1、Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 147157Issue management and crisis management: An integrated,non-linear, relational constructTony JaquesRMIT University, Melbourne, AustraliaReceived 28 August 2006; received in revised form 12 December 2006; accepted 20 February 2007AbstractDespite extensive attempt
2、s to define and differentiate issue management and crisis management, the definitional approach and linear life-cycle models which focus on the elements fail to capture the full dynamics of the disciplines. Instead of a focuson definitions, this paper proposes a non-linear, relational construct whic
3、h considers issue and crisis management in the contextof interdependent activities and clusters of activity which must be managed at different stages. This includes the role of issuemanagement in both the pre-crisis and post-crisis phases. The model addresses some of the limitations of linear approa
4、ches andhelps analyze the outcomes and overlaps between activity clusters in order to optimize strategic relationships and enhance bottom-lineeffectiveness. 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Keywords: Issue management; Crisis management; Crisis prevention; Life cycle models; Interdisciplinary r
5、elationship1. IntroductionDuring the parallel development of issue management and crisis management there have been extensive academicand practitioner attempts to define and differentiate the two disciplines.Issue management as a defined activity began in the late 1970s but the first book devoted so
6、lely to issue managementwas not published until 1984 (Howard Chase: Issue Management Origins of the Future). Significantly, one of theseminal works on the emerging discipline of crisis management was published just two years later (Steve Fink: CrisisManagement: Planning for the Inevitable).Chase and
7、 his colleague Barry Jones established the pioneering definition that an issue is “an unsettled matter whichis ready for decision” (Chase, 1984, p. 38). Over the ensuing twenty years, issues have been defined and categorizedin many different ways. Yet, there has come to be reasonably broad acceptanc
8、e of an issue as “a condition or event,either internal or external to the organization which, if it continues, will have a significant effect of the functioning orperformance of the organization or on its future interests” (cited in Regester fax: +61 3 9226 3694.E-mail address: .0363-8111/$ see fron
9、t matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.001148 T. Jaques / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 147157characterized by ambiguity of cause, effects and means of resolution, as well as by a belief that decisions must be madeswiftly.”More recently Anne Gregory (2005, p
10、. 313) similarly reported that a literature review concludes crises are char-acterized as “high consequence, low probability, overlaid with risk and uncertainty, conducted under time-pressure,disruptive of normal business and potentially lethal to organizational reputation.”However, the challenge is
11、 not so much in defining issue and crisis but in the application of those definitions tomanagement theory and practice.2. The definitional approachWhile there is now a good degree of consensus about what is a crisis and what is an issue, there is much lessconsensus on how to define crisis management
12、 and virtually none at all on how to define issue management. RobertHeath wrote in 1997 (p. 5) that no definition of issue management had achieved consensus and his judgment remainsvalid. This lack of clarity suggests that while crises can properly be defined independent of crisis management, it isd
13、ifficult to define issues independent of issue management.The weakness of the purely definitional approach is illustrated by a student thesis (Monstad, 2003, p. 1) whichtypifies a common misapprehension: “Issue management involves mainly looking into the future to identify potentialtrends and events
14、 which may influence the organization, while crisis management is a more reactive discipline focusingon the situation after a crisis has occurred.” While a crisis is by definition a situation out of control (Benedict, 1994,p.22), this concept of crisis management as purely reactive would be valid on
15、ly if crisis management is regarded simplyas a tactical discipline.Unlike issue management, where both strategic and tactical elements are recognized, the same distinction forcrisis management is less well understood, which perpetuates superficial distinctions and impedes progress. Within astrategic
16、 context, crisis management should be seen not just as a tactical reactive response when a crisis hits, but as aproactive discipline embracing inter-related processes ranging from crisis prevention and crisis preparedness throughcrisis response and on to crisis recovery.When crisis management is vie
17、wed in this holistic way the focus turns to process rather than definitions, and researchmakes it clear that definitions alone are an insufficient basis for properly understanding the integral relationship betweenissue management and crisis management.3. Life cycle modelsBeyond purely definitional a
