One that often happens today in the operational world of Corporations / Organization is crisis. The rapidly changing business environment has a powerful impact on the corporate business environment. When compared to the previous decade, where the crisis occurred with a slower duration, can be covered and the public does not have access to respond to the crisis, then the current crisis is a daily menu that will inevitably have to be swallowed. Currently, the duration of the crisis becomes more frequent, repetitive and certainly has a significant impact on the Company's development.
The impact of crisis mismanagement is no longer the development of the Company's disturbed and diminished reputation, but the impact is more powerful and powerful, namely changes in management structure, lawsuits, social sanctions from society and others. In the last few months, we can see clearly how the mismanagement of the crisis caused the big companies to be replaced by their management structures; public figures are dimming in the existence and social sanctions of the increasingly sharp society.
This is what often happens today, the extreme changes caused by mismanagement in managing the crisis. We will discuss the crisis in terms of corporate communication function. As we all know, the Corporate Communication function plays an important role in crisis management.
Looking at the current function of corporate communications, what often happens and often we observe, the implementation of the Corporate Communication function changes or rather position itself in the busyness of the protocol and builds false reputations through massive event events with the largest exposure for internal stakeholders.
Chronically, this implementation is perceived to be more frequent and may have a positive impact on the Company, but certainly not significantly. The role of Corporate Communications is not dominated by the internal activities of industrial environments and is intended to gain the greatest appreciation of the internal environment of the industry.
If this is done in a consistent manner, the Corporate Communications function will not be optimal, the more dull and distort the Company's operational position from the goal to be achieved. This will be further aggravated by the disparity between the Company's strong and healthy corporate reputation building needs and the harsh reality that corporate communications activities have been pseudo and fragile.
Corporate Crisis is one that can test and position the Corporate Communication function into an important essence for the development of the Company. Unfortunately, in reality, however, we can see clearly and commonly practiced by Corporate Communications practitioners when the crisis comes to: a normative clarification of the condition; shut out the external clarification process; does not become a catalyst in mediation with stakeholders and the worst is the disappearance and hand over function of point of interface with stakeholders to the CEO or management to conduct the communication process.
On the basis of the common practice of Corporate Communications practitioners, it is not surprising that this function experiences self-stunting either by other internal functions of the Company and related stakeholders (in this case the media and the public). In short, the implementation conditions undertaken by these Corporate Communications practitioners, have had a negative impact on crisis management and even worsened the existing conditions.
In managing Crisis, Corporate Communications function is required to perform several steps as follows.
Corporate Communications Functions can understand well the fact-based problem that exists. Without a clear support of the facts about the crisis, the confirmation to be conveyed in the communication process is both normative and biased. This will exacerbate external parties in understanding the crisis.
The second stage is to formulate a scenario of risk management and existing solutions. This stage is very important to do before conducting public communication process. Corporate Communications must be able to determine the impact estimates of several choices of steps to be taken in addressing the crisis.
The third stage, Corporate Communications is well informed about the stakeholders who are related to this crisis. Knowing understanding, reactions and prioritizing in interacting further is important to do.
The fourth stage of Corporate Communications is able to open lines of communication to each stakeholder, delivering on a background of crisis, solving solutions and updating existing processes. On the other hand, the role of Corporate Communications as a center and catalyst in the handling of the crisis must be dared to be undertaken and implemented with good and intense approaches.
Through some of these approaches, a few more Corporate positions will be much more effective, than just shut down.
It is still fresh in our minds, how the applying of crisis media is very well done by the Airline when an accident occurs on an existing plane. At such a difficult time, the Airline opens a clear line of communication, coordinates with stakeholders and delivers the efforts and updates of the results and asks for community support so that this can be resolved properly.
In closing, then is there a difference in crisis management, if managed appropriately and improperly by the Corporate Communications function? the impact is very different.
Through proper handling by the Corporate Communications function, stakeholders can accept the facts and understand the problem well and monitor the existing handling. In fact, in the long run, the Company's reputation is strong and positive. The company can be trusted because of the appropriate crisis management function. While on the other hand, improper crisis management, causing the Company to have decreased trust and negative value by stakeholders.
Definitely not? that through the right approach, the results will be different. Do not be afraid of the crisis, be afraid of the response we give to the crisis.