Crisis Management by Apology

254 Pages·2010·1.16 MB·English

Crisis Management
by Apology
Corporate Response to Allegations
of Wrongdoing
Keith Michael Hearit
Western Michigan University
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS
2006 Mahwah, New Jersey London
Copyright © 2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinany
form,byphotostat,microform,retrievalsystem,oranyothermeans,
without prior written permission of the publisher.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
www.erlbaum.com
Cover design by Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Hearit, Keith Michael.
Crisismanagementbyapology:corporateresponsetoallegationsof
wrongdoing / Keith Michael Hearit.
p. cm—(LEA's communication series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN0-8058-3788-4(c:alk.paper)—ISBN0-8058-3789-2(alk.paper)
1. Corporateimage. 2. Crisismanagement. 3. Apologizing. 4. Cor-
porations—Publicrelations. 5. Businesscommunication. I. Title.
II. Series.
HD59.2.H43 2005
659.2—dc22 20050740114
CIP
BookspublishedbyLawrenceErlbaumAssociatesareprintedonacid-
free paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durability.
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Preface vii
About the Author/About the Contributor viii
1 Introduction 1
2 Apologia, Social Drama, and Public Ritual 19
3 Legality and Liability 40
4 Apologetic Ethics (written with Sandra L. Borden) 58
5 Apologia and Individuals: Politicians, Sports Figures, 79
and Media Celebrities
6 Apologia and Organizations: Retail, Manufacturing, 121
and Not-for-Profits
7 Institutional Apologies: Institutional, Religious, and 165
Governmental
8 Conclusions: Corporate Apologia, Ideology, and Ethical 204
Responses to Criticism
References 219
Author Index 241
Subject Index 247
v
Preface
Whetheritisapresidentwhomustapologizetothenation,acompanythat
hasdevelopedaproductthathascausedagrievousharm,oracelebritytrying
torepairadamagedimage,apologiaandapologiesarefrequentlyinthenews.
Thestudyofapologeticcrisismanagement,particularlyfromtheperspec-
tivetakenhere,isonethatviewsmostcrisestobeself-generated.Thisbook
hasgrownoutofadesiretoaccountforthemanywaysindividuals,organiza-
tions,andinstitutionstryto“saveface”astheyseektoextricatethemselves
fromdifficultstraights.Althoughthistexttriesnottofeatureonlycorpora-
tionsandtheircrisismanagement,itdoesnotethatthehegemoniceffectof
for-profitcorporationsoncrisisdiscourseisnothingshortofdramatic.
Theguidingassumptiontakenhereisthatcrisisresearchersarewiseto
payparticularlycloseattentiontothelanguageusedbythosewhowouldex-
tricatethemselvesfromtheirwrongdoing—totrytouncoverthelexiconof
thelie.Asaresult,thisbooktakesanunabashedlyrhetoricalapproachto
thestudyofcrisismanagement,andspecificallyexaminesthatgenreofcri-
seswherebyindividualsandorganizationsarebelievedtobeguiltyofanof-
fenseandhavetoenterintothepublicconfessionalinordertorepairtheir
damaged reputations.
Theneedforcloseattentiontothenatureoflanguageusedbyapologists
isevidenteveninthetwomajortermsofthisstudy:apologiaandapology.Ap-
ologiareferstotheactofgivingadefense,whereasapologytypicallymeans
theofferingofameaculpa.Yet,evenhere,theconfusionastothedifference
betweenapologiaeandapologieshastremendousrhetoricalbenefitforan
apologist.Discerningpartiesthatfacecriticismoftencapitalizeonthisam-
biguitybyofferinganapologiathatsoundslikeanapology:Auditorsarethen
placated by therhetor’sapparent act of contrition.
Twoothercommentsareneeded.First,thereferencesatthebeginningof
eachchaptertoScripturearebydesign,andarerootedinKennethBurke’s
writings,especiallyhisbookTheRhetoricofReligion(1970),inthatreligious
terminologyoffersahelpfulentranceintothecommonlanguageandscripts
that human actors use as a vehicle to situate their actions. Second, when
possible,thisbookusesTheNewYorkTimesasaprimarysourceforpublic
vii
viii PREFACE
statements on the part of apologists. This is intentional for two reasons.
