No, I am no prophet of doom. But while we are busy with plans to relaunch our businesses and make up for lost time, let's not lose sight of the fact that the pandemic will not be the end of the communicators' woes. Anticipation will help us spend time on prevention and, if something cannot be prevented, we can at least prepare ourselves to face the problem better equipped and trained.
The big waves come in sets of three. That's why I think that We must be prepared for a succession of three types of corporate crises:
The first will be corporate scandals. Last week, The Economist amusingly said that you only find out who is swimming bare-chested in the pool when the water level drops. This is what is likely to happen in the coming months: the embarrassment of some companies will come to light, as a shortage of funding or liquidity exposes problems that were hidden by the general abundance.
This forecast is based on experience: major crashes of industrial giants and large financial institutions tend to occur at times of widespread economic crises. This is what happened with Enron, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Madoff, Caja Madrid, etc. The crisis hurt everyone, but those who were on shaky footing due to risky or even outright fraudulent practices were brought down.
It could be like dominoes. The first one will appear thanks to the investigative work of some journalist, or by the leak of some manager angry at having lost his job in a bad way, or simply by pure chance. But as soon as that case hits the front pages, the other media and all the social watchdogs (police, supervisory and control bodies, activist groups) will smell blood and unearth corpses that seemed destined for oblivion.
Experience shows the effectiveness of what is often referred to as the stealing thunder (steal the thunder). Most likely, the first to know about these vulnerabilities will be the members of the executive committee. In this area, communicators need to remember an oft-recorded fact: organisations that publicise an internal problem before it is discovered by the media or another organisation. stakeholder reinforce their credibilityThe decisions are better received than apologies when the facts are already known. There is life after a voluntary and timely apology, but not when it is late and forced.
If such a course of action is not accepted as reckless (I think reckless is losing the initiative), at least the response could be prepared to be ready as soon as it is made public. It's not that good, but it's better than having to improvise.
The latter will be the crises caused by poor responses to the coronavirus. The situation is so serious that it is hardly surprising that some executive committees are debating whether to "take shortcuts" around the crisis, and are taking actions that border on the illegitimate and improper, or even cross the line into illegality.
Either because it is always like this, or because they have gone up to the button room via COVID-19, the active presence of communicators on the executive committee will help them to act as the conscience of the organisation, as well as allying with those who agree that it is important to manage for the long term.It is possible to deceive a few people for a short time, but today it is impossible to deceive everyone all the time. Cheating is always a voluntary mistake, for which audiences are much less sympathetic than for an involuntary mistake or a mistake of weakness.
And if not, then the crisis plan with its scenarios will also have to be prepared in advance. This would be the way to meet the three requirements of the corporate communicator: science, experience and awareness.
Finally, I anticipate that at the end of the so-called de-escalation, there will be more crises than before, caused by the deterioration of the social climate.. During risk, the main feeling is fear and uncertainty, and we look for a source of certainty first. This is what we see in cases of risk generation by companies, and something similar is likely to happen with the pandemic.
In local communities mobilising against polluting and toxic industries, the reality of these health hazards is initially researched, the opinions of doctors, scientists and other experts are sought, and anxiety and fear predominate. But this phase is followed by another: many people move from fear to anger, or to a certain calm "in the movement": they overcome fear by taking an active stance, that they are at least fighting to combat it.
As Herbert says: "we are in the middle of the risk period, but it will not last forever". The contradictions of authorities and companies may now be overlooked in the perception of many, but there will be retrospective assessments, and public dispute and recourse to the courts will grow. In other words: now we suspend doubt because we don't know which way to run, but once we feel safe again, many will start to doubt whether it was that big a deal, whether it was reasonable given all the contradictions, etc. And it will start the blame gameThe hunt for the guilty and even for the lukewarm.
It will be a difficult time, almost unprecedented, because everything will be in doubt. This crisis has brought back to the table that science is not certain, that experts contradict each other, that contradictory positions can be defended by appealing to apparently scientific data, and that media pundits abound. (sometimes not very serious, sometimes very successful because they are good communicators).
And the social networks? Worse. It has become a court parallel to the law, where the one who shouts the loudest, the loudest and the most bots. It often substitutes the jury for the mob it wishes to lynch.. It forgets that more than a century ago infamous punishments were abolished not because they were useless, but because they were brutal, and it practises ignominy and civil death.
In this context, communication activity in networks needs to be more cautious than ever, monitor carefully, respond calmly and put out sparks before they ignite.. More preparation is needed.
In short, more conflict not only of interests (which I resolve by negotiating), but also of principles and values, which lead to the radical rejection of the opposing position. In this polarised environment of mine and yours, corporate communicators will need to calm tempers, use a tone and language conducive to social cohesion, and promote goals that appeal to the whole of society.. Here too, overcoming political and social polarisation is more in the hands of business than of state institutions, from which sadly little can be expected at the moment.
To ride these three waves, we will need preparation, programming and training. Crises are times to invest more in communication: more bosses' time, more internal and external resources in planning, in knowing our priority audiences, in talking to them.. In January we did not take a flu-like virus seriously, but today we have no excuse.
Teacher of IESE Business School and Director of Crisis Communications at PROA Communication