SITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY - Timothy Coombs

Summary of Situational Crisis Communication Theory by Timothy Coombs

Timothy Coombs, a professor at Eastern Illinois University, presents the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) as a framework developed to guide organizations in effectively managing communication during crises. He begins by addressing the common question of why research and theory are necessary in crisis communication, which many assume should be intuitive or guided by common sense. However, Coombs argues that the frequent mistakes made by organizations during crises demonstrate the need for evidence-based management rather than speculative advice.

The Importance of Evidence-Based Management Coombs emphasizes that evidence-based management is crucial in crisis communication. Theories and research provide tested and proven strategies that organizations can rely on during critical moments. He points out that crises are high-stakes situations where speculation can exacerbate problems. Over the past decade, Coombs has developed SCCT as part of this evidence-based approach, inspired by psychological research, specifically attribution theory.

Attribution Theory and Crisis Responsibility SCCT is rooted in attribution theory, which posits that stakeholders naturally try to make sense of a crisis by attributing responsibility. They assess whether an organization is directly responsible for a crisis or if it is due to external factors beyond the organization’s control. This attribution significantly influences how stakeholders perceive and react to the crisis. Coombs notes that when stakeholders attribute high responsibility to an organization, the organization’s reputation and stakeholder trust can suffer greatly.

Types of Crises To help organizations navigate crisis communication, SCCT categorizes crises into three main types:

1. Victim Crises: The organization is a victim of the crisis, bearing little to no responsibility. Examples include natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

2. Accidental Crises: The organization has minimal responsibility as external factors contribute to the crisis, such as equipment failures or unexpected accidents.

3. Preventable Crises: The organization is deemed fully responsible due to negligence or unethical behavior. Examples include management scandals or regulatory violations. This type is the most challenging for crisis management as it elicits the harshest stakeholder reactions.

Intensifying Factors SCCT also identifies two key intensifying factors that can increase perceived responsibility:

1. History of Crises: If an organization has faced prior crises, stakeholders may attribute more responsibility during a new crisis.

2. Prior Negative Reputation: Organizations with an existing negative reputation will face harsher judgment and higher attributed responsibility.

Crisis managers need to assess both the type of crisis and these intensifying factors to understand how much responsibility stakeholders may attribute to the organization.

Base Response Strategy Coombs outlines a foundational strategy for crisis communication that applies across all types of crises, emphasizing two main components:

1. Protecting Stakeholders Physically: Providing stakeholders with information that helps them prevent further harm. For example, during a chemical spill, communication might involve evacuation instructions or warnings against using contaminated products.

2. Helping Stakeholders Cope Psychologically: Addressing the emotional impact of the crisis. Coombs recommends expressing sympathy and demonstrating care for those affected, which can help stakeholders feel supported. Additionally, organizations should provide corrective information to reassure stakeholders that steps are being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Escalating Response Based on Responsibility As the perceived responsibility for a crisis increases, the response from the organization must also become more accommodative. In low-responsibility situations, such as victim crises, the base response may suffice. However, in high-responsibility scenarios like preventable crises, organizations must take full responsibility, provide clear action plans, and show genuine efforts to support victims. The response should scale in proportion to the severity of the crisis and the attributed responsibility to avoid underreacting or overreacting.

Evidence-Based Recommendations Coombs stresses that relying on evidence-based research in crisis communication helps prevent reliance on untested advice. He notes that effective crisis communication involves well-researched strategies tailored to the type of crisis and the level of responsibility perceived by stakeholders. Managers must focus on solutions that have demonstrated success in similar situations to enhance their crisis response effectiveness.

Key Takeaways

• Theory and research are essential in crisis communication to prevent mistakes and ensure effective management.

• SCCT, inspired by attribution theory, focuses on crisis responsibility and stakeholder perceptions.

• Crises are categorized into three main types (victim, accidental, preventable) with different levels of perceived organizational responsibility.

• Intensifying factors such as a history of crises and prior negative reputation increase stakeholder attributions of responsibility.

• A base response strategy involves protecting stakeholders physically and helping them cope psychologically.

• Responses must escalate based on the level of responsibility; preventable crises require more accommodative and proactive measures.

• Evidence-based management enhances the effectiveness of crisis communication.

References 

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. SAGE Publications. 

Coombs, W. T. (2012). The Handbook of Crisis Communication. Wiley-Blackwell. 

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2010). Theoretical approaches to crisis communication. Routledge.