Pola Komunikasi Penanganan Krisis pada Organisasi Lintas Sektor di Indonesia

Authors

  • Indah Fajar Rosalina Universitas Negeri Jakarta
    Indonesia
  • Wina Puspita Sari Universitas Negeri Jakarta
    Indonesia
  • Muria Putriana Universitas Negeri Jakarta
    India
  • Qoryna Noer Seyma El Farabi Universitas Negeri Jakarta
    Indonesia
  • Asep Soegiarto Universitas Negeri Jakarta
    Indonesia
  • Ghina Balqis Salsabil Universitas Negeri Jakarta
    Indonesia
  • Rivanda Kamil Akhsan Universitas Negeri Jakarta
    Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23917/komuniti.v18i2.12386

Keywords:

Komunikasi Krisis, Lintas Sektor, Penanganan krisis, Pola Komunikasi, Organisasi, crisis communication, SCCT, comparative case study, communication patterns, cross-sector organizations

Abstract

Penelitian ini mengkaji pola komunikasi penanganan krisis pada organisasi lintas sektor di Indonesia, dengan studi kasus pada GenFM, PT KAI Commuter, dan KitaBisa. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif, penelitian ini mengacu pada teori Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) yang dikembangkan oleh W. Timothy Coombs untuk menganalisis jenis krisis, atribusi tanggung jawab publik, serta strategi komunikasi yang digunakan masing-masing organisasi. Data diperoleh melalui wawancara mendalam, observasi, dan analisis dokumen sekunder seperti siaran pers, media sosial, dan pemberitaan media massa. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa setiap organisasi merespons krisis dengan pendekatan komunikasi yang berbeda, tergantung pada jenis krisis dan ekspektasi publik. KitaBisa menggunakan pendekatan transparan dan empatik untuk membangun kembali kepercayaan, GenFM mengedepankan klarifikasi dan penegasan independensi redaksi, sementara KAI Commuter menunjukkan pola respons krisis yang sistematis, kolaboratif, dan berbasis teknis. Ketiganya memanfaatkan kanal digital sebagai medium utama komunikasi. Studi ini menunjukkan bahwa efektivitas komunikasi krisis dipengaruhi oleh kesesuaian strategi dengan karakteristik krisis dan keterbukaan organisasi dalam menjawab kekhawatiran publik. Implikasi penelitian ini memberikan wawasan bagi organisasi dalam membangun tata kelola komunikasi krisis yang adaptif, responsif, dan strategis di era disrupsi informasi.

 

This study examines the crisis communication patterns of three cross-sector organizations in Indonesia: KAI Commuter (public transportation), GenFM (broadcast media), and KitaBisa (digital philanthropy). Employing a qualitative comparative case study design grounded in Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), the cases were compared across five analytical dimensions derived from SCCT: crisis cluster, attribution of responsibility and intensifying factors, response strategy, channel and message scope, and internal coordination structure. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with communication managers in each organization, observation, and analysis of secondary documents. The findings reveal elements that are consistent across all cases, namely issue detection through social media monitoring, early delivery of base responses (instructing and adjusting information), and the formation of cross-functional teams outside routine structures. Differences emerged in the primary strategy and channel scope: KitaBisa combined clarification and bolstering confined to the platform where the issue originated, GenFM issued a swift apology (rebuild) despite the accidental nature of its crisis, while KAI Commuter pursued rebuild supported by technical corrective action and multichannel communication. These differences were shaped by the nature of the threat to stakeholders, the vulnerability of the affected groups, and the institutional status of each organization. The study contributes by showing that cross-sector crisis communication patterns consist of a relatively uniform procedural core and a context-dependent strategic layer, and by identifying platform containment as a variation that has received limited attention within the SCCT framework.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arpan, L. M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Stealing thunder: Analysis of the effects of proactive disclosure of crisis information. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.05.003

Ayub Ilfandi Imran. (2017). Komunikasi Krisis. Deep Publish.

Basudara, T. (2024, October 6). Kasus Gen FM Soal JKT48 Bersama Delynn, Oline dan Nachia - Kibezaka. https://www.kibezaka.com/2024/10/kasus-gen-fm-dan-jkt48-bersama-delynn.html

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Carlina, G., & Paramita, S. (2017). PR Crisis Melalui Media Sosial. Jurnal Komunikasi, 9(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.24912/jk.v9i1.211

Claeys, A.-S., Cauberghe, V., & Vyncke, P. (2010). Restoring reputations in times of crisis: An experimental study of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory and the moderating effects of locus of control. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.05.004

Coombs, W. T. (2007a). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.

