As a media trainer, I’m often called upon to help companies and organizations in times of crisis. Those crises have been as varied as human experience itself, everything from a salami recall to a celebrity (who shall remain unnamed) behaving badly, to grave situations such as train wrecks or epidemics. I’ve helped big companies with thousands of employees and little companies with five. I’ve helped CEOs and sanitary engineers. But regardless of the crisis, there’s really only one problem: fear.

Of course, there’s always something to be afraid of. Life is a dangerous business. It’s a wonder we even get out of bed in the morning: danger is everywhere. If you’re in business, there’s danger in a handshake; if you’re in government, there’s danger in a smile; if you an environmentalist, there’s danger in the air you breathe.

In a crisis, there’s even more danger. And if you’re in charge, lives can depend on your decisions. At the very least, your next pay cheque can depend on your decision. In a crisis, the fear factor increases to the point where it’s the most palpable presence in the room. Yes, you can smell it.

It can be argued that fear is a good thing – it keeps you focused and on your toes. But in my experience, fear impairs the decision-making process. People are more worried about what could happen than what is actually happening, which prevents them from acting decisively and credibly.

My job is to help them communicate while they’re dealing with the crisis. Communication at such times is vital: there are people directly affected who need information or need someone to hear their call for help. There are people who are indirectly affected who need to know what’s going on. And then there are the bystanders, the inevitable chorus of the curious.

Fear makes communication difficult. Look what happened to Michael Brown, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who was universally vilified for his failure to act swiftly and decisively in the wake of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of Louisiana and Mississippi. He spent too much time in Washington waiting for someone else to act, and then, after he was removed from his job, he blamed everyone else for not acting quickly enough. When you’re the head of the national disaster relief agency and you have a national disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina, you get to the scene faster than Anderson Cooper (the white knight of CNN). Not only will it help the victims of the disaster, it will help you keep your job. The first thing I say to anyone facing a crisis is simple: roll up your sleeves and dig in. Not only does it work for those who need your help; it’s the best possible optic.

Sadly, perhaps, a leader in crisis needs not only to respond decisively, but to be seen as responding decisively. It’s hard, I admit, to do your job when you’re standing in the swamp and the media sharks are circling, but if you see the media as a resource, not a threat, they can help on two fronts – one, by providing useful information both to and from those affected – and two, as the representatives of public opinion.

The information exchange between crisis leader and media is a two-way interaction. You need the media to act as, well, media. They are conduits through which you channel information to those who need it. The more information you provide, the less they are required to rely on speculation, rumor and loose talk. Tell them what you know, but don’t tell them more than you know.

Here’s something I’ll never understand – BC premier Gordon Campbell hurried to the scene of the sinking of the ferry Queen of the North, which was a good thing. But then he started congratulating everyone for averting a disaster before he knew the disaster was averted, only to find later that two people had not escaped death by drowning. That was not a good thing; it was foolish and contributed to the anguish of their family. Why would he do that? Tell people what you know, but don’t make statements or promises not grounded in fact. It sounds simple, but people rarely act in their own best interests. No matter how savvy, we are emotional creatures and so often controlled by our feelings. The premier, swept up in the celebratory atmosphere, thought the threat was over and succumbed to relief.

Journalists are excellent sources of information, even when they’re barking rude questions. If you have a way of listening to journalists, if only through their questions, you learn much about the situation. After all, they are trained to gather information. You ignore or isolate them at your peril. You need their information. Find a way to listen to them attentively, without fear, and they will reward you with intelligence.

In a crisis, it is difficult to see the media as anything more than a threat. But if you understand that any encounter with the media, no matter how fraught with danger, is an opportunity to communicate with your target audiences, you can harness the press as a way of addressing public opinion.

People are so afraid of the pen (and the keyboard and the camera). The fear is legitimate, perhaps, especially if you’re the above-mentioned Michael Brown, but if you roll up your sleeves and deal with the media the way you’ve just rolled up your sleeves to deal with a crisis, you have nothing to fear.

It is important to understand your role as a communicator. Your truth is at least as important, often more so, than the rumors swirling around the situation. But it is NOT self-evident; you have to state and make your case. You have to identify your messages and support them with illustrative or illuminating examples. You have to bargain for your own context. It is not spin when you’re asked a tough or even an unfair question to say: “Allow me to put this into context…”, or “The key issue here is…” You are bridging to your message and your example or illustration, and your message is valid, even vital.

The reason I fiercely defend my clients’ right to tell their story in their own terms and their own words is that I’ve come to understand they are so intimidated by the media that they feel guilty or lack confidence about their own point of view. It’s a human error to send tainted salami to market. It’s natural to feel guilty. But it’s also necessary to remind people, at the same time as you inform them about what’s being done to limit the threat to public health, that 99 times out of 100 the salami is not tainted. Otherwise, the public will form a false impression about the safety of salami, which is not useful to anyone.

There are those who will be perfectly happy to undermine the public’s confidence in salami, but they have other agendas than the truth of the matter, and they need to be addressed with resolute determination. Why sit back and allow people to be misled by notions and propaganda? The media will talk to your critics because they need as much information as they can get. It’s no use standing back and criticizing the media for failing to discern the truth; it’s much more effective if you roll up your sleeves and communicate the truth as you see it. The consequences are invariably less severe. Franklin Roosevelt was right: we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Here’s a biographical note -- Three decades in the media have given Paul Sullivan and Sullivan Media a powerful basis for developing effective communications strategies. Based in Vancouver, BC, Sullivan Media works with a wide array of corporate and organizational clients across North America to create effective communications plans and products.

Paul Sullivan

President and Director of Strategy
Sullivan Media
1600--750 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC - V6C 2T8
Office: 604-685-4742
http://www.sullivanmedia.com/ 

Article publié dans le Magazine de la communication de crise et sensible vol. 11

CALL FOR PAPER IN ENGLISH
All information :
www.issues-management.org

(c) Tous droits réservés par les auteurs