LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

is a significant risk manifested. This definition is consistent with the definition offered by Heath and O’Hare: a crisis is a threat with significant potential adverse impacts that has materialized.²⁶

      A longer definition is: a crisis is a risk manifested that characteristically (1) is abrupt and unexpected, (2) exceeds the expectations of those affected, (3) disrupts normal processes, (4) places nonroutine and unique demands on the responding organizations, (5) produces high amounts of uncertainty, (6) challenges organizational performance, and (7) poses a significant chance of harm or loss to individuals and organizations.

      Crises typically cause disruptions in our normal lives, high levels of stress and high concerns about adverse consequences, confusion, fear, and an active search for leadership and support. Four characteristics can cause leaders to label a situation a crisis: (1) there are imminent dangers and significant consequences, (2) resolution requires quick action, (3) they feel unprepared, and (4) there is knowledge of the event or situation by the outside world, particularly the media. Therefore, when a leader is trained and feels better able to handle a situation, it is less likely to be perceived as a crisis.

Researchers have debated the difference among a crisis, a disaster, and an emergency. They are often used interchangeably, although crisis is a broader term. For example, in his definition of the term disaster, Oliver‐Smith noted:²⁷

      Disaster is a term that is used fairly liberally in popular parlance. Many events or processes are colloquially referred to as disasters—everything from a failed social event to a regional hurricane.

One of the most widely accepted definitions of the term disaster in research literature is offered by the United Nations (UN). According to the UN, a disaster “is a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.”²⁸ This definition has elements of the definitions of the term crisis offered earlier in this chapter. It also aligns with what many might call an emergency.

Despite the interchangeability of the terms in many studies, there are arguably important differences. For example, disaster and emergency can be distinguished by their familiarity and severity. Disasters are typically characterized by large‐scale direct and indirect adverse effects. These adverse effects include loss of life, loss of property, damage to infrastructure, and loss of revenue and unemployment. As pointed out by Lindell, Prater, and Perry,²⁹ the term emergency is typically used to describe:

      …an event involving minor consequences for a community—perhaps a few casualties and a limited amount of property damage. In this sense, emergencies are events that are frequently experienced, relatively well understood, and can be managed successfully with local resources—sometimes with the resources of a single local government agency. Emergencies are the common occurrences we see uniformed responders managing—car crashes, ruptured natural gas pipelines, house fires, traumatic injuries, and cardiac crises.

      Lindell, Prater, and Perry offer another usage of the term emergency when the goal is to communicate the imminence of an event rather than the severity of its consequences. In this context, emergency refers to a situation where a higher than normal probability of an extreme event occurring exists. The term disaster is reserved for the actual occurrence of an event that produces casualties and damage at a level exceeding a community’s ability to cope.

      There is no universal definition of crisis or disaster but both share common characteristics. Crises and disasters are typically (1) sudden and abrupt; (2) cause, or have the potential to cause, significant human, material, economic or environmental harm; and (3) challenge the immediate capacity or ability of individuals, organizations, communities, or societies to respond.

Differences among researchers about core definitions, such as those described above, are not unusual. For example, Kroeber and Kluckhohn, after surveying the literature in anthropology, found 164 definitions of the term culture – a core concept in anthropology.³⁰ These definition differences are not without consequences. They often lead to different theories, principles, approaches, methods, and tools. For example, 20 years ago, many authors failed to clearly discriminate between the concepts of crisis prevention, crisis preparedness, crisis mitigation, and crisis management. Adding to the confusion, many authors used the same term to discuss different phases or dimensions of a crisis. For example, some authors used the term crisis management to describe only the immediate response to a triggering event. Other authors used the term crisis management to describe the immediate response to a triggering event but also to crisis prevention and preparation.

2.7 Defining the Concept and Term Crisis Communication

      Crisis communication can be defined as the exchange of risk information about an abrupt, uncertain, nonroutine, and disruptive event that poses immediate and significant consequences. Crisis communication is ideally the planned, intentional transfer of risk information when preparing for a crisis, responding to a crisis, and recovering from a crisis. Crisis communication is primarily concerned with that part of the risk communication continuum that alerts stakeholders to an immediate threat and provides options to minimize the risk. It serves a motivational and time‐sensitive purpose.

There is a large overlap between risk and crisis communication. Communications about risks and threats follow a cycle of prevention, preparedness, warning, response, and recovery. The first two steps – prevention and preparedness – have traditionally belonged to scholars and practitioners of risk communication. The latter three steps – warning, response, and recovery – have traditionally belonged to scholars and practitioners of crisis communication. Scholars and practitioners of both risk and crisis communication focus on what the human brain hears, understands, believes, and decides about a risk or threat.

      Crisis communicators primarily focus on a situation, something that has just happened or is still happening. Risk communicators primarily focus on what might happen. For example, for a food contamination scenario, risk communicators might focus on questions such as: How likely is food contamination? How can people be made more aware of the potential for food contamination? How can food contamination incidents be prevented? Crisis communicators might focus on questions such as: What do people want to know about the incident? What things should people be doing in response to the incident? Where can people go for credible information? What else might go wrong?

      The objectives of crisis communication are similar to the objectives of risk and high concern communication: to build trust, promote knowledge, and encourage appropriate behaviors and supportive relationships. Specific objectives change as the continuum moves from the pre‐crisis preparedness stage, through the crisis event stage, and then to the recovery stage. The overarching goal of crisis communication is to reduce or eliminate harm through individual, group, organizational, or institutional action.

      One of the key lessons to be learned from successful cases of crisis communication is that each phase of a crisis has a distinct set of communication objectives and each phase requires a distinct set of communication skills. For example, a key communication objective of pre‐crisis preparedness communication is to provide information needed by stakeholders to avert a crisis from occurring. During the crisis itself, a key communication objective is to share the information about (1) what people can or should do to protect themselves and what they value; (2) the location of and access to crisis resources; and (3) connecting with first responders, emergency management, and family and friends. Skipping a phase, such as communications in the pre‐crisis/preparation phase, seldom produces satisfactory results. Making mistakes in any phase can negate hard‐won gains.

      Crisis

Скачать книгу