.png)
Built with insights from behavioral scientists worldwide. Practical learning for leaders responsible for communication and trust
.png)
We're working on getting insights, tools, and techniques straight to your inbox on a weekly basis. No commitment required, we'll reach out again when we're ready to see if you still want to receive weekly emails.
By submitting this form, you agree to receive recurring marketing communications from Piar at the email you provide. To opt out, click unsubscribe at the bottom of our emails. By submitting this form, you also agree to our Terms & Privacy Policy
Crises move quickly. Accurate handling often depends on the strength of a team's ability to read and respond to signals before misinformation shapes public perception. Decoding crisis response means tuning in to subtle cues: the pace and candor of leadership, the language used to address unknowns, and how teams acknowledge public concerns while setting expectations for their next steps.
Research on crisis communication has evolved substantially over five decades. A 2023 bibliometric analysis in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications mapped the field from 1968 to 2022, identifying fundamental shifts in how scholars and practitioners approach crisis management. The analysis revealed that between 1991 and 2009, two theoretical frameworks dominated: Image Restoration Theory and Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT). Both approached crisis communication primarily from the organization's perspective, focusing on protecting reputation and minimizing damage.
Recent trends point toward understanding stakeholder perspectives alongside organizational outcomes. This multivocal approach recognizes that crises involve multiple publics with different information needs, emotional responses, and relationship histories with the organization. The research demonstrates that treating all stakeholders identically during crises consistently produces worse outcomes than differentiated strategies acknowledging divergent stakeholder positions. To structure effective communications as events unfold, the CDC CERC Rhythm illustrates how objectives and tactics must change across each phase of a crisis.
W. Timothy Coombs' development of SCCT provided the first systematic framework for matching communication strategies to crisis types and organizational responsibility levels. The theory, validated through decades of empirical research, proposes that crisis response effectiveness depends on accurately assessing three factors: crisis type, organizational responsibility for the crisis, and pre-crisis organizational reputation (Coombs, 2007).
Crisis types fall into clusters based on attribution of responsibility. Victim crises (natural disasters, product tampering by external actors, workplace violence) involve minimal organizational responsibility. Accidental crises (technical errors, unintentional stakeholder harm) involve low organizational responsibility. Preventable crises (organizational misconduct, violations, deliberate stakeholder harm) involve high organizational responsibility.
The theory predicts that different response strategies work better for different crisis types. Deny strategies (claiming the crisis does not exist or that the organization bears no responsibility) can succeed for victim crises where evidence clearly supports the organization's innocence. They backfire catastrophically for preventable crises where evidence demonstrates organizational responsibility. Diminish strategies (acknowledging the crisis while minimizing organizational responsibility) work acceptably for accidental crises when paired with adequate resources and goodwill, but fail for preventable crises. Rebuild strategies (accepting responsibility and promising corrective action) prove necessary for preventable crises and work well for accidental crises even when not strictly required.
Research testing SCCT predictions across multiple contexts consistently validates these strategic recommendations. A 2022 experimental study published in PMC examined how COVID-19 crisis communication strategies affected trust in local officials and acceptance of behavioral guidelines. The study manipulated both the response strategy and the leader's pre-crisis reputation to examine interactive effects. Results confirmed that rebuild strategies acknowledging responsibility and outlining corrective actions produced the strongest positive effects on trust. Deny and no response strategies consistently performed worst (PMC, 2022).
Examine how leaders address primary risks. Do they identify what's at stake early, or avoid specifics? The most capable teams prioritize transparency, naming issues directly and offering clear, credible updates. This involves stating what's known, what remains uncertain, and how new information will be communicated. Watch for commitments to ongoing updates, which reassure audiences and demonstrate reliability.
Research from Sweden conducted between 2017 and 2022 examined how societal trust influences crisis communication effectiveness during major crises. The study found that pre-existing trust levels mattered more than crisis management performance in shaping how stakeholders responded to crisis communication. Organizations with high trust before crises received more benefit of the doubt during difficult situations, while organizations with low pre-existing trust faced skepticism regardless of how well they actually managed the crisis (ResearchGate, 2024).
This "halo effect" means that behavioral signals during crisis must be interpreted in context of relationship history. A leader with strong credibility can acknowledge uncertainty and still maintain stakeholder confidence. A leader with weak credibility will trigger anxiety with the same acknowledgment because stakeholders lack confidence in eventual resolution. This does not mean low-credibility organizations should hide uncertainty. Research shows that deception or overconfident claims from low-credibility sources accelerate trust erosion. Low-credibility organizations need more frequent communication, more detailed explanations of decision processes, and more concrete demonstrations of competence through early visible actions.
