Talking about corporate
organization, we take
into consideration all
business entities
registered by law for
the provision of either
services or products
that stimulate
profitability.
By implication, a
corporate organization
could be profit or
service oriented.
Mostly, profit oriented
corporate organizations
are committed to
profitably filling the
economic needs of
consumers and in general
members of the society,
while service oriented
corporate organizations
are usually committed to
providing the
socio-economic
(infrastructure) needs
of the members of the
society with the primary
aim of effecting a
standard livelihood for
the society.
In most economies of the
world, especially where
the conservative
neo-classical system of
economy thrives, the
government is usually
committed to provision
of services to the
citizenry, while profit
oriented corporate
organizations are manned
by private individuals –
this system is known as
capitalism and
characteristic of
neo-liberalism economic
system.
Having absorbed the fact
on what a corporate
organization is, and
what characteristics
could differentiate one
type from the other, we
still arrive at the
conclusion that the
point of confluence
between corporate
organizations,
irrespective of their
inclination is that they
are indebted to a set of
ever-willing patrons who
comprise buyers and
sellers (market).
This patrons classified
as markets are the major
focus of every corporate
organization. The
success of any corporate
organization is measured
by the extent to the
share of the market that
it controls, and how it
is able to shape the
opinion of those patrons
towards accepting it as
socially and financially
responsible.
Patrons on one hand, the
corporate organization
on the other hand is
subjected to a stream of
spontaneous elements
created out of the
naturalness of the
artificialness of the
business environment.
This is however not to
say that the business
environment is
independent of the
natural environment.
The artificial business
environment is further
grouped into (1) The
Internal business
environment (or
controllable business
environment) and (2) The
External business
environment (or
uncontrollable business
environment).
The internal environment
of business are those
elements of business
that are put in place by
the business itself for
operation purposes,
these are basically
regarded as the factors
of production. They can
be acronymic as CELL –
Capital, Entrepreneur,
Labor, Land.
The uncontrollable
elements that form the
business environment are
those elements created
out of basic social
structure, they include
Politics, Economy,
Religion, Law,
competition, Technology,
Environment, Consumer
behavior etc. These
elements, the corporate
organization can only
attempt to influence
(but not control).
As much as the
organization
automatically becomes
subjected to the
analyzed environments,
there are certain
reactions from the
environment that can
cause the death or
instability of the
business. This analogy
brings us to the major
thrust of this discourse
– The Death and Life of
Organizations
Businesses are bound to
fail when in the course
of business operation
they ignore or undermine
the dynamism, complexity
and mutifacetedness of
the environment they
operate in.
We should not forget
that a business is
patronized not only on
the basis of the product
or services it can
offer, but the image,
the goodwill and the way
in which such business
has proven to be
socially responsible in
its day to day
activities.
In Public Relations
terms, the internal and
external elements of the
business environment
that comprises human
beings are highly taken
into consideration. This
is due to the fact that
it is believed that
humans are the builder
and destroyer of any
institution. This human
aspect of the
organization in PR is
known as Publics.
As long as a corporate
body is in favor with
its Publics, its
existence is assuredly
continuous, where it
does not; the company
were better not
established.
Any organization that
lacks good reputation
with its publics will
definitely be impeded in
growth and consequently
die off.
For instance, the case
of the Nigerian Indomie
Noodles “killer
products” can be
considered. When
consumers who were not
even affected by the
widespread rumor that
the death of one young
man was caused by his
consumption of Indomie
Noodles, and that
Indomie contained toxic
materials; the public
(target
audience/consumers of
Indomie) dropped their
demand of the product
and helped in the
spreading of the rumor,
such that those who were
ardent loyalists of the
product had to take the
product with utmost
caution.
Indomie was then at the
verge of extinction.
Were it not for urgent
steps taken in
professionally handling
the crisis through the
instrumentality of PR,
Indomie would have
become history.
Do not forget that the
case then was said also
rumored to be an
instigated crisis by one
of the competitors in
the pasta market. This
could be possible, so
corporations should not
be ignorant of the wiles
of the wicked: some
competing organizations
could go as far as
destroying the image of
its competitors to
create problems for the
business, so that while
the affected business is
embattled, the publics
of the affected product
could be snatched.
In 1982, Europe’s
Johnson and Johnson had
a taste of what crisis
really is. Theirs was a
major crisis. It was
discovered that numerous
bottles of Johnson and
Johnson’s Extra-Strength
Tylenol capsules had
been laced with cyanide.
By the end of the
crisis, seven people had
died. How Johnson and
Johnson dealt with this
situation set a new
precedent for crisis
management. The company
was lauded for its quick
decisions and sincere
concern for its
consumers. Despite
initial losses, Johnson
and Johnson regained and
exceeded its previous
market share within
months of the incident.
Same was the case with.
Odwalla's apple juice,
which was thought to be
the cause of an outbreak
of E. coli bacteria, the
company lost a third of
its market value. The
same allegation against
Jack in the Box
restaurant in 1993
caused the hamburger
chain's stock price to
fall from $14 a share to
nearly $3 a share: what
a great loss to
investors!
