Note: This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and\ndoes not represent the views of the CNBCIndonesia.com editorial\nteam.<\/p>\n
Crisis has perhaps become an inevitability for every brand that\nwishes to grow and endure. Hardly any organisation is capable of growing\nlarge without ever facing a test of reputation, mistakes, or public\npressure. The question is no longer whether a crisis will come, but how\nprepared the organisation is to face it when a crisis truly strikes.<\/p>\n
In an era when everyone carries a camera, has their own information\ndistribution channel, and can turn a personal experience into a national\nconversation, an organisation\u2019s reputation sits in an increasingly open\npublic space. A single complaint can go viral within hours, whilst a\ndelayed response can magnify the problem far beyond the original source\nof the crisis.<\/p>\n
In situations like these, managing a crisis is no longer merely about\nextinguishing a problem; it is about how an organisation maintains trust\nwhen public attention is at its peak.<\/p>\n
The controversy over a Bank Mandiri customer account in August 2026\noffers an interesting example. The account of Supriyono, also known as\nBotok, coordinator of the Aliansi Masyarakat Pati Bersatu, experienced a\ntransaction hold on a balance of around Rp80.9 million.<\/p>\n
Bank Mandiri explained that the action was a follow-up to a request\nfrom law enforcement and was carried out according to procedure. After\nreceiving a request to lift the hold, the account could be used again\nfrom 26 August 2026.<\/p>\n
Operationally, Bank Mandiri had procedural arguments. But the public\nspace works with different logic. What was being debated was not only\nwhether the bank followed the rules, but how the decision was perceived\nby customers and society.<\/p>\n
When the issue developed into calls for a boycott on social media,\nthe problem had shifted from an operational issue to a reputational one.\nThis is where the fundamental problem of crisis communication lies:\nbeing procedurally correct is not necessarily enough to be considered\nreputationally right.<\/p>\n
Reputation is the accumulation of stakeholders\u2019 perceptions of an\norganisation\u2019s behaviour. In a crisis, the public is testing the\ncharacter of the institution. Is the institution present, listening,\nexplaining, and taking responsibility when the public faces a\nproblem?<\/p>\n
The case of BNI in Aek Nabara, North Sumatra, provides a different\nand more sensitive illustration. This case touched the very foundation\nof the banking industry: trust in the safety of customers\u2019 funds.<\/p>\n
The case emerged after the alleged embezzlement of around Rp28\nbillion belonging to members of the Santo Fransiskus Assisi Aek Nabara\nParish Credit Union. The case involved the former Head of Cashier at the\nBNI Aek Nabara branch unit, who was alleged to have offered an\ninvestment product in the institution\u2019s name. It later emerged that the\nproduct was not an official BNI product.<\/p>\n
Legally, such actions can be positioned as an individual\u2019s crime. But\nfrom a reputational perspective, the public does not always draw a firm\ndistinction between an employee\u2019s actions and the responsibility of the\ninstitution where they work. To the victims, the perpetrator was not a\nstranger. He was a figure who held a position and carried the bank\u2019s\nidentity.<\/p>\n
For this reason, the public\u2019s questions went beyond the legal\nprocess. How could such a practice take place? Why was it not detected\nearlier? How far did the oversight system work? And what is the\ninstitution\u2019s responsibility towards victims who lost money because they\ntrusted someone attached to the organisation\u2019s identity?<\/p>\n
This situation demonstrates the difference between legal\nresponsibility and reputational responsibility. Legal responsibility has\nboundaries determined by facts and judicial process. Reputational\nresponsibility, however, operates in the realm of perception, a sense of\njustice, and public expectations.<\/p>\n
BNI subsequently took steps towards resolution by offering an apology\nand processing the return of funds to members of the Aek Nabara Parish\nCredit Union. This step was important not merely as a financial\nsettlement, but as part of an effort to restore trust.<\/p>\n
At this point, the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) of\nW. Timothy Coombs becomes relevant. This theory positions crisis\nresponse as a strategy to reduce reputational threat by considering how\nthe public attributes responsibility to the organisation. The greater\nthe public\u2019s perception of institutional responsibility, the greater the\ndemands for empathy, explanation, and corrective action.<\/p>\n
That need is all the more pressing in Indonesia\u2019s digital landscape.\nDataReportal recorded around 212 million internet users in Indonesia at\nthe start of 2025, with around 143 million social media identities. A\ncrisis no longer plays out behind closed doors between companies and the\nmedia. It unfolds in real time, is participatory, and is difficult to\ncontrol.<\/p>\n
When an organisation has not yet spoken, the public will speak first.\nWhen the institution has not yet provided a chronology, social media\nwill construct one itself. When information is unavailable, rumours will\nfill the void.<\/p>\n
Bank Mandiri and BNI offer two different lessons. Mandiri showed that\na decision which can be explained procedurally still has the potential\nto become a crisis when the public feels it has not been given\nsufficient certainty. BNI showed that even an individual\u2019s criminal act\ncan develop into an institutional crisis when the perpetrator exploits\nthe position and trust attached to the organisation.<\/p>\n
Turning Public Anger into Trust<\/p>\n
From these two cases, there are at least three important pillars of\ncrisis communication. First, speed and transparency. An organisation\ndoes not have to wait for an entire investigation to be completed before\nspeaking. Accurate initial information is far better than silence. The\npublic can understand that an investigation takes time, provided the\ninstitution explains what is known, what is not yet known, and what is\nbeing done.<\/p>\n
Second, empathy over corporate jargon. The statement \u201cin accordance\nwith procedure\u201d may be important institutionally, but it does not always\naddress the anxiety of victims. Communication must start from human\nexperience, not merely a systemic perspective.<\/p>\n
Third, accountability through action. An apology is only the\nbeginning. A crisis must produce corrective action, systemic\nimprovements, oversight evaluations, and concrete steps to prevent\nsimilar problems from recurring.<\/p>\n
The findings of the Edelman Trust Barometer 2026 show that trust in\nbusiness in Indonesia remains relatively high. But trust is not a blank\ncheque. The greater the trust placed in an institution, the greater the\npublic\u2019s expectations of its behaviour when facing problems.<\/p>\n
In the end, a crisis is not merely a threat to reputation. It is a\ntest of character. The public may forgive mistakes, disruptions, even\nsystem failures. What is difficult to forgive is when an institution\nappears indifferent, defensive, or present only after public pressure\nhas mounted.<\/p>\n
In the banking industry, as in the examples above, trust is even more\nthan reputation. Trust is the primary capital of the business. When that\ncapital cracks, no procedure, technology, or campaign is strong enough\nto replace it except honest communication, genuine empathy, and\ndemonstrable action.<\/p>\n
For in situations like these, the organisations that win a crisis are\nnot those that manage to erase negative conversations from social media.\nThey are the organisations capable of turning anger into understanding,\nuncertainty into certainty, and disappointment into a reason for the\npublic to believe again.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/managing-crises-winning-over-the-public-1789444343", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }