The events of the current economic condition remind me of the importance of the fundamental communication principle: communication is highly symbolic. This guiding rule proves to be true for leaders in all types of organizations, and as you’ve most likely seen, an example of this principle recently appeared in the news:
• The CEOs of the Big Three automakers traveled from Detroit to Washington D.C. to negotiate governmental funding to help “bail out” their failing businesses. Instead of driving to Capitol Hill, each CEO elected to fly in his corporate jet. Congress responded to the automakers’ financial requests with frustration, in part because the use of a corporate jet doesn’t symbolize a financial crisis. Senators were also surprised by the CEOs’ decision to fly and not to drive in support of their own business – the automobile industry. After feeling the pressure of public scrutiny, each CEO drove a hybrid manufactured by his company to the next bailout hearing.
This example illustrates the symbolic nature of communication. It’s easy to forget that every action sends a message, regardless of whether you intend to send one or not. While an oversight of this principle can quickly diminish the quality of your reputation, the opposite is also true; deliberate, well-thought-out actions can quickly build your credibility and character. Successful leaders know the importance of good, strategic choices that are in line with their personal brand.
Ultimately, the above example exhibits that while you might not have control of the economy, you do have the ability to control how you communicate during difficult economic conditions. During these uncertain times, your actions speak even louder than before. In this economy, what do your actions symbolize?
In trying to catch up on my journal reading I’ve just been through the August 2006 edition (Vol. 34 No. 3) of JACR, which is a special section on “Best Practices in Risk and Crisis Communication.” The basis of the review is the NCFPD’s list of ten best practices, which are a result of an extensive synthesis of the body of risk and crisis communication scholarship. The best practices are:
- Process approaches and policy approaches (meaning, have formal processes for this stuff and have the communicator at the policy formulation table)
- Pre-event planning
- Partnerships with the public
- Listen to the public’s concerns and understand the audience
- Honesty, candor, and openness
- Collaborate and coordinate with credible sources
- Meet the needs of the media and remain accessible
- Communicate with compassion, concern, and empathy
- Accept uncertainty and ambiguity
- Messages of self-efficacy
Straightforward enough, and a good list. More interesting, though, was the response by Peter Sandman (HTML, PDF). First, he provides an interesting frame on the topic, noting there are important differences between when people are not worried enough about a serious hazard, too worried about a small hazard, and rightly worried about a serious hazard. Second, he notes:
My final comment on the best practices may be the most important. In an article as short as this, with only a few paragraphs on each of the best practices, they come out sounding pretty abstract but also pretty obvious–so obvious, in fact, that the reader may fail to notice that they are extremely difficult to implement and very seldom accomplished. They’re not so much best practices as they are aspirational goals. Any reader whose overall response is, ‘‘Yeah, we do most of that,’’ has been ill-served by the article. Odds are you don’t. Almost nobody does.
The best practices wisely concede that candor and openness are tougher goals than honesty (#5). But in fact, all ten of these recommendations are tough. They fly in the face of organizational culture, of individual ego, of technical hubris.
This sounded like the clear-eyed perspective of someone who’s done the thing and not just studied it. Ultimately, the matter one must solve for–in particular, that the leader must solve for–is execution. Strong communicative practice is tough stuff, made tougher by the fact that most approaches to communication problems are relatively unsophisticated and grounded in historical precedence and a journalistic tradition. The ultimate best practice is getting things done.
