Crisis Communication Case Study: Boeing 737 MAX Incidents

What Happened?

On October 29, 2018, a Lion Air’s plane went down, killing everyone on board. The plane being flown by the Indonesian airline was a Boeing 737 MAX, according to Business Insider. Then, on March 10, 2019, an Ethiopian Airlines plane also crashed, killing all 157 people onboard. This was the second Boeing 737 MAX plane to crash in the span of less than five whole months. What would follow would be an uncoordinated, confusing, and delayed series of responses from Boeing.

Deflecting blame to the pilots, while simultaneously releasing public apologies, late responses to the problem being released on channels not visible enough to the general public, and putting too much effort into being above liability and not enough effort into managing the company’s reputation are three issues with Boeing’s response to the 737 MAX crisis. With assistance from the Business Insider article, Boeing’s Response to the 737 Max Crisis Confused and Frightened People, Making it Hard to Believe its Apologies, Experts Say, a case study analysis on this situation, and information on how to handle crises from the textbook, Ongoing Crisis Communication, 5th Edition, by Timothy Coombs, these problems will be analyzed, and solutions will be offered, to better handle and mitigate crises of this nature in the future and keep Boeing’s reputation intact.

Issue One: Non-United Fronts and Conflicting Messages

One of the greatest issues with Boeing’s response to the Max 737 crisis is the messages they were releasing conflicted each other and Boeing didn’t present a united front. Boeing’s only response to the first Lion Air Crash was a statement in response to the preliminary report on the Lion Air Crash. In this response, Boeing gave their condolences to those who lost loved ones on the flight. They also assured readers that their planes are safe, stating that customers, “have our assurance that the 737 MAX is as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies.” However, according to a Times Article, from March 28th, shortly after the second crash, Boeing released information on a ‘fix’ they plan to make on the particular part of the software that was involved in the Lion Air Crash. Then, Boeing releases contradictory statements again, on April 29, when they had previously admitted a fault in their software, the CEO expressed to a group of employees that the pilot flying the Ethiopian flight did not properly follow emergency protocols, even though the Ethiopian investigation did not reveal this information, according to Business Insider.

According to the Business Insider analysis of this scenario, "They [Boeing] sent out this confusing, ambiguous thing that caused people to feel a little bit of anxiety. When there is ambiguity, there is unresolved tension. And that unresolved tension causes anxiety”. This result of anxious and concerned customers, makes sense as a result of how Boeing handled the situation. When an organization is telling their employees one story, and

Boeing CEO at time of crashes, Dennis Muilenburg

going back and forth between accepting blame and deflecting it, it makes a company come off as untrustworthy. According to Coombs, “The organization must deliver consistent messages to stakeholders, and a unified response promotes consistency.” Coombs also goes on to mention that a consistent message does not have to be only a singular spokesperson speaking about the situation, but that it’s okay to have multiple spokespersons, as long as it is a “coordinated effort”. In this scenario, it’s clear that the Public Relations team, the Crisis Management team that handles the press releases, and the CEO, are not presenting a “coordinated effort.”

In order to come off as trustworthy, Boeing needs to follow the “Consistency” aspect of a crisis response that is outlined by Coombs. According to Coombs, “The crisis team must ensure that the team of spokespersons is well prepared to ensure consistency in their responses.” This means that the CEO cannot say and rely on his personal feelings or thoughts, but that he needs to keep the goal and the compa

ny in mind when speaking even to a group of employees. Coombs also points out that employees, who are unofficial spokespersons for the organization, often are targeted by the media and asked questions. These employees are often viewed by the public as more trustworthy. With this information in mind, it is important that even when communicating to employees and not directly to the media, the company and CEO still portrays a united front. The employees may not be the media, but it is a short jump from employee to media, especially when employees as sought out to interview. By the CEO, all official spokespersons and teams releasing statements being on the same page, this will ensure the messages the public is hearing are consistent, and Boeing remains trustworthy to customers.

