Managing Crises, Winning Over the Public

Note: This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the CNBCIndonesia.com editorial team.

Crisis has perhaps become an inevitability for every brand that wishes to grow and endure. Hardly any organisation is capable of growing large without ever facing a test of reputation, mistakes, or public pressure. The question is no longer whether a crisis will come, but how prepared the organisation is to face it when a crisis truly strikes.

In an era when everyone carries a camera, has their own information distribution channel, and can turn a personal experience into a national conversation, an organisation’s reputation sits in an increasingly open public space. A single complaint can go viral within hours, whilst a delayed response can magnify the problem far beyond the original source of the crisis.

In situations like these, managing a crisis is no longer merely about extinguishing a problem; it is about how an organisation maintains trust when public attention is at its peak.

The controversy over a Bank Mandiri customer account in August 2026 offers an interesting example. The account of Supriyono, also known as Botok, coordinator of the Aliansi Masyarakat Pati Bersatu, experienced a transaction hold on a balance of around Rp80.9 million.

Bank Mandiri explained that the action was a follow-up to a request from law enforcement and was carried out according to procedure. After receiving a request to lift the hold, the account could be used again from 26 August 2026.

Operationally, Bank Mandiri had procedural arguments. But the public space works with different logic. What was being debated was not only whether the bank followed the rules, but how the decision was perceived by customers and society.

When the issue developed into calls for a boycott on social media, the problem had shifted from an operational issue to a reputational one. This is where the fundamental problem of crisis communication lies: being procedurally correct is not necessarily enough to be considered reputationally right.

Reputation is the accumulation of stakeholders’ perceptions of an organisation’s behaviour. In a crisis, the public is testing the character of the institution. Is the institution present, listening, explaining, and taking responsibility when the public faces a problem?

The case of BNI in Aek Nabara, North Sumatra, provides a different and more sensitive illustration. This case touched the very foundation of the banking industry: trust in the safety of customers’ funds.

The case emerged after the alleged embezzlement of around Rp28 billion belonging to members of the Santo Fransiskus Assisi Aek Nabara Parish Credit Union. The case involved the former Head of Cashier at the BNI Aek Nabara branch unit, who was alleged to have offered an investment product in the institution’s name. It later emerged that the product was not an official BNI product.

Legally, such actions can be positioned as an individual’s crime. But from a reputational perspective, the public does not always draw a firm distinction between an employee’s actions and the responsibility of the institution where they work. To the victims, the perpetrator was not a stranger. He was a figure who held a position and carried the bank’s identity.

For this reason, the public’s questions went beyond the legal process. How could such a practice take place? Why was it not detected earlier? How far did the oversight system work? And what is the institution’s responsibility towards victims who lost money because they trusted someone attached to the organisation’s identity?

This situation demonstrates the difference between legal responsibility and reputational responsibility. Legal responsibility has boundaries determined by facts and judicial process. Reputational responsibility, however, operates in the realm of perception, a sense of justice, and public expectations.

BNI subsequently took steps towards resolution by offering an apology and processing the return of funds to members of the Aek Nabara Parish Credit Union. This step was important not merely as a financial settlement, but as part of an effort to restore trust.

At this point, the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) of W. Timothy Coombs becomes relevant. This theory positions crisis response as a strategy to reduce reputational threat by considering how the public attributes responsibility to the organisation. The greater the public’s perception of institutional responsibility, the greater the demands for empathy, explanation, and corrective action.

That need is all the more pressing in Indonesia’s digital landscape. DataReportal recorded around 212 million internet users in Indonesia at the start of 2025, with around 143 million social media identities. A crisis no longer plays out behind closed doors between companies and the media. It unfolds in real time, is participatory, and is difficult to control.

When an organisation has not yet spoken, the public will speak first. When the institution has not yet provided a chronology, social media will construct one itself. When information is unavailable, rumours will fill the void.

Bank Mandiri and BNI offer two different lessons. Mandiri showed that a decision which can be explained procedurally still has the potential to become a crisis when the public feels it has not been given sufficient certainty. BNI showed that even an individual’s criminal act can develop into an institutional crisis when the perpetrator exploits the position and trust attached to the organisation.

Turning Public Anger into Trust

From these two cases, there are at least three important pillars of crisis communication. First, speed and transparency. An organisation does not have to wait for an entire investigation to be completed before speaking. Accurate initial information is far better than silence. The public can understand that an investigation takes time, provided the institution explains what is known, what is not yet known, and what is being done.

Second, empathy over corporate jargon. The statement “in accordance with procedure” may be important institutionally, but it does not always address the anxiety of victims. Communication must start from human experience, not merely a systemic perspective.

Third, accountability through action. An apology is only the beginning. A crisis must produce corrective action, systemic improvements, oversight evaluations, and concrete steps to prevent similar problems from recurring.

The findings of the Edelman Trust Barometer 2026 show that trust in business in Indonesia remains relatively high. But trust is not a blank cheque. The greater the trust placed in an institution, the greater the public’s expectations of its behaviour when facing problems.

In the end, a crisis is not merely a threat to reputation. It is a test of character. The public may forgive mistakes, disruptions, even system failures. What is difficult to forgive is when an institution appears indifferent, defensive, or present only after public pressure has mounted.

In the banking industry, as in the examples above, trust is even more than reputation. Trust is the primary capital of the business. When that capital cracks, no procedure, technology, or campaign is strong enough to replace it except honest communication, genuine empathy, and demonstrable action.

For in situations like these, the organisations that win a crisis are not those that manage to erase negative conversations from social media. They are the organisations capable of turning anger into understanding, uncertainty into certainty, and disappointment into a reason for the public to believe again.