Leadership and Communication During a Crisis - The Case of Tony Fernandes (AirAsia) and Ahmad Jauhari Yahya (Malaysia Airlines)

Indu Perepu
Assistant Professor, IBS Hyderabad (Under IFHE - A Deemed to be University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956), Hyderabad, Telangana, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: indup@ibsindia.org

Sitamma Mikkilineni
Professor and Area Head (HR & OB), IBS Hyderabad (Under IFHE - A Deemed to be University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956), Hyderabad, Telangana, India. E-mail: sita@ibsindia.org

The purpose of this paper is to examine the communication styles of two leaders in managing the crisis they faced. The study gives an insight into and a perspective on the qualities leaders need in times of crisis. It is significant as it investigates how crisis communication was handled by the leaders of AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines. The study then discusses the main reasons why the communication by Tony Fernandes of AirAsia went on to become a perfect example of how to communicate during a crisis, and why the communication efforts of Malaysia Airlines' Ahmad Jauhari Yahya did not meet the stakeholders' expectations.

Introduction

Herbert Spencer (1884), the philosopher, said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. His philosophy is reflected in the situational leadership theory which assumes that different situations call for different leadership characteristics (Northouse, 2007). This theory states that for a leader to be effective, the person has to adapt his or her style to the demands of the situation. This becomes all the more significant in organizations that are facing a crisis.

The importance of communication in leadership has been stated often enough. Leadership is interpersonal influence exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals (Tannenbaum et al., 1961).

Crisis communication engages both practitioners and scholars in terms of ethics, problem solving, strategy, and effective interpersonal communication. How organizations manage crisis, and how they deal with risk are important concerns for both professionals and academics who research business communication (Marsen, 2019). Given that the impact of crises on organizations and individuals is stronger than ever, it is imperative that leaders of organizations understand this. They must have specific skills, which will enable them to prepare, manage and find a solution to potential crises that may threaten the existence of their organizations (Al-Omari et al., 2020). This paper attempts to look at the attributes of crisis communication leadership.

Crisis
A crisis is usually characterized by a high degree of instability, ambiguity, unusual circumstances, limited time, the need for immediate action, and uncertainty and carries the potential for extremely negative results that can endanger the success of an organization (Klann, 2003).

The term crisis carries many meanings in itself. A crisis is a situation in which the basic structures of the organization and norms are affected negatively due to unexpected developments (Canhoto et al., 2015). Not every organization faces a crisis situation, and its occurrence is rare. An organizational crisis is a low-probability, high-impact event that threatens the viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and means of resolution (Pearson and Clair, 1998).

Crisis situations share six characteristics which are rare, significant, of high impact, ambiguous, and urgent and involve high stakes (James et al., 2011). A crisis involves a period of discontinuity; a situation where the core values of the system are under threat; a period where critical decisions are made. There is a destabilizing effect to the organization and its members and an escalation of one or more issues, errors or procedures (Boin, 2006).

Crises, which can be of different types, can occur over a period of time as in financial wrongdoings like Worldcom or Enron, or they can be sudden like BP's Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Marcus and Goodman (1991) identified three categories of organizational crisis: (a) accidents; (b) scandals; and (c) product safety and health incidents.

Crises can be divided into two types: routine and novel. Routine events are the known risks for which organizations can plan and develop procedures. Examples include safety plans for manufacturers, recall plans for food companies, and liquidity plans for financial institutions, as well as disaster recovery and security plans for companies across industries. Novel crises are those risks that exhibit unusual frequency and impact. Organizations typically do not have plans for such events. Novel crises may be a confluence of two or three events that strike at the same time. Or they may be simply too big or unusual to be imagined (Deloitte, 2015).

Though some crises are sudden, any crisis has three major phases-an incubation period (Turner, 1976), a critical period (Stein, 2004), and the aftermath (Boin et al., 2008). In the incubation stage, the organization runs as usual. This is the time that the signals of an impending crisis can be detected. The critical period triggers events that lead to a crisis. This is the acute stage, and what people generally refer to as a crisis. In this stage, the constraints appear with high speed and intensity, calling for decision makers who are quick and effective. The aftermath period is a period of recovery, after which the organization settles down to a new ordinary state. Sometimes crises will cross all the stages just mentioned, while sometimes all these stages will occur within a short span of time.

Crisis Management When a crisis occurs, management and leadership need to take proper steps to manage it. Crisis management is a process designed to prevent or lessen the damage a crisis can inflict on an organization and its stakeholders (Coombs, 2014b). According to Pearson and Clair (1998), organizational crisis management is a systematic attempt by organizational members with external stakeholders to avert crises or to effectively manage those that do occur. Managing the crisis starts even before it occurs. Crisis management is a proactive process which involves dealing with the crisis before it happens, during the crisis, and during the aftermath (Simola, 2014).

Crisis management can make an impact, however modest, on the outcome of a crisis (Boin et al., 2013). The effectiveness of crisis management can be assessed along the following dimensions:

• Making things happen: Crisis management is about organizing, directing, and implementing actions that minimize the impact of a threat.
• Getting the job done: Forging cooperation between previously unrelated agents.
• Enabling "work arounds" when routines and resources do not work.

When crises are handled inappropriately, they can affect not only the organization's reputation but also the credibility and viability of its operations (Howell, 2012).

Though the negative consequences of organizational crises are well-known, many leaders are not prepared to handle a crisis, as they are often more occupied with day-to-day tasks. Crisis leadership requires leaders to adopt a complex set of competencies. It needs integration of skills, abilities, and traits that allow a leader to plan for, respond to, and learn from crisis events. The effective management of an organizational crisis is dependent on leadership behavior that encourages members to actively engage in knowledge acquisition and the formulation of strategies to resolve the crisis (Dutton and Jackson, 1987; and James and Wooten, 2004).

Leadership During Crisis
Crisis and leadership are two coordinates which are closely and directly correlated. A leader is one who can make a difference through his/her way of leadership during a crisis situation (Zhang et al., 2012). Boin et al. (2005) define crisis leadership as the set of strategic tasks that encompasses all activities associated with the stages of crisis management. As defined, crisis situations are ambiguous. Crises are marked by time constraints, ambiguity, remarkably unusual circumstances, limited or conflicting information, curious onlookers, and a need for immediate and decisive action. Given these pressures, the demands of a leader in a crisis can be unique and require a different set of abilities than would typically be expected during general leadership (James and Wooten, 2011). Decision making during a crisis is important. Crises bring forth various pressing issues that need to be addressed. In crisis circumstances, the situation remains unclear and volatile, shortening the time to think, consult, and gain acceptance for decisions. In this way, crises force organizations to confront issues they do not face on a daily basis, involving tough value tradeoffs and presenting a challenge for leadership (Heifetz, 1994; and Heifetz et al., 2009).

When an organization faces a crisis situation, there is a demand from different quarters for the facts and circumstances that led to the crisis. A crisis generates a strong demand from stakeholders to know what is going on as they seek to ascertain what they can do to protect their interests. In this context, leaders are expected to reduce uncertainty and provide an authoritative account of what is going on, why it is happening, and what needs to be done (Boin et al., 2005).

Communication
The potential damage a crisis can inflict on an organization, its stakeholders, and an industry is the real threat. The damage from a crisis will be intense if the organization fails to address public safety (Othman and Yusoff, 2020).

Fearn-Banks (2002) defines crisis communication as the dialog between the organization and its public prior to, during, and after the negative occurrence. Crisis communication management is a process designed to prevent or lessen the damage a crisis can inflict on an organization and its stakeholders (Coombs, 2007). Crisis communication addresses both internal and external audiences affected by the crisis situations (Zamoum and Gorpe, 2018). Strategic communication is important for crisis management for several reasons:

(a) supporting communication in the response network; (b) monitoring stakeholder needs; and (c) communicating with citizens and news media (Hyvarinen and Vos, 2015).

Coombs differentiates between two types of crisis communication: crisis knowledge management and stakeholder reaction management. Crisis knowledge management involves collecting information, analyzing the information gathered, sharing what is learned, and decision making. Stakeholder reaction management involves efforts to influence the organization's stakeholder groups through communication. This may be accomplished through words or through what is done-the deed (Coombs, 2009).

During a crisis, communication with citizens and between organizations is incredibly important. It is also one of the main sources of problems, as the means of communication often breaks down or becomes overloaded in the midst of a crisis. Botched communications can have severe repercussions for the safety of people and for how a crisis management operation is perceived (Boin et al., 2013). Coombs (2014a) states that to speak with a single voice, organizations have to be quick and try to have the initial responses within the first hour. This is essential for them to retain control over the integrity and authenticity of the information and avert a blunder that might harm the organization's reputation.

The communication involving aviation accidents is highly complicated as there are several stakeholders involved. The way an aviation company reacts to a crisis cannot only affect the upshot of the crisis itself, but can also have a vast impact on the company's reputation and survival (Othman and Yusoff, 2020).

