Whether for individuals or organizations, there are moments when unexpected errors or wrongdoings trigger a reputation crisis. Public verbal slips, project defects, extreme conflicts of interest, or revelations of shameful conduct by organizational leaders are all factors that threaten reputations within the social network.
Koreans place great importance on "chemyon," or face. If reputation is the projection of inner values into the outside world as image, then chemyon is the moral pride and the sum of trust that this image earns through public recognition within the social network. Traditionally in Korean society, having one's chemyon damaged meant the erosion of the social capital an individual had accumulated.
So when facing a reputation crisis, what decision should we make? Should we bow our heads unconditionally, or stick to excuses to the very end?
When standing at the crossroads of reputation and either silently agonizing or panicking, the five message strategies used in crisis communication management can serve as practical reference tips.
The first option is denial. This strategy involves either entirely denying the act itself or shifting responsibility to a third party. The strategy is only effective when supported by clear facts and objective evidence; if one chooses false denial despite obvious wrongdoing being exposed, the result is irreparable damage to one's image.
The second is evasion of responsibility. This strategy acknowledges the act but appeals to circumstances beyond one's control. It seeks to lighten the weight of blame by emphasizing external provocation, lack of information, or force majeure, but it risks being seen as a shabby excuse.
The third is reducing offensiveness. This strategy aims to lessen the negative perception felt by the public when the incident cannot be undone. Message strategies in this category attempt to soothe public sentiment by emphasizing past achievements, minimizing damage, or comparing the act to worse behavior to lower its perceived severity.
The fourth is corrective action. This strategy promises to rectify the problem and put measures in place to prevent recurrence. It rebuilds shattered trust by putting tangible actions front and center, such as system reform or holding those responsible accountable.
The final option is mortification. This strategy involves fully admitting one's fault and asking for forgiveness. This confession, which acknowledges wrongdoing as it is, exerts a powerful turnaround effect in cultures that value chemyon, but it is also the option that leaders find hardest to execute due to pride and authority.
Looking at actual crisis management cases, one can see that the fate of those facing a reputation crisis is determined by how they combine the five rhetorical strategies proposed by Professor William Benoit.
A representative case of choosing a denial message in the face of obvious wrongdoing and losing face is the bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX. Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder hailed as a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) prodigy, fully denied allegations of customer fund misappropriation, insisting that "FTX is safe." But within just days, the lies were exposed, and in 2025 he was sentenced by a court to 25 years in prison, marking the end of his reputation.
In contrast, there are cases where collapsed reputations were rebuilt through message strategies of mortification and swift corrective action. OpenAI, the leading artificial intelligence company, faced a trust crisis in 2023 when its board abruptly dismissed CEO Sam Altman. As investors and employees strongly protested, management took an apologetic stance acknowledging the misjudgment. Five days after the dismissal, Sam Altman was reinstated as CEO. Beyond that, the company restored its organizational reputation by carrying out the corrective action of completely overhauling the board.
Another example is the response to the harrowing 2024 incident in which a door panel of an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 was torn off during flight. Aircraft manufacturer Boeing acknowledged early-stage manufacturing defects and apologized, while simultaneously announcing high-intensity corrective actions including grounding all aircraft of that model and conducting comprehensive inspections. Although Boeing's technical credibility was damaged, by choosing to confront the issue head-on rather than hide it, the company was able to avoid the worst-case catastrophe.
The core of crisis management lies in the philosophy and attitude of the organization or individual in crisis. Many, when struck by a reputation crisis, are so flustered that they either silently agonize without direction or, in order to escape immediate shame, make the worst choice of false denial or evasion of responsibility.
Not all crises can be prevented, but response messages can be chosen. When a reputation crisis arrives, the five options must be placed on the table to find the best combination of messages. Lost face cannot be patched with hypocrisy. The public extends renewed trust not to perfectly flawless leaders, but to honest leaders who candidly admit their mistakes and take responsibility. Only an attitude of accountability and changed behavior can revive a fallen reputation in a stronger and more luminous form. This is crisis leadership.
