Whether communicating with publics, media, or their employees, designated spokespersons should demonstrate appropriate levels of compassion. Such compassion includes expressing concern for those affected or at risk and an empathetic willingness to see the crisis through their eyes (Covello, 2003). This need for emotional sensitivity constitutes our eighth best practice. The expression of compassion by a crisis spokesperson is a vital characteristic that enhances messenger and message credibility (Simpson, Clegg, & Pinae Cunha, 2013). Publics respond much more positively to spokespersons who acknowledge their concerns and demonstrate understanding and compassion for any harm that may have occurred. If publics see an expression of genuine concern and empathy, they have more faith that the actions taken or recommended by the spokesperson are appropriate and in their best interest.

Despite the nearly universal support for expressing compassion in crisis situations (Simpson et al., 2013), some crisis spokespersons may be reluctant to include such expressions for fear of appearing weak or unprofessional. Moreover, some refuse to express such emotions out of concern that their words will be used against them in future litigation. These efforts to maintain pride and professionalism or legal distance are often perceived by publics as cold and uncaring (Liska, Petrun, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2012). The resulting perception of such self‐indulgence, however, may undermine the message and credibility of the messenger.

A compassionate expression of concern and empathy reframes the crisis‐related message to prioritize the needs of publics. Anthony and Sellnow (2011) characterized this audience‐centered focus as a reflection of C. S. Lewis' (1985) declaration that, “You can't get second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting the first things first” (p. 22). In crisis situations, the physical and emotional well‐being of those affected by the crisis is the priority or a “first thing.” Concerns about profit, legality, or other self‐interests are secondary. These secondary concerns are not compromised by sharing concern for the well‐being of those whose lives are disrupted by crisis (Anthony & Sellnow, 2011). Rather, an expression of genuine compassion early in a crisis can enhance the spokesperson's credibility throughout the crisis recovery.

Coombs (1999) cautions that “compassion should not be taken as a cure‐all response” because, although it has benefits, compassion “also can be a drain on stock prices” (p. 139). In response to this concern, we emphasize the point that a compassionate response should be provided out of genuine concern for all those affected by the crisis. Certainly, actions that address reputational matters and threaten stock prices are expected in the latter stages of a crisis. In the early stages of a crisis, however, messages of compassion should precede efforts to improve one's reputation and protect the bottom line. Failure to do so is placing the second thing (stock prices) ahead of the first thing (well‐being of those affected by the crisis). As C. S. Lewis (1985) explains, two things may both be good, but pursuing something secondary over something primary inevitably results in the loss of both.

What Is a Compassionate Response to Crisis?

Though crisis communication situations vary widely, the central elements of compassion remain consistent. Lu & Schuldt (2016) identify three essential and consistent characteristics of compassionate crisis communication. They explain “compassion is a prosocial emotion that is linked to increased care and concern for others, decreased attention to one's own needs, and a motivation to aid another person for their own sake” (p. 193). This three‐part definition provides a practical framework for spokespersons.

First, compassionate crisis communication is based in an “increased care and concern for others” (Lu & Schuldt, 2016, p. 193). By their nature, crises create hardship. This hardship is often experienced by innocent bystanders of the crisis. For example, a Canadian Pacific Railway freight train derailment near Minot, N.D., resulted in a ruptured anhydrous ammonia tanker car, releasing a poisonous cloud of the chemical that settled over the city. The poisonous gas injured at least 60 residents and killed 1 (Witte, 2002). The governor of North Dakota at the time, John Hoeven, quickly acknowledged the shock and fear the residents were feeling and pledged assistance to the community. Canadian Pacific Railway was much slower in reaching out to the community. Hoeven's compassionate response brought an initial sense of order to the residents who were experiencing a crisis far beyond their control. He anticipated their needs and sought to reassure the community by promising to provide the resources for the urgent health care they needed and to protect them from further physical harm due to the derailment. The governor's message preceded any discussion of blame or responsibility. His foremost concern was helping those in need.