18、ttempts to distinguish between issue management and crisis management, life cyclemodels have been developed and analyzed to illustrate the distinction and relationship between different managementelements (including Mahon Bigelow, Fahey, Gonzalez-Herrero Jaques, 2000; and Zyglidopoulos, 2003).Life c
19、ycle models broadly rely on two common propositions that some problems left unaddressed trend towardsincreasing seriousness and greater risk; and that the longer an issue survives, the choices available decrease and costof intervention and resolution increases. The labels and vocabulary may vary, bu
20、t in general such models graphicallyillustrate that matters of contention typically move progressively along a sequence from concern to problem to issueto crisis and then to some form of resolution.A key weakness of life cycle models is that they are linear, suggesting that activities take place in
21、a sequential fashion,leading to some form of resolution. The models also imply that competing issues are managed one at a time, whereasdifferent issues are often managed simultaneously, frequently each at different phases. In reality issue management isinherently not a linear process. As Bigelow et
22、al. (1993, p. 29) concluded: “Issues do not necessarily follow a linear,sequential path, but instead follow paths that reflect the intensity and diversity of the values and interests stakeholdersbring to an issue and the complexity of the interaction among the .factors.”Stephen Hilgartner and Charle
23、s Bosk (1988, p. 54) explored issue life cycle theory in the context of a natural historymodel (which posits that social problem recognition and attention follows an orderly trajectory akin to evolution). ButLamertz, Martens, and Heugens (2003, p. 83) are critical of what they call “highly stylized”
24、 natural history models.“The main source of discontent,” they argue, “is that issues often fail to progress along predictable lines, and deviatefrequently from the linear, sequential path suggested by evolutionary frameworks.”T. Jaques / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 147157 1494. Chaos theoryOne
25、 counter to the linearity of the lifecycle approach was to explore whether chaos theory which emphasizesmulti-directional causality and lack of predictability has utility for understanding crisis management. Chaos theory isbuilt on the two ideas that systems, no matter how complex, rely on an underl
26、ying order, and that within such systemsvery small changes or events can cause very complex behaviors or outcomes.Recognition of this non-linear interaction between components prompted Priscilla Murphy (1996) and later MatthewSeeger (2002) to advance the application of chaos theory to crisis managem
27、ent. However, this approach does notappear to have gained much ground. Indeed Seeger himself recognized that both crisis communication researchersand practitioners have focused primarily on the short term goals of resolving a crisis quickly as possible with as littledamage to image as possible, as o
28、pposed to the longer term time frames and broader scales needed for chaos theory toplay out.5. Disaster management as a modelAnother alternative to the linearity of life cycle models or the multi-directional causality of chaos theory is theholistic approach exemplified by disaster management, where
29、different elements or clusters overlap substantially andcan be worked on simultaneously.Although the expression “disaster management” is sometimes mistakenly used as a synonym for crisis management,disaster management is in fact a distinct process, typically involving government agencies and territo
30、rial authoritiesand most often related to national or community disasters.A central component of disaster management is a cross-functional, “whole of government” commitment to planning often mandated by law or regulation. While the focus especially with natural phenomena such as earthquakes, floods,
31、pandemics, landslides and hurricanes is on reducing the impact of disasters rather than on preventing the disastersthemselves, disaster management can provide a useful framework for corporate issue or crisis management, particularlyby highlighting the elements as linked processes and not stand-alone
32、 disciplines.Referring to the deceptively simple classic disaster management cycle (Fig. 1), Nick Carter (1991, pp. xx) says thatwhile the cycle is often portrayed in other forms, the important point is that the format should indicate that “disasterand its management is a continuum of inter-related
33、activities; it is not a series of events which start and stop with eachdisaster occurrence.”In line with the approach typified by disaster management, Caroline Sapriel (2003, p. 348) developed an “integratedand holistic” risk and crisis management model, which she said reflects a growing recognition
34、 among corporations thatcrisis management must be institutionalized and that all key business functions must formally address crisis preventionand management formally as part of business planning.Her model provides a useful progression from risk assessment though crisis preparedness assessment and e
35、mergencyand crisis response towards a goal of increased crisis preparedness, along with a concurrent progression from riskassessment to risk reduction. Yet, while this model demonstrates an improved element of integration, it too is built ona step-wise, linear form.Fig. 1. Disaster management cycle.
