| Summary: | 博士 === 大葉大學 === 管理學院博士班 === 105 === This study focused on public relations practitioners from Taiwan’s top 500 companies and media reports. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to determine, based on three types of crises, the importance ranking of the effects of the following factors on crisis communication: response content, response form, media selection, and spokesperson level. Comparisons of the weighted differences of these factors were used to investigate a possible perception gap between crisis managers and media reports.
The primary findings of this study included: (1) In terms of overall communication effect, for all crisis types, both crisis managers and media reports believed that crisis response content was more crucial than response form, media selection, or spokesperson level. However, the importance rankings for each factor differed depending on the crisis type. (2) Regarding response content, crisis managers favored justification strategy for all crisis types. Media reports prioritized justification as well in victim and accidental crises; in preventable crises, however, they prioritized concession strategy. (3) Concerning response form, a comparison of each factor indicated inconsistent views between crisis managers and media reports for each crisis type. (4) In media selection, a comparison of each factor indicated that both crisis managers and media reports believed that television media was the most crucial communication channel. (5) Regarding spokesperson level, a comparison of each factor indicated that both crisis managers and media reports believed that CEO was the most crucial spokespersons. (6) Crisis types have moderating effect on overall crisis communication effect and response form.
To investigate the differences between the views of crisis managers and media reports, this study interviewed related personnel and found that these disparities may have been due to differences in the two parties’ standards for consideration when encountering crises. Crisis managers prioritized organizational image or interests, whereas media reports considered social responsibility or the public’s right to know. This resulted in different options for each party in applying strategies. Therefore, when handling crises, corporate crisis managers should attempt to depart from original cognitive frameworks and consider events from a third-party perspective to determine the most favorable response methods.
Additionally, both crisis managers and media reports stated that based on considerations of communication effectiveness, such as how the reach of Facebook may be insufficient and information might be viewed as spam, Facebook was not the first choice for the dissemination of crisis communication information.
The contributions of this study are as follows:
First, based on the concept of ranking the importance of multiple attributes of products in consumer theory, we applied novel research instruments to the field of crisis communication to supplement research approaches.
Second, an integrative investigation of the associations between crisis type, crisis communication strategy combination, and organizational reputation contributed to contingency theory. This study further engaged in a dialogue with the literature, comparing the views of different study participants. This supplements existing crisis communication theory.
Third, from the perspective of what crisis managers ought to do, this study examined the elements and factors that crisis managers emphasized during crisis communication and compared these to the practical experiences of managers. Disparities between several instances of what ought to be done, and what was done, were found and discussed. This likewise contributes to the development of crisis communication theory.
Fourth and finally, this study integrated various factors of crisis communication strategies to investigate the most favorable communication strategies that crisis managers and media reports believed organizations should implement in various types of crises. The results were mutually confirmed and discussed according to existing theory, and not only fills research gaps but also adds depth to crisis communication theory.
|
|---|