The examples given would
make you understand that
crisis is a threat or
any issue that stands as
a threat to the
existence and
development of an
organization. We can
also observe that in
every case where there
had been the issue of
crisis, companies have
experienced great
losses, not only in
terms of reputation, but
also financially, why
because they did not
take into consideration
the possibility that
those issues (crises),
which have cost them
their entirety could
have occurred.
That is to say, they
never had any workable
crisis plan on ground to
contain those
contingencies that
arose. Geary Sikich
mused in one of his
works stating “Failure
to have a workable
Crisis Management
Program is akin to
playing Russion Rullete
with an automatic
pistol. You don’t have
the luxury of pulling
the trigger on an empty
chamber”
Where an organization
fails to plan ahead to
contain crisis, its
publics are allowed to
form opinions about the
organization when it
hits the iceberg of
crisis, and this is
generally dangerous,
because the public’s may
conflagrate the real
matter on ground and it
becomes difficult for
the organization to
change these views.
After all, it is
psychologically true
that it is easier to
form opinions for people
than to change people’s
opinions.
Trying to change
opinions in terms of
crisis can be termed as
crisis management. In
this case, the
organization will only
be reacting to public
opinions, which will be
concentrated divergently
from the public’s on the
organization. The model
below explains the
situation an
organization is in when
reacting to crisis.
The diagram above shows
that when an
organization waits till
it is hit by crisis, its
begins to shrink, due to
the convergent rays of
crisis focused on it
form the crisis source.
The organization loses
all of its contacts with
the market it usually
controls. Publics also
begin to form riotous
opinions, which
altogether does not
augur well for the
organization. The
organization’s shrinking
refers to financial
impoverishment, while
the fading contacts
refers to loss of
goodwill.
As earlier stated, most
companies or
organizations like
Johnson and Johnson and
Indomie swim through the
crisis stream, and some
don’t; it is still
evident that in both
cases, the organizations
goes through the process
depicted by the model.
Though, no organization,
not even Microsoft can
envisage all crises that
would (not could) hit it
from behind, putting
into effect issues
management, which is
proactive in nature can
save organizations the
cost of having to react
to crisis, hence facing
despair when crisis
finally are conceived or
fully matured.
Issues Management
alternatively unlike
Crisis Management is
focused on identifying
issues that are likely
to mutate into crisis.
Issues Management is
aimed at either working
out plans to tackle the
issue when it is
conceived or nip it in
the bud even when it is
still latently
hibernating.
In issues management,
the organization through
its Public Relations
Executive is able to
shape the opinion to be
shared by the public
rather than change their
opinions during the
tackling of the crisis.
The Public Relations
Executive should be the
first person after
sitting with the Board
of Directors to form a
crisis committee
comprising key officials
of the organization, and
a corporate crisis
policy statement, which
would be relayed to the
media from time to time.
This portrays the
organization as being in
charge of the situation
on ground.
The corporate crisis
policy statement
mentioned here should
not be mistaken for
propaganda or
fabrications, but an
honest statement, which
would make the public,
know that their interest
in the organization is
protected.
The issues management
model shows the position
of the organization when
it takes proactive
measures to check crisis
that could affect the
organization.
The diagram shows that
the organization is in
control of both the
budding crises and its
publics, hence it
remains financially
reputable and does not
lack in goodwill.
Here in issues
management, issues that
could affect the
organization in say
period of three years
time. So short-term
plans to accommodate the
event of crisis,
likewise long- term
plans are put in place.
For instance, corporate
organization such as ADC
should have taken plane
crash as an issue and
should have drawn up
plans to tackle the
issue of crashes. Plans
should include tracking
the plane on time,
rushing to the rescue of
possible survivors and
flying them abroad for
treatments (if
necessary), getting the
Chief Executive Officer
to talk to the media,
relating timely with
relevant government
agencies, give adequate
report of what went
wrong, prepare
condolence packages for
bereaved victims etc.
All these may not in
realistic terms prove
the organization
innocent or make it not
suffer any setbacks, but
at least it would have
proven that the
organization really felt
its Corporate Social
Responsibility and care
more for its publics.
Rather, the pilot of the
plane was blamed for
being self-willed and
such things like that.
Even if that were the
case, it is not worth
mentioning, especially
were the family of the
pilot is also bereaved.
This portrays the
organization as
irresponsible, and this
is where organizations
should know that the
role of profession
Public Relations is one
of the life wires of any
organization.
Had professional public
relations activities
been rolled out as in
the case of Johnson and
Johnson and Indomie, not
minding the cost, ADC
might be doing even
better than it was
doing.
Most organizations that
have died today might
have been able to shape
the opinions of their
publics to swim through
the times of crises, but
they allowed themselves
to shrink gradually to
death, by waiting
without planning for
crises.
The importance of Issues
Management nay Public
Relations to any
organization cannot be
underestimated and
should not be,
especially if it is an
organization that
intends being counted
among the top reputable
and financially capable
corporate organization
in the growing global
village.
Source: Nelson
Oluwabukola
link
Issues and Crisis
Management: the Death
and Life of
Organizations