Keith M. Hearit Crisis Communication Management: Applying Theory To Real Cases May 2026

Inhumane treatment, racism (Dao was Asian American), and corporate greed.

The organizations that survive are not necessarily the wealthiest or most powerful. They are the ones that understand the grammar of accusation and apology. They know when to fight (denial, provocation) and when to yield (mortification). They know that a crisis is not a problem to be solved but a narrative to be navigated. Inhumane treatment, racism (Dao was Asian American), and

Hearit, a professor of communication at Western Michigan University and author of Crisis Management by Apology: Corporate Response to Allegations of Wrongdoing , argues that effective crisis management is not merely about controlling information—it is about managing . At its core, every crisis is a narrative battle. An organization is accused of malfeasance, negligence, or hypocrisy. The response, according to Hearit, must be rooted in robust rhetorical theory, primarily the theory of apologia, and then deployed with surgical precision. They know when to fight (denial, provocation) and

Tylenol regained 95% of its market share within a year. The case became Hearit’s gold standard for how mortification + corrective action can transform a potential fatal crisis into a reputational asset. Case Study 2: Exxon Valdez (1989) – The Failure of Defeasibility The Crisis: The Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil. The environmental damage was catastrophic. Exxon’s initial response was slow, defensive, and legally calculated. At its core, every crisis is a narrative battle