The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) outlines four response strategy postures that organizations can adopt when responding to a crisis they have caused or one in which they are the victim. These strategies are:

1. Deny: Organizations refute their involvement or responsibility in the crisis.
2. Diminish: Organizations downplay the severity or significance of the crisis.
3. Rebuild: Organizations accept responsibility and take steps to rectify the situation and rebuild their reputation.
4. Bolster: Organizations emphasize their previous positive reputation to counteract the negative impact of the crisis.

For a Crisis Caused by the Organization: The most successful response strategy posture for an organization to adopt in a crisis they have caused would likely be the “Rebuild” strategy. In this approach, the organization acknowledges its responsibility for the crisis, takes ownership of the situation, and works towards rectifying the problem while also communicating its commitment to preventing similar incidents in the future. This strategy can help demonstrate accountability and a willingness to learn from mistakes.

Example: The Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal serves as an illustrative example. When it was discovered that Volkswagen had manipulated emissions tests to make their diesel vehicles appear more environmentally friendly than they actually were, the company initially denied any wrongdoing. However, the crisis escalated, damaging their reputation and resulting in legal consequences. Eventually, Volkswagen shifted to the “Rebuild” strategy by admitting their fault, firing key executives involved, recalling affected vehicles, and investing in electric vehicle technology to change public perception and rebuild trust.

For a Crisis where the Organization is the Victim: In a crisis where the organization is the victim, the “Bolster” strategy may be the most effective. By highlighting their previously positive reputation and emphasizing their track record of responsible actions, the organization can counteract the negative impact of the crisis and prevent long-term damage to their image.

Example: If a pharmaceutical company is targeted by a cyberattack that exposes sensitive patient data, adopting a “Bolster” strategy could involve highlighting their history of patient care, privacy protection measures, and commitment to cybersecurity. This approach could help reassure the public and stakeholders that the organization’s values and dedication to ethical practices remain intact despite the unfortunate breach.

Organizational Learning and Structural Change: An example of a public safety organization that used structural change to respond to a crisis is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the United States. After the series of accidents involving the Boeing 737 Max aircraft, the NTSB and other aviation safety authorities pushed for structural changes in aircraft certification and regulatory processes. These changes aimed to improve transparency, enhance safety oversight, and prevent conflicts of interest between manufacturers and regulators.

Leadership Change Following Organizational Crisis: Whether leadership change is beneficial following an organizational crisis depends on various factors. In some cases, a change in leadership can demonstrate a commitment to accountability and change, signaling to stakeholders that the organization is taking the crisis seriously. However, it’s important to note that leadership change alone might not be sufficient; it should be accompanied by concrete actions and structural changes to address the underlying issues that led to the crisis. A new leader can bring fresh perspectives and strategies, but successful crisis management requires a comprehensive approach that addresses both short-term damage control and long-term organizational improvements.