5th Journal Review : Tio Yolanda 135120207121019

Journal Review

“Apologies and Public Relations Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo”, 1994,

by Keith Michael Hearit

and

“Attribution Theory as a Guide for Post-Crisis Communication Research”, 2007,

by W. Timothy Coombs

Tio Yolanda R Simanullang

135120207121019

Department of Communication Science

Faculty of Social and Political Sciences

University of Brawijaya, Malang

From journal, “Attribution Theory as a Guide for Post-Crisis Communication Research”, 2007, by W. Timothy Coombs. As we know, crisis communication in now era is contemporer in other words communication like Water in the bowl. built Attribution Theory on the premise that people need to assign responsibility for events. Attribution Theory posits that people look for the causes of events, especially unexpected and negative events. Most experts agree that a crisis is negative and unexpected. When using Attribution Theory, the threat of a crisis is largely a function of crisis responsibility/blame. Managers should evaluate the situation to determine which crisis response is best for the situation (Coombs, 1995, 2004; Mowen, 1980). The idea for evidence-based management is derived from evidence-based medicine. The focus is on using scientifically proven results to guide actions in medicine and now management

As we know is basically crisis situation uncertainty and the affected areas of the crisis struggling to regain control over the situation .When the crisis struck a company , the company made progress in response to minimize the impact of the crisis and the people through the appropriate response .At the same time, communities are attempting to seek information relating to the crisis and evaluate the responsibility of the crisis.

From the second journal Apologies and Public Relations Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo from Keith Michael Hearit as the authors. Connection with the first journal where Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) by linking theory and analysis of image restoration attribution analysis.

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) begins with the crisis manager examining the crisis situation in order to assess the level of the reputational threat of a crisis. Three factors in the crisis situation shape the reputational threat:

(1) initial crisis responsibility,

(2) crisis history, and

(3) relationship history/prior reputation.

Crisis managers follow a two-step process for using these three factors to assess the reputational threat.

SCCT posits that each crisis type generates specific and predictable levels of crisis responsibility—attributions of organizational responsibility for the crisis. SCCT research has identified three crisis clusters based upon attributions of crisis responsibility by crisis type (Coombs & Holladay, 2002):

(1) victim cluster has very weak attributions of crisis responsibility (natural disasters, workplace violence, product tampering, and rumor) and the organization is viewed as a victim of the event;

(2) accidental cluster has minimal attributions of crisis responsibility (technical-error accident, technical-error product harm, and challenge) and the event was considered unintentional or uncontrollable by the organization; and

(3) intentional cluster has very strong attributions of crisis responsibility (human-error accident, human-error product harm, and organizational misdeed) and the event was considered to be purposeful.

SUMMARY

This attribution can be regarded as a product strategy of framing (how the phenomena or information selected, emphasized, and presented). This assumption does ignore the influence of mass media on the public perception of the responsibilities of the crisis and crisis response strategies. In fact, some studies show that the framing is done on media framing can influence the public's perception of the issue of responsibility of the crisis. So, whether the apology was necessary? According to my need, even should. Apologizing does not mean we made a big mistake, but at least with the apology we acknowledge that we make them a comfortable offense. 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.’ Silence draws fairly predictable conclusions such as uncertainty and passivity, responses that result in an image of a corporation that “has relinquished control over defining and shaping the world.“ Most. Corporations wait until a public relations problem reaches a “crisis” status before they respond; they publicly address the problem only when it becomes clear, for example, that their actions have hurt people, have cut into profits, or have damaged their carefully crafted images From another example from Air Asia QZ8501, Tony Fernandes as Air Asia CEO. His never said “Apologize” but he said “Regret to inform.” There is no word of apology explicitly.

REFERENCES

Coombs, W.T. (2007). Attribution Theory as a Guide for Post-Crisis Communication Research. Public Relations Review, 33, 135-139

Hearit, K.M. (1994). Apologies and Public Relations Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relations Review, 20(2), 113-125

Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis response strategies.Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 447–476.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 165–186.

Mowen, J. C. (1980). Further information on consumer perceptions of product recalls. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 519–523.