Keith M. Hearit Crisis Communication Management: Applying Theory To Real Cases ~upd~ May 2026
The AI attendance system provides numerous advantages that greatly improve conventional attendance tracking approaches.
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. The Rhetoric of Apologia Before Hearit, crisis communication was often dominated by situational crisis communication theory (SCCT), which focused on attributions of responsibility. Hearit shifted the lens toward rhetorical theory . 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.
Gross negligence, environmental destruction, and lack of compassion. He posits that a crisis is fundamentally a
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. The organizations that survive are not necessarily the
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. An organization is accused of malfeasance
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. The Rhetoric of Apologia Before Hearit, crisis communication was often dominated by situational crisis communication theory (SCCT), which focused on attributions of responsibility. Hearit shifted the lens toward rhetorical theory . 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.
Gross negligence, environmental destruction, and lack of compassion.
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.
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.