Leadership and Crisis Communication
Crisis management and communicating during a crisis have been dealt within the communication domain, due to which the importance of leadership responsibilities in handling a crisis situation has not been adequately studied. Communicating about the crisis is one of the most important steps in handling the crisis. Usually, the task of communicating lies with the top management personnel. When corporate leaders misunderstand and mishandle communication in a crisis, there can be existential consequences: customer loyalty can be jeopardized, market share lost to rivals, the ability to achieve key goals compromised, and perhaps a legal position undercut (Fred, 2012). It is important for corporate leaders to see communication as a critical professional competency.

Crises are characterized by time pressure, limited information, and the need for rapid action and change. These factors make decision making tough. Meta-analyses show that communication is ultimately a key aspect of leadership effectiveness (Morgeson et al., 2010). According to Staw et al. (1981), organizational decision makers tend to become more conservative and restrictive in their information sharing when experiencing a threat. But this can prove to be harmful for the organizations in the long run. What is necessary in such a situation is open communication and sharing of facts with the stakeholders.

The ability of a leader to communicate becomes more pronounced in the case of a crisis, and more so during novel crisis events. In a crisis situation, leadership should be collective and dynamic, and it requires perception and sense-making skills in the leaders in order so that they can determine appropriate courses of action (Weick, 1988; and Walsh, 1995). Effective crisis leaders will be proactive and forthcoming in their communication during a crisis and will adopt a posture of acknowledgment and accountability (James and Wooten, 2006)-the actual fault notwithstanding.

Marcus and Goodman (1991) identified three categories of organizational crisis:

(a) accidents; (b) scandals; and (c) product safety and health incidents. Accidents occur unexpectedly and are discrete one-time events. Furthermore, accidents usually have identifiable victims, enabling leaders to focus their crisis containment strategy on meeting the needs of that group.

Perhaps the competency most closely identified with crisis management is the ability to communicate effectively. Very often, the type of communication observed during a crisis event is one that is rooted in the public relations tradition and attempts to position the firm or the problem in relatively favorable terms (Wooten and James, 2008). What elevates a leader's competency in communicating effectively during a crisis is his or her ability to connect emotionally and psychologically with an audience and influence the latter's opinion of the organization in such a way that the opinions are the same or more favorable in the midst of and following a crisis than they were in pre-crisis times (Sturges, 1994).

After a crisis, it is important for the organization to rebuild trust. This calls for personal integrity. James and Wooten (2006) observed that audiences are more forgiving of a leader when they believe that the leader's actions in response to the crisis are consistent with the initial communication about the crisis. Conversely, when words and deeds are inconsistent, leadership is presumed to lack integrity.

Though having a good leader can be useful for a company in crisis, it is not sufficient for an effective response because without a strong organizational commitment to stakeholders, leaders may find it difficult to galvanize their organizations and do the right thing for stakeholders (Alpaslan et al., 2009). In the time of crisis, the CEO or the head of an organization plays a highly important role (Pangarkar, 2016).

Type of Study
Case study as a research strategy has been applied in various social sciences, emphasizing the researcher's particular choice of an object or subject to be studied (Stake, 1995). The methodology employed in the study involves secondary data due to the fact that the incidents that were studied took place sometime ago, and we tried to examine the leaders at that particular point in time when they were facing acute crisis situations. Secondary research is research based on secondary resources that already exist (Veal, 1997; and Jennings, 2001). Hakim (1982) agreed that secondary analysis has emerged as a distinct trend in social research. Secondary data allows the researcher to think more closely about the theoretical aims and substantive issues of the study (Finn et al., 2000). For this study, we chose to use the qualitative technique of collecting data from published materials, magazines, newspapers, websites, press releases, and social media posts covering the disappearance of the MH 370 Malaysia Airlines crisis and the crash of AirAsia's QZ8501. Online research was conducted to find news reports published about the incidents. We also analyzed the press conferences, media releases, and social media accounts of both the organizations.

In the remainder of this paper, we briefly discuss how two airline companies handled crisis situations and the role their respective leaders played in communicating the crisis to the media and stakeholders. Malaysia Airlines was criticized for its poor handling of the crisis after the disappearance of MH370 and for misinformation that led to a credibility gap. The way AirAsia handled the crisis after the accident involving QZ8501 stood as an epitome of crisis handling.

