In almost all cases, crises are abnormal events that require people, groups, companies, agencies, and communities to behave in nonroutine ways. Often this includes the participation and help of outside groups and stakeholders in responding to the crisis. Sometimes these are groups the organization facing a crisis knows well, such as suppliers and customers. In other cases, these may be groups the company has little experience with, such as regulatory agencies, government groups, first responders, and community support agencies. The support and cooperation of those groups and agencies can be very important in helping an organization successfully manage a crisis. Collaborating, coordinating, and cooperating with these groups is a best practice of crisis communication.

Good risk and crisis communication is based on establishing strategic partnerships with key groups and communities before a crisis occurs and maintaining those partnerships as the crisis develops. These collaborative relationships allow agencies and organizations to coordinate their plans, messages, and activities and pool their resources. Developing a precrisis network is a very effective way of coordinating and collaborating with other credible sources. To maintain effective networks, crisis planners and communicators should continuously seek to identify and validate sources of information, identify subject matter experts, and develop relationships with stakeholders at various levels. Coordinating messages enhances the probability of consistent content and may reduce the confusion the public experiences during a crisis. Consistency of messages between various stakeholders is one important benchmark of effective crisis communication.

Who Are the Credible Partners for an Organization?

All organizations have networks of stakeholders that they depend on and that depend on the organization. This may include customers, suppliers, community groups, stockholders and owners, governments, creditors, professional and trade associations, unions, and employees. Generally, these stakeholders are sources of support and resources for organizations and, during a crisis, can help out, especially if the organization has cultivated positive relationships and developed a reservoir of goodwill with them (Jones, Jones, & Little, 2000). As we discussed earlier, a positive reputation represents an important asset that an organization can invest in over time. This can translate into a powerful basis of support during a crisis. Those organizations with positive reputations are likely to weather a crisis much more successfully than those with negative reputations. Goodwill not only means that organizations may receive support from their stakeholders, it also means the messages these organizations communicate are more likely to be believed, accepted, and followed.

Credibility generally has two elements: trustworthiness and expertise. Trustworthiness involves honesty, transparency, and a general expectation that people will act in responsible ways and in the best interest of others. Expertise refers to some level of specialized knowledge, capacity, or skill. We are more likely to believe people when we think they are trustworthy and when they have expert knowledge. Identifying credible partners who can help out during a crisis will also depend on the specific organization and type of risks or crises they face. For example, a school system may want to coordinate its crisis plans with the state school boards, establish agreements with neighboring schools, and work with parent–teacher organizations. In the case of a crisis involving a food company, relationships with the public health community, as well as state and federal regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, can be very important. Large transportation organizations, including airlines and trucking and shipping companies, should work to develop relationships with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In almost all cases, industry trade associations, such as the International Food Information Council (IFIC) or the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), can serve as important resources for organizations. They can help show an organization is operating in a way that is consistent with standardized industry practice and can serve as a source of support during a crisis. Trade associations are generally credible partners and can serve as intermediaries in strategic communication activities before and during a crisis by providing additional resources and coordinating messages (Frandsen & Johansen, 2015).

Credible partners are those groups and agencies with a stake in the organization that can help spread messages and add legitimacy. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a very well‐respected and credible scientific and public health organization. Organizations that coordinate with the CDC around issues of infectious disease, injury prevention, or foodborne illness can boost their own credibility. This will make messages more effective. In the same way, investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) can help lend credibility to efforts to find out what happened in transportation accidents. Both the CDC and the NTSB are independent agencies, which means they do not have specific interests or agendas that can reduce their credibility.

In other cases, credible organizations are those that can bring specialized technical expertise. When Flint, Mich., faced a deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' disease following the decision to change its water supply, city officials contracted with a research university to investigate any possible connection between the water and the disease. Legionnaires' disease can occur when people inhale water that is contaminated with bacteria. The university researchers had the necessary technical expertise to investigate and were independent, meaning there were no conflicts of interest. Technical expertise is very helpful and organizations often look to university experts for help during a crisis.

