The importance of recovery communication
Every successful response ends with two competing realities: Responders are happy to leave for home, and affected stakeholders are afraid they’re being abandoned. Communicators need to acknowledge both by providing effective recovery communication.
The effectiveness of a response is best proven by it’s demobilization. Much should be made of this effectiveness. There is every reason to proclaim success and the reasons for success. This lays the seeds of confidence in future operations. Command staff recognize their triumph and are justifiably proud of it. Communicators should certainly assist in ensuring that stakeholders recognize this too.
However, the sunshine of success can be overshadowed by the darkness of doubt. Regardless of response communication effectiveness, stakeholders will often wonder if they’re really ready to go it alone.
The truth is, any major response will always include an extended recovery process. Responders know this and they assume that it is obvious to all. Why would it be obvious? If you’ve had to work hard to communicate response actions effectively, why would you assume that recovery actions will be obvious?
Recovery Communication bridge building
Communicators must provide stakeholders with a ‘bridge’ from response to recovery. This usually entails another round of ‘advisement’ to Command by the communicator. Remember, this is your role! Building this bridge starts early, during the response, not at the last minutes, when ‘response’ declares victory, and ‘recovery’ takes over.
Remember the response ‘whys’? They all point to the halcyon day when the response is finished and everyone gets their life back. Responders get their lives back because they get to go home! The response has been declared a success, or at least as good as it will get.
Now responders head for home: Hotels empty out, equipment is packed up and sent home, the detritus of the response is removed. Response-related access restrictions, safety zones, traffic and bodies all disappear.
Stakeholders get their lives back, and life begins to return to normal. But do they recognize this? Do they see success, or do they see abandonment? Stakeholders don’t know this unless they’re told this.
Response communicators need to set the stage for recovery early in the process. Recovery activity should be positioned much the same way as the response activity has been:
| Response Activity | Recovery Activity |
| Started with the incident | Starts with hand off from response |
| Was deliberate and purposeful | Follows prescribed and purposeful plans |
| Used the best people and the best strategies for the best result | Will use the best resources for the most effective outcome |
| Has ended, as determined by the responders | Will also have an end point, one determined by all affected stakeholders |
| Always includes a handoff to recovery efforts | Always includes a sign-off from affected stakeholder groups |
Initiates some activities that will continue into the recovery phase:
|
Continues activities until stakeholders release them:
|
| And the response is declared over! |
And the recovery is over!
|
Response communicators can set the stage for this process by clearly communicating known recovery activities as they are initiated or planned during the response. Apply the same ‘future’ considerations to recovery planning as you do to response communication.
Note that Unified Command may resist recovery communications during the response. ‘It’s not part of the response’ will be their mantra. Remind them that Unified Command can only be de-mobilized when all response parties sign off on it.
- Stakeholder concerns can prevent agencies from signing off.
- Stakeholder doubts about ongoing pollution can keep a County or city from signing off.
- Activist concerns can leverage an Agency to not sign off.
Helping affected stakeholders understand and accept the coming recovery process can help Unified Command and all its related costs demobilize sooner!
Who provides recovery communication?
It’s easy to assign recovery communication to the RP, but its more complicated than that. While recovery rolls on without Unified Command, it may be wise to retain a semblance of the Joint Information Center. Recovery activities can positively or negatively affect every participant, whether agency, municipality or company.
The same basic issues and functions remain, usually without the element of time pressure. One fundamental difference between response and recovery is that while the response is usually driven by a need for speed (stop the incident as fast as possible), recovery is usually driven by deliberation (are you sure we’re done with that?).
Issue identification and management remains a necessary element of recovery communication: rumors, observations, new accidents or key dates all bring the original angst back into play.
Remember the date!
There are key communication considerations post-response for all parties, particularly for the Responsible Party. Communicators must be prepared to spring back into action with any of the following triggers:
- Anniversary of the incident – especially if a large incident
- Similar incidents occurring at the same facility – always bring the previous response back to light
- Similar incidents occurring at any other location – usually in comparison of severity or to ‘prove’ an industry issue
- Completion of investigations or litigation, announcement of fines
- Conclusion of Claims process
- Sale of involved assets
Each event brings specific mention of some element of the incident. Be prepared with key messaging for these times.
The more stakeholders understand the objectives and effectiveness of the recovery process, the sooner they will accept its conclusion. So commit to effectively communicating throughout the recovery process!
Questions? Did you see ideas in this post that you’ve never heard of before? Contact me!
Comments? Leave them below.
2 Comments
Well written and insightful, Marc. I must admit – it does make my brain hurt to contemplate lengthy recovery communications following from a response, but it is a good idea to build this into the communications planning effort.
I agree with your comments, Tom. It is challenging to be thinking about long-term recovery communications in the intensity of a response. Since the old adage ‘incidents start locally and end locally’ is still true, recovery communication efforts sometimes have the greatest impact on the reputation of the entire response effort. You are right; the response communication ‘sprint’ is usually supplemented by the recovery communication ‘marathon’. A longer race, but a more sustainable pace.