 2014), employees (Welch, 2012), media (Callison, 2004) and more. Organizations use these tools to promote and sell products (Pavlou, 2003), to share news (Callison, 2004), and to share opinions on the issues of the day (Coombs & Holladay, 2012).

With so many participating in the world of social media, it is logical that academics and organizations might see social media as a key tool for crisis communications (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008). In fact, organizations that fail to do so effectively can face heavy criticism from a wide variety of audiences (Arthur W. Page Society, 2014). These tools can be used by organizations in a wide variety of ways, from monitoring news and discussion on the crisis (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008) to passing out key information to affected stakeholders (Lindsay, 2011) to getting emergency responders to people in danger (Lindsay, 2011).

This paper looks to examine how organizations have and are responding at times of crisis. It will examine what crises are for organizations and their effects; how crisis communications practice has evolved in practice and in theory; the growth of social media; then finally, how organizations are using social media as a tool in their crisis communications toolkit.

By examining these elements, this paper intends to provide a logical framework for organizations looking to make use of social media in their crisis planning. Doing so will help them be ahead of the conversation at crisis time, provide a leading voice to their key stakeholders, and be seen as engaged and involved at a time where all aspects of organizational reputation are at stake.

What is a crisis?

A crisis in an organization is one of the most significant influences on an organization because it threatens the very existence of the organization itself (Milburn, Schuler & Watman, 1983). Organizational crises affect the organization and its members as well as interdependent organizations such as suppliers of resources, customers and clients (Milburn et al, 1983). Literature has been established that discusses the threats crisis presents for organizations, but what is a crisis for an organization?

The definitions of organizational crises are vast and are often situational (Milburn et al, 1983). Although many definitions exist, Milburn et al (1983) suggest that there are similarities amongst the many definitions that can be summarized into a single, all encompassing definition. Selye’s (1956) notion of stress, which describes stressful events occurring during both positive and negative events, is used in Hall and Mansfield’s (1971) definition of crisis as any stress (crisis) as a result of a demand leveraged on an organization (Smart, 1978). Similarly, Herman (1972) defines crisis as a situation that causes high levels of stress due to three factors: (1) minimal time for reaction to the situation, (2) surprised decision makers, and (3) threat to the strategic goals of an organization. Lippitt and Schmidt (1972), in contrast, define a crisis as an event that must surprise the organization; other literature explains that there are different types of crises in which some are both predictable and unpredictable (Lippitt & Schmidt, 1967; Milburn, 1972). Billings, Milburn and Schallmann (1980) describe a crisis as a time-sensitive event that will involve damages to an organization.

Conversely, others do not believe that a time constraint is a requirement in a definition for an organizational crisis (Dunbar & Goldberg, 1978; Lippitt & Schmidt, 1967). However, a time constraint can increase the level of pressure from a crisis (Billings et al, 1980). Milburn et al (1983) define an organizational crisis as an

Opportunity for the organization which either prevents the organization from attaining its goals or actually removes or reduces an organization’s ability to attain its goals, that the organization seeks to resolve because the outcomes at stake are important and the resolution strategy is uncertain.

What makes this definition different from the other literature is that it includes both the subjective and objective view of a crisis (Milburn et al, 1983).

Though many different definitions exist in the literature for organizational crisis, there are a few common themes among the varying definitions that are important to note (Milburn et al, 1983): First, a crisis in an organization has a tendency to create a crisis for individuals, known as stress (Hall & Mansfield, 1971; Hermann, 1972; Milburn, 1972). Second, crisis can elicit both positive and negative reactions (Smart, Thompson & Vertinsky, 1978) and these reactions represent a possibility for a tangible gain or loss for the organization (Billings et al., 1980). Third, crises can be both predictable (Lippitt & Schmidt, 1967; Whetten, 1979) and unpredictable (Hermann, 1972; Billings et al., 1980). Finally, all crises require a resolution (Billings et al., 1980).