First, the Times is the United States’ “newspaperof record.” As such, it is
viewed as a highly credible if not authoritative source (although one not
without imperfections).Second,the Timesalso has beenshown tohave a
significanteffectonsubsequentbroadcastandnewspapercoverage(Batulis,
1976;Beniger&Westney,1981;Charles,Shore,&Todd,1979).Assuch,
this book has emphasizedthe public statementsof apologistsin the Times
withtheideathattheyarethestatementslikelytobemediatedbyjournal-
ists throughout the nation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IwouldberemissifIdidnotthankthemanypeoplewhoplayedaroleinthe
publicationofthisbook.Inparticular,Iwishtothankthosewhohelpedin
the collection of data and research materials: Jennifer Brown, Candace
Dixon,andespeciallyLaurenTeal.TomycolleagueSandraBorden,Iespe-
ciallythankyouforyourhelpindevelopingtheroleofethicsintheapolo-
getic exchange as well as your participation in writing chapter 4. To my
departmentchair,SteveRhodes,thanksforallyoursupportandencourage-
ment.Finally,Iwouldliketosayanoteofthankstoanumberoffriendsfor
their encouragement at critical times in the writing of this book: Dan
Darnley,foryourconfidentassurancethatthisprojectwouldbecompleted;
JoeandRudy,foraquietplacetowrite;andMattSeeger,whoseinterestand
encouragementinthisprojectwereimmeasurable.Finally,Iwishtothank
my editor, Linda Bathgate, for her indefatigable support, copyeditor Gale
Miller, as well as senior production editor Providence Rao and the entire
LEAstafffortheirworkinbringingthisbooktopublication.
Last,Iwouldliketothankmyfamily,towhomIdedicatethiswork.With-
out your support, this project would never have reached completion. You
are the reason why I go to work and come home every day.
—KeithHearit
November 2004
About the Author
KeithMichaelHearitisanassociateprofessorofcommunicationanddirec-
tor of undergraduate studies at Western Michigan University. Professor
Hearitteachescoursesinorganizationalcommunication,publicrelations,
corporateadvocacy,andcrisismanagement.Hisresearchfocusesonnon-
commercial forms of external organizational communication by corpora-
tions, particularly in those instances when companies are accused of
wrongdoing.HehaspublishedarticlesintheHandbookofPublicRelations,
Communication Studies, and Public Relations Review, as well as contributed
chaptersinanumberofeditedbooks.HearitisactiveintheNationalCom-
municationAssociation,AssociationforJournalismandMassCommuni-
cationEducation,andtheCentralStatesCommunicationAssociation.He
receivedhisdoctoraldegreeinPublicAffairsandIssueManagementfrom
PurdueUniversity.
About the Contributor
Sandra L. Borden is an associate professor of communication at Western
Michigan University, where she also is codirector of the Center for the
StudyofEthicsinSociety.Borden’sresearchinmediaethicshasbeenpub-
lishedinCommunicationMonographs,TheJournalofMassMediaEthics,the
JournalofCommunicationInquiry,TheInternationalJournalofAppliedPhilos-
ophy,andSouthernCommunicationJournal.Shealsoisacontributortotwo
editedbooksonjournalismandprofessionalethics.Bordenisactiveinthe
AssociationforEducationinJournalismandMassCommunicationandthe
AssociationforPracticalandProfessionalEthics.Borden,aformernewspa-
perjournalist,hasaPhDinmasscommunicationsfromIndianaUniversity
andaMAinjournalismfromTheOhioStateUniversity.
ix
1
Introduction
ButtheLORDGodcalledtotheman,“Whereareyou?”
Heanswered,“Iheardyouinthegarden,andIwasafraidbecauseI
wasnaked;soIhid.”
Andhesaid,“Whotoldyouthatyouwerenaked?Haveyoueatenfrom
thetreethatIcommandedyounottoeatfrom?”
Themansaid,“Thewomanyouputherewithme—shegavemesome
fruitfromthetree,andIateit.”
Then the LORD God saidto the woman, “What is this that you have
done?”
Thewomansaid,“Theserpentdeceivedme,andIate.”
Genesis 3:9–13 (The Holy Bible, 1973/1984; emphasis added)
INTRODUCTION: A TALE OF TWO CRISES
Thepropensity tojustify one’s behavior is acompulsionthathas roots in
humanity’searliestdays.Contemporarytimesappeartobenodifferent.In-
dividuals,organizations,andinstitutionsactandreact,andusecommuni-
cation in order to present themselves in a favorable light. This impulse is
particularlytruewhenpeoplearefacingcrisismanagementsituations—sit-
uationsthatoftenoccurbecauseofpeople’sownmisdeeds.
Subsequently, a central theme of much crisis management research is
that organizations are wise to monitor their environments for the emer-
genceoftriggeringeventsthatmayplungethemintoacrisis(Barton,1993;
Mitroff&Kilmann,1984;Seeger,Sellnow,&Ulmer,1998).Certainly,the
mostoft-citedincidenttoillustratethispointisthecaseofJohnson&John-
son’sTylenol,thevictimofapsychopathwholacedthepopularpainreliever
withcyanide.Indeed,thecaseissofamiliarandfrequentlyintimatedthatit
alternatelyhasbeenlabeledthe“paradigmcase”(Berg&Robb,1992)and
the“goldstandard”(Murray&Shohen,1992).Yet,ifTylenolisthestandard
bywhichcrisismanagementeffortsaremeasured,theExxonCorporation,
1
2 CHAPTER 1
afteritsaccidentaldischargeofoilintoPrinceWilliamSound,hasbecome
the paradigm case of what not to do in a crisis (Hearit, 1995; Murray &
Shohen,1992;Sellnow,1993;Small,1991;Williams&Treadaway,1992).
