"Running head: SITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY1Situational Crisis Communication TheoryStudent nameSubject CodeUniversity NameProfessor NameDateSITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY2Situational Crisis Communication TheoryCrisis is never a matter of time but time sensitive matter for any organization. Noorganization in any form of business model can guarantee a 100% avoidance from crisis as it hitsit unexpectedly, often driven by external factors upon which the organization or management hasno control. But the need of the hour is not to avoid it, rather to face it and prepare a plan torespond it in an effective manner to minimize the dent caused by it.The core principle of Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) proposed byTimothy Coombs is built on the pillars of The Attribution theory which reflects peopleperception and attribution to the events. The Attribution theory accounts a particular attributeresponsible for a specific event and evaluates and experiences the emotional reactions (anger,sympathy) triggered after the event. The SCCT uses these fundamentals to prognosticate thelevel of reputational threat posed by a crisis and accordingly prescribe and implement thesuitable crisis response strategies.The SCCT is summarized below where Table 1 categorizes the crisis types and Table 2demonstrates the crisis response strategies.Case StudiesThree recent case studies are taken into considerations to discuss the practicalapplications and implications of SCCT theory.Case Study 1The case study 1 is focused on one of the news article aired on BBC news regarding“MH17 Malaysia plane crash in Ukraine: What we know (2014)”. 17th July, 2014 was a dreadful SITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY3day for 298 passengers including 15 crew members of flight MH17 that was travelling fromAmsterdam to Kuala Lumpur and in the middle of the journey was shot down over Ukrainianterritory, close to the Russian border leaving no one alive in the flight.AnalysisThis study is dedicated to conduct a contextual analysis based on SCCT to understand thecommunication approach of MAS in the aftermath of MH17.Contextual AnalysisThe Reputational Threat - Initial Crisis ResponsibilityBased on SCCT parameters and the fact that the aircraft was shot down by unknownagents, the MH17 belongs to „Malevolence? crisis type which is a sub-category of „victimcluster?.Intensifying Factors„Crisis History and Prior Relationship Reputation? are the two intensifying factorsresponsible to evaluate the reputational threat. As per World Airline Awards, 2012, the airlinecompany was in the top ten of the world?s Top 100 Airlines and has won multiple other awardsprior to 2014. But as per the views of crisis management experts, this case was handled verypoorly which led to confusion and anger amongst family members and other stakeholders andultimately made matters more worse than before and created a poor relationship betweencompany and stakeholders (Canny, I. (2016). Hence, the attribution of reputational threat can bedeemed as „moderate? importance as per SCCT categorization. SITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY4EmotionsThe three most important emotional components of this theory are „Sympathy, Anger andSchadenfreude? and as per this case study, it is self-evident that anger is very much involved.Organizational ReputationAs discussed earlier, a poor relationship was developed between the company and thestakeholders which led to behavioral complications by the latter group which was non-supportivefor the former.Crisis Response StrategiesDenial response strategies: ScapegoatingScapegoating seems to be the most suitable strategy under this category as the Companyhad no involvement in the sequence of events and would de facto reinforce the frame of thembeing a victim of the crisis and nothing else. It would also help in reducing the reputational threatand seek to divert the frame from accidental cluster to bolster as a part of victim cluster giving areason to stakeholders to get their support.Diminish response strategies: ExcuseThis strategy is applied to lessen the organization?s connection to the crisis and wouldassist in positive behavioural inclination of the stakeholders towards the company.Rebuilding response strategies: Compensation SITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY5This strategy of offering monetary compensation along with therapy and other aids wouldnullify the negativity and would help in creative a positive environment within the stakeholderstowards the company increasing its reputation.Secondary crisis response strategy: VictimageThis supplement would be the best compliment to the above mentioned strategy tostrengthen the emotion of sympathy which would positively affect the behavioural intentions ofthe stakeholders.Case Study 2This case study deals with the crisis communication on Germanwings Flight 9525 crashbased on practical application of SCCT. The dawn of24th March, 2015 was the most sorrowfulday for 150 passengers who boarded the flight that got crashed at 10:53 AM killing everyone. Ittumbled Lufthansa?a age old reputation and raised questions on world famous German airlineindustry.Responses of Germanwings StakeholdersThere was a lot difference of opinions of Germanwings Stakeholders that flashed out atdifferent time intervals during