Second, compassionate crisis communication expresses “decreased attention to one's own needs” (Lu & Schuldt, 2016, p. 193). Compassionate messages precede any actions that could create a perception the organization is being forced by legal or regulatory policies to take corrective actions following a crisis. Instead, compassionate crisis communication expresses a degree of selflessness on the part of the spokesperson and organization. British Petroleum (BP) chief executive officer (CEO) Tony Hayward completely missed this point when, in an interview during the acute phase of the colossal oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he asserted, “I want my life back” as his primary justification for resolving the crisis (Reuters, 2010). Hayward was condemned for what residents perceived as an insensitive and self‐centered remark that represented his lack of commitment to the communities whose livelihoods were disrupted or destroyed by the crisis. By contrast, Tom Kilgore, CEO and president of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), was far more compassionate in his initial response to a coal ash spill that devastated communities along a stretch of the Emory River near Knoxville, Tenn. The damage was horrific and Kilgore placed his full attention on the communities affected by the crisis. He acknowledged that TVA could never return the region to its pristine existence or make the community “whole” again (“Tennessee: Community Awaits Answers,” 2009, para. 6). He pledged to address residents’ immediate needs, to engage the TVA in a wide‐scale and unprecedented cleanup process, and to fully investigate internal procedures at TVA to identify the failures that led to the crisis. Sadly, BP’s and TVA’s cleanup activities will continue for many years in both the Gulf of Mexico and Tennessee. Unlike Hayward, however, Kilgore remained a central figure in the cleanup process for several years.

Third, compassionate crisis communication exhibits a “motivation to aid another person for their own sake” (Lu & Schuldt, 2016, p. 193). Schwan's response to a Salmonella outbreak in its ice cream provides a classic example of offering to aid others solely for their sake. After seeing a pattern of salmonellosis in its customers, Schwan's voluntarily recalled all ice cream products. Before any investigation was completed, Schwan's also pledged to pay the medical bills of customers who sought treatment for salmonellosis. Schwan's also asked its door‐to‐door delivery drivers to personally solicit returns of tainted merchandise and to provide refunds. This response further intensified the strong loyalty many consumers had for the company (Sellnow, Ulmer, & Snider, 1998). A later investigation found that one of Schwan's external suppliers was to blame for the outbreak.

Who Is the Best Organizational Spokesperson for Expressing Compassion?

Selecting a crisis spokesperson should not be based solely on the organizational hierarchy or information specialization. Rather, organizations “should choose a person capable of delivering your messages with the compassion and care that a crisis demands” (Phillips, 2013, para. 7). The spokesperson must also have access to essential information and the capacity to withstand the rigors of intense scrutiny from reporters. Maintaining a compassionate focus in the face of media questions can be challenging. Communication consultant Kim Harrison advises spokespersons to remain “compassionate, empathetic, courteous, and considerate” throughout the process (n.d., para. 15). The challenge is that “it's not easy to do this under pressure when silly questions are asked or repeated, but this patient approach is necessary” (Harrison, n.d., para. 15). A spokesperson could indeed genuinely care very deeply for the well‐being of the organization's stakeholders, but lapses of impatience or intolerance in reaction to the relentless probes of reporters can lead to nonverbal expressions of insincerity.

As the crisis moves on from the initial stage, multiple internal spokespersons are likely to be featured to discuss the details of the recovery or cleanup. These spokespersons will emerge based on the informational needs at any given point in the crisis recovery. The emphasis on compassion should not dissolve as new spokespersons and evidence related to the crisis appear. Rather, compassion should remain a consistent feature expressed by all spokespersons during all stages of the crisis. To accomplish this task, providing media training for all spokespersons is advised. Such media training should emphasize simulated crisis circumstances where the organization's message is challenged. Specifically, this training should include mock interviews that challenge the organization's spokesperson to maintain a compassionate disposition when asked questions that are accusatory, technically complex, misinformed, or mundane. Training of this nature can prepare spokespersons for the inevitable challenges of media interviews.

When Is Expressing Compassion Most Important?

We accept that showing compassion can improve or maintain an organization's reputation; however, reputation should not be the primary motivation. As we discussed, once a crisis has occurred, expressing sincere compassion for those affected by the crisis should precede any tactical effort to rebuild the organization's image. Thus, the obvious answer to the question of when to show compassion in a crisis is immediately. Displaying compassion should not, however, be reserved for the onset of crises. Simpson et al. (2013) caution against showing compassion for the first time when a crisis occurs. Instead, they argue that compassion should be a consistent element of an organization's external communication. They see compassion as “ongoing social relational processes best cultivated in times of normality, rather than in moments of disaster” (p. 123). In their research, they found organizations that were most responsive in crisis situations “already had compassionate policies and routines in place as an ongoing mode of practice” (p. 120). These ongoing compassionate policies were regularly monitored and altered through ongoing feedback provided by the organizations' stakeholders.