Issue Two: 26 Days to Respond,157 Deaths and One Way Communication

Boeing’s next big mistake in handling the consecutive deadly crashes was the length of time they took to make a genuine response, and also the channels that the response was released on. According to Business Insider, Although they released the press statement shortly after the second crash and a statement supporting the grounding of the flights, Boeing never participated in a press conference regarding the crashes or answered questions. When a more personal response was finally released in the form of a recorded video, it came 26 days after the second crash. When this statement was released, it was primarily spread via social media and some news networks. According to Business Insider, when the video was spread on news networks, it was often just quoted.

According the Business Insider’s analysis of this situation, "A video statement is better than no statement. But it would be more effective if it was in front of humans, with some ability to take questions.” The article goes on to say that the video might not have made much of an impact at all because of how late it was released. According to Coombs, “The terms quick and quickly are commonly used when describing an effective crisis response.”, and Boeing’s response was anything but quick. Coombs goes on to explain that in the current age of technology, information spreads extremely quickly, which means that in order to get accurate information to stakeholders, it needs to happen fast. By not responding to the crisis in a more in-depth manor than just released pre-written statements in a timely fashion, they allowed information to spread that could be inaccurate and inconsistent.

Coombs also points out that, “Any information void will be filled somehow and by someone. The media have deadlines, so they are driven to fill the information void quickly.” Coombs words are supported by the Business Insider Analysis which states that, “This strategy created a vacuum which media sources stepped into, finding out details about meetings and messages that contradicted company statements." By not responding to the situation quickly enough or publicly enough, Boeing allowed other people to write the narrative for them. They had little control in the story being told about their own company, because they chose not to speak on the situation for 26 days. the Business Insider analysis also points out that few channels were used to share this video apology with the public. It was spread via social media and news networks that quoted it. However, that is very few channels to relay an apology. Other forms of reaching the public, like a press conference, could utilize more channels, from newspapers to radio stations, and would reach more individuals.

Coombs does point out that there are circumstances where it is hard for an organization to respond to a crisis quickly but says that, “When delays are necessary, tell stakeholders why the question cannot be answered and when they might be able to expect a response…Communication with stakeholders is a two-way process.” However, Boeing never opened up two-way communication. The communication was exclusively from them. In order to keep the trust of stakeholders and clients, not only is speed important, but allowing stakeholders to make inquiries, express their concerns, and responding to those concerns, even if you don’t have the information available in that moment, stakeholders will be more likely to feel comforted that the company is handling the situation diligently. Coombs continues to express this idea by saying, “the spokesperson and crisis team should continue to field and respond to inquiries throughout the crisis. The crisis team must track and answer all inquiries.” Boeing clearly did not use best practices as described by Coombs when it comes to transparency.

Boeing could prepare for future situations by training the CEO and other spokespersons to be able to handle press conferences. Of course, having a press conference after a large accident, in which the company could potentially be legally in trouble, is not an easy task. However, in order to keep the reputation alive, it’s important to respond and open up two-way communication at some point. Boeing waited 26 days to release a one-sided statement, that still took no ones questions into account. A better strategy, and a strategy that should be used in the future, based on Coombs explanation of how to use two-way communication above, would be to release the video apology closer to when the incident happened, explain that they will answer questions soon after they have gathered more evidence and knew enough to intelligently answer inquiries, and then to hold a press conference. This strategy would have kept Boeing’s reputation more intact, and shown the public they had much more control than their own tactic did.

The Takeaway

When a company or organization is faced with a crisis, there are always options when it comes to how they can respond. It is up to them if they want to protect themselves from any bit of legal incrimination and to stay silent. However, this tactic is not much less risky than actually speaking on the situation is. Every day, companies respond to crises and express their condolences without incriminating themselves. The amount of money that a company can lose through a reputational hit should not and cannot be downplayed. A lawsuit is expensive, but so is losing countless customers and clients because they no longer trust the company. In the age of technology, social media, and growing global internet access, silence is not a viable tactic, and in order to thrive today, companies need to recognize the value of transparency and two-way communication if they want to keep thriving.