Experts already take different approaches to the question of whether and when firm guidelines are needed. Nor do they agree on when and how the public should be informed. This much has emerged in the previous part on concept and media presence in the crisis: Concepts and guidelines could indeed be helpful, especially in preventing a crisis, as long as they are handled flexibly. However, crisis communication can also be understood as a staff work process that follows the management rhythm and is also visible to the outside in this form. Another attitude goes in the direction that a quick reaction, authenticity and all-embracing information are more important than absolutely secure and error-free communication. But who should ultimately manage the crisis? Here, too, opinions differ among experts.
Externally managed
It is often said that good crisis communication does not exist without the appropriate expertise. After all, economics, law and corporate structure restrict what can be communicated and how. And yet an external consultant can provide an outside perspective that can be very valuable. Hans Klaus is of the opinion that in most cases, operational management should not be used in crisis management, because the distance to the substantive problem solving is usually lacking: He again cites the University of Zurich as an example. Even though its problems could not necessarily have been described as a crisis at the beginning, but simply as an unusual and sensitive situation. Basically, it was just a "politicization" of a management problem, Klaus assesses the situation and explains: "When so many players are involved, as well as the authorities and the government, transparency must first be created. According to his assessment, the problem in the Uni Zurich case also lay in the fact that individual interest groups began to communicate themselves, unguided and without coordination. "I don't know who is responsible for this communication, but the situation has been very damaging to all stakeholders," Klaus emphasizes. The loss of reputation of the institution, the people involved and the authorities is considerable, he says. The whole thing paints a desolate picture of crisis management in this case. Experiences in comparable cases would clearly show that crisis management should not be done by the people involved themselves. In addition, communication experts also have to be guided in crisis situations. According to Klaus' analysis of the example of the University of Zurich, spin doctors and attempts at manipulation are definitely partly responsible for the fact that an initially delicate situation could develop into a real crisis. As a result, Zurich lacked speed and straightforwardness in communication. If Hans Klaus had his way, crisis managers would have to be free of operational constraints whenever possible. It is their task to maintain an overview, to lead the crisis team and, where necessary, to make unpopular decisions in the interests of transparency. Successful crisis teams consist of many disciplines. Lawyers, technicians, care people, HR, communication specialists, specific experts, and most importantly: trusted external specialists to maintain an independent view from the outside. In the course of crisis management, new aspects, possibly even new facts with negative connotations, would be brought to light again and again. One has the feeling that the crisis is simply never-ending. This is where Klaus sees an important role for crisis communication: "Disciplined, competent and straightforward crisis communication is part of meaningful and team-oriented crisis management. The crisis must be worked through according to the three criteria of root cause analysis, care considerations and communication. All three criteria are equally important and they are interdependent." Klaus, himself a member of the Swissair crisis team at the time, cites the handling of the Swissair SR 111 airplane accident at Halifax as a still excellent example of successful crisis management. It was not the then CEO Bruggisser who led the "emergency team," but Beat Schär, an experienced manager, who guided a dozen specialists from the Group through this mega-crisis with clear leadership and the necessary calm and overview. The key to success lay in the perfect composition of the crisis team. There was no room for loners, according to Klaus. Even today, more than ten years later, the management of this tragic accident is still regarded as an important textbook example of what successful crisis management should look like.
Crisis communication is always an integral part of crisis management, confirms Oliver Schroeder. You can't have one without the other. "This means that if you screw up in crisis management, you can't pull the number with crisis communication," he elaborates. To that end, you can quickly make any crisis worse with poor communication. By the same token, however, it is also possible to master crises very well with good crisis management and adequate crisis communication and even come out of such a crisis with an image boost, adds Schroeder. These two elements are directly related. An external consultant can provide a very good outside perspective. In crisis communication, one of the greatest dangers is that the outside perspective is lost to some extent. At the moment when you are involved, emotions play an influential role, explains Schroeder.
Of course, you have to take responsibility. But that's not so easy. "For example, if something has happened that has not yet been fully clarified and is to be communicated, that is an emotional threshold that has to be crossed," says Schroeder. That, in addition to the processes and attempts at clarification, is also a big challenge emotionally and not so easy, he says. "I understand that the first reaction of those in charge is often, 'As long as this isn't public, we'll hold off on it for now,'" Schroeder says. In crisis situations, people tend to remain in their internal view, which they believe is the right one, Roland Binz also believes. In crisis and scandal situations in particular, however, the internal view is often in blatant contradiction to the public perception or the perception conveyed by the media. This circumstance is an enormous psychological burden for those affected, he explains.
That's why he always recommends considering an unbiased, external perspective in the event of a crisis. This does not necessarily have to be a consultant. However, it should be a truly unbiased, critical personality who points out sore points with a sure instinct. In the event of a crisis, this external perspective makes it possible to shift the focus of communication away from the internal viewpoint and toward the target audience - and thus to take pressure off the crisis in the long term or to break the cycle of scandalization. Christian Pieter Hoffmann vehemently disagrees with the recommendation to call in a consultant, at least on one point: as far as public appearance is concerned. Particularly in a crisis, the company must have a credible face, a recognizable contact person, he is convinced. Experts are more or less unanimous in calling in an external consultant or crisis manager - but not when it comes to appearing before the press. Who represents the company to the public and when, who takes responsibility and when - and when is talking out of place?
