Communication professionals must participate in an effective risk assessment.
It’s not all about operational risks any more. While we’re ready and waiting for these operational incidents to occur, we’re waiting longer and longer. Processes, regulations and technology have combined to make physical operations safer than ever before. The real risk of significant operational incidents is dropping. While we should celebrate this lower risk environment, we have to live with the reality that today’s operational incidents always lead to greater and greater communication challenges. Even while the probability of an incident occurring is reduced, the need for effective preparedness increases commensurately.
We’ve also seen the rise of a new risk: The virtual incident, where physical harm is replaced by emotional or social harm. The emergence of social media and the accompanying instant coverage and instant outrage changes everything. Outrage is clicks away in every industry, and this concept of a communication crisis leading to an operational challenge is the new norm.
Where is the risk?
Your organization may be at greater risk of a reputation-challenging incident from the communication sphere than it is from the operational sphere. This has a massive impact on traditional risk assessment. The person or people charged with identifying business risks may not be aware of, or versed in, the very real threat of a business risk brought about entirely by external influences. The gates may stand and pipelines or track remain intact. The ship may sail and the aircraft take off. Everybody may be safe and uninjured and fumes may stay in the scrubbers. Everything may be safe and secure, and yet a crisis can erupt at any time over…feelings or assumptions.
In this new reality, communication professionals must be involved in any effective risk assessment. Today’s risk environment is changing and only communicators can be expected to be able to identify these new, asymmetrical threats. It is likely that a review of your organization’s current risk assessment and action plans will reveal a dearth of attention to this new and real risk of reputation-challenging external threats.
The unique risk in natural disaster responses
Of course, even when our operations are becoming safe, we’re also facing increased possibilities of natural disasters, as it seems the horsemen of the apocalypse are upon us at all times: fire, flood, famine, plague, earthquakes and volcanoes. Natural disaster response entails a unique form of response communication because people don’t spend time trying to decide whose fault it is; it’s pretty clear that it is nobody’s fault. This frees operational response plans up from much concern about public approbation or scrutiny.
But in any such response, stakeholder expectations quickly emerge: Why is it taking so long? Why are you ignoring me? Why are you not doing what I think you should do? Why aren’t you here yet?
Overwhelmed municipalities, damaged businesses, savaged transportation systems and overwhelmed utilities are suddenly under higher scrutiny. This scrutiny is not from regulators or responders, but from individual citizens coalescing into a mass of discontent. Individual assumptions and expectations merge, special interests stir the soup, politicians add seasoning and before you know it the rock soup of response becomes the stewing mess of failure. Organizations, already trying desperately to respond, find themselves distracted by unreasonable demands, challenges and protests. None of this is due to a failure of the response; all is due to the amorphous, coalescing opinion that ‘things must be done better’.
Communicators needed!
This toxic soup of expectations is immensely challenging to an operational response because ‘normal’ responder actions are completely ineffective in alleviating these new stakeholder expectations. Only communicators can identify the emerging risk, the key issues and messages needed to preserve the response right to operate, as well as the language needed to assure impacted stakeholders and their handlers that progress is in fact being made at a reasonable pace. Ignore effective communications in this environment and risk the loss of your right to operate. Not because you have actually done anything wrong, but because your stakeholders have decided you have.
Warning!
If you represent a response or regulatory agency instead of a private organization, don’t assume that you are safe, wrapped in robes of righteousness. Response and regulatory entities are at great risk from an outraged public. If you work for a public entity, you work for the public.
When you work for a private organization, you work for owners or shareholders. There is great potential public censure for a private organization in the form bad reputation, reduced market share, decreased stock value and challenging permitting environment, but the public can’t directly put a company out of business.
Years after the Deepwater Horizon incident, BP is doing very well, thank you. Meanwhile, the offshore drilling regulatory agency, Minerals Management Service (MMS) has been disbanded, it’s $310 million budget and 1,600+ employees scattered to the winds by political and public outrage in October 2011.
What to do?
How do you address these issues proactively? What can you do to prepare for them or to prevent them?
Be sure to identify stakeholder-driven risk in planning
Request an opportunity to provide input into risk identification so you can identify the types of stakeholder-driven issues your organization’s operations are susceptible to. Provide criteria for quickly identifying the emergence of a stakeholder issue.
Identify response risk in natural disasters
Help prevent the self-righteousness people assume when ‘it’s not our fault’. Your stakeholders will never measure your success by whether you met your own objectives; they will measure it by whether you’ve met theirs. Define issues you know will emerge in this type of response and prepare to address each one. Identify what issues are most likely to impact actual operations and share them with planners. As an example, the demand for pet rescues after Hurricane Katrina forced an operational decision to dedicate helicopter space and payload to pets instead of people. Since this decision changed the rate of rescues for operations, operational planning and resource allocation were directly impacted by the emergent public concern.
Plan to communicate with non-traditional stakeholders
Plan how you will communicate to engage with non-traditional stakeholders; the individuals, or advocacy groups made up of mobilized individuals, who often drive public outrage after an event. Traditional stakeholders – Media, elected officials and agencies – can be completely aware of your response activities and fully approving of them, but their approval will change when any of their own constituent’s priorities change. Their constituents will always include the individuals and advocacy groups who are critical of your activities, so failure to reach any of these new stakeholders will jeopardize you relationship with all your current stakeholders. Outrage is contagious!
Your strategy to prevent this is to engage directly with any concerned individuals, to provide information that settles their personal feathers. You must engage directly with them; ‘normal’ engagement through traditional channels won’t impact their opinions. Keep track of individuals and advocacy groups, and include them in communication opportunities. Don’t cede their opinions to someone else!