When most people think of a crisis, they think of an explosion, fire, crash, or some other dramatic and damaging event with a definite beginning and a specific end. A crisis is really part of a much longer set of events and factors that occur over an extended period. What we think of as a crisis—the explosion, flood, or disease outbreak—is just one part of a larger process involving the interaction of many factors. Our first best practice suggests that a crisis should not be thought of as a single limited and contained event. Instead, we believe thinking of risks as ongoing issues with the continuous possibility that a particular risk might erupt and become a crisis is far more accurate. This approach also allows managers and public relations professionals to be much more effective in dealing with risks and crises. Because we are constantly surrounded by risks, there is always a chance an emergency or crisis can erupt around us. This does not mean we should constantly be afraid and should not take risks; it simply means we need to work to understand the evolving risks around us and be as prepared as possible.

In this section, we discuss the concept of process and we describe what we mean by a process approach to crisis communication. We also discuss the various stages and phases of a crisis and explore how these can be used to manage risks and crises. Crises generally develop according to patterns and understating the patterns or stages can be very helpful in determining what to communicate, to whom, and when. Finally, we suggest that communication needs to be part of the process of making policy decisions for organizations. Policies in organizations are guidelines for decisions and behaviors and including communication perspectives when policies are created makes them more effective.

What Do We Mean by “Communication Is a Process”?

What comes to mind when you think of communication? Is it a message? Perhaps you think of the channel or technology that carries the message, such as a smartphone, radio, or magazine. You might also think of senders and receivers when you think of communication. Senders are often organizations, agencies, or spokespersons. Receivers are often organizational stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, stockholders, employees, and members of the community as well as other organizations including the media. All these elements, messages, senders, receivers, feedback, and channels go into the larger communication process. A process involves a series of elements, factors, components, or steps that are interacting over time and that lead to outcomes. These interactions also change over time as the conditions and the elements change.

Communication is a process because it involves the dynamic interaction of many components—senders, receivers, messages, channels, feedback, noise—and these components change over time. Senders, for example, change the message as they learn more about a risk or crisis and as the situation develops and evolves. During the communication process, senders and receivers continually adapt to one another, change their messages, acquire new information, change their attitudes, and change their messages as conditions change. Communication is also a process in that it never stops. It is an ongoing and constantly evolving activity. As you send and receive messages from someone, you learn about them and you change how you communicate. In addition, one message sent at one point in time is not sufficient to achieve our goal. Usually, messages need to be repeated and adjusted. Feedback allows messages to be refined and improved. Even the choice not to communicate sometimes can send a message. The statement “no comment” in response to a crisis can send the message that the organization is hiding something or stonewalling. During a crisis, it may create the impression that important information is being withheld, that audiences and issues are being ignored, and that there may be something to hide.

What Does a Process Approach Mean for Crisis?

Crises can also be thought of as processes that create high levels of risk and uncertainty. As society evolves and becomes more complex, the level of risk and uncertainty can also increase. In his important book Normal Accidents, Charles Perrow (1984) describes how most crises involve problems with a system made up of many components. Expanding technology has created “tight coupling,” or an interdependence of industries, communities, and societies worldwide that intensifies and extends the reach of crises. Problems with a city water supply can affect the quality of parts produced in a manufacturing plant using that water, which can lead to failures in those products. As we move toward a more globalized economy, the risks, economic and otherwise, in one part of the globe have the potential to impact other parts. A recession in China can affect U.S. markets because many U.S. companies sell products to Chinese companies. A conflict in the Middle East may result in increased gasoline prices in the United States. These changes can occur very quickly and, unless managers are paying close attention, their organizations can be caught off guard. Many crises are the consequence of the failure of components or technologies that are part of large complex systems. Small weaknesses in data systems, for example, can result in massive data breaches where personal information is stolen, such as customer social security and credit card numbers. These small weaknesses may not even be evident to the people managing organizations.

