Background
Write a reputation management assignment, about a crisis which received media attention.
Crisis is defined as an unexpected occurrence that disrupts and threatens organizations operations and if not properly and timely managed, can lead to severe consequences. Crisis can also be defined as a non-routine event that damages the reputation and the image of an organization. Generally, a crisis leads to three possible threats to an organization (Lunawat 2016, p. 165). First, a crisis can lead to financial loss through loss of market share, disruption of normal operations, or/and loss of money through lawsuits concerning the crisis. Secondly, a crisis can lead to public harm by causing injuries or death. A disaster can also destroy the organization’s reputation and image (Poppo & Schepker 2010). Typically, the three threats of crisis are inter-connected because, public harm leads to financial and reputation loss, while reputation loss has financial implications for the organization. There are various types of crisis which includes natural disasters, workplace violence, technological turmoil, rumors, organization misdeeds, and terrorist attacks.
Since a crisis is an event that can occur any anytime without warning, how an organization reacts and handles a crisis after it has occurred is very crucial (Doorley and Garcia 2011, p. 310). Reputation management is a process designed by an organization to lessen or if possible to prevent the damages that a crisis can cause to the organization or the stakeholders. Reputation management is more concerned with shaping public perception of an organization by influencing the information they get after a crisis has occurred. An effective crisis management process includes communicating to the public and the parties involved in a crisis (Humbach 2012, p. 97). The first thing to do after a disaster is to address the public, the customers, and the stakeholders the extent of the damages caused by the crisis and what the organization is doing to manage the crisis. This report evaluates and analysis a crisis where International Olympics Committee banned Russia from competing in Winter Olympics due to doping allegations.
The news about Russia ban from participating in the 2018 Winter Olympics came as a shock to the athletes, the Russian Olympic Committee, and the world. The committee and the organizers reached the decision after two Russian athletes tested positive for banned substances and more than 160 athletes from Russian failed to prove that they were clean. In the sporting history, Russia became the first nation to be banned from participating in the Olympics games due to doping (Chau, Thomas, Clegg, & Leung 2012). The International Olympics Committee does not tolerate doping because it is a serious offense which undermines the integrity of athletes as it is viewed as cheating. The decision by the committee to ban Russia from the winter Olympics meant that no official from the country would be allowed to attend the opening and closing ceremonies, and no athlete would compete under the Russian flag. However, the ban on Russian athletes was not actually a total ban because IOC said that individual Russian athletes could be allowed to compete if they proved that they had not violated doping rules (Ivanova, Boghosian & Rabin 2007, p.306). Additionally, the committee said that those athletes who passed the screening process would be allowed to participate under the title, “Olympic Athletes from Russia (OAR).” This means that no Russia flag or uniform will appear at the event.
Reactions about Russia ban from Olympics
International Olympics Committee president Thomas Bach referred Russia attempts to breach the doping violations as “an unprecedented attack on the integrity of the Olympic Games and sport.” Regarding the move to ban Russian medalists to participate in the Olympics, many athletes felt that they were unfairly denied an opportunity to participate in the sports and they had planned to boycott the Olympics even before the decision was made. However, Bach said that Olympic boycott had never achieved anything and furthermore, the clean athletes were allowed to participate. The president said that the reason to enable clean athletes to compete was to show that there were still clean athletes in Russia. Russia’s decision to cheat in international sports started in 2010 when they performed below the expectations by scoping only a total of 15 medals during the Vancouver Winter Olympics. This was a big blow to the nation since they were preparing to host the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. From this incidence, the Russian Olympics Committee decided to come up with ways of winning back their glory and it worked perfectly well for them. The committee drafted state-sponsored ways of ensuring the athletes shine in the Olympics such as cover-up operations and swiping urine samples to beat the doping rules (Emrich & Pierdzioch, 2013, p.115).
The controversy and uncertainty surrounding Russia ban from 2018 Winter Olympics traces its history back in 2015 when the World Ant-Doping Agency released a report with enough evidence showing that Russian athletes received state-sponsored systems from their country which gave them an advantage in the international sports. The report showed that Russia victory in athletics was not genuine because most of the athletics were under the influence of the illegal substances. The agency revealed more evidence during the 2014 Sochi Olympics where more than 1000 athletes participating in various sports had manipulated their doping results by swiping their urine samples. The OIC felt that Russia has been hijacking international sports competitions and competitors, coaches and fans have been deceived by Russians (“Russia duped world on doping 2015). During the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014 where the country won a total of 33 medals, 13 of them gold, investigations revealed that the urine samples of 12 athletes were tampered with. Besides, the samples of 15 medalists in London Olympics where Russia scooped 72 medals were also tampered with. The investigations by the agency revealed that the scheme involved the FSB intelligence service, the Russian Ministry of sports, and ironically, the country’s anti-doping agency. The news about how Russians had their urine samples sneaked out of the labs shocked the world through a whistleblower. The report showed how Russian secret agencies disguised as sewer agencies uncovered how urine samples were swiped with clean samples. All this evidence gave the OIC enough reason for banning Russia from participating in the Winter Olympics. Due to doping allegations, a total of 41 medals including 10 Gold, 21 Silver, and 10 Bronze were revoked.