Timeline of Data
For the cases cited in the paper, data was taken from news articles and company reports from March 8, 2014 till March 5, 2019. From several articles about the MH370 disaster, we have taken only those that specifically dealt with communication by Ahmad Jauhari Bin Yahya. In the case of AirAsia, data was collected from news articles, and company press releases from December 28, 2014, when the accident occurred, to March 2015, when the search operations ended. In this case also, we particularly concentrated on articles and press releases about Tony Fernandes and the role he played in handling the crisis. Leaders' Background

Tony Fernandes
Tony Fernandes was born on April 30, 1964 (The Economic Times, 2013). His father hailed from Goa, India, while his mother was of Asian Portuguese descent. He was raised in Malacca, Malaysia. He studied in The Alice Smith School, Kuala Lumpur, and then went to Epsom College Boarding School in England. Later, he joined the London School of Economics, from where he graduated in accounting. He worked for Virgin Atlantic as an auditor and then became a financial controller for Virgin Communications owned by Richard Branson. Fernandes joined Warner Music International in 1989 as a Senior Financial Analyst. He was the Vice President, ASEAN, at Warner Music South East Asia from December 1999. When Time Warner and AOL announced a merger in 2000, he left the company.

Fernandes was planning to start a budget no-frills airline when he met the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, in 2001. The Prime Minister advised him to buy an existing airline, AirAsia, which was a heavily indebted subsidiary of the Malaysian government-owned DRB-Hicom. Fernandes and his partner Kamaruddin Meranun acquired the company that owned two Boeing 737-300 jet aircraft and had debts of $11 mn, for one Malaysian Ringgit. He turned around the failing government linked commercial airline and made it a successful budget airline (www.bloomberg.com, 2004).

Fernandes acquired the airline just after 9/11 when aircraft leasing costs were falling and experienced manpower was available at low salaries. The Malaysian economy was also going through turbulence and a no-frill budget airline found many takers. Around 50% of the travelers on AirAsia were first time flyers.

AirAsia had a single type of aircraft, online ticketing that eliminated the role of travel agents, reduced turnaround time, achieved faster aircraft turnaround rate, and had no free meals or inflight entertainment (https://ir.airasia.com, accessed, 2021). By the end of 2002, AirAsia was carrying 1 million passengers. In 2003, Fernandes lobbied for an open skies agreement, and Malaysia's neighboring countries like Singapore and Thailand entered into the agreement. The number of destinations that AirAsia served was 26 by June 2004 and it carried 2.8 million passengers.

Ahmad Jauhari Bin Yahya
Of Malaysian origin, Ahmad Jauhari Bin Yahya, holds a Bachelor of Science (Hons.) Degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from University of Nottingham, United Kingdom (www.minconsult.com). Yahya, a licensed pilot, flew the small Cessna aircraft. He had wide-ranging experience, having been head of 7 different companies.

Yahya was known as a hands-on manager, and was responsible for turning Malakoff around and making it Malaysia's largest independent power producer. He joined Malaysia Airlines in 2011, when the company was going through a tumultuous period (Nie, 2014). He was appointed by Khazanah Nasional, Malaysia's sovereign wealth fund and the controlling shareholder of Malaysia Airlines. Yahya was known for his ability to take tough decisions and for giving hard assessments of a company's operations.

Communicating During a Crisis
AirAsia
On December 28, 2014, AirAsia's flight QZ8501 from Surabaya in Indonesia to Singapore with 162 people on board (155 passengers and 7 crew members) went missing. As soon as reports of the flight missing from the radar emerged, Fernandes took to social media to announce that the plane was missing. In three hours, he took a flight to Surabaya, and announced it on Twitter. "We don't want to speculate but right now of course the plane has been missing for 12 hours and there's a deep sense of depression here." As the search teams continued their operations, Fernandes continued to communicate through social media. Fernandes, an avid user of Twitter, chose not to remain silent, and instead updated followers on the recovery efforts. He continued to communicate frequently with staff, passengers, and investors. He asked the staff to stay strong and focused, addressed the victims' families, and expressed his concern.

On December 30, 2014, AirAsia confirmed that the flight had crashed into the Java Sea after the search teams found debris of the aircraft floating on the Java Sea (India Today, 2014). There was huge media attention as this was the first fatal air crash in the history of AirAsia and there were reports that the plane had climbed at an abnormal speed in bad weather before stalling and crashing. Immediately after the news became official, Fernandes issued an apology, taking responsibility for what had happened.

He then organized a press conference and assured the families of the passengers and the crew that they would be taken care of, and would be paid compensation. He offered to fly relatives to Surabaya. He personally met the families of the crew and passengers to condole with them.

Fernandes went on television to answer questions related to the crash, and gave the assurance that bringing back the bodies would be given the highest priority. He visited the homes of crew members to hand over the bodies. Even after this, Fernandes continued to express his apologies, assuring support and help from Air Asia. He paid a compensation of $24,000 to the family of each of the air crash victims.

Malaysia Airlines
On March 8, 2014, Malaysia Airlines' flight MH370 disappeared from the radar while flying between Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace just 40 minutes after it departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport. The plane was carrying 227 passengers, including two infants, and 12 crew members. Of the passengers, 153 were Chinese while the remaining passengers were from 13 countries.