The silent contact
For Christian Pieter Hoffmann, it's pretty clear when not to keep quiet in a crisis - and who should go public: If the company is at fault, i.e. if an apology is necessary, it must be made by the company's management, says Hoffmann. After all, only they represent the company to the public - and are also held personally responsible. However, possible responsibilities should not be hastily denied before the situation has been thoroughly examined, he adds. But one should also not be hasty with excuses when the facts of the case are still unclear. "Lack of knowledge about the state of affairs is no disgrace in times of crisis and should be openly admitted - combined with transparent information about ongoing efforts to clarify the situation as quickly as possible." The crisis issue itself should be dealt with sustainably and transparently, Hoffmann says. "The rule here is: better too much information than too little. That way, too, media criticism ebbs away more quickly."
In stressful situations, silence is one of the natural human reactions, says Roland Binz. The only advantage is that at least you don't say anything wrong. But silence always smacks of not facing up to a problem or even hiding something. "That fundamentally stirs up mistrust and offers potential for probing and follow-up stories." So in crisis communications, he said, silence is definitely silver and talk is gold - if you put the right words to the right people. But when silence is used, it is often simply a matter of avoiding legal risks, says Christian Pieter Hoffmann. And the difficulty of assessing the explosive nature of a situation leads to a wait-and-see attitude. The hope prevails that the crisis will not escalate further. "In some cases, this is actually the case, such as various social media shitstorms," he cites. Oliver Schroeder calls this attitude a "displacement mechanism". In this context, he mentions the example of the mayor of Duisburg, who entrenched himself as if paralyzed after the terrible events surrounding the Love Parade in 2010 and was not even able to immediately communicate what was indispensable: his deep human regret in the face of the tragedy with 21 dead. The communicative failure had many faces, all of which were concerned only with putting the blame on others. "A particularly sad tragedy," Schroeder said. At the same time, he said, public appearances are essential, especially at the beginning of a crisis. This is where the role in which the company is seen by the public is decided. It doesn't take much for a company's role as a victim to be transformed into that of a (co-)perpetrator in the media. This is precisely the point where responsibility must be assumed and silence must be avoided under all circumstances. As can be seen, discussions on behavior before and in crisis situations reveal only a few uniform attitudes. Experts agree only to a limited extent. One thing can be said for sure: There are no fixed guidelines for crisis communication, unless crisis communication is understood as a staff work process that follows the management rhythm. For this, there are clear structures for preparing for the crisis, but possibly these should then be handled flexibly. The responsibility should be assumed by the management - or an external consultant - but going before the media too early would be fatal. Nevertheless, it is precisely at the beginning of a crisis that it is decisive how the public classifies the company in the crisis: Perpetrator or victim. Mistakes are easy to make with quick and authentic crisis communication. It should be possible to avoid these for the most part with clear staff work processes, but this would in turn make it more difficult to react quickly. One thing is clear: there is no such thing as THE crisis communication. There is only a more or less unpredictable crisis, which can be tackled either with clear structures or with good preparation. The rest is experience - and common sense.
Ursina mason
In a nutshell
Not everything is a crisis that attracts media attention or requires communications advice. "It is very important to distinguish a crisis situation from an exceptional and difficult situation in a company," emphasizes Hans Klaus. A crisis situation, he says, is when a company or part of a company is threatened existentially by the situation. Or, for example, when a company gets into financial or legal trouble because of it, such as various Swiss financial institutions in the USA. Accidents or other sensitive events do not always lead to crisis situations for the company. However, Klaus adds, difficult situations in companies often develop into veritable crises because a calm and experienced outside perspective is lacking in dealing with the situation. A surprise resignation of a board president or CEO, for example, is far from being a crisis. If good management and transparent information are provided in such "normal" situations, crises can almost always be avoided. Crisis management and crisis communication belong together; you cannot separate one from the other.
For Oliver Schroeder, crisis communication has long since become part of everyday life. Because the time of peace, as he calls it, already contains the issues that can become a crisis. "We live in a permanent, crisis-ridden time," he defines more precisely. There is, of course, also the acute crisis, in which case action must be taken immediately along the crisis. But in this day and age - especially with social media, where everyone can communicate and exchange information instantly - Schroeder believes that you are permanently in a potential crisis. Sometimes it breaks out and you have to prepare for it. Whether a crisis develops depends not only on the actions of the company, but also on the environment. There are self-inflicted crises, for example, but also unpredictable crisis situations, such as a rampage. For Schroeder, this means: "Before the crisis is after the crisis. Oliver Schroeder collects communicatively critical situations in "passing" that he discovers in everyday media life and that inspire amazement, head-shaking and reflection (mediencoach.ch). However, these are rather marginal remarks and less analyses. They are therefore not intended to meet any scientific standards or professional advice. They are intended merely as food for thought.