The decision to ban Russian athletes from the Winter Olympics held in South Korea in February this year revoked different responses from Russians and other athletes from other countries. The president and other state officials stated that the ban was humiliating because although 169 athletes were allowed to participate in the competition, they were not to do so under the Russian flag. Immediately after IOC announced publicly their decision to ban Russia from participating in the sports, the president announced through his spokesman that the individual athletes who were deemed clean could join in the competition under Olympic Athlete from Russia. The Minister of Foreign affairs in Russia mentioned that United States used their influence within OIC to ban Russian athletes from the Olympics since they feared honest competitions (Shadgan 2012, p.64). The doping investigator on behalf of World Anti-Doping Agency Jack Robertson also criticized the decision to ban Russia from participating in the event citing that the move was “a non-punitive punishment meant to save face while protecting the [IOC’s] and Russia’s commercial and political interests” Some Russians said that they were being punished for something that everybody is doing and getting away with it, while others saw the allegations as anti-Russia plot by the United States (Coombs 2017). The athletes had arranged to boycott the Olympics altogether because they felt that the ban was more political based than sports. The media in Russia also criticized the decision by IOC president Thomas Bach to exclude Russia from the Olympics. Match TV in Russia said that Americans influenced the committee to make the decision saying that it was unfair to punish the Russians alone since violations are everywhere and athletes from all countries practice doping.
Despite the Russian athletes participating under the designation of Olympic Athletes from Russia, many fans from Russia attended the event chanting ‘Russia’ in unison and wearing Russian colors to show their defiance against the ban. The Russian trolls also used Twitter hashtag #NoRussiaNoGames after IOC announced that Russia was banned from 2018 Winter Olympics (L’Etang and Hopwood 2011, p. 9). The campaign received a lot of promotions from many Russians who repeatedly reposted tweets from each other.
Both qualitative research and qualitative research methods were used in this report. The qualitative study aims to answer the question why and how a decision was made by gathering in-depth information about behaviors of the parties involved. On the other hand, quantitative research is used to quantify a problem using numerical data. By using the two research methods, this report examined the available information surrounding the OIC decision to ban Russia from 2018 Winter Olympics and what made the committee to reach such a conclusion. Interviews were conducted with some of the Russian athletes, Russian committee members, and some OIC members. Questionnaires were also used in this study whereby respondents were supposed to answer a few questions concerning the ban (Kaye 2012, p. 8). To conduct interview with the mentioned parties, consent was obtained from the relevant authorities who were contacted through a phone call. Random sampling methods were used in the study to get more accurate results. The list of the Russian athletes was obtained from the organizers of the competition. The athletes were then contacted and asked if they were willing to participate in the exercise of which most of them gave positive feedback.
Based on the findings from the research, IOC decided to prevent Russia from the 2018 Winter Olympics following the evidence that they had from the previous competitions (Desheemaeker 2012). Given that Russian athletics were involved in breaking doping rules several times including Rio Games, London Olympics, and Sochi Olympics, there was enough proof that Russia was not observing the competition rules. Although Russians explained that the ban was not fair enough and there was not enough evidence that athletes were using the illicit substances to win the competitions, there was nothing that could be done to reverse the decision by the committee (Anthonissen 2008, p. 84).
Doping is a practice that has been practiced by athletes from many countries to cheat in Olympic competition. OIC is so much against this act and any athlete who is caught doping is banned from participating in the games in future unless they prove their innocence. The president of IOC said that banning Russia from the Olympics was a way of stopping athletes from stealing victory of those who deserve it. He said that although those who did not pass the screening test were not allowed to participate in the event, the ones deemed clean can still compete even if not under the Russian flag. Banning Russia from the Olympics affected many groups of people including the athletes, the Olympics committee in Russia, the locals in South Korea where the games were held. More than eleven Russian athletes were banned from participating in the sports for life including cross-country skier Natalia Matveeva, Luge competitor Albert Demchenko, and ice hockey player Anna Shchukina.
The ban on these medalists implies that their career was at risk because unless Court of Arbitration clears them for Sports CAS, they cannot participate in any sport in the world. Apart from those who were banned for life, other 46 athletes were also banned from taking part in the 2018 Winter Olympics and they filed for appeal from CAS. Vitaly Mutko, the Russian Prime Minister also could be banned from the Olympics following the doping allegations by Russian athletes and he had to step aside to allow for investigations. The ban also had a financial effect on the Russian government whereby the Olympics Committee in the country was ordered by IOC to pay $ 15 million as investigations cost and also for the establishment of Independent Testing Authority.
Banning Russian athletes from the games was humiliating to the country as it showed that the athletes cheated the world about their victory (Reid & Austin 2012). It showed that they did not win fairly even in the previous games where they had shined in the Sochi Olympics in 2014. Russian athletes being accused of doping and being banned from the competitions is a shame to the government of Russia because evidence showed that the ministry of sport and the anti-doping agency in Russia were involved in the dirty scheme (Shadgan 2012, p.34). For the people of South Korea especially who run business where the games were held, the Olympics meant nothing to them with the absence of Russia. Usually, the event was expected to include approximately 232 Russians but since most of them were banned following the doping violations, it meant that only a few attended. People who have restaurants and merchant shops knew that the period between February and March they were going to make money but this did not happen. Generally, the absence of Russia in the Winter Olympics affected many people either directly or indirectly.