Coombs, W. T. (2007b). Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis : The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory. 10(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

Coombs, W. T. (2015). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331802237233

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Communication and Attributions in a Crisis : An Experimental Study in Crisis Communication. (August 2014), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Fearn-Banks, K. (2016). Crisis Communications : A Casebook Approach. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315684857

Firsan Nova. (2014). PR War Pertarungan Mengalahkan Krisis, Menaklukan Media, dan Memenangi Simpati Publik. Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.

Fitri, A. N., Fitri, Karim, A., & Rachmawati, F. (2020). Strategi Komunikasi Krisis Maskapai Penerbangan di Indonesia (Studi Analisis Komunikasi Krisis Adam Air, Air Asia dan Sriwijaya Air dalam Menghadapi Krisis Kecelakaan Pesawat melalui Prespektif Komunikasi Islam). Jurnal Impresi, 1(2), 89–104.

Hasna, S. (2022). Analisis proses pengambilan keputusan tim mitigasi siaga COVID-19 Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta dalam menangani pandemi COVID-19. Komuniti: Jurnal Komunikasi dan Teknologi Informasi, 14(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.23917/komuniti.v14i1.16667

Jin, Y., Liu, B. F., & Austin, L. L. (2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on publics’ crisis responses. Communication Research, 41(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211423918

kopiidol. (2024, October 6). Instagram. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAxtW8-Bx-I/

Kristianti, I. K., Luqman, Y., & Rakhmad, W. N. (n.d.). KRISIS KOMUNIKASI DI TINGKAT ORGANISASI: ANALISIS POLA KOMUNIKASI KRISIS AIESEC CABANG SEMARANG PADA MASA PANDEMI COVID-19. Retrieved January 23, 2025, from https://ejournal3.undip.ac.id/index.php/interaksi-online/article/view/34391/27133

Kumparan.com. (n.d.). Apa Itu Senbatsu JKT48? Ini Bedanya dengan Senbatsu Sousenkyo | kumparan.com. Retrieved August 8, 2025, from https://kumparan.com/generasi-milenial/apa-itu-senbatsu-jkt48-ini-bedanya-dengan-senbatsu-sousenkyo-1xsIBdZTsQj/2

Legowo, R. S. (2023). Ketika penyebaran berita palsu melahirkan industri baru: Studi kasus Drone Emprit. Komuniti: Jurnal Komunikasi dan Teknologi Informasi, 15(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.23917/komuniti.v15i1.20053

Ma, L., & Zhan, M. (2016). Effects of attributed responsibility and response strategies on organizational reputation: A meta-analysis of situational crisis communication theory research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(2), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2016.1166367

Marga, N. (2023, December 26). Heboh Penerima Donasi Kitabisa “Ngaku” Tak Dapat Uang Bantuan Secara Penuh. https://www.pikiran-rakyat.com/teknologi/pr-017515832/heboh-penerima-donasi-kitabisa-ngaku-tak-dapat-uang-bantuan-secara-penuh

Olsson, E. K. (2014). Crisis Communication in Public Organisations: Dimensions of Crisis Communication Revisited. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12047

Puspitasari. (2016). Komunikasi Krisis: Strategi Mengelola dan Memenangkan Citra di Mata Publik (Libri, Ed.).

Robert K Yin. (2013). Studi Kasus Desain dan Metode. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Rosalina, I. F. (2020). Upaya Penanganan Krisis Relasi Media DPR dalam Kontroversi UU MD3. Jurnal Communication, 11(1), 14–30.

Rosalina, I. F. (2024). Komunikasi Krisis Bakso A-Fung Menanggapi Isu Viral Kerupuk Babi. Daruna: Journal of Communication, 3(2).

Sari, W. P., Putriana, M., Firdaus, R., & Wihadi, A. (2024). PENGELOLAAN KRISIS PUBLIC RELATIONS. Wawasan Ilmu.

Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001

Tempo.co. (2024, May 23). Pemuda Depok Pembobol Kartu Multi Trip KCI Hingga Rp12,4 Juta Jalani Sidang Perdana | tempo.co. https://www.tempo.co/hukum/pemuda-depok-pembobol-kartu-multi-trip-kci-hingga-rp12-4-juta-jalani-sidang-perdana-56342

Downloads

Submitted

2025-08-08

Accepted

2026-09-30

Published

2026-09-30