Communicators’ Corner

I thought we were the good guys

Today’s asymmetrical reputational risk environment can be baffling to non-communicators.  We all expect that justice and truth prevail, that if we do the right thing everything will be all right. Corporations try to be good public citizens. Doctors try to save lives. Airlines try to keep to their schedules.  Risk assessment and response planning is focused on identifying the events that can disrupt normal operations and creating response plans that minimize impact and quickly resume normal operations.  If we do this right, everything will be all right, right?  Then why does it seem so easy to become the bad guy?

Today’s always-on communication environment doesn’t accommodate our premise. We are no longer judged by an objective standard of ‘how we do’; while this provides an important and necessary measurement for responders and regulators, we are much more likely to be judged on why we did what we did, and how our actions impacted people, places and things.

Doing the right thing isn’t enough if people don’t agree with what you did. You can do what someone needed, yet become the bad guy because you didn’t do what someone wanted. As a result, well-meaning and conscientious responders are surprised when the public doesn’t reward their efforts with praise and admiration. They are baffled by the negative responses and attitudes they face.  How can good response actions result in bad public opinion?  Didn’t we do everything right?

The traditional response math (right facts + right actions = happy stakeholders) doesn’t seem to work today.   1+1 = 2 only if affected stakeholders perceive it to be so. Feelings, opinions or biases easily overrule facts.  This changes how a response is perceived and how responders are treated.  Communicators need to help response organizations understand that their communication product must change to match their stakeholder’s perceptions.

Facts are critical, but beyond the ‘what’, planners and responders must become adept at the ‘why’. Otherwise good people will be deemed to be bad people. Good response actions will be labeled as bad and public trust and acceptance will melt away.

Most response planning is built around the a standard set of objectives:

1. Keep everyone safe – don’t conduct operations that increase the risk of injury to responders or the public
2. Protect the environment
3. Stop the incident – put out the fire, stop the flow, catch the bad guy, etc.
4. Minimize disruption and damage – respond as aggressively as possible while not negating objective #1 (safety)
5. Restore business operations as quickly as possible.
6. Restore affected people, property and environment to their original state.

These are good and noble objectives.  You will see a version of them in every exercise or event. Operators use these objectives as a response absolute – every decision revolves around them. Every response decision is weighed by whether the good of the action exceeds the harm of the action. Responders perform this response math all the time; the problem is that the public doesn’t. While responders assume that the right and reason of these objectives is obvious on all they do, stakeholders often take issue with them.

This dichotomy is real:

• In a major oil spill response, Unified Command made a decision to perform in-situ burning to destroy spilled oil far out to sea, before it could impact shorelines and their environments. This decision entailed painstaking consideration of whether the benefit (less oil on the beaches) exceeded the harm (incineration of all surface-dwelling animals). Burning commenced to great effect and responders congratulated themselves on making the best decision. Then the questions started; reports of marine wildlife being burned began circulating on the web and outrage began to mount. It required considerable effort by communicators to convince Unified Command that this was a real issue, and precious time and reputation was lost in the interim.
• While escorting a Native American longboat on a whale hunt, a US Coast Guard craft inadvertently ran over a protester on a personal watercraft. In the very public rescue operation that commenced, no stakeholders concerns were expressed for the safety of the protester, but many expressed concern for the whale.

We become the bad guy

Responder sensitivities often don’t match public sensitivities, and the discrepancy erodes public trust and acceptance. This exacerbates the preset, media-managed roles of public and responders. Even in responses with no obvious perpetrator, the public dialogue tends to become ‘us versus them’, with a victim, a villian and a hero. If your organization is designated as ‘Responsible Party’ you will inevitably be assigned the ‘villain’ role. The ‘victim’ is squishy, as each stakeholder group defines that role. In the case of the whale hunt mentioned above, the logical victim (the protester run over by the Coast Guard craft) wasn’t given that role – the whale was. In the in-situ burning decision, the villain was the RP, even though the decision to burn was a Unified Command decision. The victims were the marine wildlife, overriding any appreciation for how the actions taken were sparing other shoreline ‘victims’.