One risk that can have very far reaching impacts involves infectious diseases. Some diseases are becoming bigger risks or becoming more common because of changes in society. Several very serious diseases are zoonotic, or diseases that come from animals and somehow jump to humans. These diseases, such as bird flu, can be particularly risky because humans have little or no resistance. Other diseases migrate from one part of the world to others, sometimes hitching a ride through global trade. The Zika virus was originally identified in the Zika forests of Africa in 1946 and has been slowly expanding to tropical areas of the world. It may have been spread to the western hemisphere by people who were unknowingly infected. Now the disease is common throughout South and Central America and is affecting many parts of the United States. Infectious diseases are expected to become very significant risks in the future as travel increases, agriculture practices become more intense, and people live closer together.

Crisis management in this very dynamic and complicated environment requires awareness of the risks associated with complex and changing systems so crises can be avoided when possible. We refer to this kind of awareness as “collective mindfulness.” This involves a kind of rich and complex familiarity about the immediate situation that comes from a deep and diverse understanding of the context (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2008). Collective mindfulness can also mean depending on experts who understand the risks. It also means all levels of the organization communicate about risks and crises openly and regularly.

As we, or those around us, adopt new technologies and global relationships and work in increasingly complex systems, our objective is to be mindful in ways that help us understand and foresee the potential threats that accompany them. The ability to collect information from multiple sources, anticipate risks, and understand and communicate about them successfully will become an even more valuable skill. A process approach to crisis communication suggests that public relations, marketing, issues management, public affairs, and other communication professionals have a special responsibility in understanding risks and anticipating crises.

Crisis management in these very dynamic and complicated environments also requires that organizations have the capability to respond to a crisis when it occurs, including the ability to continuously communicate effectively as the conditions change. Understanding how risks and crises change over time is necessary for effective crisis communication. Researchers who study crises have pointed out that most crises develop in similar ways and the communication needs change as the crisis evolves. They have identified various stages or phases that are part of the process of crisis development and resolution. We call these stages the crisis life cycle.

What Is a Crisis Life Cycle?

Many descriptions of crisis stages have been developed by researchers. Some of these involve four, five, or six relatively distinct stages of crisis development. The common core in all these depictions can be summarized in three stages: precrisis, crisis, and postcrisis. Precrisis is the stage where risks are developing or incubating. This is a stage for risk assessment and crisis planning. Crisis is the acute stage, where a crisis has erupted and damage (physical or reputational) is occurring and threat is at its highest. Postcrisis is the recovery stage for an organization or community and ushers in a renewed effort toward precrisis planning. From this perspective, the life cycle of a crisis is cyclical, beginning and ending with precrisis assessment and planning. By viewing crisis as a process, we do not treat crises as single events after which we return to normal. Rather, we see a crisis as an indication that, on some level, our planning and assessment fell short of our objectives and a “new normal” is needed. By new normal we mean new ways of understanding and managing risks.

The precrisis stage is usually described as an incubation period. During this time, everything appears to be normal. The company, agency, or community is acting in a routine way and there are established behaviors, rules, and procedures for how to avoid any risks. In companies that process food, for example, these may include standards for cleanliness, cooking temperatures, and how food is stored. During this phase, there is some risk factor that is unforeseen, or which goes unnoticed or ignored. For example, there may be a new source of food contamination that isn't understood, such as a new product from a supplier. This new risk factor may interact with a small flaw, such as a refrigeration system that is too warm, and result in a foodborne illness outbreak. Outbreaks of foodborne illness are surprisingly common and can have very significant implications for food companies.

The second phase is the crisis phase, which occurs once the crisis is noticed by a majority of people. Usually, but not always, there is a trigger event in the form of a dramatic occurrence that signals a crisis has started and there is potential for serious harm. This may be an explosion, a report in the media, dramatic rises in flood waters, or many people reporting to local hospitals with illnesses or injuries. During this stage, damage and harm occur to people, property, reputations, organizations, and systems. The crisis stage is usually a very intense time where action must be taken quickly, assistance provided, and information communicated to help contain or limit the harm. If actions are not taken—for example if warnings aren't communicated quickly and effectively—more harm occurs. In the case of a company spilling a dangerous chemical into a river that supplies drinking water, people need to be informed as soon as possible that they should not drink the water. Assistance may be needed and coordinated to provide bottled water and to monitor the river for contamination. Local health care providers need to be informed about the symptoms they may see from people exposed to the chemical. The crisis stage usually continues until there is no new harm occurring.