To define an organizational crisis, it is also critical to define and understand the precursors to a crisis (Milburn et al, 1983). There are two types of precursors to a crisis; external factors or environment and internal (Milburn et al, 1983). External factors include competitors, suppliers, customers, regulatory agencies, senior executives, natural disasters and the public (Dunbar & Goldberg, 1978; Galbraith, 1977; Milburn et al, 1983; Thompson, 1967; Whetten, 1979). Internal factors include experience; demographics of organization, such as culture, size, location and product type; and characteristics of executive leadership and attributes (Milburn et al, 1983). Personalities, internal structure of a company and level of required skill and knowledge of executive leadership contribute to internal risk factors for organizational crises (Milburn et al, 1983; Smart & Stanbury, 1978; Starbuck, Greve & Hedberg, 1978). Attributes of internal factors of an organization include characteristics of the managerial system such as stability, diversity, structural flexibility and degrees of centralization (Milburn et al, 1983).

Stakeholders and crisis

Identifying and communicating to stakeholders is a key part of crisis and reputation management (Coombs, 2007). Indeed, Coombs and Holladay (2011) declare that “a reputation is how stakeholders perceive an organization. A more precise definition of reputation is the aggregate evaluation that stakeholders make about how well an organization is meeting stakeholder expectations based on past behaviors (Fombrun & van Riel, 2004; Reinchart, 2003; Wartick, 1992).”

Stakeholder theory instructs on this topic (Coombs, 2007). The stakeholder model was developed as a strategic management tool to evaluate and consider those who have a stake, or interest, in the organization’s goals, actions, and performance (Xu & Li, 2012; Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984, 1999; Jones & Wicks, 1999). A stakeholder is any individual or group, such as customers or shareholders, that is invested in the reputation of an organization due to its ability to affect or be affected by the organization itself (Agle, Mitchell & Sonnenfeld, 1999; Bryson, 2004; Coombs, 2007). Clarkson (1994) provides a much narrower definition, saying that a stakeholder must have something at risk, whether through their voluntary investment in or labor for a firm, or by being involuntarily put at risk by the firm.

The groups most frequently identified as stakeholders include shareholders, customers, employees, community, and government (Xu & Li, 2012). The media and sometimes special interest or activist groups can be included in pressure groups, another type of stakeholder that might not have a direct relationship with the organization, but can serve to monitor for the company’s good deeds and/or wrongdoings (Fassin, 2009; Frooman & Murrell, 2005; Philips, Freeman, & Wicks, 2003; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003; Xu & Li, 2012).

An organization’s actions affect more than just their shareholders, or their financial obligations (Freeman, 1984), therefore, stakeholder theory also takes into account, defines, and illuminates the organization’s morals and values, which crosses into corporate social responsibility (Coombs & Holladay, 2011). Stakeholder theory informs corporate social responsibility theory (Coombs & Holladay, 2011); however, the theory is more interested in defining the individuals and groups involved, determining how they need to be served and addressed, and which interests are most important to consider and balance as organizational decisions are made (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997).

In addition to identifying stakeholders in the crisis-planning process, organizations need to understand how their actions affect the stakeholders’ interests, and how best to reach them (Ulmer, 2001). The type of crisis determines who is and who is not a stakeholder (Mitchell et al, 1997), or specifically, whose interests have been put at risk by the organization (Clarkson, 1994). Stakeholder groups can be in conflict with each other — environmental protection groups versus employees whose job security can be threatened by environmental regulations (Coombs & Holladay, 2011).

Organizations develop reputations among their stakeholder groups from perceptions of the organization, direct interactions, word-of-mouth and news media, to include social media (Fombrum & Van Riel, 2004). Some scholars say stakeholders are most likely to support an organization when they identify with the organization, therefore it is imperative that organizations communicate these areas of overlapping interests and values to ensure the most positive outcome (Ulmer, 2001; Coombs & Holladay, 2011), and the earlier the better, ideally before a crisis ever happens (Ulmer, 2001). Key messages that stakeholders need to hear and that can be broadcast widely include any communication that helps the stakeholder identify with the organization (Coombs & Holladay, 2011).

