IS MY WORLD ENDING??

Explain the importance of a crisis management plan. Define the key elements of a crisis management plan such as who responds, the tone used and the chain of command. Compare how two brands handled a crisis. Define if they were successful or not and explain anything you would’ve done differently.

6 min readNov 7, 2020

No, the world is not ending, but your crisis communication plan could use some work. Understanding and creating a crisis communication plan that is effective not only saves money but saves the organization’s reputation (Ch.09). Without it, you’d be in the tanks, one reactive mistake after another. We’ll dive into why having a crisis management plan is important and examples of successes and failures.

Crisis management plans are essential in every area of business; it helps the organization avoid or lessen the impact of a crisis. The plan allows your organization to be prepared with a team, messaging, and practice (Ch. 09) responses in the wake of a crisis. It gets your company organized and thinking about possible scenarios that may harm the bottom line of the business.

Key elements that should be remembered in a potential crisis is to first determine if you are in a crisis or a problem. This indicates who can respond and how far up the chain of command you need to go for damage control or a solution. This will in turn help create a plan and identify the vulnerabilities of your communication plan. Creating a plan gets the process started. During a crisis, everyone is overwhelmed; it becomes difficult to make statements when flustered. A plan provides examples (Ch.09) of how to respond depending on the scenarios that have been discussed. It is important to build a strong team (Ch. 09) with representatives from each department and establish a chain of command, allowing the group to define clear roles, responsibilities, and communicate effectively in the event of a crisis. The chain of command identifies a spokesperson and establishes the tone of each crisis scenario reviewed. Not every crisis deserves the same response. In some cases, there is an injury or death needing a sympathetic response (Ch.09). In other instances, it’s tweeting something inappropriate from the wrong account requiring an apology needing to be issued. Always ensure that you check the facts before creating a stance and in all instances, the responses should be honest, authentic, and genuine with clear empathy from the company making the statement. Owning up to mistakes is the best way to gain forgiveness from consumers. Finally, always remember to stress test the plan (ch.09). This ensures that the communication is clear and concise even in the wake of panic.

EXAMPLES:

One of my favorite comparisons is the similarities and differences between organizations GM and Toyota. Both experienced recalls resulting from deaths while utilizing their vehicles and while both instances were similar, their crisis communication plans could not be more different. GM decided to take the route of apology and restitution by addressing the crisis, stating how it will affect its reputation, and then issuing an apology. On the other side, Toyota decided on the other side of the Contingency Continuum (Wilcox, Cameron, Reber) with arguing and shifting blame. Toyota made the stance that they were not to blame, admitted to foregoing quality with the desire to restore quality and safety in the future, and then they kind of apologized for not replying soon enough. As you can probably feel, different reactions received different responses. GM pushed for a sense of urgency and regret; they took ownership of their mistakes and they promised to fix it. The public and the media took well to this, seeing GM as honest and authentic in their methods to right their wrongs, lessening the blow on their reputation. Unfortunately, Toyota’s response did not feel the same way. To save money, they ignored warning signs which ultimately led them to their crisis and then shifted to a defensive strategy when the public noticed. Toyota’s CEO tried to control the narrative in a world where the public is now in control. He was not available to answer questions and when he realized it was wrong, he stated “I am sorry, it’s done, but I am here now.” To me, that does not scream someone who cares and who wants to ensure the safety of all customers utilizing their product. Toyota ultimately received more negative media because the public decided they were accountable, and their initial response received more attention over their corrective actions. The biggest difference between these two scenarios was that GM understood who the outside world would blame and then asked, “How does this make me look?” leading them to do and say the right thing. On the other hand, Toyota cared about what they thought was important and then asked, “How can we get out of this mess?” leading them into deceit and denial.

Both organizations could learn from their crisis communication plan with what worked and what didn’t. GM recognized their failure quickly by claiming the problem as customer convenience but then quickly recovering and taking the stance of support and sincere regret. Toyota took longer to recognize their mistakes by continuously claiming denial or only partial blame leaving the public to reconsider their trust. The only thing I would have done differently would be the initial response from both entities. They should have established an apology with sympathy for those affected and then a holding statement (Wilcox, Cameron, Reber) while they researched and began to develop findings from their investigation. Once they had the facts, they should have been as transparent as possible with the issues and followed up with a plan on how to fix (ch.09) these issues and provide restitution for those affected.

The moral of the story is understanding your audience and knowing that in this day and age, social media is a big deal and the hub of all conversation. If you don’t allow your consumers to share their opinion, identifying a crisis will become increasingly harder. When issues are recognized it is important to be open and honest about mistakes and missteps that can be corrected. The audience reacts stronger to transparency than an organization that shifts blame to make themselves look good. Always remember to keep your world right-side up in a crisis. Think….