Enacting compassionate policies that are featured continuously in the life of an organization has multiple benefits. Considerable evidence indicates that organizations seen as having corporate social responsibility are often preferred by consumers (Dodd & Supa, 2011). From a crisis communication perspective, corporate social responsibility is reflected in an organization's ongoing compassionate policies and actions that show concern for their publics and the environment. These compassionate acts can, as we discussed earlier, build a “reservoir of goodwill” in the eyes of publics (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2017). Organizations that have accumulated a reservoir of goodwill can draw upon these positive impressions when they face crises. The result is a greater tendency by publics to give the organization the benefit of the doubt and to trust that the organization is sincere in pledging to prioritize the well‐being of their stakeholders when responding to crises. The short answer as to when to show compassion in a crisis is immediately; however, the longer, more accurate answer is to show compassion through an ongoing effort to function as a socially responsible organization.

Should an Organization Express Compassion If Blame Is Uncertain?

In the early stages of crises, the inherent lack of information makes assigning blame difficult. What is not difficult to promptly recognize, however, is the stakeholders who are at risk or are suffering. Organizations that reach out to their stakeholders early in crises, whether the organization is or is not to blame, contribute to their reservoir of goodwill. In fact, Englehardt, Sallot, and Springston (2004) explain that organizations stand to benefit from what they call “compassion with blame” (p. 127). This strategy involves expressing concern for publics who are suffering because of the crisis and, if possible, offering assistance without accepting blame. Enacting a strategy of compassion without blame does not prohibit an organization from accepting blame once a crisis investigation is completed. Rather, this approach allows organizations to behave in a compassionate, socially conscious way without fear of incriminating themselves. As we discussed, Schwan's began compensating customers' medical expenses before a full understanding of how the crisis originated was available. The legal aspects of the case lingered on for years, but Schwan's words and actions early in the crisis created an enduring sense of social responsibility in the minds of their customers (Sellnow et al., 1998).

How Should an Organization Express Compassion If Blame Is Certain?

In cases where blame is clearly established for an organization, compassion can be shown through the actions the organization takes to resolve the crisis (Benoit, 2015). Specifically, organizations accepting blame for a crisis can show compassion in three steps:

1. Showing empathy for those affected by the crisis.
2. Outlining specific corrective actions.
3. Engaging in mortification (asking for forgiveness).

An apology for blame should begin with a recognition of the pain the crisis caused and an expression of genuine remorse for this pain. Having established this recognition and remorse, an organization can introduce corrective actions that, first, fulfill the needs of those who are affected by the crisis, and, second, explain how the organization will “mend its ways” in the future to avoid a repeat of such incidents (Benoit, 2015, p. 26). This strategy moves well beyond simple compensation to those victimized by crisis. Compensation can be done begrudgingly or to sidestep blame, neither of which show compassion. Mortification is a clear admission of guilt with an appeal for forgiveness. If organizations succeed in completing these three steps, the hope is “audiences will forgive, but forgiveness is not certain” (Benoit, 2015, p. 27). Still, an organization whose blame is certain is unlikely to improve its reputation or legal standing by refusing to show compassion for its stakeholders (Choi & Lin, 2009).

How Should Spokespersons Express Compassion Through Social Media?

Social media is both friend and enemy to organizations responding to crises. Frandsen and Johansen (2017) explain that social media can help organizations “quickly share crisis responses, instruction, and updates with stakeholders on both its corporate website and on stakeholders' networks” (p. 171). On the other hand, any missteps by the organization can be shared thousands of times through social networks before the organization can offer a response. Despite the potential pitfalls of social media, organizations cannot ignore this opportunity for sharing compassionate messages during crises. North, Li, Liu, and Ji (2018) contend that in crisis situations, “speed and sincerity are still vital and perhaps more so now with the rapidity and permanence—thanks to screenshots—of social media” (p. 207). Accordingly, organizations should plan to have a social media presence for all relevant stakeholders when responding to crises.

