6^th Journal Review

Inge Ade Zinnia

135120207121011

Apologies and Public Relations Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Vovlo

By

Keith Michael Hearit

&

Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research

By

W. Timothy Coombs

Both journal mainly talks about the “crisis communication”. The first journal; which is apologies and public relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba and Volvo, found that the most crisis management research tends to neglect the communication component of crisis situations. And as a corrective, the author suggest through this study that a terminological approach is useful to studying public relations crises, particularly those in which the organization is guilty of wrongdoing and delivers an apology. the author tend to strongly agree that when it comes to crisis communication, as a public relations practitioner, the best way to do is to apology or as it is said in the journal, apologiae.  An apologia is not an apology, but it is a defense that seeks to present a compelling, counter description of organizational actions. It functions to situate alleged organizational wrongdoing in a more favorable context than the initial charge suggest. This is done in an effort to neutralize the argumentative force of the initial charges of wrongdoing. The tone of most apologiae is that once key publics understand a corporation’s explanation, then they will be unable to condemn the corporation.

As we know especially in our beloved country, some corporations choose to say nothing when there is a conflict or a tragedy occur that resulted the bad image of their company. They choose to say nothing in hope that the issue will disappear. A posture of silence, however, tends to be tantamount to an admission of guilt, given the media-driven constructions of social reality in contemporary society, as the author speak in the journal. Silence draws fairly predictable conclusions such as uncertainty and passivity, response that result in an image of a corporation that “has relinquished control over defining and shaping the world”. I, myself know how hard it is to face the public when there is something bad happen about us and how hard it is to deliver to the public why this kind of thing happens. It is hard to make the public understand that there is always causality. Consequently, corporations face difficult decisions when they decide to respond publicly. Most of corporations wait until a public relations problem reaches a “crisis” status before they respond which is totally wrong and adverse. They publicly address the problem only when it becomes clear like for example when their actions have hurt people, have cut into profits, or have damaged their carefully crafted images. It is totally wrong because they knew that they can make a movement before all those kind of things happens. They have a chance to apology or at least to release a statement or explanation to public in order to decrease the adverse they may have or they may cost.

It appears that the primary benefit of apologetic advertisements is that they are public statements of contrition that complete the ritualistic cycle of transgression and absolution. In so functioning, apologiae deprive journalists of a continuing story and, thus, limit the damage done to corporate images.

The presentation of an apologia is indeed a difficult communication maneuver. This journal analysis illumines how corporations attempt to use this discourse of defense, known as apologia, to manage public relations crises for which they bear primary responsibility. Consequently, the author have shown that, as it relates to the construction and delivery of apologiae, organizations attempt to provide a competing interpretation of the act. In so doing, they label their wrongdoing in a way that displays sorrow but limits culpability, and use dissociations to distance themselves from the wrongdoing.

It is a good journal and quite easy to understand. How the author implies the perspective and the study case is pretty clever. And I strongly agree that the apology maneuver is really important when there is a conflict or a tragedy occur, at least the littlest time of the corporation have, they must bravely face the fact that just happens and tell publicly clearly about what happens and how the feel sorry about it. Corporations nowadays should value more the term of apology and rethink and remember again that it is an important essence for the PR practitioner that must have done.

Different with the first journal, the second journal talks about attribution theory as a guide for post-crisis communication. As the field matures, crisis managers need recommendations that are based on scientifically tested evidence rather than speculation. The argument for scientifically tested evidence for action is based on the evidence-based in management and medicine. This second journal discusses the role of attribution theory  has played and can continue to play in building scientifically tested evidence for crisis managers as well as providing an integrative mechanism for the diverse crisis research that spans a variety of disciplines. It is very different from the first journal because the author of the second journal thinks that crisis communication is not just about apologiae. The crisis response can reduce or eliminate these negative effects. The author thinks that it is important to note that the management recognition of various outcomes more accurately reflects the demands face by crisis managers.

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) applies Attribution Theory based ideas to a wider array of crises. SCCT draws upon experimental methods and social–psychological theory. This is true to the Attribution Theory roots of SCCT. SCCT advances and test hypotheses related to how perceptions of the crisis situation affect the crisis response and the effects of crisis responses on outcomes such as reputation, emotions, and purchase intention. SCCT research extends and is comparable to the early product harm and ethical crises research found in the management and marketing literatures.

SCCT begins with the crisis manager examining the crisis situation in order to assess the level of the reputational threat of a crisis. The threat is the amount of damage a crisis could inflict on the organization’s reputation if no action is taken. Three factors in the crisis situation shape the reputational threat. First, initial crisis responsibility, second, crisis history, and third, relationship history/prior reputation. Crisis managers follow a two-step process for using these three factors to assess the reputational threat. The crisis response strategies vary in their perceived acceptance of responsibility for the crisis. SCCT’s general tenant is that as the reputational threat and negative affect increases, crisis managers should utilize crisis response strategies with the requisite level of accepting crisis responsibility. Put another way, crisis managers need to accept grater levels of responsibility as the reputational threat intensifies. SCCT has been applied beyond reputation. The factors shaping the reputational threat also serve to shape the affect generated by crisis and purchase intentions (Coombs & Holladay, 2005). Refer to Coombs (2006) for a fuller discussion of SCCT recommendations for post-crisis communication.

Totally different with the first journal, for me personally it is not as easy as the first journal to be understand. Whether it applies a very different new of perspective or else. The first journal for me personally is more realistic based on what public needs when there is a conflict or tragedy that caused crisis communications. It is more acceptable and make sense. Maybe it needs longer time for me personally to be able to understand the second journal. But overall, both authors express their perspective about how to handling crisis communications based on their personal assumption and perspective. Both clearly explain why and elaborate it nicely. If you need various perspective about handling crisis communication, these two journal are good as your reference but me personally prefer the first journal maybe it is just because it fits more to my point of view but again they both are good and unique.