"[9] Crisis management should not merely be reactionary; it should also consist of preventative measures and preparation in anticipation of potential crises.
General categories include deny, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification.
[15] As an extension of SCCT, Andreas Schwarz suggested to apply Kelley's covariation principle (attribution theory) more consistently in crisis communication to better explain the emergence and perception of causal attributions in crisis situations and deduce certain information strategies from this model and/or according findings.
[17] Developed by Frandsen and Johansen (2010; 2017),[18][19] RAT distinguishes itself from other crisis communication research due to its multi-vocal approach.
[4] Inside the management step, Bodeau-Ostermann identifies 6 successive phases: - reaction, where the group behaves on first sight, - extension, because the crisis dilutes itself and touches neighbours, - means (material and human), which constitutes an overview of success/failures of emergency reaction, - focus, stands as a concrete action or event on which the team leaders concentrate to fight crisis, - retraction, is the moment where the group diminishes means involved, in accordance with its aims, - rehabilitation, where, as a last step, result is, for the group, emergence of new values, stronger than the older.
Image repair theory provides series of options that organizations usually adopt including denial, evade responsibility, reduce offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification.
Reduce offensiveness strategy garners bolstering, minimization, differentiation, transcendence, attack accuser, and compensation.
[12] SCCT also offers a handful of strategies: denial, scapegoat, attack the accuser, excuse, justification, ingratiation, concern, compassion, regret, apology.
If the information collected in the previous phase is incorrect, the time in which the company reacts to the crisis does not matter.
This is a quick fix strategy but often can create long-term negative consequences for the organization itself and the individual or group taking the blame.
The intention with strategy is that people will respect the honesty and the awareness of the apologist to recognize their wrongdoing and take responsibility.
Journal articles frequently demonstrates the advantage of adopting "stealing thunder" strategy in minimizing reputational loss during crises.
[32] The article "How to Maximize the Effectiveness of Stealing Thunder in Crisis Communication: The Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Transparency" by Kim and Lee examines the concept of "stealing thunder" in crisis communication and how perceived organizational transparency affects its effectiveness.
The authors conducted two experimental studies to investigate the relationship between stealing thunder and perceived organizational transparency.
Research would suggest being proactive and disclosing negative information early on can help minimize repetitional damage, it is understandable that companies would still be hesitant to do so.
The fear of negative publicity and the potential impact of their business can make it difficult to disclose information that could harm their reputation.
Business being proactive and disclosing negative information early on can demonstrate transparency and willingness to take responsibility for their actions.
They may even consider seeking advice from crisis communication experts or conducting a risk assessment for an informative decision.
The article highlights the importance of timing in crisis communication, noting that a prompt and decisive response can mitigate repetitional damage.
However, the benefits of proactive communication, including the ability to control the narrative and minimize reputational damage, outweigh the risks.
Organizations should prioritize transparency in their crisis communication strategies and proactively release negative information to maintain their reputation.
Organizations should consider the timing and content of their "stealing thunder" strategy, as well as the level of transparency that stakeholders perceive.
The importance of perceived organizational transparency in the effectiveness of stealing thunder as a crisis communication strategy.
Organizations should prioritize transparency and consider the timing and content of their stealing thunder strategy to maintain their reputation during a crisis.