Author
Dr. Denis Mancevič
The impetus for this topic came from a recent job interview I had a few weeks ago. The young candidate mentioned that he wanted to work primarily in the field of crisis communication, and when I asked him how he envisioned it, he summarized the theory quite well. Fine and dandy. But practice is something else, and so are practical (personal) experiences.
Over the past ten years, I've accumulated quite a bit of experience—dozens of crisis communication cases where I was involved both on the side of the organization or company directly impacted by the crisis, and (later) as an external advisor. In this field, experience counts triple: I don't know a single leader or owner who, in the event of a crisis, would allow key people around them to "learn and get to know" the ropes. These situations can bury the reputation and trust in an organization, cause a mass exodus of clients, and lead to the replacement of leaders and entire management teams. Therefore, it’s better to be well-prepared for such situations and know who is trained and who will play key roles.
This post will be followed by others on the same topic; we will also share our knowledge and experiences in other ways, so stay tuned. For now, a brief introduction on where to start and how to tackle the basics, where theory can quickly lead us to (over)simplified and impulsive solutions.
What is often forgotten and consequently lacking are credible details about what measures the organization or leadership has already taken, within what timeframes, and what the next steps are. This information significantly impacts trust in the organization.
Every theory on crisis communication states that it is necessary to promptly provide all interested public (many fail at this very point) with as precise information as possible about what happened and when, the extent of any damage, if anyone was injured, the severity of the injuries, and whether the circumstances pose any danger to the surroundings (spills, accidents in production processes), and so forth. This is absolutely true. However, what is often forgotten and consequently lacking are credible details about what measures the organization or leadership has already taken, within what timeframes, and what the next steps are. This information significantly impacts trust in the organization; the directly involved stakeholders do not just need the bare facts about what happened (which we no longer have control over, but we can influence how others perceive the event), but especially what the most responsible individuals and the organization/company itself will do to fix/improve/help the situation.
This is a cliché and unfortunately a common recommendation from external advisors when asked what to communicate directly to those involved or what the tone of communication should be. But what if it won't be fine? What if there are fatalities as a result of the crisis event? Mass poisoning? Severe environmental, habitat, and human consequences? Long-term pollution? In such cases, the phrase "Everything will be fine!" only further angers the involved people, as it reveals a shallow empathy, showing that you want to quickly dismiss the recipients of the communication. Therefore, it is strongly, strongly discouraged in most cases. We must absolutely show a great deal of empathy, compassion, and understand the concerns of internal or external stakeholders, but not in this way. We need to offer all possible and available help, express condolences, and if necessary, certainly apologize (too rarely seen in external communication, even though it is very powerful!); while avoiding blanket quasi-reassuring words like the mentioned one.
However, practice shows that in reality, both extremes are most often used: everything is allowed (consequently, we comply with all media requests) or nothing is allowed (silence, a tactic of hiding and waiting for it to pass). Both are ineffective, and in some cases, can also be dangerous.
During crisis communication, it is difficult (if not impossible) to find time for structured thinking, although it would be highly beneficial. You are bombarded from all sides: from leadership, internal publics, local residents, and of course... the media. The media are certainly one of the main communication channels in such situations, but we must be cautious. Media interest in such situations is linked not only to the "public interest" (the public's right to be informed), but also to increased media readership or viewership. Perfectly legitimate. It is necessary to be aware of these two interests and to decide quickly when a media interest or request (e.g., filming inside production facilities, employee statements...) in crisis cases is really in the public interest, and when it is simply a tendency for more sensational reporting and clickbait headlines. Yes, sometimes the line is really thin, and there is no objective criterion for easy decision-making. Experience and critical (though quick) reflection on this duality undoubtedly help. However, practice shows that in reality, both extremes are most often used: everything is allowed (consequently, we comply with all media requests), or nothing is allowed (silence, a tactic of hiding and waiting for it to pass). Both are ineffective, and in some cases, can also be dangerous.