Thomas Lee Hazen

The myth of full disclosure: A look at organizational communications during crises

C ommunicating with the public is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks of executives today. Yet at no time is this task more challenging than during crisis situations. Executives whose organizations face crises typically receive two very different pieces of advice. On the one hand, many advisors encourage using extreme caution in speaking out publicly about a crisis. Many lawyers, for example, advise their clients to avoid unnecessary public statements. In some cases, executives are encouraged to avoid public statements altogether. On the other hand, many academics and public relations consultants suggest that when responding to crises, executives should make full and immediate disclosures about the circumstances surrounding the events. Which of these two positions is correct? Should corporate executives reveal all details of crisis situations? Or, in the early stages of crises, should they avoid public statements altogether? If avoidance ts the right answer, how long should they maintain such a stance? When is the right time to address crises publicly? How and at what level should they be addressed? In this article, we take a closer look at corporate communications during crises. We examine the advantages and disadvantages of a full disclosure policy and the circumstances under which this approach should and should not be used. Although we cannot offer a formula for responding to crises, we provide recommendations for executives facing such events--executives who must cope with the inevitable battle between corporate counsel and the media and public relations advocates. Though these two sides may not agree on what Because ali crisis and how much should be said during crises, they both agree sifuu~ions UT@ not