| Crisis communication, as a whole, has been widely studied by many communication researchers. Much of the research focuses on large corporations and devastating crises that become a household name. Crises such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 or the criminal scandal of the Enron Corporation in 2001 are deliberately studied for the success and failures of its crisis management teams.;What remains understudied are the crises of small groups. Socha (1997) describes a small group as being more than two and less than 15 people. With the millions of professional small groups in the world today, crises are bound to affect the daily operations and dynamics of these groups. This study focused on the strategic methods of small groups members when resolving a crisis.;Coombs' (2007) situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) reveals categories of strategies that groups utilize when approaching a crisis. This theory, along with Fisher's (1994) decision-emergence theory (DET), were the basis of comparing and contrasting the types of strategies large groups and small groups use in time of crisis.;To achieve results, this study profited from the use of three different focus groups, which are based out of a Washington D.C. area property management company. The study focused on the strategies used by the groups during crisis and compared/contrasted to the strategies used by General Motors during their bankruptcy and by BP during their Deepwater Horizon oil spill crisis.;The study discovered some similarities, but many differences among the strategies used between the studied small and large groups. These differences included the types of Coomb's (2007) strategies used in time of crisis, whether it be a justification strategy over a scapegoat strategy. The two types of groups did share a similar process in making decisions by using Fisher's (1994) DET.;Although the mechanics of the crisis management process is important, this study could be expanded by also studying the relational aspects of the crisis management process. Groups with healthy relationships among members will more productively handle a conflict; while furthermore groups that productively handle a conflict show more cohesion among team members (Pruitt & Syna, 1983; Watson, 1987; Shaw, 1981). A future study could center on the relational dynamics among group members during a time of crisis. |
