“Mistakes were made”: Organizations, apologia, and crises of social legitimacy

Hearit, Keith Michael

doi:10.1080/10510979509368435

Cited by 225 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

164

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Integrating knowledge on these perspectives will provide impressions that can ultimately enable MNCs to benefit in two ways: (1) MNCs will be able to safeguard themselves and their IAs from unexpected terrorism events; and (2) MNCs will be more likely to retain current and attract viable IA candidates (see Hearit, 1995;Neu, Warsame, & Pedwell, 1998) and conceivably leave a positive impression on departing employees. We assert that a country-level understanding of the effect of terrorism on business is important, yet it relates only indirectly to the conception of a terrorism preparedness plan.…”

Section: Organizational Legitimacy Theory and The Development Of A Tementioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging in duty of care: towards a terrorism preparedness plan

Harvey

Dabić

Kiessling

et al. 2017

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Organizational Legitimacy Theory and The Development Of A Tementioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging in duty of care: towards a terrorism preparedness plan

Harvey

Dabić

Kiessling

et al. 2017

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Ice (1991), Hobbs (1995), andIhlen (2002) are among the researchers to apply corporate apologia to specific crisis communication cases. Keith Hearit (1994Hearit ( , 1995aHearit ( , 1995bHearit ( , 2001Hearit ( , 2006) is most responsible for forging corporate apologia's place within crisis communication. For Hearit, a crisis is a threat to an organization's social legitimacy (the consistency between organizational values and stakeholder values).…”

Section: Informal Crisis Communication Research and Reputationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameters for Crisis Communication

Coombs

2010

The Handbook of Crisis Communication

338

312

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations frequently find themselves in situations we would define as a crisis. Consider but a few examples: Union Carbide's devastating chemical release in Bhopal; Carrefour suffering from protests at its stores in China because of French attacks on the Olympic torch relay; customers experiencing E. coli at Taco Bell; rumors about designer Tommy Hilfiger's racist comments; Tyco executives stealing millions from the company; and Oxfam claiming Starbucks did not support coffee growers by opposing the branding of certain African coffees. We must accept that no organization is immune from a crisis anywhere in the world even if that organization is vigilant and actively seeks to prevent crises.The reality of crises leads to the need for preparation and readiness to respond -crisis management. The critical component in crisis management is communication. Over the past decade, there has been a massive increase in crisis communication research. As the field of crisis communication develops, it is important to develop parameters for that growth. This chapter and the Handbook of Crisis Communication are steps towards articulating the parameters and utility of crisis communication. The focus in this book is the research used to advance our understanding of communication's role in the crisis management process. To properly set the stage for this collection, it is important to define key terms in crisis management and overview key research on the central theme of crisis communication. By examining these fundamental elements, the parameters of crisis communication begin to emerge. Key Definitions for CrisisBecause of the diversity of crisis research, it is important to present definitions of key crisis terms early to help set boundaries. The key terms for the Handbook include crisis, crisis management, and crisis communication. The three are inextricably interconnected and must be considered in a progression from crisis to

show abstract

“…Indeed, the rationale of reconciliation stands in sharp contrast to theories of corporate apologia and image restoration, which commonly guide corporate responses to crises (Hatch, 2006). The latter suggest that corporations respond to crises in order to restore and protect their legitimacy (Hearit, 1995), or image (Benoit, 1995), and further provide detailed rhetorical strategies for organizations to deflect harm from themselves (for instance, Benoit, 1997;Hearit, 1995;Ice, 1991).…”

Section: Limits Of Corporate Apologiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This strategy undermines its ability to foster reconciliatory dialogue about the past and to confront its own history. Hearit (1995) theorized as act=essence dissociation. Consequently, Aetna dissociates itself from its past business practice as an act that occurred within a singular episode of its past and that is not representative of its present-day character.…”

Section: Defending ''The Aetna Of Today'' Against the Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Corporate Ties to Slavery: Corporate Apologia in a Discourse of Reconciliation

Janssen

2012

Communication Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Mistakes were made”: Organizations, apologia, and crises of social legitimacy

Cited by 225 publications

References 32 publications

Engaging in duty of care: towards a terrorism preparedness plan

Engaging in duty of care: towards a terrorism preparedness plan

Parameters for Crisis Communication

Addressing Corporate Ties to Slavery: Corporate Apologia in a Discourse of Reconciliation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About