Space Shuttle Challenger and Public Relations

In the event of a crisis affecting one of its activities NASA took strategic steps to make sure the public was informed about various components of its response. The company intended to manage the information flow (Kouffman, 2005). Considering that limiting the information that the public receives is one of the main objectives of organizations in such circumstances. NASA acknowledged that the manner and source of information determine how the public—in particular, the affected families—perceives a situation. Therefore, the organization sought to control the type and amount of information that was made available to the public in order to avoid any inaccurate and unconfirmed information (Liu, Austin & Jin, 2011). The organization also had plans to engage with the families of the victims. In this, NASA devised a plan of influencing the opinion of the affected persons through the delivery of the needed information to the victims of the explosion. In readiness for a disaster, such as the Space Challenger Explosion was to hold news conferences aimed at influencing the perceptions of the public about the position and credibility of the company in such times.

In the crisis communication planning NASA should have made certain vital adjustments that would ensure the information is passed across most effectively. The communication plan would have been more elaborate and took care of any eventuality that may arise in the course communication response during the disasters. One of the fundamental elements of crisis communication planning that should have been taken into account by NASA is the maintenance of a constant flow of information (Martin & Boynton, 2005). In times of crisis, especially where fatalities are involved, the interest of the public tends to escalate. Inconsistent flow of information raises tension between the public and may suspect that the information delivered may not be factual. By taking into account this fact, rather than controlling the flow of information delivered to the public, NASA should have incorporated into its communication plan measures that would ensure the public receive the required information at regular intervals without any form of delay.

As part of the crisis communication plan NASA should have put in structures that would ensure that its accessibility by the interested persons. In this sense, the planning should have factored in structures that would enable those with additional questions not answered by what is offered through the mainstream media to ask questions and seek clarifications. Such measure not only suppresses suspicion from the public, but also makes them appreciate the efforts of the organization to avail unlimited details about the problem. In particular, such would enable the family of the affected victims to have the vital information and limit speculations that often dent the perception of the public.

Another essential part of the plan that should have been considered by NASA in readiness for a crisis such as the explosions is a prompt response (Martin & Boynton, 2005). An organization should communicate crises as soon as it can. A delay in relaying information to the public gives room for speculations, which may be detrimental to the face of NASA. By providing information about a crisis before the public gets wind of such an occurrence from unverified sources. Prompt response, even if the organizations do not have all the facts of the occurrence helps in arresting suspicion of the public. Lastly, the organization should have planned for the delivery of only credible information. Whatever is being communicated to the public should follow a thorough verification process so that only credible information is delivered to the public.

References

Kauffman, J. (2005). Lost in space: A critique of NASA’s crisis communications in the Columbia disaster. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 263-275.

Martin, R. M., & Boynton, L. A. (2005). From liftoff to landing: NASA’s crisis communications and resulting media coverage following the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 253-261.