Sedereviciute and Valentini (2011) noted that different organizational stakeholders do not affect the company in the same way; rather, each offer something different to the company, and each respond to the company differently Thus, social media communication to different stakeholders will be and should be different, and likely be based on the amount of influence of the stakeholder group, the problem at hand, and the extent that the problem is merited by truth (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). In addition, at different times, different stakeholder groups need to be passively followed and/or actively pursued (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011).

Communicating in crisis

Once a crisis does commence, though, Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) is a framework that managers can utilize to protect the reputation of their organization (Coombs, 2007). When a crisis occurs there are several immediate requirements for the organization to set the conditions for stakeholders to utilize SCCT (Coombs, 2007). These include the physical and physiological wellbeing of stakeholders (Coombs, 2007). The first is ensuring physical safety of stakeholders (Coombs, 2007). While organizations have an interest in protecting their reputation during a crisis, they also have a responsibility to protect their stakeholders from harm as well (Coombs, 2007). Examples for when an organization must inform its stakeholder of a crisis include a product recall or a business challenge that will affect sales (Coombs, 2007). Organizations must also be prepared to provide information to stakeholders during the crisis (Sturges, 1994), as crises create stressful situations that require information flow (Sellnow, Ulmer & Snider, 1998). The final initial requirement is for the organization to express concern over the crisis, which is expected by stakeholders (Coombs, 2007; Fuchs-Burnett, 2002; Patel and Reinsch, 2003). Once these initial conditions are set, the organization is able to address organizational concerns and assets involved in the crisis.

Protecting stakeholders from harm provides additional benefit by enhancing the organization’s reputation (Veil, Buehner & Palenchar, 2011). SCCT protects against reputational threats through three steps: The first is initial crisis responsibility (Coombs, 2007). As the name suggests, initial crisis responsibility is determined through an evaluation of how involved stakeholder groups are with the crisis and the level of their responsibility for the crisis (Coombs, 2007). The second is the crisis history and relational reputation of the organization (Coombs, 2007) — does the organization have a history of similar crisis? If so, how have these crises affected its reputation? If an organization has a poor history of responding to crises and interacting with stakeholders, then the potential for reputational threat is increased (Coombs, 2007). The final elements of SCCT are the strategies utilized to respond to crises (Coombs, 2007): Deny, diminish and rebuild (Coombs, 2007).

Each of these strategies is utilized when communicating during times of crisis (Coombs, 2007). The “deny” strategy is used to ensure no reputational harm is done to the organization if the organization denies any involvement or participation with the crisis (Coombs, 2007). Similarly, the “diminish” strategy is utilized to lessen the connection between the crisis and the organization and to assure stakeholders that the crisis is not as serious as it may seem (Coombs, 2007). Finally, the “rebuild” strategy allows an organization to recover from a declining reputation by focusing on a positive aspect instead of the crisis itself (Coombs, 2007).

Coombs and Holladay (2011) proposed that, to protect its reputation, an organization in crisis consider taking responsibility for its actions and contribution to the crisis situation, identifying with affected stakeholders and making positive progress toward a solution. Coombs and Holladay even proposed that organizations consider issuing public apologies even if their legal teams advise against it, citing the downfall of major accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which followed legal advice but ignored public relations issues (Coombs & Holladay, 2011).

Social media as medium and tool

Today there are many Web-based platforms that allow for an exchange of thoughts between users, which are referred under the umbrella term of “social media” (Coombs, 2011). While it can be argued that social media began with the invention of the telegraph in the 1840s and grew with many inventions over the years meant to facilitate the communication between individuals and groups of people, the Web-based version of social media that we know today emerged in the 1990s and became popular in 2000 (Edosomwan, Prakasan, Kouame, Watson, & Seymour, 2011).