Other credible partners during a crisis can be found in the communities that are affected by the crisis. People in the community can bring a kind of cultural expertise to a crisis (Quarantelli, 1982). Crises commonly affect some groups more so than others. For example, poorer people, minorities, people with disabilities, and members of immigrant communities are often hit hardest by crises (Spence & Lachlan, 2016). Often, these groups simply do not have the resources to prepare for or recover from a crisis. Reaching these communities with crisis messages can be improved if the organization uses representatives from those communities as liaisons. These representatives are sometimes called cultural agents and they may be community leaders, religious leaders, or leaders of cultural groups. Sometimes they are informal leaders. These leaders often have more credibility with their communities than outsiders. They usually are able to speak to members of the community using more familiar language and they understand the values and history of the community.

When considering which groups and individuals might make credible and supportive partners, it is important to choose carefully. Some partners can be controversial and can create additional problems or distractions when trying to manage the crisis. For example, many groups and organizations contributed bottled water to Flint, Mich. One organization was the water company Nestle. Nestle has water bottling plants in Michigan and was trying to win approval to triple the amount of water it was allowed to withdraw for its bottling operations. Some critics accused Nestle of using the Flint water crisis to further its own financial agenda. The controversy over Nestle distracted attention from the efforts to manage the Flint crisis and help the community.

A final stakeholder to keep in mind during a crisis is the media. Traditional media, especially those associated with journalism, will report on crises and will work to get the word out about what is happening, who is at risk, and what should be done. Organizations will have to depend on the media to spread important messages. In this way, the media serves as an important channel for crisis communication. During the 2017 California wildfires, the media played a critical role in updating the public on risks, evacuation routes, and shelters. They even helped companies inform employees about fire‐related closures. In many cases, traditional media organizations also used social media to help update the public. Systems like interactive social media and maps were very important in helping track the California fires.

Sometimes, however, journalists trying to tell the story of a crisis can be aggressive and even confrontational. This is especially the case when they believe that important information is being withheld. During a crisis, journalists have an important role in getting the word out and telling the story of what happened and why. Being open and transparent with media organizations during a crisis is especially important, as we describe in a later chapter. Building relationships with the media before a crisis happens is one way to create more productive and open cooperation during a crisis. Some organizations even invite reporters to tour their facilities and observe their crisis exercises as a way to promote understanding and cooperation.

What Do Collaboration and Coordination Mean?

Collaboration means working with others to achieve some outcome. Collaborating suggests a close working relationship, such as in a partnership or team working to complete an important task. Many organizations have collaborative relationships with groups of stakeholders, such as customers, dealers, suppliers, or community groups. These relationships are usually mutually beneficial and generally built around mutual interdependence and dialog. Automotive dealers, for example, depend on the auto companies to produce high‐quality products people want to buy and to market those products. The auto companies depend on dealers to sell and service products and to have a presence in the local community. In some cases, relationships between suppliers, companies, and dealers have lasted for decades. These relationships can be very helpful in sustaining an organization during a crisis.

From a public relations perspective, collaboration often means a two‐way symmetrical relationship between an organization and its stakeholders (Grunig, 2001). This model of public relations is based on mutuality and equity and is designed as a way to create trust and mutual understanding between parties. When organizations and their stakeholders both communicate openly and honestly, they can develop a much clearer understanding of one another. As we discussed previously, this is sometimes described using the concept of a dialog for an open exchange of ideas, information, and perspectives. Trust between organizations and their stakeholders can help streamline collaboration before and during a crisis. Strong collaborative relationships can also help an organization avoid a crisis by helping the organization recognize warning signs before they become a crisis.