Almost five hours after the plane took off, the Rescue Coordination Center (RCC) was activated and the airline announced that the MH370 had lost contact with the air traffic control. The first news about the disappearance of the flight came out five hours after communications were lost and it had disappeared from the radar. The airline's social media accounts were updated several hours after the incident.

The next statement that came almost two hours after the first statement said regular updates would be provided (Press Statement, Malaysian Airlines, 2014). The next update was about the nationalities of all the passengers on the aircraft and details of the pilots. Five media statements were issued in all on the day the aircraft disappeared and an international rescue mission was mobilized (Press Statement, Malaysian Airlines, 2014). The next day, the families of all the passengers and crew were advised to gather at Kuala Lumpur Airport. The airline promised them that they would be flown to the location of the crash once the whereabouts were determined. Yahya, CEO of Malaysia Airlines, released his statement on March 9. It was the 8th statement that the airline released. He assured the family members of all support.

On March 15, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak gave a statement about the still missing flight and ongoing search operations (Amanda, 2014). The next day Hishammuddin Hussein, Minister of Defense & Acting Minister of Transport, gave a statement about the new phase of the search operation. The Chairman of the airline, Md Yusof, issued a similar statement. It was the Prime Minister who announced on March 24 that the flight had crashed into the Southern Indian Ocean, and that there were no potential survivors. This ended a two-week void about the whereabouts of the aircraft. He sent out SMSs to relatives of the passengers of the flight.

Yahya's next statement was issued only on March 28 and it asked people not to believe in rumors and misleading reports. His next statements came on March 30 and May 1. The last message was about not being able to find the wreckage or any trace of the aircraft (media archives, www.malaysianairlines.com).

The families of the passengers were offered an interim payment of $50,000. But even as of April 2019, some of the families were negotiating with the company for better compensation.

Comparative Study
AirAsia's handling of the disaster was compared with the way the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight on March 8, 2014 was dealt with. The handling of the crisis by Malaysia Airlines came in for a lot of criticism. The airliner was said to be reluctant to admit that it had had a problem, and it did not respond even after several hours of the aircraft's disappearance. The airline did not have the necessary resources or capability to resolve the problem, which only went on growing bigger.

The communication strategy of AirAsia, on the other hand, came in for appreciation from several quarters. Fernandes was lauded for how he had used social media to save the reputation of the company during such a huge crisis. Experts said that the airline had clearly had a crisis plan in place that was articulated. Fernandes demonstrated action-led leadership, through accurate and frequent communication.

The announcements and social media posts were timely and appropriate, and were said to be an offshoot of the open communication that prevailed in the organization. Fernandes was the only CEO who used social media extensively and effectively to manage a crisis. Over 1 million of his Twitter followers praised the open, authentic, and credible communication he put out. Fernandes came prepared with the facts and presented the truth as it unfolded. The family members of the crew and passengers too said that AirAsia had responded swiftly, and made arrangements for their transport and accommodation in Surabaya.

The crisis communication in Malaysia Airlines was handled by a team trained in crisis communications and was led by Yahya and others. But the team failed to communicate with the families of the victims. Absence of accurate information following the disappearance of MH370 paved the way for the circulation of misinformation and rumors on social media. At least 92 different rumors circulated on the Chinese microblogging site Weibo in the first two days.

The social media accounts of the airline reflected what was officially released to the press. The social media releases were just the headlines of the press releases. Though the hashtag #370 was created, it was used more by the users than the CEO or officials. The rumors, misleading information, and innuendos were not addressed by the company or on social media.

As the authorities could not provide any specific information to the media, various speculations and theories arose as to the cause of the flight's disappearance-from terrorism to mechanical failure. There were reports of radar and communication systems in the plane being turned off. The information void and the airline's inability to explain why the radar and communication systems on the plane had been turned off, led to a demand for public scrutiny from Malaysia Airlines' direct stakeholders. The relatives of the victims demanded the release of pertinent information about the missing flight, and journalists reported the inaccurate and sometimes contradictory information released by the Malaysian authorities.

The company's response to the disappearance of MH370 is an example of crisis communication management at its worst. Malaysia Airlines came in for criticism for its poor crisis communication after the MH370 went missing and for not managing the situation with more lucidity and promptness.

Information on the crash was released by different spokespersons and what was put out was often imprecise and incomplete, adding to the misinformation. In one of the releases, for instance, Yahya was quoted as saying that the plane had been in contact with air traffic controllers for two hours into the flight. However, the announcement by one of the ministers was that contact had been lost in less than an hour. The minister also said that four people were traveling on fake passports. This was later changed to two people who were 'Asian looking'. But this was later denied. Similar wrong information was put out several times. Malaysia Airlines and government officials were criticized for the contradictory information issued by various civilian and military leaders and their lack of crisis management experience.