Remember, public sensitivities also won’t spare the nobility of responding agencies. Public agencies tend to assume the mantle of righteousness in responses, but are actually at greater risk than private companies. When something goes wrong, a villain must be assigned, and if any affected public sees an Agency’s actions as wrong, the ‘villain’ role will be quickly and firmly attached. Public agencies have little protection against an outraged public, because they answer to the public.

The antidote to being labeled the bad guy

What steps can you take to minimize the risk of being labeled the villian?

Don’t depend on facts

Responders live with facts and use facts to make decisions. They assume that facts will speak for themselves, but facts don’t. The critical information needed isn’t the ‘what’s’, it is the ‘whys’. Response decisions lead to self-evident actions. These actions don’t explain the responders’ decisions.  Instead they serve as evidence to support or rebut a bias or supposition. Stakeholders who think their interests aren’t being considered will gather facts that support their point, using actual response actions to prove wrong decisions or motives.

Share response rationale

Communicators need to make sure that the rationale for key decisions is widely shared. The reasons for deciding on a course of action will almost always support the listed response objectives, and can serve to remind all stakeholders that response actions always reflect the best possible decisions, made by the most capable people.  Messages prepared to explain why an action is being taken can also easily be augmented to address known or emerging issues or concerns. Specific stakeholders’ concerns can be addressed even while informing all stakeholders of an action or decision.

Don’t be passive

Finally, don’t passively accept public questioning of response motives; be ready to aggressively respond to it. While we all have a core belief that the right will be evident in the end, we ignore dissenting opinions at our peril. Public perception is a fungible commodity, and a loud voice accompanied by cherry-picked ‘proof’ can sway public opinion. It is more important to correct misinformation about response motives than it is to correct misinformation about response actions. Actual facts tend to correct themselves, but motives aren’t as quantifiable; a communicator has to carefully monitor what is being said about the character, competency or motive of responders, quickly and aggressively addressing misinformation about why specific actions are being taken. These rebuttals can always reinforce the key messaging that the best people are making the best decisions to mobilize the best resources for the best outcome.

Don’t be the bad guy

• Report response activities as quickly as they can be seen
• Share the ‘why’ of these actions, for understanding
• Tie the ‘why’ to specific emerging concerns and address individuals and groups concurrently
• Reinforce key objectives by tying them to response decisions
• Monitor and aggressively rebut any misinformation about the character, competency or motive of the response
• Use your rebuttal as an opportunity to reinforce key messaging

Interested in more information?  Contact me!

Why is it difficult for organizations to properly weigh the costs and benefits of public communication in a crisis?

A common observation from attending exercises; organizations can spend more money on food at one exercise than they spend on crisis communication preparedness for an entire year.

Countless sums of money are invested in response tools, but not much in communication resources. In a response, it often seems easier to mobilize an overflight than to pay a monthly fee for social media monitoring. Coffee service for response personnel incurs a greater weekly cost than a web monitoring service would for an entire month.

Why do communicators have to live in a parallel universe where their recommendations and needs are so lightly regarded? There are many reasons, but here are a few you can address.

People who need people are NOT ‘the luckiest people in the world’

Stakeholder information needs don’t impact responders unless those needs are predictable and quantifiable. This means that responders often don’t consider the importance of communication plans, objectives or resource allocation. This is a result of both conscious and unconscious thought. First, responders tend to think in lists; lists of risks, of responders, of equipment, and the balancing act of what can go wrong and how to physically address it. They are trained in evaluating and quantifying physical realities: How much oil was spilled? How many feet of boom are needed?

They aren’t prepared to deal with ambiguities, and communication by definition is ambiguous.