FromthebumblingCEOwhodidnotgotothesceneoftheaccidenttothe
misguidedattemptstoscapegoatacaptainbyleakingthestoryofhisalcohol
problemstoTheNewYorkTimes(Egan,1989),criticshaveexcoriatedand
pilloriedthecompany.Yet,whatatrootdifferentiatesthesetwocasesisnot
thatJohnson&Johnsonwasledbyanastutecrisismanagementteamand
thatExxonwasnot(althoughanarguablecasemaybemade);rather,the
primarydifferencebetweenthetwocasesisthatExxonwastheguiltyagent
responsible for despoiling the environment whereas Johnson & Johnson
was thevictimof a consumer terrorist.
Contrary topopular belief,mostcrises arenotthe result of anexternal
psychopathbutinsteadareself-generated,theresultofinternalscrewupson
thepartofcompanies.Whetheritbeaproductthatisdefectiveandcauses
egregiousharmtopeople,anillegalschemeconcoctedonthepartofthese-
niorofficersofanorganization,oranaccidentthatresultsinthelossoflife,
organizations are more often than not the victims of their own misdeeds.
Undeniably,giventhecomplexnatureoforganizationsaswellasthediffi-
culty of locating responsibility for managerial decisions, crises of a com-
pany’s own making, rather than being random and sporadic, are an
inevitable and “normal” part of organizational life (Jackall, 1997; Perrow,
1984).Thischapterseekstointroducetheconceptsofapologiaandapol-
ogy;charttheconcomitantriseofthemodernorganization,withitsdiscur-
sive status; and account for the proliferation of corporateapologiae.
APOLOGIA AND APOLOGY
The necessity to extricate oneself from an unfavorable circumstance is
one of the oldest compulsions of the human condition. Rooted in the
problemofguilt(realorperceived;Burke,1984),thespeechofdefense,or
apologia,hasalwaysbeenaresponsetothispredicament,whetherthede-
fensewasbytheaforementionedAdamandEve,whoshiftedtheblamefor
theirrebelliousacts;PresidentBillClinton,whoinsistedthathehadno
“improper” relationship with a White House intern; or the juicemaker
Odwalla,whichin1996acknowledged“responsibility”forthepresenceof
E.coliinitsjuice(Rawson&Thomsen,1998).Simplyput,thesecorpo-
rate advocates, most often due to the obdurate nature of their own ac-
tions,facedcriticismthatalmostrequiredthemtoofferaverbalorwritten
defense in order to clean up their tarnished images (Bitzer, 1968). The
needtoengageinfaceworkiscentraltohumannature;indeed,itisnota
large leap to define human beings as a Homo Apologist/Confessor
(Foucault,1980,p.59).
INTRODUCTION 3
When responding to criticism, these corporate advocates have at their
disposalawidevarietyofpotentialresponses.Someapologistsdenycharges
and,whiledoingso,claimthattheyhavebeenmadeatargetbymedia.Oth-
ersattempttoexplainawaytheirguiltbyscapegoatingorblaminganother
party.Stillothers,inaturnofhonesty,acknowledgetheirresponsibilityand
seek forgiveness. Whatever the response, these individuals and organiza-
tionsusetheircommunicationstrategicallyandhaveastheirmotivethede-
sire to rebut the criticisms leveled against them and purify their damaged
images (Benoit, 1995; Fisher, 1970).
Historically,thestudyofapologiahasprimarilybeenconcernedwithin-
dividuals accused of wrongdoing who seek to clear their names (Ware &
Linkugel,1973).Earlyanalysesfocusedonpoliticalfigures(Harrell,Ware,
&Linkugel,1975;Rosenfield,1968),leadersofreligiousandsocialmove-
ments(Ryan,1982;Ware&Linkugel,1973),andotheroratorswhouseda
speech to defend their integrity (Downey, 1993; Hoover, 1989). Yet, with
the advent and rise of the modern organization, the nature and source of
apologetic discourse has changed (Crable, 1986, 1990; Dionisopoulos &
Vibbert,1983;Sproule,1988).Ratherthanjustemanatingfromindividuals
caughtinawrong,partiesasdiverseaspoliticians,sportsfigures,entertain-
ers,businesses,not-for-profitorganizations,institutions,andgovernments
nowfacedailycriticismtowhichtheymustdefendtheiractionsorfacedam-
age to their carefully constructed images and the loss of consumer
confidence and patronage.
