Risk Management. chapter 8
Risk: perception-based decision about cost/benefit--benefit/harm

Risk rhetoric is the presentation of symbolic representations of analysis (evidence and assessments) of risks, with the purpose of influencing attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors about perceived risks.

Now isn't that THE most appropriate thing, in that "risks" are perceptual/symbolic? Isn't this what Burke says rhetoric IS FOR? 

Risk Avoidance: avert potential crisi(e)s.
Risk Taking: leverage opportunity(ies).

while upholding the perception of corporate social legitimacy.
And remember… the org. com. person isn’t actually taking the risks, or not. They are managing the communication about managing the risks.

in some ways, how an organization manages (the rhetoric they use in the presence of) risk is (or might as well be),  "the whole deal." Because risk management is centrally related to audience perceptions of corporate identity, corporate responsibility, corporate legitimacy, corporate  competence, values equivalency with the community . . . etc.

Frame analysis & elaboration models as they apply to risk communication: 

the parties in the communication have different frames of reference depending on their involvement and expertise. They have different sets of meanings, both connotative and denotative. They elaborate the information in different ways. Will the audience use a central route or a peripheral route when receiving and evaluating the information? Bridging these differences is as key as is articulating positions on/about risks. 

p. 169: carefully note the opening paragraph about exigencies. "take some action that an audience finds risky" . . . "The ideal outcome … the organization can involved interested audiences in a dialogue that ultimately leads to a decision about risk that is acceptable to both the organization and other interested parties."

this is a very "positioned" (and idealistic) way of thinking about things. Let's agree with it . . . as an ideal. However… note that organizations often NEVER (ok.. that's a bad phrase) SELDOM . . . include (potential) audiences in dialogue over risks the organization wants to take. Instead, what organizations usually do is to make the decision to take the risk, then "campaign" to get agreement from the relevant audiences. Sometimes, they don’t even do that, instead, hiding the risks they’ve decided to take. (oddly enough, because communicating about them seems… ah… too risky).

I suppose it would be great if you could get your organization to meet somewhere in the middle, under the realization that the audience's perception matters as much as does the decision about the risk. 

Here's the other part that this treatment misses a bit: they focus on "things the organization wants to do that are perceived as a risk by audiences."
They've left behind the bigger risks . . . all that stuff about averting potential crises . . . a lot of that would be very alarmist for bringing audiences on board with . . . yet . . . 

One of your key roles is to help your organization make this shift in thinking (and communicative practice). The problem is that the reputational work about the organization gets done by the audience, based on their perceptions. Organizations can't dictate how that works. So no matter how hard the organization works to avoid crises by managing risks, if the audience doesn't grant them "careful/responsible" meanings… the organization doesn't get credit for managing the risks. You have to play a role in convincing the organization that some degree of dialogue is better than none, because the audience is out there drawing conclusions with or without you managing organizational communication.

that ain't easy. 

A central problem is the complexity of issues. 

Another is the perception of organizational autonomy. 

ok… let's stretch that a little: HUBRIS. From shoe store to international manufacturer, it's darned hard to find an organization that doesn't think a lot of themselves. Humility is darned tough to find in business. And even when you find it, there are all the rules and procedures that block open dialogue. 

another is the fact that, regardless of their target corporate social legitimacy, they may well be on the opposite side of the cost/benefit analysis of risk from some of their audience. 

Here enters ETHICS.

You will have to make decisions about how you want to play this game. Are you willing to part of a culture of silence, for a paycheck? 
Are you willing to be part of a culture of hubris, for a steady job?
will you have a choice? 
Can you find an organization that presents more opportunities and less risks (for you) in this area?

[I suppose that one can't even be sure that one will ever fully have the wisdom to properly evaluate these issues]

I think there might be a free pass over the first job or two. 
One is pretty desperate (hopefully, in a constructive way). 

But second or third jump, it would be a good thing if one could really factor these aspects in pretty strongly and get with/into an organization that matches your values over this aspect. Otherwise, professional life can be pretty frustrating. 

Risk Management Rhetorical Strategies:

Credibility: competence
connection to positive values
trustworthiness

Values advocacy: HUGE. Again, esp. since the elaboration and frame gaps are likely to be large, making direct, evidence based arguments may not work no matter how accurate or "persuasive" they are. Identifying common values over risk management is central.

remember… the more technical and complex the issue, the more (that most) people in the audience will prefer peripheral elaboration routes.

Claims and evidence: esp. with the ENABLING audience. This bunch is supposed to be less baffled, so probably needs more direct evidence.
(eh.. depending.. sometimes they don't "get it" either, but need to seem to)

remember too… and this is REALLY CRUCIAL… what you provide to people in writing, in private, can be VERY MUCH MORE TECHNICAL AND DIRECT ROUTE ORIENTED than what you present to them orally, in public. Don’t make the mistake of pushing the wrong mode/format in the wrong venue.