A third best practice in crisis communication relates to communicating with publics to form partnerships in preventing, managing, and recovering from crises. Publics have the right to know what is happening in a high‐risk or crisis situation and organizations managing crises have a responsibility to share this information. This public communication includes messages from government response agencies and companies associated with the risk or crisis. Within this communication obligation are specific implications for the timely and accurate exchange of information, including both sharing and soliciting concerns and questions with publics. Ideally, publics can serve as a resource rather than a burden in risk and crisis management. Risk and crisis communication best practices emphasize creating a shared dialog between the groups and organizations managing a risk or crisis and publics affected by a risk or crisis.

Why Do Crisis Leaders Sometimes Avoid Communicating With Their Publics?

One of the reasons many crisis managers avoid communicating openly during a crisis is the myth that accurate information about a crisis will cause publics to panic (Sheppard, Rubin, Wardman, & Wessely, 2006). Despite the belief that people panic during crisis, this myth is not supported by research. In fact, there is some reason to believe the opposite is true. Withholding information from publics decreases the probability of an appropriate response (Herovic, Sellnow, & Anthony, 2014).

A second reason organizations often avoid communicating is the uncertainty about what to say (Reynolds & Seeger, 2005). By their nature, crises always include some uncertainty. At the onset of a crisis, what is happening is not fully understood. Uncertainty about what will happen next results in uncertainty about how to respond. If, however, crisis communicators wait to address their publics until they have a complete understanding of the crisis, the delay will create frustration and diminishing confidence. Waiting for all the facts to come in before communication will encourage audiences to seek out and accept information from less credible (or completely untrustworthy) sources.

Finally, some organizational leaders believe it is safer to avoid being open and honest during a crisis. Attorneys sometimes advise leaders to say as little as possible and may even suggest what is essentially a “no comment” approach. Although such a response may help protect the company from greater legal trouble in the postcrisis phase, it can be very damaging to the organization's long‐term reputation. Taking a “no comment” approach simply creates the impression the company has something to hide.

How Are Relationships With Publics Established?

The time to establish relationships with publics is now—well before the onset of the crisis. A number of studies have found that establishing positive relationships with stakeholders and creating a reservoir of goodwill before an event is critical to the successful management of a crisis (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015). Ongoing interaction with publics is necessary for creating this credibility. In addition, the credibility an organization develops prior to a crisis is particularly valuable during a crisis. Organizations that fail to develop credible relationships prior to a crisis will have a much more difficult time doing so after a crisis occurs. In fact, lack of credibility may significantly increase the level of harm.

The best practice of forming partnerships with publics, however, extends far beyond simply sharing information. The word “partnership” implies much more than a one‐way declaration of facts and corresponding strategies relayed by those with expertise or authority related to risks and crises. Partnerships, as we discuss in detail later, require that communication operates as a transaction between organizations or government agencies and their publics. For true partnerships to form, these transactions must reach the level of dialog.

Government agencies have long realized the limits of one‐way communication in managing risk. This linear view of communication leaves publics without the opportunity to share their reactions, recommendations, and concerns about how the situation is being managed. Most important, the linear view prohibits the establishment of partnerships with publics. Recognizing the inadequacy of linear communication, the National Research Council (NRC) conducted an extensive study of risk communication in the 1980s (1989). The study resulted in a report titled, “Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process.” The report noted an inadequacy of risk communication research. In response to this need, the NRC formed the Committee on Risk Perception and Communication. This committee published the groundbreaking book Improving Risk Communication in 1989. In this book, the NRC endorsed a view of risk communication as a “democratic dialog” (1989, p. 21). The following definition of risk communication provided in the book is a mainstay in the practice of risk communication:

Risk communication is an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions. It involves multiple messages about the nature of risk and other messages, not strictly about risk, that express concerns, opinions, or reaction to risk messages or to legal or institutional arrangements for risk management. (p. 21)

This definition establishes dialog, two‐way communication, and mutual exchange as the goal of risk communication. As we discuss next, true interactive dialog with publics is not possible without forming partnerships.

What Is Dialog?

