Speech is Silver, Silence is Golden – Why Boeing Should Have Made an Exception

Jasper Schrage

When your company is in the middle of a global crisis, involving the loss of 346 lives, you don’t want to keep quiet. At least, that’s what you would think. However, this is precisely what Boeing did after two of their airplanes crashed in just six months time.

Crash after crash

The first part of the crisis happened already in October 2018, just 12 minutes after takeoff a Boeing 737 MAX crashed, leaving no survivors. After early investigations, it became clear that the crash probably was caused by a design flaw in the software of the airplane. After this Boeing advised other airlines to be aware of this design flaw and promised to implement a software update to solve the issue.

Currently grounded Boeings in Seattle
Source: Getty Images

But before the software update was even released, the next crash happened. Just six months later, the same type of airplane crashed for the second time, again a few minutes after takeoff. And again, leaving no survivors. After this, some airlines started grounding their Boeing 737 MAX’s, because they didn’t trust them anymore (rightfully so). Eventually the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decided to ground all 737 MAX’s. Different changes and updates have been made, but to this day the FAA still hasn’t approved the planes for flight again. The estimated loss for Boeing is up to 5 billion dollars.

Silence is not the answer

After the first and second crisis, Boeing was quick to show what not to do in case of a corporate crisis. After the first crash, Boeing insisted that their planes were still safe, and that travellers had no reason to worry about their safety. Even though the crash was caused by faulty software and to some level they internally already knew that there was a problem a year before the first crash. Obviously, a better reaction would have been to preventively ground their planes themselves until they sorted it out. But they didn’t.

It is safe to say that this wasn't a heartwarming response
Source: Screenshot Twitter

Although the planes were said to be safe and that there was no reason for stress, the second crash happened. After this, Boeing showed the world it still hadn’t learned what to do in case of crisis. Silence was their tactic of choice, while insisting that the planes were still safe to fly with. Apart from two tweets by CEO Dennis Muilenburg, nothing was stated. This passive strategy, if you can even call it a strategy, didn’t leave a good impression with the public. 

When there is a lack of information, the public forms their own stories and frames regarding the crashes. These stories and frames influence the media coverage about the crashes. Instead of controlling the narrative from the start, a position you would rather be in, from this point you can only defend yourself as a company. Eventually, apologies were issued, with even page filling adverts in newspapers. Too little, too late, because most opinions were already formed by then.

Actually using a response strategy

Of course, now it is easy to say what went (clearly) wrong in the corporate communication after the crashes. Or more accurate, what didn’t happen in the corporate communication. But what could have been done instead?

Well, to start at the most basic beginning, actually and immediately responding would have been much better. State that you are truly sorry for what happened, acknowledging that not all the facts are known yet and that you will keep the public updated. This way you control the narrative and show the public that you are trying to be as transparent as possible. For further communications, following the Situational Crisis Communication Theory by scholar W. Coombs would have been a good idea. Following his theory, a compensation and apology crisis response strategy would have been the way to go. This means that you offer to compensate the victims of the crisis in a way and that you take full responsibility as a company for the crisis.

By doing this as soon as possible you show that as a company you are truly sorry and don’t try to put money over people. It has been shown by other researchers, that using the right response strategy can have a positive impact on organizational reputation, albeit a small impact. The right response strategy being one of apology and compensation here. Eventually, Boeing did indeed compensate some relatives of the victims. An apology was issued as well, although this was more than a week after the second crash. By that time, it was too late to save the reputation. It seems like the saying ‘speech is silver, silence is golden’ wasn’t true this time for Boeing.

About the author: Jasper Schrage currently is a master student in Corporate Communication at the University of Amsterdam. During his Communication Science bachelor at the same university he did an internship at a PR firm where he developed his interests in this direction. Another interest of his is crisis communication.