Professional crisis communication

A lack of real crisis examples cannot be complained about: Natural disasters, cases of corruption and fraud, redundancies or factory explosions are supplemented by new technologically induced crises (cyber attacks), ill-considered statements by company representatives and unexpected moral indignation on the part of individual stakeholders (consumer activism). The revolutionary development of communication technology and the rapid rise of social media lead to an increased attention and sensitivity of the public, and to more attack surfaces.

Competence through prophylaxis
In many organizations, crisis communication is still in its infancy. There are reasons for this. On the one hand, it is due to the cumbersome handling of the topic "crisis", on the other hand, it is due to the too narrow understanding of the tasks of crisis communication.

When a crisis occurs, communication is hard work: time pressure, high public interest and limited possibilities for action and communication are physically and mentally exhausting. Existing deficiencies in processes, structures and personal competencies are ruthlessly revealed. Those who have failed to communicate professionally with their stakeholders in the "good" times are met with incomprehension, resistance and direct opposition.

Protecting one's own reputation has become a strategic, non-delegable management task. Strategic crisis communication is an important tool in this regard.

Difficult definition of crisis
Crisis management and crisis communication require strategic thinking and a first step is the identification of possible crisis situations. Because only those who understand the nature and possible effects of a crisis can initiate suitable measures and communication appropriate to the situation.

First, in private and professional everyday life, any event is called a crisis, without regard to its extent and possible consequences. The term "crisis" has become "inflationary". In addition, people tend to block out unpleasant signals, as the US scientist Nassim Taleb notes. Dealing with crises in times of growth and economic success is difficult for most organizations.

Second, Every crisis is accompanied by uncertainty. The time of occurrence, the actual cause, the duration and the course are mostly unknown and difficult to assess. Usually, an event such as the dismissal of employees, the discovery of fraud or an explosion in a production facility triggers the crisis. Over time, the course of the crisis changes several times, influenced by how the crisis is managed and how the public perceives the situation. The outcome can be positive, but also negative, even catastrophic.

Attempt at a crisis typology
However, the search for possible crises for one's own organization and the derivation of crisis scenarios proves to be an overwhelming task in practice. A pragmatic approach to crisis definition comprises two steps: first, the analysis and classification of plausible crisis cases and second, the derivation of crisis scenarios.

Existing crisis typologies can reduce complexity and simplify information gathering. Figure 1 illustrates a typology that classifies crisis events according to the stakeholders' perceived cause and controllability, while providing initial clues for their response. For example, empirical studies show that stakeholders react with accusations and blame in the case of crisis events if the cause of the crisis is nevertheless classified as controllable within the organization.

After the crisis events have been classified, crisis scenarios are defined for each crisis case. The scenario method is widespread in strategic and risk management and is also increasingly used in crisis communication. Through the crisis scenarios, several crisis outcomes are described. Thinking in scenarios thus creates a different risk awareness and prepares mentally for crises. Defining a scenario that is as negative as possible proves to be particularly helpful.

Systematic preparation
As workshops show, the described complexity of the crisis definition is only the tip of the iceberg that is the preparation of crisis communication. For a concept to succeed, there needs to be close cooperation between different specialist units, a functioning crisis information system as well as support and direct involvement of the company management.

A crisis communication concept includes the following topics:

• Organization-specific crisis cases and crisis scenarios (1).
• Action plan (2) with four sub-areas: Crisis information system (2a) to catch crisis signals and possible risks. The starting point is the analysis of the relevant stakeholders, their information needs and roles in the event of a crisis. Networking with risk management and issue management must be ensured. This information can help to complete the crisis scenarios.
• Tactical crisis communication plan (2b): includes strategy planning, messages, instruments and direction in each identified crisis scenario. Other topics include an interdisciplinary crisis team and the involvement of external service providers.
• Dealing with the media in a crisis (2c): Knowledge of the relevant media, general public attitudes and other influencers (opinion leaders) is deepened by means of an ongoing media analysis.
• Dealing with other stakeholders with key significance (2d): First and foremost, the employees as the most credible mouthpiece to the outside world. Depending on the crisis situation, cooperation with authorities (e.g. with the blue light organisation) or dealing with customers (e.g. in the event of a product recall) must be defined in just as much detail as media communication in the crisis.
• Institutionalize and ensure regular training (3) and updates (4).

Crisis communication - more than tactics
Effective crisis communication can protect, if necessary defend or restore one's reputation. It is a critical component of professional crisis management before, during and after the crisis. In practice, however, crisis communication is often only carried out in the "hot phase" of a crisis, i.e. it only covers the tactical handling of the crisis. These tasks are of central importance, but as Figure 2 shows, they fall short and do not do justice to the complexity.

Crisis communication should also be actively pursued before and after the crisis. Before the crisis, organisational structures are created and competencies are trained. Opportunities and risks in the environment are analysed and findings from different departments are condensed into critical topics. In this phase, the organization educates its stakeholders about risks and future crisis events and identifies mutual expectations. Crisis communication can build trust, which is often the best crisis prevention.

After the crisis, crisis communication ensures a final assessment of the causes and management of the crisis. It thus supports the fresh start and the restoration of the reputation. This phase should also ensure learning from the crisis and the updating of processes, structures and competencies. After all, "after the crisis is before the crisis".