By Alusine Fullah
At this modern age, people (especially corporate and government officials) must be prepared to communicate effectively with the public and the media to deliver messages that inform without frightening and educate without provoking alarm whenever acts of terrorism, financial frauds, mass violence, natural or other disasters, and public health emergencies occur.
But first, I need to clarify what we mean by crisis. In daily conversation, the word is used quite casually. As a simple experiment, listen to the people around you for a day or two. Most likely, you will hear friends, fellow employees, or fellow students describe routine problems they are facing— fender benders, forgotten appointments, disgruntled mothers-in-law, bad hair days, or losing records of favourite university football teams—as crises. All are bad experiences; however, they are not, by Hermann’s (1963) definition, crises. Similarly, with some degree of regularity, organizations face events, such as unexpectedly low sales or the defection of key employees. Again, these are difficult times for organizations, but they are not necessarily crises. In a classic study, Hermann (1963) identified three characteristics separating crises from other unpleasant occurrences: 1. Surprise 2. Threat 3. Short response time.
All crises create threatening circumstances that reach beyond the typical problems organizations face. The threat of a crisis can affect the organization’s financial security, its customers, residents living near a production facility, and others. For example, when a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, the crisis threat was widespread. The considerable amount of oil on the water’s surface was devastating to the fishing industry in the area. Birds and other sea animals were also impacted by the spill, thereby adding levels of threat to the ecosystemtem of the region.
People and organizations/ institutions often fail to effectively communicate because of a lack of clear communications goals and key messages to support them. Setting such goals and identifying support messages are decisions that should be made prior to issuing any public comment and are especially important in a crisis. In a risk communications situation, a constant tension exists between providing accurate information and providing information quickly. Both demands pose risk as well as communication opportunity.
In his book Crisis Communication Guide, Coen Pustjens defined Crisis communication as: “The collection, processing, and dissemination of information required to address a crisis situation…”
To wait for all information to be complete and verified before releasing it to the public can create an information vacuum that will almost certainly be filled with rumour and speculation. To release information that has not been double-checked and turns out to be inaccurate, however, runs the risk of misleading the public and undermining your credibility as a spokesperson.
Crises require clear, concise and consistent communication. Crisis communication encompasses components of normal communication but also differs in distinct ways. At times of crisis, political leaders, parties and governments are called on to provide a quick, empathic and trustworthy response. The public wants to understand what is going on, what political leaders or corporate guys are doing about the crisis and what they themselves should do. Crisis, by its very nature, contains many unknowns and uncertainties, and this leads to fear, anxiety and anger, mostly about what could happen. This makes effective crisis communication a strategic resource that can contribute to the success of the crisis response.
As a politician, business man, party or government there are important rules that apply to crisis communication. During a crisis there is often little or no time to plan or prepare elaborate communication strategies. Rather crises require immediate skills to communicate with the public. Politicians, parties and governments must ensure that crisis communication is timely, transparent and based on correct information, but also honest and frank, showing empathy and understanding about the public’s concerns. In the current Super Advertis saga, crisis communication is essential to ensure that people understand the risks that involve in financial fraud/ online gambling and follow recommendations to protect future scams. It can be a tool that helps manage or even reduce the scale and impact of a crisis. This article provides crucial guide for politicians, parties, business men and governments to effectively use crisis communication in crisis management.
As a writer, haven made several observations (theoretical and practical), I have come to the conclusion that crisis is inevitable in all works of life. This means that no person/ organization is immune to crisis. However, it can be managed and controlled. The major tool in crisis management is communication.
Also, there are several key principles apply to crisis communication. These should inform the language, style, content and structure of crisis communication. There are many crisis communication rules to abide by, but for the purpose of this article I will just highlight four.
Respond quickly: making announcements early shows leadership leads to trust, reduces rumours and can save lives. It signals the politician, business guy, party or government has ownership of the crisis and is willing to step up and resolve it as quickly as possible. Delayed or slow crisis communication, in turn, creates panic and uncertainty about what is happening and who is in control. It allows the crisis to grow unchecked and enables unwanted perceptions to become “mainstream.”
Moreover, it breeds speculation and allows spoilers to fill the information gap with inaccurate or deliberately wrong information. Providing information, sharing regular facts and updates and communicating frequently counter these developments. During a time of crisis, abide by the rule that making a good decision today is better than waiting for a perfect decision tomorrow. Time is important, but crisis communication should not be rushed. Do not speculate; instead, wait for basic important information about the crisis to become available before communicating. What we say during a crisis helps define perceptions, assumptions and policy preferences. If we do not act quickly, those associations will have already formed and will be difficult to change. In the case of heath crisis, it is essential to provide quick information about suspected cases and how and where the virus is spreading, as it gives citizens the ability to respond and limit further spread of the virus.
Focus on Facts: use and reference data, statistics and visuals as much as possible. These shows you are making informed decisions based on objective, independent and evidence-based information that anyone can consult. Avoid theorizing about the crisis or speaking about technical areas with which you are not familiar. Never give personal opinions, never say “no comment” and never over answer questions. Avoid stigmatization or assigning blame to vulnerable groups at all cost.
Build trust and provide reasonable reassurance: without trust, the public will not believe or act on information provided by politicians, parties or governments. This can exacerbate or prolong a crisis. Explain who is in charge and whom citizens should listen to, implying who they should not be listening to and who is not in charge. Discuss next steps and what is being done in response to the crisis. Highlight emergency measures and policy responses that are being taken to control, limit or end the crisis. Set clear expectations. Try to explain what the next steps of the party/government is going to be in response to the crisis, what potential developments are likely to take place and how those will affect people’s lives, as well as when the next communication will take place. Acknowledge uncertainties and admit if you do not have the answer to certain questions, while ensuring the answer is provided at a later moment. It is better for citizens to know what information is missing than to give wrong information. Making experts part of the conversation and allowing them to take centre stage at times reinforces that decisions are made by including those who are most knowledgeable about what is happening. Look at the future and provide perspective, do not linger on the past or what went wrong. Be optimistic and hopeful in tone, not defensive and sombre.
Show empathy and sympathy: do not trivialize people’s concerns, minimize problems or imply they should not worry. Those are completely understandable and healthy reactions to a crisis. Talk about the way the crisis is likely going to affect people’s lives and what they can do to minimize the impact. For example, explain where people can go to get help or their eligibility for emergency measures or relief. Speak from the heart and show emotions. For example, “It’s natural to feel anxiety. I am so sorry about this. This is a worrisome situation for all of us.” Or express how you personally feel, mirroring widely held feelings of fear, frustration or concern. People are looking for hope during a crisis, so give examples of resilience, unity, bipartisanship and positive news, even if they are unseen benefits. For example, a lot of people cope with tragedy by trying to help their community. Highlight campaigns and relief initiatives set up locally by civil society or citizens. Acknowledge victims and those that have been directly impacted by the crisis if possible. Moreover, make sure their basic needs, like food or water, are provided.
