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

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.

Before Hearit, crisis communication was often dominated by situational crisis communication theory (SCCT), which focused on attributions of responsibility. Hearit shifted the lens toward . He posits that a crisis is fundamentally a genre of rhetorical discourse. When an organization faces an accusation, it enters a public argument where the stakes are legitimacy and survival. The organizations that survive are not necessarily the

Hearit’s approach is rooted in the belief that a crisis is not just a logistical problem to be solved, but a to be managed. The Core Philosophy: Crisis as a Legitimacy Gap They know that a crisis is not a

This article explores Hearit’s foundational theories—specifically the "rhetorical stance" of apologia, the typology of crisis responses, and the concept of "corporate apologies"—and applies them to real-world cases, from the infamous to the instructional. He posits that a crisis is fundamentally a

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.

The crisis defined Exxon as a villain for a generation. The company paid billions in cleanup and fines, but the reputational wound never fully healed. Hearit uses this case to teach a crucial lesson: When the accusation is about values, a legalistic defense is the worst possible response.