The term social media covers many different types of online platforms, including — but not limited to — blogs, which are sites where users can write about anything that interests them, and readers of the blog can respond with their ideas and opinions; micro blogs, sites similar to blogs, but with more brief user posts, such as Twitter; Internet forums, sites built around subject matter that include discussions between users; content platforms, where the main focus is on photos or videos and discussions take place around them, such as YouTube); and social networking platforms, such as Facebook or LinkedIn, where users represent themselves with personally built pages or profiles and then connect to other users who interest them (Coombs, 2011).

Some online media work by broadcasting to everyone with an Internet connection, such as public Twitter posts, Facebook page posts or blog posts, while others can be more difficult to reach, such as private online forums (Coombs & Holladay, 2011). They may yet be worth seeking out, though, as they can provide key access to stakeholder insights, and provide opportunities to prompt conversation (Coombs & Holladay, 2011).

Social media is a constantly and quickly changing platform (Coleman, Chandler, & Gu, 2013). It has changed the way the Web has evolved in the way that it allows for open and shared conversation as well as user-generated content (Coleman et al, 2013). There is a capitalistic nature of social media as the creators of social media sites that are successful at attracting and retaining users are the most profitable (Carviou, 2014). While creators have a gain in increased usage, social media itself is greatly changed and influenced by the users themselves, which include individuals and corporations (Carviou, 2014).

Research has shown that communication is among the top reasons why people visit the Web (Coleman et al, 2013). Social media is most prevalent among the young: research shows that as age increases, use of social media decreases (Coleman et al, 2013).

Social media is used today for many different reasons such as entertainment, informal conversations, information gathering, and professional (Coleman et al, 2013). LinkedIn is an example of the professional aspect of social media as users of the site post their career objectives and accomplishments and connect to other like-minded professionals (Coleman et al, 2013).

Social media has created a “real-time” atmosphere across the Internet (Coleman et al, 2013). This real-time element is changing the way companies promote themselves as they find themselves in the middle of an open and ongoing conversation (Coleman et al, 2013). Companies must learn to evolve along with social media to avoid being passed by (Coleman, et al, 2013).

The cultural aspect of social media is widespread, with the amount of users increasing each year (Coleman et al 2013). It is profoundly difficult today for an individual not to be subscribed to any social media platforms (Carviou, 2014). Individuals and companies risk missing out on opportunities if they do not keep up with the evolution of social media (Carviou, 2014).

Because those who use social media tend to use it frequently, (90% in one study described by Coleman et al, 2013), some companies are banning the use of social media at work and on company devices (Coleman et al, 2013). These companies’ effort to increase efficiencies ignore the benefits that could be gained through employee use of social media, such as an increased feeling of belonging, increased camaraderie among coworkers, and an enhancement of the overall company’s brand image (Coleman et al, 2013).

Coleman et al proposed that it is important that companies that do decide to promote social media use by employees are encouraged to create policies and procedures that highlight what the company is looking to achieve and who the company is most trying to engage (Coleman, et al, 2013).

The increase in Internet usage, specifically that of social media, calls for an increased need for organizations to understand it above and beyond what is currently available in research (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). Using Web-based platforms for organizational use poses positive and negative consequences to the corresponding organization (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). A positive consequence, as will be discussed here, is the potential to target stakeholder groups without interference (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). A concern with reaching out to stakeholders via social media is the difficulty in distinguishing which stakeholders need to be reached and how they should be communicated to (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). It can be impossible at times to respond to all stakeholder concerns, as much as that may be wanted (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). It becomes necessary then to identify the most significant stakeholder group at that time; those groups that the organization’s achievements are most influenced by (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011).

The amount of social media users forwarding or “sharing” an organization’s stories, as well as these users inclination to post their ideas or thoughts on organizations has increased consistently over the years (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). Corporations have also increased their activity on social media using it as a device to reach important groups (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). Examples of ways they are doing this include company sponsored social media pages and blogs (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). Corporations seem to be using social media to take their own news in their own hands (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011).

