Many academics and public relations specialists have suggested that in the response to crises, managers should make full and immediate information on the circumstances of the event. Corporate legal counsel, on the other hand, often warn their customers against unnecessary public statements. This article examines the pros and cons of full disclosure policy and the circumstances in which they should or should not be used. In some cases, what you do not say, do hurt. For exa … Read more »

Many academics and public relations specialists have suggested that in the response to crises, managers should make full and immediate information on the circumstances of the event. Corporate legal counsel, on the other hand, often warn their customers against unnecessary public statements. This article examines the pros and cons of full disclosure policy and the circumstances in which they should or should not be used. In some cases, what you do not say, do hurt. For example, confidentiality may lead journalists – hard pressed by deadlines – to other sources from which many seek a vested interest in ensuring that the company could have appear in the worst light. But in other situations, what can you do and say hurt you. The cases are cited in which organizations provide information that shocked components, and such messages are a separate and more damaging crisis itself was. The point is, we have little knowledge about the companies, the crisis was successfully achieved by withholding information, we only see the cases in which crises were played in the media, we have a distorted picture of how crises are handled. Disclosure is rarely an all-or-nothing choice, decision-makers should aim that the search for the appropriate amount and speed of reporting to the public
.
«Hide

from
Jeffrey B. Kaufmann,
Idalene F. Kesner,
Thomas L. Hazen
Source: Business Horizons
11 pages.
Publication Date: Jul 15, 1994. Prod #: BH016-PDF-ENG
Myth of Full Disclosure: A look at organizational communications during crises HBR case solution