Communicators’ Corner

Can you identify this photo? A schematic of your Unified Command News Release approval process? No, though it sometimes feels like it!

It’s a photo of exhaust headers from a performance car, carefully designed to maximize the flow of exhaust out of the car’s engine. A properly tuned exhaust can actually help “supercharge” an engine by harnessing the wave action in the exhaust. When an engine’s exhaust valve opens, the high pressure in the cylinder following combustion creates a pressure ‘wave’ that travels down the exhaust primary tube. Effective design ensures that that pressure wave is properly directed to actually increase engine efficiency. This process is known as exhaust scavenging.  The trick is to properly time the waves.

Exhaust headers aren’t a topic that keeps us up at night, nor are they the pressing issue of our day. But they are critically important to an engine’s efficiency. When auto manufacturers are looking for every additional mile per gallon, or mile per hour, they include well designed headers in their quest. Plus, there are those times when we’re glad our car has some extra ‘oomph’ to merge safely onto a busy freeway.

While communicators don’t have to know how to ensure smooth exhaust flow for our vehicles, we should know how to ensure the efficiency of our communication flow. There will be times when a maximized communication flow becomes critically important. Particularly in a crisis situation, you’ll be glad your communication process can have its own extra ‘oomph’!

How do you make sure your communication efforts in a crisis will be effective? You have to perform your own version of ‘timing the waves’, looking for the smoothest possible workflow for your critically important function of sharing response information with a concerned public.

Where do you start?

Start with good design: A process and structure for creating and sharing response information that ensures a smooth flow of information. In the world of incident command or unified command, that process and structure is encapsulated in the Joint Information System (JIS) and Joint Information Center (JIC). The JIS and the JIC provide a structure and workflow tested over decades of actual use in scores of incident responses.

Make sure you know how to use it: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides multiple independent study training courses for response communicators, including comprehensive training in JIS and JIC usage. Most of them are online and free, so take advantage of this valuable resource.

Make sure your information flow functions effectively: There are impediments to effective response communication flow ‘built into’ many plans and processes. As communicators we need to look for these ‘traps’ that slow down effective response communication.

Identify and correct barriers to good information flow: One of the biggest impediments in engine performance is inefficiency that should have been identified and corrected. It’s an even bigger impediment to response communication. Many of these impediments are hiding in plain sight in our current response plans and communication plans. There’s an obvious reason for this: Most planners aren’t communicators, and most communicators aren’t planners. So effective communication isn’t ensured by a well written response plan, it isn’t supported by a rapid response guide for communicators, and it isn’t proven through targeted training and equipping of communicators.

How do you do this?

Read your organization’s emergency response plans: They tell you what physical actions will be taken, by whom and how. They also ensure effective initial notifications, often required by law. They’re your guarantee that an effective response will be conducted, and their capability is regularly tested in tabletops, drills or exercises.

They let leadership sleep at night.… unless leaders are concerned with effective stakeholder communication. While carefully written, tested and implemented emergency response plans ensure an effective physical response, they don’t ensure effective public communications. It’s up to communicators to read the response plan to know what communication issues should be addressed in it or with it.

An example: One key Response Plan function that communicators need to be aware of is the Initial Notification process. This is a list of notifications that must be performed at the onset of an incident by responders requiring immediate contacting of multiple pre-identified public or private entities: Response agencies, elected officials, critical infrastructure, vulnerable populations, regulators and other key public people or entities. Most of these notifications will result in the recipients taking public actions or sharing information with their stakeholders. Do you as a response communicator know who these contacts are, when they will be notified and what will be said to them? Your initial public message is being shaped, timed and delivered, but not by you. You need to know what information is being shared, and whom it is being shared with, so you can plan your communication around it.

Get to the top! But it can be worse: Some notification lists won’t even include you as an individual to be notified – or you’ll be listed last, after all the ‘important’ calls are made. Some calls are assigned to an internal call out list, and you may not be near the top of that list either.

Public awareness and concern about an incident escalates much more rapidly than any physical response actions can, so communication with your stakeholders is the first and most effective response action your organization can take. As the creator of this information you need to be notified immediately, as a primary resource and not as an afterthought. If you’re not one of the first people notified, your messaging is in trouble and your organization’s reputation is too. Get to the top of the list!

Ideally a communicator already holds a corporate leadership position, but that’s another post….

Where’s your rapid response guide? Can you develop public messages quickly and accurately from the information you’ll be provided when you are called about the incident? Do you have a formalized review and approval initial information flow that will quickly provide response information to affected (and notified) stakeholders? Has it been tested? (easier to do than you may think)

A good rapid response guide includes content that addresses the following questions:

• How bad is it? Incident evaluation tools that help you communicate incident severity from a communication perspective to response leadership, and helps communicators plan and conduct communication activities.
• What can you say? Statement templates and key messages that can be used as rapidly as possible.
• Who has to approve content? An effective approval process that ensures rapic publication of content
• Who do you share information with? Key stakeholder lists and guidance for accessing dissemination platforms
• Who can help? A list of response communicators who can help you as the inicdent grows, including mobilization, capability assessment and effective placement within a response communication structure.
• How do you engage? Guidance for effective inquiry management with concerned stakeholders.

Just as it’s nice to know that your car has a little extra oomph to merge onto a busy freeway, it’s nice to know your response communication can happen as quickly and effectively as possible. Does it?

If you aren’t sure, contact me. I can help!

‘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.