Coordination is somewhat different than collaboration. Coordination involves unifying activities to create a common outcome. This does not necessarily require working closely as a team and, in fact, it is possible to coordinate without even interacting directly with others. These unified activities may be very different, but they are integrated and synchronized in ways that contribute to a larger goal. One of the biggest problems in many crises is creating a coordinated response so all the parts of a response are working together. Coordination is often built around different areas of expertise. For example, during a crisis, expertise may be required to investigate what happened, stabilize the situation, locate and assist victims, and communicate what is being done. Different skills, capacities, and resources are often required to help manage a crisis and these will not necessarily be found in the organization. When schools face a crisis, for example, they may have to evacuate all the students. They will need large buildings to accommodate students. Other schools, churches, or even sports facilities can be used for these evacuations and having these plans and agreements in place in advance can be very important. In the case of contaminated food items, companies often have to coordinate with media outlets, regulators, distributors, wholesalers, and retail outlets. This kind of coordination requires everyone to understand their roles as well as what others will be doing.

Sometimes, coordination is built around various locations or regions. For example, evacuations may move people to several different shelters; creating a complete list of everyone who has been evacuated will require these locations to communicate with each other or with a third party. Some crises involve multiple regions or even multiple countries. In these cases, regional offices may need to coordinate their messages and activities with a central office. The 2017 California wildfires affected several counties and communities and evacuees were scattered around several shelters. Getting accurate information was necessary to determine the number of fatalities. As these examples show, coordination is usually created by communication or at least by sharing information about what others are doing. Well‐designed networks for communicating during a crisis can make coordination much more successful. Contact lists with e‐mail addresses and phone numbers as well as crisis plans can also help with coordination.

Finally, conducting crisis drills and tabletop exercises can help build collaborative relationships and facilitate coordination. Many people have participated in fire drills or tornado drills. Sadly, most schools now have so‐called active shooter training where students prepare for the possibility of a mass shooting threat. These activities help people understand what they should do in a crisis situation and familiarize them with evacuation routes or shelter procedures. Tabletop exercises, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; 2016), are discussion exercises of various issues regarding a hypothetical crisis situation. More specifically, FEMA (2016) states, “Tabletop exercises can be used to assess plans, policies, and procedures or to assess types of systems needed to guide the prevention of, response to, or recovery from a defined incident” (n.p.). As we described earlier, tabletop exercises usually bring together the people who would need to manage a crisis to discuss what they would do when facing a specific kind of emergency.

In addition to clarifying roles, responsibilities, and procedures, tabletops can help organizations identify weaknesses and gaps. One tabletop exercise we participated in uncovered a major flaw—the established procedures for a fire did not include notification of the facilities department. Tabletops can also clarify relationships. In another series of tabletop exercises between stakeholders involved in a public health crisis, we observed extensive arguments about who was actually going to be in control of the response. Obviously, it was better to have this argument during an exercise rather than during a real crisis event.

In many ways, collaboration and coordination simply mean working together to plan for, avoid, manage, or recover from a crisis. It is very difficult, although not impossible, to establish these kinds of relationships during an actual crisis, so it is a best practice to develop these partnerships before the crisis begins. These relationships are almost always necessary for the effective management of a crisis.

Why Are Collaboration and Coordination So Important?

As we discussed, a crisis is usually a confusing and sometimes chaotic time when people just do not know what is happening. This often translates into very uncoordinated and ineffective responses where people are given conflicting information and where responses are delayed. Coordination and communication with others are almost always necessary when mounting an effective crisis response. A number of case studies have shown breakdowns in communication and coordination during a crisis response. Among these are the breakdowns in communication between firefighters, police, and other emergency personnel following the World Trade Center disaster and the contradictory messages offered by government agencies during the 2014 Ebola pandemic in West Africa. In the case of the World Trade Center, the various emergency response agencies—the New York police, the fire department, and Port Authority officials—did not have radio systems that easily communicated with each other. This meant some responders did not get the evacuation orders and were caught in the tower when it collapsed. One of the recommendations coming out of the World Trade Center disaster was the creation of interoperable systems. This simply means the systems should allow people to communicate with one another even though they are working with different agencies. It is an important principle regardless of the crisis situation. In the case of the 2014 Ebola outbreak, a number of contradictory statements were made about how the disease was spread and who was at risk. Some of this information occurred through social media and was spread in part because experts were not fully engaged in communicating the risk. This resulted in confusion and wasted time and money. As these cases show, breakdowns in coordination can make a response less effective and might even create more harm, including lost lives.