various press meets that occurred after the crash. The Ministry ofTransport thought that the captain was actively barred from accessing the cockpit. At times, thedoor mechanism of the plane was thought to be the reason for crash. The pilot?s licenseprocedure was also scrutinized but no fault was found in it. The European Aviation Safety SITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY6Agency (EASA), recommended reassessment of safety and security risks associated with flightcrew members who leave the compartment during non-critical phases of flight.The Reputational Threat - Initial Crisis ResponsibilityBased on the Lufthansa CEO?s official statement, it the crisis is categorized under„Preventable cluster? under the crisis type of „Human-error accident? and reputational threat wasconsidered as „strong attribution? that required a severe reputational threat. The CEO, CarstenSpohr deciphered the truth of the crash in a press conference on 26 March 2015. The voicerecorder recovery details gave the incident a new tragic turn and the human negligence of co- pilot of the plane was made accountable for the tragedy (Coombs, 2014). The incident seemed tohave happened when the pilot left the cockpit for a short period of time leaving it to the hands ofthe co-pilot. Later on when the pilot wanted access entry to the cockpit, he was denied by hisfellow co-pilot so as to start the fatal descent into the French Alps. The background evaluation ofthe co-pilot revealed that he had faced an interruption to his training in the past post which hewas re-trained to avail 100% fitness before starting his flying career.The review of the above official statement proves the transparency in the crisis analysisand the airlines company took a huge step by accepting their own fault in front of the masses. Bydoing this, they bridged the gap between them and the customers and paved the way to regaintheir loyalty and support for the company.Response Strategy of Germanwings to the CrisisThe Germanwings CEO?s acknowledgement that the accident had afflicted both thevictims? relatives and organization?s reputation implied the probable use of a combination of SITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY7apology and victimage response strategies to tackle the situation. In another official statement ofLufthansa?s press release, the company announced two special flights to Marseille for therelatives and friends of the victims so as to take them to the closest possible of the accident point.All necessary arrangement was done by company along with the accommodation expenses(Lufthansa Group Press Release, 2015).Lufthansa Group attempted to offset the crisis situation by employing a compensationcrisis response strategy by offering a helping hand of compensation for relatives and friends ofthe victims.The rebuild and bolstering strategy seems to be of strategic importance applied to thiscase study. The company ensured that compensation and apology approach was successfullyapplied with the stakeholders as a part of the rebuild strategy in an attempt to convince therelatives of the victims.The bolstering approach was used as a part of the secondary crisis response strategywhere Lufthansa used the reminder approach to make the stakeholders aware of the excellentpast service record of the company and through the ingratiation approach praised thestakeholders for the trust they have levied on the organization. Finally through the Victimagestrategy, the company tried to pass on the information that the mishap was unintentional andeven the company is one of the biggest losers of the crisis.Case Study 3This case study encompasses the examination and evaluation of concussions caused to a FIFAWorld Cup 2014player. This study revolves around the football player Christoph Kramer, who SITUATIONAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY8was involved in Germany versus Argentina championship match and suffered a head blowduring the event that left him slumped (Hughey, 2015).The Reputational Threat - Initial Crisis ResponsibilityThe events can be categorized under „accident cluster? and „preventable cluster?. Underthe „challenges? crisis type, FIFA unorganized operating model was discussed due to whichKramer suffered a lot. Similarly, „Organizational misdeed management misconduct? which is asub-category of preventable cluster highlights the laws violated by FIFA to accept its fault inKramer?s head injury case.Response Strategy to the CrisisThe FIFA commission addressed and handled this issue very poorly and applied a denialposture of crisis response along with scapegoat strategy to escape from the allegation. The FIFAorganization ignored twitter allegations against it and justified their own verdict stating that thereferees had stopped the match for three minutes to adequately scrutinize the head injury ofKramer (Associated Press, 2014).Potential Areas of Additional Academic ResearchCoomb?s research design applied in developing the SCCT covers only 12 types of crises,which at times proves to be insufficient to match with the stakeholders? level of perceivedresponsibility for the crisis (King, Kitchen, Misimovic, Rasmussen, & Andersen, 2015).Thisquestions the genuine validity and relevance of the theory along with its applicability in all crisiscommunication related case analysis. Hence, academic research to modify this aspect would give "