The fact that the government owned a significant portion in the airline made it a hybrid organization. This was the reason why apart from the CEO, the ministers and the Prime Minister of the country also released media statements about the lost aircraft. But a PR professional argued that the involvement of government officials should not distract from the leadership role the CEO should have played (Tilley, 2014). They also said that the CEO should have taken the responsibility right at the beginning instead of someone more junior being appointed as the spokesman.

Findings and Discussion
Coombs states that the initial crisis response procedures emphasize three points:

(1) be quick; (2) be accurate; and (3) be consistent. This means that the organization/ leader needs to respond to the crisis within the first hour of its occurrence. Here, we can see that while Fernandes came out with a social media statement within an hour of the accident, Yahya took more than four hours after the flight disappeared from the radar to make the first announcement. By being quick, the organization/leader can tell their side of the story before the media or the people make up their own stories. In the case of Fernandes, this proved to be a positive aspect. As far as Malaysia Airlines is concerned, it caused a negative reaction and created an adverse impact.

Coombs (2007) also says that if the organization enduring the crisis does not communicate with the stakeholders or the media, others will grab the opportunity, and might come up with information that might not be accurate. Such a situation might be used to target the organization. While Fernandes did not give others any leeway to intervene, in the case of Yahya, the victims' families heard the news from the others. In a crisis situation, the person responsible for communicating and liaising with different stakeholders is very critical. Coombs (2007) also suggests that a visible spokesperson is a part of effective crisis communication. Airline organizations are viewed as being more legitimate and credible if they deliver consistent messages to their stakeholders (Coombs, 2009). This does not mean having a single spokesperson; only that the efforts and responses should be coordinated.

Fernandes was the first person to communicate about the accident and he did it within one hour of the accident. Yahya, on the other hand, came out with a release the next day. Both were visible spokespersons for the organization.

At the same time, organizations need not have only one person representing them during the organization crisis (Coombs, 2014b). What is important is all those communicating on behalf of the organization have to provide a consistent message.

Malaysia Airlines being a government-led organization, there were others apart from Yahya, who were communicating on behalf of the airline. They included Prime Minister of Malaysia Najib Razak and Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein, who addressed the public during the first 24 hours to provide crisis-related information.

Feeling extreme pressure to provide any information that would explain the mystery of the disappearance of MH370, the various officials chosen as spokespeople rushed to give details that had not been properly verified and they later often changed their statement or disproved. Even as they tried to provide some information to help the media in reporting on the accident, many of them were criticized by international media for their mistakes and unprofessionalism, which damaged the reputation of both Malaysia Airlines and all other government and civil bodies involved in the investigation of the accident (Zafra and Maydell, 2018). Media reports, which were released within the two-week crisis response period, indicated that at least nine sources ranging from civil to military officers had been cited by the journalists. Malaysia Airlines used the diminish crisis response strategy and stated that the accident was an occurrence beyond the power of the organization, and that it would never intentionally harm passengers, crew, or the plane. As the Malaysia Airlines aircraft was not found even many days after it disappeared, there were speculations that it had landed in China, or that the pilot had deliberately caused the accident. The transport minister immediately addressed the public asking them not to believe in such fake news. The airline mainly focused on finding the missing aircraft for the first few days, and completely ignored the plight of the families of the crew and passengers involved in the accident. Communication was not given any priority.

AirAsia was quicker to locate the wreckage than Malaysia Airlines, and this could have impacted the way the crisis was handled. As AirAsia was able to locate the crash site within 48 hours, it was able to come out with authentic information.

Both the airlines adopted a rebuild strategy and compensated the families of passengers on board. The families were provided travel facilities and accommodation as needed. Besides material compensation, corporations need to express sympathy with the families of those who lost their lives, and also explain to the stakeholders the steps they are taking to prevent the crisis (Coombs, 2007). Coombs (2012) also recommends that they offer an apology as it rebuilds trust, and helps in repairing the damage done. While Fernandes publicly expressed an apology, Yahya did not give a direct apology, though his words showed that he regretted the disappearance.

Conclusion
For airlines, reputation is paramount, especially when they are questioned about safety, as the competition in this industry is fierce (Coombs, 2007). If lives are lost in an air disaster, the air carrier must prove that its future customers will be safe; otherwise, its financial viability and its very existence may be in jeopardy, potentially leading to its demise (Hodgson et al., 2015).