The study of dialog dates to the ancient Greeks. The most familiar reference is to dialog in the so‐called Socratic method of teaching. A Socratic dialog involves a process of shared discovery among people, often a teacher and student, based on a series of analytical questions relevant to a specific topic. From this inception, dialog is now a central focus for studying relationships, ethics, and decision making. Unfortunately, dialog is often mistaken for conversation. In fact, organizations often use the term dialog to describe communication settings where some form of simple feedback is provided by publics. In their formative work, Kent and Taylor (1998) established the five principles for dialog involving an organization and its publics:

1. In dialog, organizations and agencies accept that there is a risk that the communication transaction with their publics can result in the revision or outright rejection of its conclusions and recommendations.
2. All parties must see each other with a sense of mutuality or equality. For example, the needs of the organization do not supersede the needs of a community of residents.
3. A sense of propinquity or relationship must be present among all parties engaged in dialog. Without a sense that an ongoing relationship exists and will continue to exist, the communication is linear in nature.
4. Dialog requires empathy. Those involved in the communication exchange must value the good of the others in the relationship. The need for empathy rules out any communication strategy that does not account for the good of the other party.
5. Finally, dialog requires a commitment to maintaining the conversation. Parties involved in dialog may reach goals and milestones, but there remains a commitment to ongoing communication that attends to evolving needs.

In short, people do not reach the level of true dialog unless they value the relationship, seek the best for the other parties, and are willing to adapt their policies and behaviors based on mutual respect for ideas shared and for the emotions experienced by all. Clearly, organizations and agencies cannot possibly reach the level of dialog promoted by the NRC if they engage in linear, one‐way communication.

Why Do Some Agencies and Organizations Fail to Establish Dialog?

A helpful strategy for successfully achieving dialog with publics is to understand how other agencies and organizations consistently fail to do so. The primary cause of failure to reach the level of dialog occurs because of a misinterpretation or lack of knowledge about what is true dialog. For example, some organizations are apprehensive about dialog because they believe such interaction as an invitation for publics to vent by expressing their anger, disapproval, or lack of trust in the organization. Such expressions indeed may occur, but avoiding or discounting these kinds of interactions precludes the opportunity to initiate dialog. A related temptation is to misinterpret dialog as customer service where two‐way communication is used simply and briefly to negotiate a resolution (or lack thereof) stemming from a customer complaint (Kent & Theunissen, 2016). Simple two‐way communication does not create the partnerships we believe in this best practice of crisis communication.

Others may see publics as incapable of comprehending the complexity of the science or data the organization is using to make decisions. In doing so, the organization assumes a paternalistic or power relationship over publics based on their expertise or knowledge. Both assumptions are invitations for failure. Condescending assumptions about one's audience make achieving mutual respect impossible. The key challenge for those who wish to establish a dialog with their publics is translating complex information at a highly practical level so publics can understand the risk and how that risk applies to them and their loved ones. As Kent and Lane (2017) explain, in dialog, information is shared in a way that can “appeal to publics” and make them “partners in naming the world” (p. 572). This process of translation cannot succeed unless organizations continue the dialog by consistently taking into account feedback and revising the message until it is both comprehendible and sufficient to meet the needs of listeners. For example, organizers of the Great ShakeOut—a campaign encouraging Americans to participate in earthquake drills teaching them to drop, cover, and hold on during earthquakes—regularly asks for feedback from people participating in the drill. Organizers of the ShakeOut frequently revise the content and means for distributing ShakeOut messages based on this sincere effort to better understand concerns of publics about and comprehension of earthquake readiness messages.

Dialog is also impossible if organizations see themselves as holding a power position over their publics. By a power relationship, we mean that an organization exerts or assumes to exert some level of control over a group or community. Naturally, there are times when an authoritative function is essential. For example, agencies may prohibit access to areas where extreme threat exists or where evacuated homes are left unattended for a period. In the ongoing exchange of information focused on risks or crisis recovery, however, coercive messages or actions are inappropriate. Dialog, by its nature, cannot be based on power. Rather, dialog results in “long lasting relationships nurtured, sought, and undertaken with humility and an understanding that the purpose of the conversation is not to get one's way, but to truly understand and gain deeper knowledge” (Kent & Theunissen, 2016, p. 4042).

How Does Dialog Produce Partnerships With Publics?

Because dialog stresses the development of an ongoing and lasting relationship, it is best thought of as a product where genuine relationships exist rather than simply a strategic process or strategy (Kent & Taylor, 1998). In this case, the relational product is a partnership that engages the organization and its publics in a coordinated effort to manage risks and respond to crises. Thus, engagement and the partnerships naturally emerging from this interaction are an inherent outgrowth of dialog (Taylor & Kent, 2014). For such engaged partnerships to develop, organizations must be attuned to and willing to tailor and adjust their messages for subgroups within the larger audience of publics. A single message to a mass audience, although potentially helpful as a warning, does not create dialog and engaged partnerships (Lane & Kent, 2018). Rather, messages tailored for and refined through interactions with subgroups, initiated by any of the parties involved, can help create the partnerships we advocate (Sellnow, Sellnow, Lane, & Littlefield, 2012). Because we want the best for our partners in dialog, organizations emphasize sharing protective actions—not only for individuals but for their families and communities as well. Thus, the crucial purpose of engaged dialog in a risk and crisis setting is never to simply benefit the organization. The goal is always the safety and well‐being of all publics served by the organization. Because of the rich potential for creating partnerships that can minimize harm and save lives, we share Kent and Lane's (2017) view that “dialog should be an organizational ethic rather than a strategic tool” (p. 576).

