Crisis Communication; Proactive Vs. Reactive

Crisis Communication: Proactive Vs. Reactive
Student’s Name
Institution
Crisis Communication; Proactive Vs. Reactive
Organizations are made up of several moving parts in addition to the human aspect, increasing the probability of something going wrong at some point in time. A crisis is a sudden occurrence of an unpleasant event that may hinder the normal functioning of an organization and potentially impact negatively the management, employees, and other stakeholders (Marsen, 2020). Despite its unexpected nature, crises should not come as a surprise because they occur in all industry sectors, social structures, or organizations. Developing a crisis management strategy, therefore, becomes necessary to adequately prepare and respond to the unpleasant event. There are different approaches to crisis management and one option is to approach the crisis from a communication perspective. The dissemination of crisis knowledge to manage stakeholder rection through communication can be executed in two varied approaches: proactive and reactive communication strategies. Both strategies have varied implications to the subject organization.
Crisis communication can be described as the conversation that organizations have with its stakeholders regarding an impending crisis or one that is underway as well as a plan on how to salvage the situation (Lee, 2020). The new communication channels that have emerged due to the technological transformation in almost every industry sector have greatly revolutionized the crisis communication landscape. Nonetheless, the crisis communication approaches have largely been implemented reactively by most organizations. However, there are recent advances to proactive communication due to the growing concerns of the stakeholders in some organizations. A reactive communication strategy is an approach where the subject takes a backseat in revealing the development of a crisis hoping that the stakeholders will eventually become aware of the situation before taking action (Beldad et al., 2017). A proactive communication strategy, on the other hand, is where an organization comes out beforehand to admit the occurrence of a crisis and the potential harm to the stakeholders and the organization as a whole (Beldad et al., 2017). Different organizations have had to deploy different crisis communication strategies under different circumstances. Facebook Inc., a company very much familiar with crises and controversies with different stakeholders, is a perfect example that can help understand the two approaches to crisis communication.
Cambridge Analytica, scandal that hit Facebook Inc. dating back to 2014, is the epitome of the crises that have befallen the tech conglomerate of the 21st century. A third-party application developed by a Russian-American, Alexandra Kogan, and running on Facebook was reported to have acquired personalized information of over 87 million Facebook users and handed it over to Cambridge Analytica (BBC News, 2018). Aware of the consequences of abus...