If an airline adopts an effective crisis communication strategy, it may repair or even prevent any damage to its reputation, especially if the public sees the organization as a victim itself (Zafra and Maydell, 2018). In summary, the analysis of the Malaysian authorities' communication strategies during the first two weeks of the disappearance of flight MH370 illustrates that the information void and the lack of solid understanding of the crisis affected Malaysia Airlines' crisis communication. At the same time, the strategies of AirAsia and Tony Fernandes were widely appreciated. Fernandes came across as a compassionate leader, on the job, who was doing his best to communicate as clearly as possible. He was also lauded for his use of social media and for realizing the power of social media in today's times. As AirAsia bounced back from the disaster, the credit went largely to Fernandes. Yahya was replaced in 2015 with Peter Bellew taking over as CEO of Malaysia Airlines and the airline continued to face huge financial losses.

Implications: The importance of crisis communication by leaders has gained a lot of prominence in the post-Covid-19 world. Leaders, be it country heads or corporate heads, needed to communicate with various stakeholders in the wake of the pandemic. Though the cases illustrate the crises that occurred a few years before the pandemic, they show the importance of right and timely communication by leaders and its implication for the organizations.

References

1. Al-Omari Z, Alomari K and Aljawarneh N (2020), "The Role of Empowerment in Improving Internal Process, Customer Satisfaction, Learning and Growth", Management Science Letters, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 841-848.
2. Alpaslan C, Green Jr S and Mitroff I (2009), "Corporate Governance in the Context of Crises: Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Crisis Management", Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 38-49, available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2009.00555.x
3. Amanda H (2014), "MH370 Families Attack Malaysian Government Over Loss of Plane", available at www.theguardian.com
4. Boin A (2006), "Organizations and Crisis: The Emergence of a Research Paradigm", in D Smith and D Elliott (Eds.), Key Readings in Crisis Management, pp. 84-98, Routledge, New York.
5. Boin A, Paul'T H, Eric S and Bengt S (2005), The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure, Cambridge University Press, New York.
6. Boin A, McConnell A T and Hart P (2008), Governing After Crisis (The Politics of Investigation, Accountability and Learning), Cambridge University Press.
7. Boin A, Kuipers S and Overdijk W (2013), "Leadership in Time of Crisis: A Framework of Assessment", International Review of Public Administration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 79-91.
8. Canhoto I A, Lehn V D, Kerrigan F et al. (2015), "Fall and Redemption: Monitoring and Engaging in Social Media Conversations During a Crisis", Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-16.
9. Coombs W T (2007), Ongoing Crisis Communication, 2nd Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
10. Coombs W T (2009), "Conceptualizing Crisis Communication", in R L Heath and H D O'Hair (Eds.), Handbook of Crisis and Risk Communication, pp. 100-120, Routledge, New York.
11. Coombs W T (2012), Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding, 3rd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
12. Coombs T (2014a), Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing and Responding, Sage Publications.
13. Coombs W T (2014b), Crisis Management and Communications, https://instituteforpr.org//
14. Deloitte (2015), "Crisis Leadership, Guiding the Organization Through Uncertainty and Chaos", available at www2.deloitte.com
15. Dutton J E and Jackson S E (1987), "Categorizing Strategic Issues: Links to Organizational Action", The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 76-90.
16. Fearn-Banks K (2002), Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
17. Finn M, Walton M and Elliott-White M (2000), Tourism and Leisure Research Methods: Data Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation, Longman, Harlow.
18. Fred Garcia H (2012), "Leadership Communications: Planning for the Desired Reaction", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 42-45.
19. Hakim C (1982), Secondary Analysis in Social Research: A Guide to Data Sources and Method Examples, George Allen & Uwin, London, UK
20. Heifetz R A (1994), Leadership Without Easy Answers, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
21. Heifetz R, Grashow A and Linsky M (2009), The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, Mass.
22. Hodgson S, Al Haddad M, Al Zaabi S and Abdulrahim S (2015), "MH17: Did Safety Come First", Middle East Journal of Business, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 27-38.
23. Howell G (2012), "An Issues-Crisis Perspective", in J Chia and G Synnott (Eds.), An Introduction to Public Relations and Communication Management, 2nd Edition, pp. 270-299, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia.
24. Hyvarinen J and Vos M (2015), "Developing a Conceptual Framework for Investigating Communication Supporting Community Resilience", Societies, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 583-597.
25. Idid S, Shawal M, Abdul R et al. (2018), "News Diffusion of a Significant Event: How Malaysians and Indonesians Learnt of the Indonesia Airasia Qz8501 Tragedy", Asian Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 55-70.