The timing of corrections is critical, encompassing how openly and quickly the corrections are made. Apologizing or clarifying facts builds trust when paired with evidence and practical plans for moving forward. Notice if leaders invite questions and highlight expertise, or if communication becomes defensive or reactive when challenged.
A 2024 study in Frontiers in Communication examined internal crisis communication from a managerial perspective. The research revealed that internal communication quality during crises fundamentally shaped external communication effectiveness. Organizations cannot project credibility to external stakeholders when internal stakeholders feel confused, anxious, or distrustful. The study identified several critical elements of effective internal crisis communication that also serve as observable signals of organizational capability (Frontiers in Communication, 2024).
Timely, accurate, and transparent information dissemination to internal stakeholders signals organizational control and competence. When employees receive crisis information through external media rather than internal channels, when updates lag significantly behind public information flow, when different internal sources provide conflicting information, these patterns signal organizational disarray that undermines both internal and external credibility.
Emotional support for affected stakeholders maintains morale and motivation during crisis periods. Organizations that acknowledge the stress and uncertainty their stakeholders experience, that provide resources and support for managing anxiety, that validate emotional reactions demonstrate the benevolence component of trust. Those that ignore emotional impacts or treat emotional reactions as weakness signal lack of genuine concern for stakeholder wellbeing.
Creation of open communication climate where stakeholders feel safe expressing concerns and providing feedback significantly enhances organizational resilience and adaptability. When crisis communications invite questions and acknowledge uncertainties, when leaders respond to stakeholder concerns with information, when feedback loops close with visible adjustments to approach based on stakeholder input, these behaviors signal healthy organizational functioning under pressure.
The research identifies specific language patterns that distinguish effective from ineffective crisis communication. Passive voice construction that obscures agency ("mistakes were made" versus "we made mistakes") signals evasiveness and low accountability. Vague quantifiers that prevent verification ("some improvements" versus "three specific changes") signal unwillingness to commit to measurable outcomes. Future-focused framing that ignores current stakeholder concerns ("we are focused on preventing this in the future" without addressing current impacts) signals disconnection from stakeholder priorities.
Language patterns that build credibility include specific attribution of problems to identifiable causes, concrete description of corrective actions with measurable outcomes, clear timelines for information updates with accountability for meeting deadlines, and explicit acknowledgment of stakeholder impacts before discussing organizational responses.
Research on dialogic communication demonstrates that two-way communication quality matters as much as message content. Organizations that provide channels for stakeholder questions and concerns, that visibly monitor and respond to those channels, that summarize stakeholder feedback and explain how it informed decisions, all signal genuine engagement versus broadcast messaging.
The 2014 study in the Journal of Public Relations Research examining dialogic communication and trust in crisis contexts found that organizations using genuine two-way communication strategies maintained significantly stronger stakeholder relationships even after serious crises. The effect held across industries and crisis types. The research found that superficial dialogue (asking for stakeholder input but not visibly incorporating it) actually reduced trust compared to honest one-way communication. Stakeholders prefer authentic broadcasts to manipulative pseudo-dialogue (Kim & Lee, 2014).
The cadence and content of information updates provide powerful signals about organizational control. Research on crisis communication timing identifies several predictable patterns. Organizations experiencing genuine loss of control tend to reduce communication frequency as crisis unfolds, hoping problems will resolve before requiring acknowledgment. Organizations maintaining control increase communication frequency during acute crisis phases, providing regular updates even when substantial new information is limited.
The content of updates matters as much as frequency. Updates that repeat previous information without acknowledging the repetition signal either organizational paralysis or deliberate delay. Updates that acknowledge limited new information while explaining what actions are underway maintain credibility during extended crisis response. Updates that shift blame, contradict previous statements without explanation, or promise solutions without specifying mechanisms all erode credibility rapidly.
A 2017 study published in Public Relations Review examined how stakeholder relationships change when organizations undergo crises compared to routine circumstances. The research found that time pressure and uncertainty fundamentally altered stakeholder interactions. Organizations that handled this tension well acknowledged uncertainty explicitly while committing to provide updates as information became available. Those that struggled either delayed communication until they had complete certainty (creating information vacuums that speculation filled) or provided premature certainty that later proved inaccurate, destroying credibility (Public Relations Review, 2017).
The study revealed a crucial insight: crisis pressure did not uniformly damage stakeholder relationships. Some organizations reported that crisis situations actually improved collaboration with certain stakeholders, particularly employees and long-term partners. These improvements occurred when organizations used crises as opportunities to demonstrate values through action.
