What Crisis Experts Say About Crisis Communications
I read a lot about crisis management. And here’s something I’ve noticed: the smartest folks in the crisis-management world tend to recognize that crisis communications is one of the trickiest areas to negotiate.
Over and over again I see skilled and experienced crisis experts say that crisis communications requires specific talents, specialized experience and a particular personality type.
I think they’re right.
For example, I came across a piece the other day on the website of R&D, a business-to-business brand that serves “research scientists, engineers, and technical staff members at government, academic and industrial laboratories around the world.” Titled “Striking Back When Disaster Strikes,” it offers a 12-principle approach to dealing with a crisis in a “cleanroom” manufacturing business. It’s a great piece. The approach outlined by author Kate Everett is detailed, well-reasoned, and of value to senior executives in any industry.
But the part that caught my attention (and warmed my crisis communicator’s heart) was this: “Entire volumes have been written about crisis communications. Do yourself and your company a favor: be sure you have an expert staffer or consultant driving the response. Not everyone can drive this type of communications competently or well. “
That’s something to remember the next time your boss, public-relations vendor, or attorney tells you that you don’t need a dedicated crisis communicator.
— by Paul Conley
The Limited Value of a Crisis Communications Plan
There are very few places where I have worked or consulted that didn’t already have a crisis communications plan in place.
The problem is that no one actually used them. My experience has been that even locating a copy of an existing crisis communications plan can be a problem at many organizations. No one reviews the plan once it’s been written. So no one remembers where it is. Often the plan has been ignored for so long that no one even recalls what it looks like. (Pro Hint: If you’re looking for yours, it’s probably a 3-ring binder, stored on a shelf somewhere in the Communications department, covered in dust.)
When the plan is finally located, it’s inevitably out of date. Phone numbers for key contacts aren’t valid any longer. Org charts are full of old information featuring people who left the organization years ago.
When I first start working with a new client, everyone gets a little embarrassed by this. We dig out the old plan. Everyone laughs a bit uncomfortably. Then people start pointing fingers and saying things like “The finance department was supposed to keep this updated!” Or “Our last consultant didn’t do his job!”
My reaction?
Don’t worry about it.
Here’s why:
Once an organization has written and distributed a crisis communications plan, it triggers a sort of complacency. People check “crisis plan” off their to-do list and assume that they’re prepared. They lose the sense of urgency that precipitated the creation of the crisis communications plan in the first place. And that’s dangerous.
Realizing that your plan is out of date and useless thus becomes good news. It reintroduces the sense of urgency that is crucial in getting an organization to prepare for a crisis.
In fact, I believe that the most important reason to create a crisis communications plan in the first place isn’t because you’re actually going to use it, it’s because the act of creating one forces people to actually think about crises. The plan itself isn’t all that valuable. The value is in becoming an organization that actively thinks and talks about what can go wrong and how to prepare for it.
In other words, writing a crisis communications plan is a way to help people at your organization become the sort of folks who can foresee trouble and respond appropriately.
The plan itself — that thing in the 3-ring binder — isn’t all that useful.
That’s because a Crisis Communications plan is just a plan. And “no plan survives contact with the enemy.”
So it’s better to think of a crisis communications plan as a direction, or an intention, than as a template or system. It’s better to think of its creation as an exercise that builds resilience, rather than as a process that creates a list of steps to follow when a crisis hits.
Specifically, a crisis communications plan outlines the intention to
buy time through the use of “holding statements,” i.e., short statements that can be issued rapidly when a crisis begins;
offer assurances to internal and external stakeholders that your organization recognizes the threat posed by the crisis;
offer assurances to stakeholders and the public that you’re taking steps appropriate to the nature of the crisis;
With that said, there are a few concrete things you should have in a 3-ring binder (and in a Google Doc or similar cloud-based system that you can access anywhere)
A list of the members of the crisis team, their phone numbers and email addresses.
Detailed steps to take in a predictable crisis, i.e., how to contact local media when a school run by your organization is closed due to inclement weather.
Background documents, templates, logos, photos, one-pagers, and other supporting material to share with the press.
A full directory of staff and key stakeholders’ phone numbers and email addresses.
A list of key media contacts.
— by Paul Conley
Past is Prologue. Remembering My Nonprofit Roots
Almost four decades ago I took my first job in the nonprofit sector, working as a "counselor" with developmentally disabled adults. It remains the job I am most proud of.
Today, the people who hold that job are called "direct-support professionals." And many of my clients are nonprofit organizations that employ them.
Given my history as a DSP, my ongoing connection to the profession, and that this week is "Direct Support Professional Recognition Week" here in the U.S., I wanted to give a shout out to today's DSPs by writing a short piece about the gig on a client's site.