Itismypositionthatalloftheseindividualsandinstitutionsareexamples
ofcorporateadvocacy.BycorporateadvocacyIdonotmeanthe“persuasion
ofcorporations”;rather,Iusethetermtomean“organizedgroupsofpeople
whoactinconcert.”Inthisway,anapologiadeliveredbyastarathleteisa
form of corporate apologia in the same way as that crafted by a com-
pany—bothareorganizedattemptsatpersuasionthatconstituteaformofa
dramaticproduction,becauseboththeindividualandthecorporateofficial
arelikelytofollowascriptwrittenforthembyateamofagents,lawyers,and
mediahandlers.Althoughthisbookdoesfeaturecorporationsasaprimary
focusoftheoryandanalysis(e.g.,intermsoftheroleofliability),Iconsider
individuals,organizations,andinstitutionsaspartofthescopeofcorporate
apologeticstudies,inthatallthreeformsofagentsrepresentattemptsator-
ganizedpersuasioninresponsetovocalcriticism.Itisthesubstanceofthese
responses that serve as the focus of this book.
Some might respond that good public relations takes a proactive ap-
proachtoproblemsandthatabookonthetopicofapologiahasanundue
emphasisonareactiveformofpublicrelations—strategiesfor“gettingthe
horsebackinthebarn”afterithasescaped.Inresponsetosuchaposition,I
wouldmakeanumberofobservations.First,suchacriticismisnotunique
toapologiabutcanalsobeleveledagainstcrisismanagementtheoryasa
4 CHAPTER 1
whole,anareathathaswitnessedaconsiderableamountofscholarlyin-
quiry of late (Albrecht, 1996; Coombs, 1999; Rouland & Jerome, 2004;
Seegeretal.,1998,2003).Apologiastudiesrepresentacriticalsubsetof
crisis management and, as such, warrant critical exploration on its own.
Secondisthepointthatpublicrelationsofficersadmonishcorporateman-
agerstoconsidertheethicaldimensionsoftheirdecisionsandbehaviors,
yetsaidmanagers donotalways comply with this counsel.This book fo-
cusesonthosetimesinwhichorganizationsdonotfollowpublicrelations’
counsel and, as a result, face messes of their own making. Finally, given
thatorganizationsoperateinapolyarchiccontext(Zald,1978)—acom-
plexeconomicandpoliticalsystemwithinamultifacetedmediatedenvi-
ronment—no matter how ethically pure the motives, there is an
inevitabilitythatanindividualoranorganization’sactionsarelikelytoof-
fendsomeoneorsomegroup.Hence,aknowledgeofhowtorespondapol-
ogeticallyisbothreasonableandnecessary.
Key Terms
Whenoneconsidersthetermapologia,thefirstinclinationmaybetocon-
fuseitwithapology;yet,thetwotermscouldnotbemoredifferentintheir
implications.Apologia,takenfromtheGreekwordapologia(Gk.apo,away
off, absolve; logia, speech), means “defense” or “speech in defense”
(Moulton,1978,pp.40,45; Simpson&Weiner,1989,p.533; Tavuchis,
1991,p.14;Thayer,1889,p.65);similarly,theverbapologeomaimeansto
“speaksoastoabsolveone’sself”(Thayer,1889,p.65).Apologyisanewer
termthat,conversely,hasjusttheoppositeconnotation.Incommonus-
age,toapologizeis“[t]oacknowledgeandexpressregretforafaultwithout
defence…”(Simpson&Weiner,1989,p.533,emphasisadded).Inother
words, apologies acknowledge guilt and present the accused as defense-
less; apologiae may express concern yet more typically offer a vigorous
counteroffensive.
Suchadistinctionisnottosuggestthatapologyistheantonymofapologia;
theirrootsaresimilarenoughtoallowforconsiderableoverlap.Rather,asI
usethetermshere,apologiaisabroadtermthatmeanstorespondtoorgani-
zational criticism by offering a vigorous and compelling defense. This re-
sponsemaybeadefensethatdeniesthevalidity ofcharges,such aswhen
GeneralMotorsrespondedtocriticismsthatitsC/Ktruckswereunsafein
side-impactcollisions;itmayfeatureanacknowledgmentofsomeresponsi-
bilitywhileattemptingtoscapegoatitsemployees,suchastheToshibaCor-
porationdidafteritwasrevealedoneofitssubsidiarieshadsoldtop-secret
technologiestothethen-SovietUnion;oritmayincludearesponsethatis
primarilyanapology,suchasAmericanAirlinesdidafteritspilotsstageda
“sickout”andthecompanywasforcedtocancelanunusuallylargenumber