Are There Times When Dialog Should Be Avoided?

The partnerships created through dialog are valuable at all points in risk or crisis situations. There are moments in the acute phase of a crisis where the form of communication may shift more to instruction than the give‐and‐take approach of interaction (Sellnow & Sellnow, 2010). The acute phase of a crisis is when the risk of injury, damage, or loss of reputation are highest. During hurricanes, for example, the acute phase begins when the storm is nearing landfall and ends when the storm dissipates. At this point, the risk has become a crisis, and the time for exchanging messages is limited. Accordingly, the messages shared by state governments and federal agencies must focus on specific instructions. These instructions might be to evacuate specific areas or building types, such as mobile or manufactured homes. Other instructions may be to shelter in place with enough water, nonperishable food, flashlights, and alternate sources of electricity (such as batteries and generators) on hand to last for several days.

These instructions for self‐protection may seem linear or unidirectional with the agencies speaking and the residents listening. For a comparatively brief phase of the initial crisis, this may be true. Instructions for protective action cannot reach their full potential for effectiveness, however, without dialog taking place before and immediately following the most intense moments of the crisis. The sense of partnership instilled through dialog makes individuals more likely to comply with the recommended instructions for self‐protection, particularly when individuals feel the messages are tailored to their specific needs and the needs of their communities (Noar, Benac, & Harris, 2007; Sellnow et al., 2012). In a later section, we provide more detail on messages that empower publics to protect themselves during crises.

What Roles Can Publics Play in Their Partnerships With Organizations and Agencies?

There are many examples of community partnerships aiding in the prevention and management of crises. A compelling example of such successful community partnerships throughout the United States is the Department of Homeland Security's “If you see something, say something” program. The overriding philosophy of the program that began in 2010 is, “It takes a community to protect a community” (Department of Homeland Security, n.d., para. 1). The nationwide campaign raises public awareness about possible signs of terrorist‐related crime. The objective is to encourage people to notice suspicious behavior and report their observations to the nearest supervisory officials or call 911. In many cases, community residents are most likely to notice when something unusual is happening in the places they live or frequently visit. The program helps travelers at major facilities and en route to their destinations; students, faculty, and staff at schools on all levels; fans at sporting events and concerts; shoppers at busy stores; and people outside their homes for many other reasons learn to notice and report unattended bags, troubling conversations, or any other signs of potentially threatening behaviors. These partnerships give community officials thousands of added eyes and ears to help detect and prevent potential attacks.

The National Crime Prevention Council's Neighborhood Watch program is another formalized example of a community partnership. The program, originally launched in 1972, was designed to train and organize residents to assist law enforcement agencies in keeping a watchful eye on their neighborhoods (National Crime Prevention Council, n.d.). Residents participating in the program coordinate with their police and sheriffs' offices, participate in training, link with victim's services, attend regular neighborhood meetings, recruit new members, and many other activities relevant to the needs of their neighborhood residents. Although these programs are extremely helpful in controlling crime, they can also adapt quickly to fulfill other neighborhood needs in response to crises of almost any kind.

Partnerships can also arise spontaneously, which is often a characteristic of a crisis. After Hurricane Harvey left people in many areas of the Houston community trapped in their flooded neighborhoods, scores of volunteers offered to use their boats and other crafts to help evacuate stranded citizens and their pets. Officials in the flooded city welcomed the volunteers after recognizing the added resources were needed to cope with the unprecedented need. To further help coordinate the volunteer activities, other citizens formed impromptu organizations using social media to help identify those in need and recruit volunteer rescuers (Rincon, 2017). This willingness to serve and the capacity for citizen‐created organizations to emerge almost instantly is a pattern observed in other crises as well. For example, when hundreds of thousands of people were left with unsafe drinking water after a chemical spill in the Charleston, W.Va., area, volunteers both within the community and concerned citizens outside the state formed emergent organizations to help give residents the information they needed to access water and eventually flush the contaminated water from their homes (Getchell, 2017). Community partnerships such as those forming in Houston and West Virginia contribute remarkably to postcrisis recovery.

