Contingency theory of strategic conflict management: Directions for the practice of crisis communication from a decade of theory development, discovery and dialogue
Abstract
The dilemma facing crisis scholars could not be more paradoxical: How does one explain and predict the outcome of a phenomenon – characteristics which Chaffee and Berger (1987) argued to be the foundation of a theory – that is so contextual-dependent, where the twists and turns of unfolding events often frus-trate the natural ebb of what one could reasonably surmise as logical trajectory? Admittedly, the bête noire for many in the field is that our powers of deductive reasoning, often woven from threads of foraged facts surrounding the unpredictability of crises, are often tragically compromised and encumbered by myriad complex-ities that one can be forgiven to consider crisis communication, which Fearn-Banks (2002) defined as " dialogue between the organization and its public prior to, dur-ing, and after the negative occurrence " (p. 9), being borne out of experience of dealing with uncertainty than erudition to capture a certain semblance of certainty. More art than science. Without doubt, there is a science behind the finesse of crisis communication.