— by Paul Conley
Have This Emotional Reaction, Not That One, During a Communications Crisis
In my last post, I discussed how emotion is the key factor in determining whether or not a crisis at a nonprofit is a communications crisis. If you haven't read that piece yet, you may want to take a look.
Today I want to talk briefly about the use of emotion in handling a communications crisis.
In brief, there are two distinct forms of emotion that tend to emerge during a comms crisis. One of them is dangerous and to be avoided. Yet it is extraordinarily common. The second is necessary and should be encouraged. Yet many communications professionals try to avoid it.
Let's look at them in turn:
The first is the defensive anger that a nonprofit team has when faced with negative press coverage. If you've ever worked through a comms crisis, you've seen this before. It's the CEO who says a reporter "is out to get us." It's the public-relations executive who grows furious over accusations made on social media. It's the senior team who thinks the press is full of idiots. It's the manager who takes the bait from an online troll and engages in furious debate.
Defensive anger is always bad. It can turn a small crisis into a full-blown disaster. When it appears at your nonprofit during a communications crisis -- and it will -- it must be squelched. Immediately. Don't let the people around you engage in self-pity or blaming. Don't let negative comments about reporters, activists, or other players in a comms crisis go unanswered.
The second is the genuine reaction that humans are expected to have during a crisis. If you've ever worked through a comms crisis, you've seen public-relations and legal staff try to keep genuine reactions from appearing in official communications. It's when a lawyer removes a phrase about expressing "regret" from a press release. It's when a death is described as unfortunate, rather than heartbreaking. It's when a a trusted staff member is convicted of a crime, and a nonprofit fails to express its shame.
Hiding a genuine reaction is always bad. It leaves an awful taste in the mouth of your intended audience when you issue a statement that seems ... un-human. Psychology shows us that people turn to people during a crisis, not to facts and figures. We seek validation of our feelings and comfort for our pain by turning to others of our species.
So when a communications crisis hits, remember this simple rule:
Don't point a finger. Open your heart.
(Editor's note: There's a considerable amount of research showing the power of expressing a genuine emotional reaction during a communications crisis. For an explanation of how this works, you may want to read up on a study published in Public Relations Review that "confirms that emotional signals embedded in crisis responses may affect corporate reputations by reducing feelings of anger and by increasing the acceptance of the organizational message." If you're not a subscriber to PR Review, you can read the study by signing up for a free two-week trial.)
— by Paul Conley
What is a Communications Crisis in the nonprofit world?
If you read enough books about crisis communications, or if you talk to enough consultants, you'll find there's a wide variety of opinion about how, exactly, to define a "communications crisis."
I have my own opinion based on my experience with nonprofits. For me, a communications crisis is what happens when there is significant level of negative emotion surrounding a nonprofit.
Let's start with the obvious: a crisis is when anything really bad happens.
But a communications crisis is different. A communications crisis is when a nonprofit has to respond publicly because a) something really bad happened, b) there is a substantial emotional component to what happened, and c) a reasonable person may assume that your nonprofit is responsible for the crisis occurring and/or solving it.
It’s also worth noting that a major communications crisis involves responding publicly to something that threatens your nonprofit's ability to carry on.
For example, some of my clients run nonprofits in the human-services field. They serve populations with intellectual/developmental disabilities, behavioral challenges, addiction issues, etc. Now imagine that there is young person being treated on an outpatient basis for addiction by such a nonprofit. Then imagine that this young person dies of a drug overdose. That is a crisis, but not necessarily a communications crisis.
But imagine if the family of the deceased takes to social media and blames the death on the nonprofit where he was being treated. That is a communications crisis.
Or consider this example: a reduction in state funding for programs that serve children with developmental disabilities is a crisis for nonprofits that provide those services. But a reduction in such funding large enough that it requires a nonprofit to close an after-school program is also a crisis for parents. And the emotional reaction of those parents -- particularly when expressed to reporters or on social media -- triggers a communications crisis for the nonprofit.
Things are different in the for-profit world. Certainly an emotional reaction by consumers to something a corporation does can trigger a communications crisis. But so can lots of events that don't involve an emotional reaction, i.e., a decline in operating revenue, a drop in market share, the discontinuation of a product line, etc.
But in the nonprofit world, emotion is the key. That shouldn't be a surprise. Emotions are what drive most of the nonprofit space. Nonprofits market themselves through emotion-generating phrases about "doing good," "serving under-served populations," "righting wrongs", "saving the planet," "protecting children," "supporting veterans," etc.
Emotion is the language of nonprofits. And when you lose control of how people express their emotions about your nonprofit, you have a communications crisis.
— by Paul Conley