‘A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse’ is one of Shakespeare’s best known lines. The king spoke the line in Act V of the play Richard III, after losing his horse in battle. More generally the meaning of the expression is that the speaker is in great need of a particular item and is willing to trade something of great value to get it.
What does this have to do with response communications? Everything. As a battle is won with horses, so a response is won with communication. An incident that touches public stakeholders brings the response subject to their approval or disapproval. Satisfy your stakeholders and they will accept your definition of success, fail to meet their needs and concerns and they’ll reject your efforts.
Communicators seem to be the least regarded tools in an effective response, yet they are often the most crucial. Failure to fully utilize effective communicators and their product can actually warp the response itself.
The incident/unified command structure is designed to maximize the impact of decisions made by the most qualified individuals: Command decisions are made at the level of responsibility (Sections), vetted in the broadest forum (IC/UC) and implemented with full adoption and support of the entire command structure. This command structure includes the PIO, who holds similar responsibility and authority: Responsibility to provide stakeholder communication guidance and activities, and authority to vet proposed response activities to ensure stakeholder acceptance.
What does this mean?
It means that Incident/Unified Command should listen to the PIO. Words matter. What you say shapes what you do. It may be an anachronism in today’s contentious culture, but stakeholders actually expect you to do what you say you will do. They will listen to your words and expect commensurate action. The words used to describe response actions and the rationale behind them (what and why) should support response objectives and activities.
Usually they do, but sometimes they don’t. Only a professional communicator can be sure they do. Responders know how to plan the response. They’re good at it. Communicators know how to tell about it. They’re good at it.
Does it matter? Yes.
Messaging doesn’t just define a response, it ends up directing it: If you say you’re going to keep oil off the beaches, you will have to dedicate planning and resources to keep oil off the beaches. If you don’t, your statement is at best wishful thinking, at worst a lie. Stakeholders see the former as inept, the latter as cynical. ‘Inept’ and ‘Cynical’ aren’t words you want associated with your response or reputation.
Good response planning determines what will be done, why it is being done and how it will be measured. Good response communication shares this with affected stakeholders in language they understand. Unfortunately, many times the response messaging doesn’t match the response priorities. It’s communicators’ job to avoid response pitfalls to make sure it does.
What about pitfalls? What could go wrong?
What are response pitfalls? Actions or decisions that confuse, harm or obscure stakeholders’ acceptance of the response. Here are some of the most common and damaging pitfalls.
Impossible measurement
Beware of noble goals! Noble response goals can end up looking like noble gases: “Noble gases are typically highly unreactive except when under particular extreme conditions.” Not the definition of a response you want! You can’t guarantee outcome, you can only guarantee effort. Be sure messages describe response decisions or actions to meet a specific and attainable goal.
No measurement
We can easily use statements that express intent but don’t quantify activity. Every objective in a response is measurable – it’s the only way to determine success. Communicators need to ensure that all public statements are rooted in appropriate measurement.
Mixed messaging
We walk a fuzzy line between under-reacting and over-reacting, usually ending up with mixed messages. The classic oil spill mixed message is: “Oil is safe. Don’t touch it!” We struggle with how to both warn and assure stakeholders at the same time.
Misplaced measurement
You can’t measure someone else’s actions, you can only measure your own. Who is responsible for response actions? Who ‘owns’ the success or failure of the response? Success is measured with your actions and your objectives: It isn’t attainable if you depend on someone else’s actions to meet your objectives, or your actions to meet someone else’s objectives. Sounds simple, but this may be the most common pitfall.
Avoiding Measurement
The response refuses to accept… responsibility. In an effort to prevent ‘blame’, poor preparation and poor response actions aren’t identified. Quantifiable activities are avoided. Fault is avoided. Nobody steps up and says ‘I own this’. Measurement and responsibility is externalized to “someone else”.
What will your response look like to stakeholders who you are ultimately responsible to, if:
- Command has set an impossible measurement as the goal?
- Command has refused to set measurements for attaining specific objectives?
- Command has delivered mixed messages of what is safe and what isn’t?
- Command has delivered misplaced measurements and ‘passed the buck’ people not responsible for your actions?
- Command has attempted to avoid responsibility by making it someone else’s, so nobody ‘owns’ the response?
Here’s the catch: As Bob Dylan expressed eloquently’ “But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes Indeed you’re gonna have to serve somebody“. Responses have… responsibility. We all end up judged in the gimlet eye of the public. No entity escapes it. Judgement comes to those responsible. Failure to clearly identify and accept core, definable and attainable objectives leads to confusion and conflict. Bad communication leads to bad responses.
Most compellingly, bad responses lead to greater harm. Reputations are hurt. Communities are hurt. People are hurt. Trust erodes.
Sometimes the cards predicting a bad response are the cards read by the communicator. We own the ‘stink test’. We’re the only people expected to look at the response from the outside in, so we’re the only ones who will catch these pitfalls before they’re released on an unsuspecting response. Ours is the nose that matters. Stakeholder messaging must communicate priorities and avoid pitfalls. Only then can Incident/Unified Command expect either cooperation or acceptance in their actions.
We have to step up to the big table and exercise our responsibility to steer the response by steering response communication.