Lachlan, Spence, and Lin (2018) encourage organizations to “reconsider their assumptions about how to best reach audiences in times of crisis and emergency” (p. 296). This reconsideration goes beyond simply delivering the same statement or press release shared with traditional media over a social media channel. Instead, organizations can show compassion for their stakeholders during crises by capitalizing on the opportunities for two‐way communication or dialog via social media. We discussed the importance of dialog in connecting messages with publics in an earlier chapter. Organizations can engage in dialog by using social media platforms, like Twitter, to listen and attend to stakeholder responses to the organization's initial messages. Unfortunately, many organizations fail to capitalize on this opportunity for public dialog. Instead, many organizations use social media “in the same manner as they would broadcast instead of holding dialogs with stakeholders” (Lachlan et al., 2018, p. 310). To express compassion through dialog, organizations must dedicate sufficient resources to two areas. First, they should share fitting messages over social media platforms. Second, they should collect, sort, and respond to the responses received either as themes or in individual replies. By doing so, organizations exploit the speed and broad distribution of social media while maintaining a sincere commitment to addressing the needs of those whose lives are disrupted by the crisis.

What Role Does Culture Play in the Expression of Compassion?

Spokespersons can show compassion by adapting their message to meet the distinct needs of their multiple publics. Audience analysis focusing on differences ranging from family composition, religion, and language preference to age, income, and education level all have the potential to create disparate needs from factions within a greater audience. Those spokespersons who tailor or adapt their messages to meet the needs of their diverse audiences foster greater trust and are more influential (Sellnow, Sellnow, Lane, & Littlefield, 2012). For example, hurricane warnings that urge people in threatened areas to evacuate are not received universally within the target population. Those who have the financial capacity to purchase gasoline, rent a room, purchase restaurant food along the way, and cover other expenses are more likely to evacuate. Those who are financially challenged may lack the tangible means to evacuate. Evacuation shelters may be available at no expense; however, finding transportation to the shelter, perceived safety within the shelter, and the willingness of the shelter to harbor pets all play a role in whether or not individuals will evacuate their threatened homes. Spokespersons show compassion when they acknowledge these challenges and communicate strategies for overcoming them.

Spokespersons also show compassion by addressing cultural differences within their audiences. Different culture manifests in how people communicate. This creates a need for spokespersons to adapt their crisis communication to acknowledge these differences (Kwansah‐Aidoo & George, 2017). For culturally diverse audiences, spokespersons show compassion by tailoring their messages to make their content culturally centered. Many spokespersons take culture into consideration when sharing crisis messages. To be culture centered, however, spokespersons must move beyond being culture neutral or expressing cultural sensitivity (Dutta, 2007). Spokespersons are culture neutral when they assume all cultural groups within the intended audience will respond to the message in the same way. A culturally sensitive approach is achieved when spokespersons recognize the characteristics of the population and create messages that meet the needs of each group. The most compassionate level is the culture‐centered approach. In culture‐centered communication, members from underrepresented populations are directly consulted about the content and channels for distributing crisis messages. To reach the culture‐centered level, organizations must cultivate relationships with underrepresented populations and include them in their crisis planning (Littlefield, 2013).

Summary

During a crisis, the designated leader or spokesperson will often be asked to speak to publics and media. The spokesperson may assume that sticking to the facts and avoiding any emotion is safer from a legal or professional perspective. In this case, publics may get the impression the spokesperson is cold and uncaring. Although false emotion can backfire, spokespersons should be willing to express human feelings during a crisis. It is almost always appropriate to say, “We express our deep concern for anyone harmed, and we are sorry for any harm that may have occurred.” This kind of statement is natural whenever a serious crisis has occurred, be it a defective product or a case of workplace violence. Spokespersons should demonstrate appropriate levels of compassion, concern, and empathy when communicating with their publics, media, and employees. Expressions of genuine concern and empathy tend to give publics and employees faith that the actions underway or recommended are in their best interest. A failure to show compassion can create an impression of distance or insensitivity. Regardless of who is selected as the organization's crisis spokesperson, expressing compassion is essential.