In addition, most organizations simply do not have all the resources and specialized expertise to manage crises. They will need help. Sometimes this takes the form of information. Disease outbreaks, natural disasters, toxic spills, and many other kinds of crises require technical expertise to manage the risk and reduce harm. Sometimes help means additional personnel or even equipment. During many crises, the organization's public relations department will be overwhelmed with calls, requests for information, and inquiries from the media. Organizations need some ability to surge their capacity to communicate during a crisis and this can be provided by their external public relations agency or by mutual aid agreements with other organizations. In other cases, specialized skills are needed. After a case of workplace violence, employees may need psychological counseling. These services can often be provided by the organization's health insurance provider.

How Can an Organization Create Collaboration and Coordination?

As we described earlier, it's best to develop collaborative and cooperative relationships before a crisis occurs. In many ways, these kinds of relationships are not just a best practice of crisis communication, they are good public relations and just good management. An organization can start developing these relationships by first making a list of stakeholders and determining what credible partners might be needed during a crisis. Once these groups are identified, it is helpful to find out more about them, their goals, and capabilities.

Activities such as exercises and tabletops can help build collaboration and cooperation. Sharing information about crisis plans can also help create partnerships and promote coordination. Mutual training activities are also helpful in creating networks of support. If partners know about and understand the plan, they will have a better idea of what they should do during a crisis. Plans may include lists of groups and organizations that can provide support, specialized expertise, and even equipment. Building true collaborative relationships with partners will require ongoing or at least regular interaction with credible partners.

It Is Possible to Coordinate and Cooperate With Hostile Groups?

Many crises can result in angry feelings, even hostility, among the groups an organization needs to coordinate with. These may be groups that have been harmed by the crisis. Is it possible to work with those groups? In most cases, it is possible to discover some basis for working together by finding common values and common ground and by acknowledging the anger people are feeling. Sometimes organizations have to face people who are angry and who have been harmed by a crisis. This may happen in community meetings, press conferences, and even annual meetings. These interactions are generally intense and unpleasant and sometimes become very hostile. In cases like this, it is unlikely a collaborative relationship can develop, but organizations and hostile groups can coordinate their efforts, perhaps to help those who have been harmed or to distribute important information. In addition, even the act of listening—trying to understand the views of others and looking for ways to cooperate—can be helpful in reducing outrage and creating more effective relationships. Even when groups are angry and hostile, we believe it is important to make the effort to coordinate and collaborate.

Summary

Collaborating and coordinating with credible sources and partners are almost always necessary for an effective crisis response. Developing these relationships before a crisis begins will improve its reputation and create a reservoir of goodwill it can draw on during a crisis. Collaborating and coordinating will also help to create consistent messages and can be important in getting important resources to manage a crisis. Although this may be one of the more difficult best practices, it is one of the most important. Collaborating and coordinating mean an organization will not have to face the crisis alone. Through collaboration and coordination, stakeholders, partners, experts, and credible sources of information will be there to assist in managing the crisis.

References

1. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2016). Glossary. Retrieved from https://emilms.fema.gov/is200b/glossary.htm
2. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2015). Organizations, stakeholders, and intermediaries: Towards a general theory. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(4), 253–271.
3. Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two‐way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Jones, G. H., Jones, B. H., & Little, P. (2000). Reputation as reservoir: Buffering against loss in times of economic crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1), 21–29.
5. Quarantelli, E. L. (1982). What is a disaster? In B. Jones, & M. Tomazevic (Eds.), Social and economic aspects of earthquake (pp. 453–465). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6. Spence, P. R., & Lachlan, K. A. (2016). Reoccurring challenges and emerging threats: Crises and the new millennium. In A. Schwarz, M. W. Seeger, & C. Auer (Eds.), The handbook of international crisis communication research (pp. 212–223). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.