Studies have proved social media to be an effective tool for recruitment practices (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). This is somewhat easier to measure, however, than the effectiveness of communication via social media to other stakeholder groups (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). To properly gauge the latter, organizations much first understand what stakeholders exist in the online community (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011).

As noted above, different stakeholders do not affect an organization in the same way, each offers something different, and each responds differently (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). Thus, social media communication to different stakeholders will be and should be different, and likely be based on the amount of influence of the stakeholder group, the problem at hand, and the extent that the problem is merited by truth (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). In addition, at different times, different stakeholder groups will need to be passively followed and/or actively pursued (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011).

Social media has allowed stakeholder groups to grow in different ways, even creating stakeholder groups that are unknown to the organization. This can attributed to the alliances made online (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). These alliances based on similarities between members become more important to the organization as they both gain in numbers and learn to better converse with each other (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011).

Deciding which stakeholder group to engage, however, has less to do with the perceived importance of the group as it does with the nature of the situation and the message being shared. The “urgency” of the message will gauge which stakeholder group is most important in that particular situation (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011). It is also important to note that in times of uncertainty or crisis, concerned stakeholders are going to social media expecting to find answers (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011).

Employees are seen as one of the most important factors in the success of an organization (Development and Learning in Organizations, 2014). Employees contribute to how an organization is seen by others, contributing to the all-around brand of the organization (Rokka, Karlsson & Tienari, 2014). The idea that an organization’s instilled and underlying values are the basis for its brand makes employees at the heart of its image; employees project an organization’s image, either enhancing or debilitating it (Rokka et al, 2014).

Studies have shown that involved employees are the most pleased and most productive, thus involving employees becomes a top priority for employers and social media’s characteristic of interacting users make it a beneficial tool, noting that this often happens prior to employment (Development and Learning in Organizations, 2014).

Many organizations are weary of social media and employees, due to employees’ ideas of their organization, good or bad, being easily influenced by (and easily influence) other employees (Rokka et al, 2014). Social media’s access to quicker and clearer communication offers the alternative benefit (Rokka et al, 2014).

It is argued that when social media is managed correctly (e.g., helps increase participation, broad-mindedness, and credibility), organizational dilemmas or crises are more quickly and simply avoided and/or solved (Development and Learning in Organizations, 2014). The difficult part in achieving this is that organizations typically decide systematically what information to disseminate and ultimately control the tone of the conversation (Development and Learning in Organizations, 2014). This appearance of control must be reduced in order to allow for the open and equal conversation that social media demands and users expect (Development and Learning in Organizations, 2014).

Organizational crises can be described as a tumultuous incident that dominos into additional incidents that eventually cause damage to the organization (van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013). How a company responds to a crisis as well as the timeliness of the response is critical in the recovery process (Walaski, 2013). Unlike traditional communication strategies, social media opens up the opportunity for all users to play a role in the dialogue during and after an organizational crisis (van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2013); allowing for a two-way conversation resulting in a more active receiver (Walaski, 2013).

Communicating to stakeholders during a crisis or at any time via social media presents its challenges due to its constantly evolving and somewhat uncontrollable ways ( Coombs & Holladay, 2011). Ulmer (2001) proposed that one of the best ways of promoting a positive outcome is to focus on identifying a consistent message across all communication channels. Social media communication creates a need for consistency and clarity in message content that may not have been given as much importance before the widespread use of social networking and social media sites (Coombs & Holladay, 2011). Social media and networking sites also allow for two-way conversations with stakeholders (Coombs & Holladay, 2011). Two-way communication has been identified as an important method for gaining stakeholder support and potentially averting a crisis when conversation has been established before crisis has occurred (Ulmer, 2001).