References

1. Anthony, K. E., & Sellnow, T. L. (2011). Beyond Narnia: The necessity of C.S. Lewis' First and Second Things in applied communication research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39, 441–443.
2. Benoit, W. L. (2015). Accounts, excuses, and apologies (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
3. Choi, Y., & Lin, Y. H. (2009). Individual difference in crisis response perception: How do legal experts and lay people perceive apology and compassion responses? Public Relations Review, 35, 452–454.
4. Coombs, T. W. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of Public Relations Research, 112, 125–142.
5. Covello, V. T. (2003). Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication. Journal of Health Communication, 8(S1), 5–8.
6. Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2011). Understanding the effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer purchase intention. Public Relations Journal, 5(3), 1–19.
7. Dutta, M. J. (2007). Communicating about culture and health: Theorizing culture‐centered and cultural sensitivity approaches. Communication Theory, 17, 304–328.
8. Englehardt, K. J., Sallot, L. M., & Springston, J. K. (2004). Compassion without blame: Testing the accident decision flow chart with the crash of ValuJet flight 592. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(2), 127–156.
9. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2017). Organizational crisis communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Harrison, K. (n.d.). Communicating during a crisis. Cutting Edge PR. Retrieved from http://www.cuttingedgepr.com/articles/crisiscomm_comm_during.asp
11. Kwansah‐Aidoo, K., & George, A. M. (2017). Communication, culture and crisis in a transboundary context. In A. George, & K. Kwansah‐Aidoo (Eds.), Culture and crisis communication (pp. 3–18). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
12. Lachlan, K. A., Spence, P., & Lin, X. (2018). Natural disasters, Twitter and stakeholder communication. In L. Austin, & Y. Jin (Eds.), Social media and crisis communication (pp. 296–303). New York, NY: Routledge.
13. Lewis, C. S. (1985). First and second things. Glasgow, Scotland: William Collins Sons (Original work published in 1942).
14. Liska, C., Petrun, E. L., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2012). Chaos theory, self‐organization and industrial accidents: Crisis communication. Southern Communication Journal, 77(3), 180–197.
15. Littlefield, R. S. (2013). Communicating risk and crisis communication to multiple publics. In A. J. DuBrin (Ed.), Handbook of research on crisis leadership in organizations (pp. 231–251). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
16. Lu, H., & Schuldt, J. P. (2016). Compassion for climate change victims and support for mitigation policy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 192–200.
17. North, M., Li, C., Liu, J., & Ji, Y. G. (2018). Using Twitter for crisis communication: A content analysis of Fortune 500 companies. In L. Austin, & Y. Jin (Eds.), Social media and crisis communication (pp. 197–208). New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Phillips, B. (2013, August 27). The spokesperson you choose speaks volumes. My PRSA. Retrieved from http://apps.prsa.org/Intelligence/Tactics/Articles/view/10320/1082/The_spokesperson_you_choose_speaks_volumes#.WiQ9gTeIaUk
19. Reuters. (2010, June 10) BP CEO apologizes for “thoughtless” oil spill comment. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us‐oil‐spill‐bp‐apology/bp‐ceo‐apologizes‐for‐thoughtless‐oil‐spill‐comment‐idUSTRE6515NQ20100602
20. Sellnow, T. L., Sellnow, D. D., Lane, D. R., & Littlefield, R. S. (2012). The value of instructional communication in crisis situations: Restoring order to chaos. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 633–643.
21. Sellnow, T. L., Ulmer, R. R., & Snider, M. (1998). The compatibility of corrective action in organizational crisis communication. Communication Quarterly, 46, 60–74.
22. Simpson, A. V., Clegg, S., & Pinae Cunha, M. (2013). Expressing compassion in the face of crisis: Organizational practices in the aftermath of the Brisbane floods of 2011. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(2), 115–124.
23. Tennessee: Community awaits answers. (2009, January 4). Times Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/news/story/2009/jan/04/tennessee‐community‐awaits‐answers/202365
24. Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2017). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25. Witte, B. (2002, January 17). Train derailment kills one, sends ammonia cloud over Minot. Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved from http://bismarcktribune.com/uncategorized/train‐derailment‐kills‐one‐sends‐ammonia‐cloud‐over‐minot/article_35ad8aeb‐21a9‐5be6‐8c98‐543ba8b71471.html