36、 Source: Asian Development Bank, Carter (1991).150 T. Jaques / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 1471576. The evolution of crisis managementThe concept of crisis management has seen a steady evolution over the last 20 years. Early phases of this evolutionincluded Littlejohns (1983, p. 13) six step c
37、risis model (structure design, crisis team selection, team training, crisissituation audit, contingency plan, manage the crisis); Finks seminal (1986, pp. 2125) four stage model (prodromal,acute, chronic, resolution); Burnetts (1998, p. 482) 16-cell classification matrix approach; and the Home Offic
38、e (UK)Emergency Planning College eight stage planning process (direction, information gathering, plan writing, consultation,publication, training validation, confirmation/revisionHarrison, 1999, p. 21).Alongside the development of models for crisis management was a focus on models for crisis classif
39、ication, forexample Meyers (1988, p. 14) who identified nine types of business crises; Lerbinger (1997, p. 19) who developed fourcrisis classifications; and Coombs (2002, pp. 343343) who identified four crisis situations and a “repertoire” of fivecrisis-response strategies. In addition there has bee
40、n a strong academic focus on image and reputation managementand on the typology of crisis response strategies. (See for example Hearit, 1995 and Sellnow, Ulmer, thena management crisis (slow and inadequate response); then a management/litigation issue (sustained legal and publicreview of management
41、response) and finally a persistent reputational issue which may never fade.In this context, most writers accept that crisis prevention is a distinct step in the broad crisis management continuum.Yet most do not elaborate the actual management processes required to achieve that outcome, nor do they c
42、haracterizethat step in terms of specific management disciplines.Major crises which occur for instance financial collapse, product failure, fatal accidents are often the sub-ject of exhaustive investigation processes, such as coroners inquests, crash investigation, committees of inquiry andlaw suits
43、. But in all these different forms of root cause analysis, the real cause of the crisis is almost certainlynever that the crisis management manual was not up to date or that the management process flow charts werenot well enough laid out. Yet it is often such process matters which occupy management
44、or consultant time andeffort.The real identified cause of major crises is much more likely to be poor maintenance practice, human error, badplanning, material failure, unethical or dishonest behavior, unresponsive culture, leadership failure, poor judgment, orinsufficient training (not training of t
45、he crisis management team but perhaps of maintenance workers or designers oraccountants). However, none of these activities would traditionally be seen in the context of “crisis prevention.”An additional challenge in corporations is that turf wars can lead to deliberate barriers between functions wh
46、ichsimply do not perceive themselves as part of this relational construct. For example, the auditing department mightsee itself as contributing to financial risk management but not as a key element in corporate crisis prevention, despitethe fact that a number of high profile financial crises and cor
47、porate collapses have been traced back directly to poorauditing practice. (cf. Crandall, McCartney, Guth, 1995, p. 132; Penrose, 2000, p 162; and AMA, 2002)have determined that a disappointingly low percentage of companies have a crisis plan in place typically around 50% and even fewer have tested t
48、he plan to demonstrate that it is operational.Introducing effective issue management or crisis management requires commitment from the top. If senior manage-ment is not committed to planning it will not happen. While Ian Mitroff and Thierry Pauchant (1990, p. 98) identifiedmore than 30 different rat
49、ionalizations managers have given for NOT putting crisis planning in place, it has been clearlyshown that when a crisis hits an organization which has no operational plan, the crisis last much longer (Fink, 1986,p.69). Indeed Brown (1993, p. 46) reported that research in the United States and Europe showed 80% of companies whichlack a well conceived and tested contingency plan go out of business within two years of suffering a major disaster.8.2. Crisis preparednesssystems, manuals Includes crisis management infrastructure, equipment, “