• Can you tell a response planner how many media people will contact you in a specific response?
• How about how many people will attend a scheduled community meeting?
• Can you plan how many staff you will need in a response, or for how long?

All of these measurements are ephemeral, unknown and contingent on what happens during and after a response. Additional variables are at play due to stakeholders’ awareness or response to an incident:

• What other news is ‘breaking’ that day? Media can only cover so much at any time.
• Presuppositions about the harm in what was spilled: A molasses spill can be as deadly as an oil spill, but who cares? A vegetable oil spill can kill as many birds as a gasoline spill, but who notices?
• Are compelling images or videos available? Stories that are hard to show aren’t covered as well
• Does the incident match an existing story theme? Are there known ‘bad guys, back at it again? Does it match up to a current investigative report series?
• Does the incident impact a ‘hot’ stakeholder group? If nobody cares, nobody will… care.

All these possibilities are subjective. Planners don’t live in ‘subjective’; they live in ‘objective’. And by definition and the examples above, working with people is always subjective.  It is very difficult to quantify costs versus benefits when you can’t pin down costs. The subjectivity and variability of communication needs, resources and costs makes traditional ROI computation very difficult.

Responders focus on outcome, not impact

A response planner can develop strategy that drives a response to a perfect conclusion, but leaves stakeholders angry or scared. As an example, letting spilled product burn may be the best operational response for both safety and containment, but stakeholders see smoke and assume danger. Even a ‘perfect’ response can cause stakeholder angst and communicator heartache.

‘Impact’ is a squishy term that can mean many different things. Responders always measure impact of any planned action, but it is the safe calculus of numbers. They aren’t prepared to multiply numbers by sensitivity to measure actual impact; this equation requires knowledge of which multipliers to use. A dead bird on a beach is part of ‘the circle of life’ today, but in tomorrow’s spill it becomes a symbol of someone’s greed or neglect.

Since communicators know these sensitivities, it is incumbent on communicators to share them. And responders need to give this information the same weight as information gathered from other areas of the response.

Responders don’t understand the criticality of stakeholder communication

They don’t understand that effective communication multiplies the impact of good decisions, while ineffective communication divides it. The old question; ‘If a tree falls in the middle of the forest, does it make a sound?’ is answered; ‘It does if a Joint Information Center is formed’. Many effective response actions are unseen. Multiple resources can be utilized with incredible results, but affected stakeholders who can’t see or understand these results may remain alarmed and worried.

Communicators need to become expert in ‘upselling’ response investment to include the high value of effective communication.

Responders see things, not people

Planning and responding are all about identifying risks, probabilities and assets. Risks and probabilities lead to response plans that allocate assets for maximum effect. In this world, a backhoe is equal to a skimmer, is equal to a portable restroom, is equal to a SCAT Team member, is equal to a section of boom – all are seen as assets to implement for greatest effect.

They don’t see people, and in fact seeing people would get in the way and hinder their effectiveness. This is a natural and necessary reality.

The problem isn’t in the effectiveness of planning and response; the problem is that people are always involved in any response, and people get in the way of planning or response activities. Communicators need to advocate for people, and remind responders to consider; ‘what would I think if this was happening to me?’ It shouldn’t change the response decision, but it should impact allocation of resources and priorities for effective communication.

This is where communicators come in

You are the people experts, and you are the response tool that stakeholders need. Responders usually deliver excellent response actions and outcome, but unfortunately that outcome often isn’t readily understood or accepted by impacted stakeholders.

Several years ago in Canada, a fuel storage pump caught fire, and operators made the perfect response decision to allow it to burn itself out. The result? Zero injuries, minimal property damage and minimal impact on the stored product; a perfect response strategy and a perfect outcome. Unfortunately, this pump pumped fuel from an enormous underground storage tank, hence the fire was seen as a threat by thousands of local residents who were aware of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of flammable liquid below the pump. This figurative firestorm of outrage contributed to provincial legislation requiring operators to guarantee effective incident notification to all pipeline neighbors.