Social media and crisis communication

Social media has been used to communicate in a wide variety of crises — it has been used in natural disasters (Lindsay, 2011), aviation accidents (Arthur W. Page Society, 2014), and during labor strikes — by both the strikers and the company struck (New York Times, 2011). Social media’s additional attributes of being quick and direct are a benefit when communicating a crisis (Walaski, 2013).

At times of crisis, organizations have used Twitter (Lindsay, 2011), Facebook (Lufthansa, 2015), YouTube (NTSBgov, 2013) and interactive company blogs (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2014). Social media can be used in a wide variety of ways in a time of crisis (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008). For example, organizations can use Twitter to give regular updates of a crisis situation (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008). In the aftermath of a devastating tsunami that hit in Japan in 2011, people needing assistance who could not reach a working phone used Twitter to communicate (Lindsay, 2011). Indeed, the American Red Cross reported that social media is the fourth most used communications tool by victims during times of disaster (American Red Cross, 2010).

Many organizations have concerns regarding the use of social media and crises (Rokka et al, 2014). They worry about such risks as not being able to solely manage a situation, and about the idea of posting a potentially sensitive message in a public space where that message is assumed to never truly disappear (Rokka et al, 2014). But case studies completed by Walaski (2013) found that not posting any news regarding a crisis situation in an effort to avoid these concerns can actually lead to misconceptions regarding the crisis and to outsiders thinking that the company forgives the actions of the situation. Projecting a sincere front can help a company steady its reputation and actually help make it independent from the crisis (Walaski, 2013).

Walaski (2013) proposed that with the emergence of using social media to communicate crisis messages, organizations are following several unwritten rules: Though social media messages are meant to be posted in real time, they nonetheless should still be carefully constructed (Walaski, 2013). Organizations must be aware of which social media platforms are used most frequently by employees in order to more effectively reach them and prior to the communication of a crisis message, organizations must have an established rapport with employees through the same outlets (Walaski, 2013). Messages must be meant specifically for employees, different from what will be relayed to other stakeholders (Walaski, 2013). To be successful with any social media plan, organizations must follow up their initial message with timely updates, as employees will come back to the original site of the message for information (Walaski, 2013).

It is certain that even if organizations do not engage in social media, their stakeholders do. For example, when a China Airlines 737–800 burned up on the tarmac at Naha Airport in Okinawa, Japan in August 2007 (Japan Transport Safety Board, 2009), several witnesses at the airport had uploaded video to YouTube that subsequently made its way into the news media (Eyii, 2007). When a Canadian musician filmed a United Airlines ramp employee chucking his $3,500 guitar into the baggage hold of an airplane, and then subsequently recovered a broken instrument, he used social media to post a music video mocking the incident and the airline (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008). It is important; according to Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith (2008) that part of the social media effort an organization must take is to listen — to watch social media sites, Google searches and the like, to see what the public is saying about it.

Today, social media engagement in a time of crisis might be considered a must-have (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008). In 2013, when an Asiana Airlines airplane crashed on approach to San Francisco International Airport, the airline was roundly criticized for not engaging in social media until hours after the accident — long after passengers, witnesses, emergency responders, the airplane manufacturer and government agencies had all weighed in (Arthur W. Page Society, 2014). On the positive side, Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith (2008) proposed that participating in a social media dialog such as Facebook can give a company’s fans the opportunity to weigh in and defend it at times of crisis.

But even if organizations have to use social media at a time of crisis, Coombs & Holladay (2011) propose that it is important that they already have an established, trustworthy presence in the social media sphere when no crisis is in place.

To counter and respond to negative messages as well as to plant seeds in a positive, or image-enhancing manner before any crisis has occurred (Ulmer, 2001), crisis management, or reputation management, would benefit from understanding better how viral messaging happens. This is especially true in this era of the Internet, social media, and electronic-word-of-mouth messages, when communication can spread at a more rapid pace than ever before (Coombs & Holladay, 2011).