The ban was not only humiliating to the Russian athlete team, but also to the country’s president Vladimir Putin termed the prohibition by IOC as a direct punch in the stomach. However, his reaction was wise and composed because he said that athletes who were cleared to compete under Olympic Athletes from Russia were free to attend. The Russia ban is one of the crises that received a lot of media attention because it exposed the country’s lack of integrity in sports. The world’s reactions following the ban ranged from shock, anger, and outrage. Athletes from other nations were angry that Russia’s thirst to table more medals had made them use illegal methods of winning the competitions for so many years.
The ban changed the history of athletic sports because it served as a lesson to other countries and athletes who could be practicing doping according to Claeys and Cauberghe (2015). From the president’s response after receiving the bad news, it is evidence that he wanted to protect his athletes and the country from further damage. A crisis destroys the reputation of the involved party if not handled wisely. The president responded immediately through his spokesman concerning the ban and he talked about the innocence of his athletes relating to the doping allegations (Oliver 2010, p.24). He explains that IOC decided to ban the athletes although they lacked enough evidence concerning the issue. He denied the rumors that were there about the plan by the athletes to boycott the Olympics. As a leader, the best way to handle a crisis is to respond immediately and state the truth to avoid further damage by the media and by the people who spread false allegations.
Apart from the president’s reaction, there were other points of interests from different groups including government officials and the athletes. The athletes felt wasted by the ban after years of practice only to miss a chance to participate in the event at the last minute. They were angered by the decision and felt that the punishment was political since they were not the only ones practicing doping. However, this reaction by the athletes was not satisfactory since there was clear evidence from the evidence presented to the committee by the whistleblower who uncovered the scheme that they were guilty of the doping violations. The most appropriate way they could have responded to this issue was to let the president and the relevant government bodies handle the problem and communicate to the world that not all the athletes from Russia were breaking the rules. For Russia, the damage is already done but it is not too late to prove to the whole world that they can still win the Olympic competitions with or without doping. Therefore, the best thing to do is to face the consequences and start preparing for the next competitions since the ban has already been lifted after the court ordered IOC to do so (James 2012, p.61).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident from the case of Russian ban that a crisis can occur anytime. No one expected IOC to decide on banning the athletes from the Olympics since there were such allegations before and nothing like that had happened. Sometimes, it is hard for an organization to predict when a crisis can happen and so it is advisable to be prepared all the time. A crisis destroys the reputation of an organization which can take so many years to restore. The world has lost trust in Russia about their integrity in sports. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the president of Russian, the athletes, and the sports ministry to win back the trust and restore their glory.
List of References
Anthonissen, P. 2008. Crisis communication. London: Kogan Page.
Chau, V., Thomas, H., Clegg, S., & Leung, A. 2012. Managing Performance in Global Crisis. British Journal of Management, 23, S1-S5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00825.x
Claeys, A., & Cauberghe, V. 2015. The role of a favorable pre-crisis reputation in protecting organizations during crises. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 64-71. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.013
Coombs, W.T 2017. ‘Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory’, Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), pp. 163-176.
Descheemaeker, E. 2012. Protecting Reputation: Defamation and Negligence. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2002680
Doorley, J & Garcia, HF 2011, Reputation management, The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate Communication, 2nd edn, Routledge, New York.
Emrich, E., & Pierdzioch, C. 2013. Joining the international fight against doping. Applied Economics Letters, 20(15), 1379-1382. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2013.812778
Humbach, J. 2012. Privacy Rights: The Virtue of Protecting a False Reputation. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2071227
Ivanova, V., Boghosian, T., & Rabin, O. 2007. The WADA Proficiency Testing Program as an integral part of the fight against doping in sport. Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 12(9), 491-493. doi: 10.1007/s00769-007-0283-4
James, T. 2012. Keeping the Olympics moving [Olympics logistics]. Engineering & Technology, 7(7), p.28.
L’Etang, J. and Hopwood, M. 2011. Sports public relations. Public Relations Review, 34(2), pp.87-89.
Lunawat, R. 2016. Reputation effects of information sharing. Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization, 131, 75-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2016.08.006
Oliver, S. (2010). Public relations strategy. London: Kogan Page/CIPR.
Kaye, M. (2012). Beyond Punishment: Doping, Deterrence, and Moral Disengagement. Journal of Sports Medicine & Doping Studies, 02(06).
Poppo, L., & Schepker, D. 2010. Repairing Public Trust in Organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(2), 124-141. doi: 10.1057/crr.2010.12
Reid, H., & Austin, M. 2012. The Olympics and philosophy. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Russia duped world on doping. 2015. New Scientist, 228(3047), 7. doi: 10.1016/s0262-4079(15)31581-5
Shadgan, B. 2012. From Olympics to Optics. SPIE Professional. doi: 10.1117/2.4201201.1
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