The postcrisis stage is the time when things begin to return to some level of normal. Although there may still be ongoing cleanup, lawsuits, and lingering questions about what happened, postcrisis is usually a time to take steps to move beyond the crisis. Communities and organizations get back to business. This may involve trying to forget some of the things that happened while documenting and emphasizing others. This is part of learning the lessons of the crisis. In the case of a product defect, such as an ignition switch on cars, company leadership might put new procedures and rules in place to make sure any such defects are identified in the future. These new procedures and rules might be announced publicly to show the organization has moved beyond the crisis. In addition, the postcrisis stage can be an extended period of legal liability and public arguments about blame and responsibility. Sometimes, these arguments can last for years. Questions about blame and responsibility are almost always part of a crisis and most organizations try to resolve these as quickly as possible so they can get on with business. Communication strategies to repair a damaged image are usually part of the effort to get back to normal operations. These strategies can take many forms, including denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification.

The precrisis, crisis, and postcrisis stages are helpful in determining what needs to be communicated at what points. A crisis can create tremendous uncertainty and knowing what might happen next can help people manage a crisis more successfully. Thinking about a crisis as a series of stages can also help people understand that risk and crisis are parts of an ongoing process and that conditions will change.

How Can These Stages Be Used by Crisis Communicators?

The precrisis, crisis, and post stages can also be very useful in planning communication activities. Each stage creates different communication requirements and, as part of a process approach, messages need to be changed as the crisis evolves.

During the precrisis stage, for example, collecting information about risk factors, how they are developing, and their potential impact is essential. This is an ongoing monitoring activity where information is collected about issues, stakeholders, resources, and the larger environment. Once risks are understood, messages about risk factors and risk avoidance can be developed and communicated. Manufacturing companies often conduct worker safety campaigns with themes such as “Safety First!” and “Safety Is Job One.” Precrisis health promotion campaigns may encourage annual influenza vaccinations. Preparedness campaigns may encourage people to “Make a plan and stay informed.” In general, planning and preparation are important parts of the precrisis stage and we discuss these in more detail in the next chapter. Precrisis is also a good time to invest in developing positive relationships with stakeholders. These investments can help build up an organization's reservoir of goodwill. This can be thought of as a reputation or image savings account or rainy‐day fund that can be used when a crisis is triggered.

The crisis stage is the time when the crisis communication plan is put into action. The plan will require rapid communication designed to reduce uncertainty and contain and limit harm. This includes harm to the organization's image, brands, and reputation. Communicating quickly and coordinating with other groups can help create the impression that the organization is being responsible and is in control of the situation. During the crisis stage, some of the primary channels will be press releases, news conferences, and, increasingly, social media such as Twitter. Social media is a very rapid form of communication and can help get important messages out very quickly. In addition to communicating quickly, it is also important to communicate in ways that are sensitive to any harm that has been created from the crisis. This may involve expressing concern and empathy for those affected and, in some cases, offering apologies. Although organizations are generally very careful not to admit guilt or wrongdoing following a crisis, it is still possible to express concern for those who might have been harmed.

Communication in the final stage, the postcrisis stage, is usually dominated by questions of blame, responsibility, and liability. This is a time for messages that explain what happened and why. In most cases, it is best to get these questions answered in an open and direct way as quickly as possible. Sometimes, questions of cause and blame can linger for months or years as lawsuits are filed and settled. Lingering questions of blame and liability can be ongoing distractions and can become serious threats to an organization's reputation. This can also be a time when the focus shifts to learning the lessons of the crisis and communicating them. Learning is one of the most important functions of postcrisis communication. Lessons can be communicated through executive speeches, at memorial services, and in after action reports (AARs) and can help ensure a similar crisis does not happen again. Sometimes, these lessons can be positive, such as “Our community pulled together to defeat the crisis” or “Our company came out of this crisis more focused on core business.” In this way, a crisis sometimes creates the opportunity for learning and improvement and can be a renewing experience. This is determined in part by the communication that occurs in the crisis and postcrisis stages.