This major impact on future operations of all operators in the province could have been minimized by a simple decision to communicate WHAT response actions were and WHY they were undertaken. A responder can’t be expected to recognize this. A communicator must.

Unified Command, the response structure and process shared by all participating organizations, is organized with specific sections reflecting specific expertise and responsibility. There is a Planning section charged with developing effective response plans. There is an Operations section responsible for effective deployment and cooperation of response assets. There is a Finance/Admin section responsible for approving all expenditures, tracking total response costs and ensuring everything is paid for. Trained, capable and empowered experts in their specific functions staff each section.

There is also the Joint Information Center (JIC), staffed by the Public Information Officer and related staff, responsible for public information. Only the Public Information Officer and JIC staff are expected to be experts in public communication. Awareness of, training for or sensitivity towards public communication by any other command staff is a bonus.

The PIO’s primary responsibility is NOT communicating with affected stakeholders; their primary responsibility is sharing communications expertise with the rest of the command staff. As much as Planning lays the course for operational success and Finance ensures funding for the response, so the Public Information Officer should be regarded as the expert on public information.

Your greatest responsibility before, during and after an incident is to advocate for, support and ensure effective public communications. Command staff must regard the Public Information Officer as the expert in stakeholder communications and should regard the PIO’s recommendations with the same weight and trust as any other Section leadership. We are the experts. You are the expert. Assume the role!

You must impact your organization leadership’s thinking to regard public communication as the most important objective of a response

They do not naturally consider this. You must advocate for it. How?

Accept your responsibility to provide public communication

Act like the expert you are. Stake out your ground as the public communications expert. Share your experience with Unified Command.

Explain the risks of poor public communication

Poor public communication damages effective responses. Uninformed stakeholders are untrusting stakeholders. If accurate (Command) information isn’t shared, inaccurate, incomplete or biased information will be. Irritated, activated stakeholders can negatively impact response planning, actions, safety and costs.

Stake out public communication content needs

In today’s world, every action is known, or will be known, within minutes. Command cannot withhold any information for very long and will always look suspicious if it does. All response facts must be shared as rapidly as possible. Response decisions played out in response activity should be shared publicly.

Differentiate between ‘what’ and ‘why’

Stakeholders today will know WHAT is happening very rapidly. There is no benefit in not immediately sharing response actions. However, stakeholders are often completely unaware of WHY things are happening. Your job is to persuade Command to allow you and your team to share what is happening at every level with minimal delay. Then you need to focus their attention on sharing the ‘why’. Command staff recommends, reviews and implements specific actions in response to specific facts. These actions are determined for specific reasons: That is the ‘why’.  Public communication that shares why actions are taken is the ‘secret sauce’ that is the key to stakeholders’ hearts.

Explain why ‘why’ is important

Facts often don’t stop us from assuming intentions. We all do this instinctively. We see an accident scene and we fabricate the reasons why it happened. A famous couple separates and we speculate why they did so. A manufacturer abandons a product and we assign motive. The conversation about the facts we see or hear becomes a sharing of assumptions, biases and justification – but it does not become the truth. Truth lies in understanding what is happening and why it is happening.

What + Why = truth

Pontius Pilate became infamous through all human history by asking one question; “What is truth?” For crisis communication and issue communication, perhaps for all communication, ‘truth’ is an understanding of what is happening and why it is happening. As a communicator, you should strive for permission to share facts autonomously, so you can focus your efforts on guiding Command to clearly enunciate why they are doing what they are doing.

Remember that people need people

Incidents and accompanying response actions both impact people. It is the Public Information Officer’s responsibility to remind Unified Command that people have been impacted by the incident, are being impacted by the response, and will be impacted throughout the recovery process. If Command staff understand the impact of their command decisions on people, they will be more sensitive to public communication need and process.

Interested in more information?  Contact me!