Crisis Management Series: Appliance of Apologia & Attribution theory on Crisis by: Darius I. Cordova

Crisis Management Series: Appliance of the Apologia method & Attribution theory

1          Responding crisis situation: Analysis on Apologia method

In the crisis situation, an organization is cornered to solve the crisis using whatever method they find the best for the organization and the stakeholders. One of the method that is can be considered as defensive act to safe the organization from the crisis is the classical method of “apologia”. ”I assert that “apologia theory” provides a useful framework for the explanation and analysis of crises precipitated by organizational wrongdoing. The presumption is that the words chosen and the descriptions proffered in crisis situations impact how crises are resolved.” (Hearit, 1994)

But before exploring any further it will be best if I could provide the outlook of some case studies provided by the writer of the journal. “I examine as exemplars the apologetic discourse of three corporations: the Chrysler Corporation, after it was disclosed the company had sold “used” cars as “new;” the Toshiba Corporation, after it was revealed that the company illegally sold top-secret milling equipment to the then Soviet Union; and the Volvo Corporation, after it was charged with “deceptive advertising” for its failure to label as a “dramatization” an advertisement …” (Hearit, 1994)

In examining and responding to the situation that the organization is facing as implied in the journal by Hearit (1994), public relation officers most commonly will wait until the situation showing affirmation of crisis stage. When it is clear for the organization, on what kind of situation they are facing, and what damages it has for the organization itself, whether it is hurting people, or cutting the profits, or damage their carefully crafted images.

Afterward, the process of crisis management can be at various method and levels, some are to keep silent in assumption that the situation will fade into thin air and become normal as before, some are playing the victim game, and some tend to be aggressive to counter the issue. Any method will be considered reliable when the situation has been clear and evaluation has been done. But in the journal, the discussion is about the technic of “apologia”.

“An “apologia” is not an apology (although it may contain one), but a defense that seeks to present a compelling, counter description of organizational actions.” (Hearit, 1994) its function is to alter the allegation or the situation addressed to the company into more favorable situation for the organization itself.

In the attempt of mitigating the effect of the crisis to the organization, commonly organization seeks three objectives. As inscribed by Hearit (1994) First, it attempts to present a convincing and plausible description of the situation in which the wrongdoing allegedly occurred that offers a competing narrative to the one commonly reported. Second, to diffuse the anger and hostility directed at the company, the organization issues a statement of regret that expresses concern but acknowledges minimal responsibility. Third, the organization engages in dissociation to remove the linkage of the organization with the wrongdoing. I now explore these three objectives in greater detail.

The method included in the way of apologia reflect some favorable results as it is explained in the journal, as to recap what has been analyzed in the journal, that public relation officer can in some situation of crisis use the apologia method of defense, where it leads the company to distant themselves from their wrongdoing and also at the same time exercise sorrow and sympathy, thus resulting in a less destruction on corporate’s image.

2        Attribution theory as base on post-crisis management

The next discussion is about the post-crisis situation where public relation officer procedurally makes a report on what happened and what kind of action taken. And according to Coombs (2006), the post-crisis communication is often disjointed and atheoretical, heavily inclined to what to do and what not to do drawn from a case studies, rather than the proper theoretical strategies as it is supposed to be.

“It is logical to connect crises and Attribution Theory. Stakeholders will make attributions about the cause of a crisis; they will assess crisis responsibility. Was the crisis a result of situational factors or something the organization did? Indeed, extant research forges a link between Attribution Theory and crises” (Coombs, 2006)

Post-crisis communication research should continue along its newer, empirical track. Such research is providing tested results to crisis managers rather than speculation based on case studies. We move away from decisions based on unsystematic data toward evidence-based decisions. Attribution Theory is an historical and still viable theory for integrating crisis communication research. A common theoretical link allows for the integration of research from various researchers in diverse fields. We begin to build upon one another’s work and see how the pieces can begin to be integrated into a larger whole. Moreover, there is a broad research agenda to pursue based upon Attribution Theory. A partial list would include application of fundamental attribution error to crises and implications for crisis communication, the ability of crisis response strategies to shape perceptions of the crisis frames, how crisis response strategies can trigger the discounting principle, and relationship of crisis frames to counter-factual thinking. With Attribution Theory as a connecting point, diverse streams of research can converge into to a river of post-crisis communication knowledge that provides a mechanism for evidence-based crisis communication

References:

Hearit, K. M. (1994). Apologies and public relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relation Review, 20(2), 113-125

Coombs, W. T. (2006). Attribution theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research. Public Relation Review, 33. 135-139