The communication required during the stages of crisis also indicates that communication perspectives need to be part of the top decision‐making structure of the organization. Key policy decisions about risks and crises need to incorporate communication perspectives from public relations, public affairs, and issue management.

Why Should Communicators Participate in the Policy Formation Process?

The management of risks and crises requires a number of policy decisions. As we described, a policy is a guideline for decisions and actions usually developed by organizations or government agencies. These guidelines can have very broad and long‐term implications for how organizations respond to conditions, including crises. Policies, for example, may specify who can serve as a formal spokesperson for certain issues or outline how press releases are approved for final distribution. Policies can also include guidelines for how we respond to a crisis. For example, a policy might specify who will be notified during a crisis, when people might be evacuated, and who has the authority to make those decisions. These guidelines can be especially important during a crisis, where decisions sometimes have to be made very quickly and often without complete information. Some policy decisions can also be made before a crisis erupts, during the precrisis stage, where there is more time to consider many factors. As we discuss in the next chapter, setting out these kinds of policies during precrisis is part of a crisis planning best practice.

Policy decisions can also accelerate effective responses during a crisis. If guidelines are in place about when and how an evacuation order or a recall notice is to be issued, for example, the actual decision can occur more quickly. Usually during a crisis, important decisions have to be made very quickly and often there simply is not time to consult everyone affected, gather information, and consider all the implications. A clear policy about who will be the crisis spokesperson and how messages will be developed and improved can help speed communication to the affected publics. A policy for making decisions during a crisis and communicating them quickly is a best practice.

In many cases, the communication function of an organization is not seen as part of the overall strategic policy formation process. Rather, in many situations, communication is seen as a tactical process for implementing a policy once it has been made (Grunig & Grunig, 2000). The strategic policy process sets the overall direction and goals for an organization and is generally seen as a top management function. In contrast, tactical operations are the day‐to‐day activities and functions that help carry out or put the strategy in place. To say this another way, tactics can be seen as just announcing a decision once it has been made. When communication is part of the policy formation process, however, the policies usually reflect the needs and interests of audiences and stakeholders. This can be especially important during a crisis where communication is such a central part of the response.

Making sure the communication perspective is represented in the strategic policy process about crises isn't always easy. One of the keys to participating is to ensure communication is part of the larger crisis response function and key crisis management planning and response teams are consulted from the start. In addition, being able to bring useful information about risks and crises to the discussion can help demonstrate the importance of communication to crisis management. As we discussed earlier, the precrisis stage should include monitoring for issues and threats. Public relations and communication can demonstrate the value of these activities by collecting and distributing that information to other decision makers. During the crisis stage, public relations and communication staff can show their value by formulating the initial response and anticipating next steps. In postcrisis, making sure lessons are described, disseminated, and acted on can also help demonstrate that communication should be part of the policy process.

Summary

Crises are becoming increasingly complex as our organizations and society evolve. We are constantly exposed to risk on many levels. We are continuously in a precrisis state until we experience a full‐blown emergency or crisis. We move from crisis to postcrisis recovery and back to precrisis. For these reasons, crisis is best seen as an ongoing process where we are always moving from a circumstance we consider normal to what we recognize as a new normal. Thinking about crisis in this way is a best practice that helps us prepare, anticipate, and respond. Crisis communication also functions best when it is part of the strategic policy making process.

References

1. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2000). Public relations in strategic management and strategic management of public relations: Theory and evidence from the IABC excellence project. Journalism Studies, 1(2), 303–321.
2. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2008). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 3(1), 81–123.