Crisis Communication: Crisis at Boeing

Crisis Communication: Boeing Case Study

Crisis communication is a specialty in public relations designed to protect and defend an individual or organization facing a public challenge to its reputation. The four main dimensions of crisis response include readiness, response, reassurance, and recovery. Business leaders who keep in touch with these phases are better positioned to deal with a threat to an organization's reputation. According to Puil (2019), leaders must take full ownership to defend an organization's reputation. Based on these ideas of crisis communication, the current paper is a case study of the recent crisis at Boeing following the crashes of the 737 MAX.

Case Outline

            According to Plowman (Plowman, 2005), strategic management starts with identifying an issue that might affect an organization's reputation. Managing such issues minimizes the impact the company faces in times of crisis. Therefore, this process consists of four stages; issue identification, problem identification, position, and interests (Plowman et al., 1995 and (Werder, Wrigley, Junee, & Lewis, 2022). Thus, going by Lowman's framework, the issue at Boeing is about the recent successive crashes of two of its 737 max. Following the Ethiopian and Indonesian crashes that claimed over 300 lives, there has been public concern about Boeing as investigative reports indicate the aviation manufacturer is at fault for not revealing information about the MCAS system (Newburger & Josephs, 2019). As a result, Boeing faces a myriad of lawsuits, investigations by government agencies, and waning public trusts. Furthermore, the company sales were in turmoil after the global grounding of the 737 MAX. In the first year after grounding, sales fell by 21% from the previous (Gelles, 2019). These issues have plummeted the organization into a public relations problem.

The problem is that the organizations’ initial leadership did not show concern or empathy for the victims. According to Puil (2019) failed to take hold of the problem, take extreme ownership and revisit its mission. Boeing’s vision is To Connect, Protect, Explore, and Inspire the World though Aerospace Innovation. Goldstein (2019). After the Indonesian crash, instead of the leadership showing concern for the victims and the stricken public, they lobbied President Trump not to ground the 737 MAX. As argued by Baker (Baker, 2019), Boeing’s response to the two fatal crashes was marked by confusing messaging and delayed apologies. Thus, the organizations are currently fighting to defend their reputation against lawsuits, investigations, pressure from investors, and relevant government agencies.

            The first key stakeholder is the public. It assumes that 737 MAX should be grounded until they are declared safe by regulatory agencies. The organization itself is a stakeholder in the problem, and its position to greenlight 737 MAX. Its interests are to improve safety while at the same time protecting investor interests. Government agencies are also key stakeholders. Their interest is to ensure that Boeing takes responsibility for the problem, takes measures to rectify them, and investigate how the 737 MAX was approved. On the other hand, investors are concerned about the losses the organization is making and its public reputation. They hold the position that issues should be resolved for business to continue. The last key stakeholder is the airlines, who are Boeing clients. These organizations were making losses because Boeing's products had been grounded. Their interests were to resume services and be compensated. Factors that Informed the Stance             Several competing factors shaped Boeing's stance. According to Cameron (2008), these competing factors cause a stance to be measured along a continuum in which advocacy is one extreme and accommodation is on the other extreme. The organization's first stance was advocacy, where they sought the president's intervention. Firstly, their decision to rush for the president's interventions indicates that the organizations were interested more in profits and less...