Teams benefit from a repeatable structure to observe and log behavioral patterns throughout crises. The Crisis Response Patterns asset provides structured templates for mapping behaviors and decision signals throughout simulations or live events. Notes taken during actual crisis communications, such as who speaks first, how information is sourced, and whether attribution is explicit, become valuable learning tools.
Research on organizational decision-making under crisis conditions identifies several diagnostic patterns. High-quality crisis decision processes involve explicit consideration of multiple response options, systematic evaluation of each option's risks and benefits, documentation of decision rationale, and clear assignment of implementation responsibility. Low-quality processes involve premature convergence on a single option, evaluation based on intuition rather than analysis, undocumented decision logic that prevents learning, and ambiguous accountability that enables later blame-shifting.
The speed of decision-making provides limited insight into quality. Some crises require immediate decisions based on incomplete information, while others allow more deliberate processes. What distinguishes high-quality crisis management is decision appropriateness given available time and information. Organizations that rush decisions when time allows create unnecessary risks. Organizations that deliberate excessively when immediate action is required allow problems to escalate.
Observable signals of decision appropriateness include explicit statements about available decision time, clear criteria for determining when to decide versus when to gather more information, transparent communication about decision constraints and trade-offs, and visible mechanisms for course correction if initial decisions prove inadequate.
How organizations deploy expertise during crises reveals much about their capability. High-functioning organizations bring relevant expertise to bear quickly, empower experts to make domain-specific decisions, communicate expert recommendations clearly to decision-makers, and explain how expert input influenced final decisions. Dysfunctional organizations either fail to consult appropriate experts, overrule expert recommendations based on political or public relations concerns, delay implementation while experts and executives negotiate, or obscure expert involvement to avoid accountability.
The research on crisis management team composition demonstrates that effective teams include members with complementary expertise. Teams composed of the organization's most senior leaders often lack the technical knowledge required for informed decision-making. Teams composed purely of subject matter experts lack the strategic perspective and cross-functional coordination capability required for effective implementation. Optimal teams blend technical expertise, strategic perspective, operational capability, and communication skill.
Observable signals of effective expertise deployment include identification of which experts are consulted on specific decisions, transparent description of expert recommendations and analysis, clear explanation when organizational decisions differ from expert recommendations (with rationale for divergence), and visible expert involvement in public communication when appropriate.
Regular signal-mapping increases awareness and sharpens reflexes for future events. When the language of response is mapped out and shared across the organization, crisis teams develop a unified strategy for handling risk and restoring confidence internally and externally.
Research on organizational learning from crises demonstrates that systematic documentation and analysis of crisis response produces sustained improvement in capability. Organizations that capture detailed records of what information was available when, what decisions were made, what implementation challenges emerged, and what stakeholder responses occurred can identify patterns that inform future preparedness. Those that rely on post-crisis memory and intuition typically repeat mistakes because specific lessons fade quickly once crisis urgency passes.
Effective documentation focuses on observable behaviors and decisions. Recording that "leadership communicated update to employees 6 hours after external media reported crisis" provides a factual basis for analysis. Recording that "leadership communicated poorly" provides no actionable insight. The first description enables team to discuss whether 6 hours represents appropriate timing given information verification requirements and stakeholder priorities. The second description invites defensive reactions that prevent learning.
Analysis frameworks should examine both outcomes and processes. Did the crisis response achieve its objectives? Did it strengthen or damage stakeholder trust? Did it resolve the precipitating problem? These outcome questions matter but provide incomplete guidance for improvement. Process questions provide more specific improvement opportunities: What information drove key decisions? What alternative options were considered? What constraints limited response flexibility? Where did coordination break down? What surprised the team about stakeholder reactions?
Effective crisis response requires the ability to read subtle signals, adapt quickly to emerging information, and maintain stakeholder trust even when facing genuine uncertainty. Organizations that systematically develop these capabilities through training, simulation, and thoughtful analysis of real events consistently outperform those that rely on reactive improvisation.
For practical tools, templates, and stepwise guidance, download the Crisis Response Patterns resource at www.piar.co/resources.
...
Tanzeel “Tan” Sukhera is the Co-founder & CEO of Piar. Tan is based in Montreal, and has 7 years of experience in Media Monitoring & Social Listening, PR & Comms Measurement, Strategy &Analysis. Through events and workshops, Piar helps PR and communication leaders apply behavioral decision science to real-world campaigns, messaging, and stakeholder work. Learn more or reach out at piar.co.
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tsukhera/ 👈