Discussion

It is clear that the literature agrees organizations do well to be prepared to communicate at times of crisis. Doing so protects the organization’s reputation, its market share, even its existence. Such preparations and planning include key elements as understanding whom to communicate to by understanding who their stakeholders are; understanding the various competing interests that different stakeholders have; understanding the types of information different stakeholders need to hear.

It is also important that these plans take social media into account. Social media in all of its forms has grown exponentially over the past few decades, reaching all across the globe. Users who get a taste of social media tend to become heavy users and materials they access there inform their decisions on a wide range of subjects.

So it stands to reason that scholars and studies agree that organizations must be heavily involved in the online world, in calm and in storm. Just as it is established practice that organizations have its crisis communications plan prepared and at the ready, it is equally clear that a social media element be involved.

The evidence shows that is where many key audiences are, and the first place they will look.

References

Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K., & Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values, Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 507–525.

American Red Cross (2010). Social media grows up. Red Cross Emergency Social Media Data Summit. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/YlJFzI

Anderson, B., Swenson, R., & Kinsella, J. (2014). Responding in real time: Creating a social media crisis simulator for the classroom. Communication Teacher, 28(2), 85–95.

Arthur W. Page Society (2014). The need for cultural intelligence: An analysis of Asiana Airlines’ response to the crash landing of Flight 214. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/czlFyb

Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in organizations II. Cincinnati,OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Battista, J. (2011, Feb. 21). NFL labor dispute plays out on Twitter. The New York Times.Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/wcpLzn

Benton, J. (2012). The wide Web of innovation. Nieman Reports, 66(1), 47.

Billings, R. S, Milburn, T.W., & Schallman, M.L. (1980). A model of crisis perception: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 300–316.

Brummette, J., & Sisco, H. F. (2014). Using Twitter as a means of coping with emotions and uncontrollable crises. Public Relations Review.

Bryson, J.M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6, 21.

Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: How Fortune 500 company web sites assist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 29–41.

Clarkson, M. (1994). A risk based model of stakeholder theory. In proceedings of the second Toronto conference on stakeholder theory. Toronto: Centre for Corporate Social Performance & Ethics, University of Toronto. 18–19.

Clarkson, M. (1998). The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary readings. University of Toronto Press.

Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communications: Insights from situational crisis communication theory. Journal of Business Communication, 41, 265–289.

Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management, 12(3), 241–260.

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–177.

Coombs, W. T. (2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2011). Managing Corporate Social Responsibility: A communication approach. Wiley-Blackwell.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). Privileging an activist vs. a corporate view of public relations history in the U.S. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 347.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

Dowling, G. (2002). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image, and performance. Oxford University Press.

Dunbar, R., & Godlberg, W. H. (1978). Crisis development and strategic response in European corporations. Studies on crisis management. Toronto: Butterworth.

Eyii (2007). China Airlines plane bursts into flame at Okinawa airport (Video File). Retrieved from: https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgu5RkrIqS0

Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 113–135.

Fearn-Banks, K. (2009). Crisis communication. 21st century communication: A reference handbook, pp.741–749.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, London.

Freeman, R. E. (1999). Response: divergent stakeholder theory. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236.

Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. (2004). Fame & fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations. FT Press.

Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business & Society, 44(1), 3–31.

Fuchs-Burnett, T. (2002). Mass public corporate apology, Dispute Resolution Journal, 57(3), 26.

Gonzalez-Herrero, A., & Smith, S. (2008). Crisis communications management on the Web: How Internet based technologies are changing the way public relations professionals handle business crises. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(3), 143–153.

Graham, M. W., Avery, E. J., & Park, S. (2015). The role of social media in local government crisis communications. Public Relations Review.

Hall, D. T. & Mansfield, R. (1971). Organizational and individual response to external stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 533–547.

Herman, C. F. (1972). Threat, time and surprise: A simulation of international crises. In C. F. Herman (Ed.), International crises: Insights from behavioral research. Free Press.

