Many scholars and experts in public relations believe that when, in response to the crisis, leaders must make a full and immediate disclosure of information about the circumstances of the event. Corporate legal advisers, on the other hand, often warn their clients from unnecessary public statements. This article discusses the pros and cons of full disclosure policy, and the circumstances in which it should or should not be used. In some cases, what you do not say can hurt you. For example, non-disclosure may lead journalists - it's hard to terms - to find other sources, many of which may have a personal interest in the establishment of the company appear in the worst possible light. But in other situations, what do you do say can hurt you. Cases in which the cited organizations revealed information that shocked the electorate, and this news was a separate and more devastating crisis of confidence. The fact is, we have scant knowledge of the company, to manage the crisis successfully withholding information, we see only those cases in which the crisis had been played in the media, so we have a distorted view of how the crisis should be handled. Disclosure rarely an all-or-nothing choice.; Goals of the decision maker should be finding appropriate amount and rate of accountability to the public "Hide
by Jeffrey B. Kaufman, Idalene F. Kesner, Thomas L. Hazen Source: Business Horizons 11 pages. Publication Date: July 15, 1994. Prod. #: BH016-PDF-ENG
Related Case Solutions & Analyses:
Data.gov
New York City Audubon Society
Why I Use the Case Method to Teach Accounting
Druthers Forming Limited
Aubrey McClendon’s Special Incentive Compensation at Chesapeake Energy (A)
Credit Suisse Group: Managing Equity Research as a Business
California Choppers
Regulation: A Transaction Cost Perspective
Evaluating M&A Deals: How Poison Pills Work
Canadian Pacific’s Bid for Norfolk Southern
