We analyse together with Yago de la Cierva, Director of Crisis Communication at PROA ComunicaciónThe role of communication and the steps to be better prepared to deal with a crisis. There are no recipes, but an analysis of likely and unlikely scenarios is a basic task, as well as being clear about who leads and their responsibilities, who executes and how, and who acts as spokesperson and what they say.
Yago de la Cierva is a Senior Lecturer at the IESE Business School, holds a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Navarra and a degree in Law from the University of Santiago de Compostela. He has dedicated his professional life to four areas of communication: journalism, corporate communication, university teaching and crisis consultancy.
"Talking about the management of an emergency such as the DANA until it is completely over implies assuming many risks: first, that we are talking from the outside, with partial and unconfirmed information; second, that whatever is said can be used as a weapon against others. It is preferable to wait, to let the data and emotions settle, to reflect in the past, and to make recommendations based on proven facts". This is Yago de la Cierva's first reflection.
However, he adds, "social attention to DANA can be a catalyst for change. Rarely do institutions change on their own initiative: they usually do so under pressure, internal or external. For this reason, it is perhaps not too early to draw some confident conclusions from the little certain information we have, and tinged as it is with the strong emotions that such dramatic events have aroused".
There are no recipes for dealing with and managing crises, neither for companies nor for public bodies. How should and can we prepare ourselves to manage crises before they occur?
The first of these lessons is that it is impossible to respond to an emergency effectively without advance preparation. This advance work has two elements: who is responsible for coordinating the emergency response, and what are the scenarios - the likely ones first, but also the unlikely ones with very damaging consequences - for which decisions need to be drafted and taken urgently.
The model of state chosen in the 1978 Spanish Constitution, with three levels of government (local, autonomous and central) does not facilitate the implementation of a universal recommendation in crisis management, which is the single command. However, this model cannot be blamed for the lack of coordination, but rather for the lack of implementation of coordination policies. We need someone to be responsible for the emergency, and there should be no doubt about who it is in each case.
What has happened to us? That we had not thought before about how to deal with a catastrophe such as the one we have suffered. I don't mean "this particular disaster", but a disaster in general. In fact, when an emergency committee already has experience of working together, even when it has not prepared for that particular scenario, it will know how to work in a coordinated way.
To give an example: not too many months ago, northern Morocco suffered a terrible earthquake, with hundreds of victims. Bearing in mind that the Spanish provinces that bathe in the Mediterranean share this fault line with Morocco, it would not be superfluous to examine our conscience and ask ourselves: have the public administrations in that region prepared for the not at all unlikely scenario of an earthquake on this side of the Strait of Gibraltar soon? Are we not capable of seeing the signs?
How are roles defined in a crisis?
The second lesson that seems to me to be obvious is that we must distinguish between emergency management and crisis management. An emergency always has a technical, expert response: fire brigade, police, civil protection, health services, and so on. They are the ones who have to respond, and politicians should limit themselves to giving them all the support they ask for.
The role of public authorities in an emergency is simply to say to the rescue teams and other technicians: tell me what you need and I'll get it for you. How could a politician get something right for which he or she has not prepared? If there is a fire, it is absurd to set up a crisis committee to decide what to do: the only reasonable thing to do is to call the fire brigade and go to them. If the officials responsible for these emergency services have to get the approval of their bosses, then we have paid for the response to be slow, fragmented and inconsistent, because it will depend on political criteria, which should not even be considered in an emergency.
Politicians are indispensable only afterwards, not in the emergency but in the crisis, i.e. in the communicative response to interest groups. I know I am incorrigibly naïve, but the facts show the need for more public administration run by civil servants, not elected officials.
It is tempting to look for culprits in the midst of a crisis...
The third lesson that comes to mind as I look back on what has happened is that, in the midst of the emergency, never ask whose fault it was: focus your attention on how to stop the damage being done. This is not an easy recommendation to put into practice, because the pressure to point the finger of blame (so eloquently called the blame game) is enormous.
However, it is inescapable to resist the temptation to point the finger of blame, with the immediate consequence of calling for heads to be chopped off. A cool and clear-headed mind is needed so as not to accuse anyone, because often the culprit is the key to getting out of the problem. The time will come to take responsibility, but only when normality has been restored, no one else is in danger, people's basic needs have been met, and an impartial investigation has validated those responsibilities.
What role does the media play in this scenario?
This prudence, of declining both cross-accusations and justifications of whether or not one is willing to resign, is as much the responsibility of politicians as it is of the media. It is reasonable for people to make irrational comments on social networks; but what really counts is what the media say, and that is why their role as a filter of contrasted information cannot be delegated. For this reason, the media should also reflect on what they can learn from what has happened, in a sectoral way: to stop and think about how they should behave in the face of such a catastrophe.
Let's continue with the lessons of a crisis What is the fourth lesson?
The fourth lesson that comes to my mind is that part of the answer is to clearly indicate ways in which we can effectively help those who wish to lend a hand. Dramatic situations such as the DANA and others like it (the Alvia accident in Santiago de Compostela, to give an example from my own country) awaken in many people the desire to help. Whoever coordinates the emergency response must do everything possible to show concrete ways to contribute to the solution. Not only because every hand is often welcome, but also because it has been proven that those who help suffer a lesser negative impact of the crisis than those who simply watched the news on TV and shuddered.
These channels of assistance, and the coordination involved - which is sometimes enormous - are not improvised either. They must be prepared in good time. Otherwise, the catastrophe will produce an even greater breakdown of trust in those who wanted to help and could not, and that fracture damages the social fabric.
What role does communication play in the crisis?
Fifth, unity of management brings with it unity of communication. These days we have seen the opposite: the response to the crisis was a kingdom of taifas, and consequently communication was also uncoordinated, confused, politically fickle.
Crisis situations require united communication, because we all want the same thing. Unity of voice is difficult when egos take precedence. At the very least, we should learn that, if public administrations are unable to speak with one voice, they should at least speak together, in front of each other, so that if there are misunderstandings - which there will be - they can be remedied immediately.
Finally, the DANA has shown something that is repeated from crisis to crisis: that, although emergency management depends on public administrations, businesses and private companies have a lot to contribute. At the end of the day, a company is a team of people who know how to work together thanks to a unity of management. In emergencies we need hands, but hands that are already organised, and companies already have the teams formed, the hierarchies established and the communication channels already in place.
Companies not only can help, they must help: they are asked, they are begged by their stakeholders. The structure is already in place, they need a senior management committed to the social causes that affect their employees, their suppliers, their customers, their regulators, their neighbours...
In the wake of the DANA - as with the pandemic - the generosity and commitment of companies will bring in response the benevolence of these stakeholders, who will repay them with their appreciation, internal cohesion, reputational enhancement, and resilience for when the time comes - through a culpable crisis or negligence, for example - when they need to be forgiven.
Six lessons that we can learn now, in a cross-cutting manner, and which are not meant to be an indictment of anyone, but rather to look to the future, because a similar or similar event - which is inevitable - cannot catch us unprepared as a society.
—————-
If your company is facing a crisis, needs advice or needs to train your spokespersons, please contact us at info@proacomunicacion.es.