How to increase employee engagement: The impact of social media and organizational culture (2014). Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 28(6), 24–26.

Ihator, A. S. (2001). Communication style in the information age. Corporate Communications: An international journal, 6(4), 199–204.

Japan Transport Safety Board (2009). Aircraft accident investigation report, China Airlines, B18616. Retrieved from http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/B18616.pdf

Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York.

Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the World Wide Web: Are they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30(3), 279.

Keim, M., & Noji, E. (2011). Emergent use of social media: A new age of opportunity for disaster resilience. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 6, 47–54.

Ki, E. J., & Nekmat, E. (2014). Situational crisis communication and interactivity: Usage and effectiveness of Facebook for crisis management by Fortune 500 companies. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 140–147.

Kriyantono, R. (2012). Measuring a company reputation in a crisis situation: An ethnography approach on the situational crisis communication theory. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(9).

Lindsay, B. R. (2011). Social media and disasters: Current uses, future options, and policy considerations. Federation of American Scientists.

Lippitt, G. L. & Schmidt, W. H. (1967). Crises in a developing organization. Harvard Business Review, 45(6), 102–112.

Lufthansa (2015). Lufthansa Facebook page (Web post). Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/snh5Qx

Milburn, T. W., Schuler, R. S. & Watman, K. H. (1983). Organizational crisis. Part I: Definition and conceptualization. Human Relations, 36(12), 1141–1160.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

National Transportation Safety Board (2013). Chairman Hersman’s (sic) briefs media on Asiana flight 214, July 7, 2013 (Video File). Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/O0dNoN

Patel, A. & Reinsch, L. (2003). Companies can apologize: Corporate apologies and legal liability. Business Communication Quarterly, 66, 17–26.

Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134.

Pew Research. (2014a). Social networking use. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/njSYDJ

Pew Research. (2014b). News across social media platforms. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/kjsW5w

Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

Rokka, J., Karlsson, K., & Tienari, J. (2014; 2013). Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(7/8), 802–827.

Sellnow, T.L., Ulmer, R.R. & Snider, M. (1998). The Compatibility of Corrective Action in Organizational Crisis Communication, 46, 60–74.

Selye, H. (1956). The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smart, C. F & Vertinsky, I. (1977). Designs for crisis decision units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(22), 640–658.

Starbuck, W. H., Greve, A., & Hedberg, B. (1978). Responding to crises. Arbetslivscentrum.

Steers, R. M. (1977). Organizational effectiveness: A behavioral view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Sturges, D.L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy for organizational survival, Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 297–316.

Sung, M., & Hwang, J. S. (2014). Who drives a crisis? The diffusion of an issue through social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 246–257.

Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.

Turner, T., Qvarfordt, P., Biehl, J. T., Golovchinsky, G., & Back, M. (2010, April). Exploring the workplace communication ecology. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 841–850.

Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships. Management Communication Quarterly: 14(4), 590.

Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2014). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Sage Publications.

Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A work-in-process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(2), 110–122.

Wartick, S. (1992). The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate reputation, Business & Society, 31, 33–49.

Waters, R. D., Ghosh, P., Griggs, T. D., & Searson, E. M. (2014). The corporate side of the blogosphere: examining the variations of design and engagement among Fortune 500 blogs. Journal of Promotion Management, 20(5), 537–552.

Whetten, D. A. (1979). Organizational decline: Sources, responses, and effects. Faculty Working Paper #628. College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Williams, D. E., & Treadaway, G. (1992). Exxon and the Valdez accident: A failure in crisis communication. Communication Studies, 43(1), 56.

Xu, K., & Li, W. (2013). An ethical stakeholder approach to crisis communication: A case study of Foxconn’s 2010 employee suicide crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 371–386.

What are the benefits of social media for crisis management?

Why social media is good for crisis communication?

What are the potential benefits of social media for emergency and disaster communications?

Why is social media monitoring an important part of issue and crisis management?