26. India Today (2014), "Missing AirAsia Flight QZ8501 Search LIVE: 40 Bodies of Crash Victims Recovered from Java Sea, Rescuers Thought Floating Bodies Were Survivors", available at www.indiatoday.in
27. James E H and Wooten L P (2004), "Leadership in Turbulent Times: Competencies for Thriving Amidst Crisis", available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=555966 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.555966
28. James E H and Wooten L P (2006), "Diversity Crises: How Firms Manage Discrimination Lawsuits", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 1103-1118.
29. James E H and Wooten L P (2011), "Crisis Leadership and Why It Matters", The European Financial Review, December-January, pp. 60-64.
30. James E H, Wooten L P and Dushek K (2011), "Crisis Management: Informing a New Leadership Research Agenda", The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 455-493.
31. Jennings G (2001), Tourism Research, John Wiley and Sons, Milton, Queensland, Australia.
32. Kayes D C, Allen C N and Self N (2012), "Integrating Learning, Leadership and Crisis in Management Education", Journal of Management Education, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 180-202.
33. Klann G (2003), Crisis Leadership: Using Military Lessons, Organizational Experiences and the Power of Influence to Lessen the Impact of Chaos in the People You Lead, CCL Press.
34. Leonard H B and Howitt A (2009), Managing Crises Responses to Large-Scale Emergencies, Cqpress, Washington, DC.
35. Marcus A A and Goodman R S (1991), "Victims and Shareholders: The Dilemmas of Presenting Corporate Policy During a Crisis", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 281-305.
36. Marsen S (2019), "Navigating Crisis: The Role of Communication in Organizational Crisis", International Journal of Business Communication, available at 232948841988298.10.1177/2329488419882981
37. Mohamad K A (2021), "Case Study-Air Asia: From Regional to Global", The International Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 9, pp. 1-5.
38. Morgeson F P, Derue D S and Karam E P (2010), "Leadership in Teams: A Functional Approach to Understanding Leadership Structures and Processes", Journal of Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 5-39.
39. Nie Yong Yen (2014), "MAS Chief No Stranger to Tough Challenges", available at www.straitstimes.com
40. Northouse P G (2007), Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
41. Othman A F and Yusoff S Z (2020), "Crisis Communication Management Strategies in MH370 Crisis With Special References to Situational Crisis Communication Theory", International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 172-182.
42. Pangarkar N (2016), "A Framework for Effective Crisis Response", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 464-483.
43. Pearson C and Clair J (1998), "Reframing Crisis Management", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 59-76.
44. Reddick C, Chatfield A T and Brajawidagda U (2016), "Open Government Process and Government Transparency in Crisis Communication: The Case of Airasia QZ8501 Crash", Information Polity, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 255-271.
45. Simola S (2014), "Teaching Corporate Crisis Management Through Business Ethics Education", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 483-503.
46. Spencer H (1884), The Man Versus The State, Williams and Norgate, London. Reprinted in Offer, 1994.
47. Stake R E (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage Publishing.
48. Staw B M, Sandelands L E and Dutton J E (1981), "Threat Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 501-524.
49. Stein M (2004), "The Critical Period of Disasters: Insights from Sense-Making and Psychoanalytic Theory", Human Relations, Vol. 57, No. 10, pp. 1243-1261.
50. Sturges D L (1994), "Communicating Through Crisis: A Strategy for Organizational Survival", Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 297-316.
51. Tannenbaum R, Weschler I R and Massarik F (1961), Leadership and Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York.
52. The Economic Times (2013), "The Story of Tony Fernandes and AirAsia", available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
53. Tilley J (2014), "Analysis: Malaysia Airlines' Mishandled Response to the MH 370 Crisis", available at www.prweek.com
54. Turner B (1976), "The Development of Disasters: A Sequence Model for the Analysis of the Origins of Disasters", The Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 753-774.
55. Veal A J (1997), Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Harlow, UK.
56. Walsh J P (1995), "Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane", Organization Science, Vol. 6, pp. 280-321.
57. Weick K E (1988), "Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 305-317.
58. Wooten L P and James E H (2008), "Linking Crisis Management and Leadership Competencies: The Role of Human Resource Development", Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 352-379.
59. Zafra N and Maydell E (2018), "Facing the Information Void: A Case Study of Malaysia Airlines' Media Relations and Crisis Communication During the MH370 Disaster", Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 41-65.
60. Zamoum K and Gorpe T S (2018), "Crisis Management: A Historical and Conceptual Approach for a Better Understanding of Today's Crises", Intechopen, available at https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/60813
61. Zhang Z, Jia M and Gu L (2012), "Transformational Leadership in Crisis Situations: Evidence from the People's Republic of China", The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23, No. 19, pp. 1-25.