Citizens have also instinctively collaborated in emergency situations to stop crises in progress. The most vivid examples of this immediate alliance have occurred on passenger aircraft. For example, in the case of the so‐called “shoe bomber,” airline passengers in 2001 noticed and responded when another passenger attempted to ignite explosives hidden in his shoes. Similarly, in 2009, passengers responded when they observed an individual trying to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear. In both cases, potential disasters were averted (“Passengers help,” 2009). Passengers and observers have also spontaneously taken heroic actions in other settings. Three Americans on a crowded train from Amsterdam to Paris helped thwart a mass shooting. The Americans tackled a heavily armed shooter as he tangled momentarily with another French citizen. A shooter on the campus of Seattle Pacific University killed one student and wounded another outside before entering a building and wounding a second student. As the shooter attempted to reload his weapon, another student sprayed the shooter with pepper spray, wrestled his weapon from him, and subdued the shooter until help arrived (Green, 2016). In each of these examples, individuals responded instantaneously to prevent horrible consequences.

Each of these examples of community partnerships involves dialog. The “If you see something, say something” campaign promotes dialog among citizens and protective agencies. The Neighborhood Watch program encourages dialog among local law enforcement agencies and communities. The airline passengers who acted spontaneously to disrupt potential bombers did so with knowledge and recommendations shared broadly after the 9/11 hijackings. Likewise, the student who stopped the shooter at Seattle Pacific University had been exposed to the sad consequences of other campus shootings and he was trained as a building safety monitor. This exposure invites citizens to participate in an ongoing dialog about how to respond to these dangerous events. As these examples clearly illustrate, citizens can and do capitalize on dialog in ways that contribute to their safety and the safety of others around them.

Summary

Forming partnerships with publics creates opportunities for these populations to serve as a resource to assist in managing the crisis. Although some organizations are tempted to avoid sharing the information needed to form such partnerships due to fears of litigation, doing so can boost an organization's credibility and effectiveness in managing the crisis. Community groups, such as the Neighborhood Watch program, and national campaigns such as “If you see something, say something” could not exist without an ongoing dialog among agencies and citizens. Open discussions about how to respond in such threatening circumstances as active shooters also promotes wise actions—including the heroic steps taken by the individuals described previously. Active shooter training, for example, is provided for employees and students at an increasing rate. This training invites individuals to join in the dialog about how to better secure the buildings where they work. Failing to engage in such partnership‐forming dialog is a failure to embrace the tremendous potential for publics to contribute to their own protection.

References

1. Department of Homeland Security. (n.d.). If you see something, say something. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/see‐something‐say‐something/about‐campaign
2. Getchell, M. C. (2017). Chaos, informational voids, and emergent organizations: The case of West Virginia's water and freedom industries. In C. J. Liberman, D. Rodriguez, & T. A. Avtgis (Eds.), Casing crisis and risk communication (pp. 1–8). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
3. Green, S. J. (2016, October 11). Man who ended shooting at Seattle Pacific University takes stand in gunman's trial. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle‐news/crime/man‐who‐ended‐shooting‐at‐seattle‐pacific‐university‐takes‐stand‐in‐gunmans‐trial
4. Herovic, E., Sellnow, T. L., & Anthony, K. E. (2014). Risk communication as interacting arguments: Viewing the L'Aquila earthquake disaster through the message convergence framework. Argumentation and Advocacy, 51, 73–86.
5. Kent, M. L., & Lane, A. B. (2017). A rhizomatous metaphor for dialogic theory. Public Relations Review, 43, 568–578.
6. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334.
7. Kent, M. L., & Theunissen, P. (2016). Elegy for mediated dialogue: Shiva the destroyer and reclaiming our first principles. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4040–4054.
8. Lane, A., & Kent, M. L. (2018). Dialogic engagement. In K. Johnson, & M. Taylor (Eds.), Handbook of communication engagement (pp. 61–72). Malden, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell.
9. National Crime Prevention Council. (n.d.). Neighborhood Watch. Retrieved from https://www.ncpc.org/resources/home‐neighborhood‐safety/neighborhood‐watch
10. National Research Council (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta‐analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 673–693.
12. Passengers help stop possible terror attack on Detroit bound plane. (2009, December 26). Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/12/26/passengers‐help‐stop‐possible‐terror‐attack‐on‐detroit‐bound‐plane.html
13. Reynolds, B., & Seeger, M. W. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 43–55.
14. Rincon, M. (2017, September 8). Houston jumps in to volunteer. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/life/article/Houston‐jumps‐in‐to‐volunteer‐12184262.php
15. Sheppard, B., Rubin, G. J., Wardman, J. K., & Wessely, S. (2006). Terrorism and dispelling the myth of a panic prone public. Journal of Public Health Policy, 27(3), 219–245.
16. Sellnow, T. L., & Sellnow, D. D. (2010). The instructional dynamic of risk and crisis communication: Distinguishing instructional messages from dialogue. The Review of Communication, 10(2), 111–125.
17. 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.
18. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398.
19. Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2015). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.