Category: Trust

How to communicate in a crisis situation?

As unexpected storms arise in the public arena more and more often, where even an innocent cauliflower can become the most popular character of the week, a person can start thinking how far communication and public relations go as technologies improve and socialization increases. Tools and possibilities to communicate are becoming more and more numerous and varied every day, but do we know how to use them property to their full extent? Do we know what to do in a case something goes wrong?

Theory and practice

According to Andrius Kasparavičius, the head of the agency Komunikacija ir Konsultantai, there have been discussions about crisis communication going on in the public relations community for a long time already, but all those talks are mostly theoretical – possible situations are simulated, past events are discussed, specific acts are analysed. „There are theoretical considerations that public relations specialists should foresee crises and get ready for them in advance”, he said. Only there a tiny problem here – each crisis is different and often so unique that foreseeing and guessing future events is probably a mission impossible.

Most prominent police crises

As we are engaged in theoretical considerations, others experience those crises and feel their impact on themselves. And experience is probably the best teacher. Ramūnas Matonis, the head of the communication division of the Lithuanian police, remembered three major communication crises he personally encountered in one or another within 10 years of his practice. The whole of Lithuania certainly remembers them well, too. Those crises included an event in Skuodas district at the end of 2007 that shook everyone, when a drunk police officer killed three ten-year-olds in a traffic accident, the notorious Garliava paedophilia scandal and, finally, a rather recent story of a captured Kalashnikov gun. It is probably easiest to remember and evaluate the last one. The head of communication was on vacation at that time and learned about the event right after he left the plane, in other words – he suddenly found himself at the very zest of the problem. “We were somewhat late to react that time, as we announced about the event and published the suspect’s photo only after about one hour. However, afterwards, we used more efforts and communicated really a lot”, R. Matonis remembers.

Exemplary communication

Kasparavičius reveals: “The Lithuanian police can be praised for a very successful communication not only in traditional media but also on Facebook. It is a perfect example for all other state and public institutions, which often generally avoid speaking or do not think it is necessary to comment on anything.”

Actually, in case of this communication crisis, when a gross mistake seriously undermined trust in the police as a whole, persons responsible for communication did not get lost and started giving small details about each action performed by the police – they were regularly notifying the media and the population about the course of the operation. “We were actively working for over 5 hours until he got caught”, R. Matonis remembers. “And then, at night, we organised a press conference right away and all management took part in it. It was directly broadcast by several televisions.”

How long does a crisis take?

It is a perpetual question – when can one say that a crisis is over? When can one already end the communication period and resume other work that was probably forgotten during the crisis? After you put down fire in one place, can you be sure that it will not start in another place? Let’s remember the long-discussed story of the Kalashnikov gun. When did everything end? “I think, people started to forget about the event only upon completion of the pre-trial investigation, after we published the escape material and informed the public what penalties would be imposed on the officers at fault, i.e. about 2 months later”, Ramūnas spoke. “Therefore, it is obvious that once a communication crisis happens, it will be remembered for a long time and a public relations specialist must be ready to speak about it and provide information practically at any time – even when it already seems that everyone has long forgotten everything.”

Crisis planning

The practice of getting ready for crises and planning them is still a very rare phenomenon in our country. “It seems that it is more relevant for large international companies. It is probably so because companies in general tend to save money in case of public relations as a non-priority field and optimistically believe that “it will not happen to me”, A. Kasparavičius says. However, it is obvious from public examples that it is very advisable to have a plan of several possible steps to be taken in case of a crisis situation.

Matonis thinks that it is important to stick to the main rule of managing a communication crisis both when planning crisis situations and in case problems actually arise. “All information must come from one source, i.e. it must be uniform and approved”, he says. According to him, the Lithuanian police have emergencies headquarters and, in case of a problematic situation, management and communication specialists gather there and decide what to do next.

Main principles

So, what are those main golden rules that must not be forgotten in the event of a crisis? Probably no one will object that today one of the essential principles in case of an unexpected and unpleasant event is not to keep silent, i.e. to explain, to share, to speak, etc., no matter how unpleasant it may be. Well, we live in an era of social networks and huge information flows. “Closing up, hiding and not giving any comments would be an inexcusable mistake”, A. Kasparavičius says. Actually, if you decide to keep silent, there will be persons who will talk instead of you and most frequently these will not be pleasant things. In a crisis situation, often at least two camps are formed – those who support or understand and those who condemn. In order that the latter camp would not win, it is necessary to voice your opinion and explain the situation. According to R. Matonis, expeditiousness is very important in a crisis situation, i.e. to share information as fast as possible. “It is also very important to tell the truth and the very information must come from one source in order that people would not be confused and misled”, the head of communication listed the main rules.

Matonis’ position was supported by A. Kasparavičius: “Probably expeditiousness and freedom are closely related to trust in the person who communicates. If people trust the person who announces information and he has the power to decide and behave at his own discretion here and now, many crises can be avoided altogether. It is the ultimate objective of public relations specialists. The more fires can be put down before they start, the happier both the client and the person who communicates are.”

How to avoid?

The head of communication of the Lithuanian police remembers a possible outbreak of a crisis that could have recently started. After use of an electric shocker in the centre of Vilnius, a businessman was arrested and taken to the police office. As a cell phone was not taken away from him, his started uploading photos from the police office to his Facebook account and telling how badly he was treated. Then the head, who was communicating by phone with colleagues in the police office, started asking his colleagues what to do and how to behave in this unpleasant situation. “As it was already evening, everyone suggested waiting for the next business day when everything would be already clear and only then to decide what to do next. However, the situation seemed out of control for me then, therefore, without consulting anyone, I took a decision myself – we announced the position of the police officers in the same social network. We explained that we were not seeking to declare any absolute truth, we were simply stating our position”, R. Matonis remembers. “And, to my surprise, that was enough for managing the crisis. To tell the truth, the businessman who was expressing his discontent and publishing photos from the police office personally deleted all information he had published.” That is just another perfect example how, in case of proper and timely reaction, one can prevent a greater communication crisis. Of course, trust in a public relations specialist is very important here. “Well, I can actually just express my joy that sometimes I can allow myself to behave not strictly according to our instructions and without a prior approval of our management, as it would actually take long and would often even be too late”, the head of communications said.

Is big freedom always good?

On the other hand, it seems that in state institutions such freedom is not a very frequent phenomenon, as one cannot see their representative openly communicating in the public. We asked R. Matonis how far police officers can go. Are there any restrictions for them to pronounce on one or another issue, to freely express their opinion with getting any prior approvals, etc.? “It is not very accurately and clearly regulated. Just recently we have had a situation, which made us think about it and start preparation of a relevant document”, the head of communications admitted. “I am talking about an event that attracted considerable public attention when a record about a drunk hostess of congratulations concerts was made public. Our policeman, who stopped her, announced his personal opinion about this event, which was not pre-approved by anyone, in his Facebook account. In my opinion, it would have been better if, before announcing his personal opinion, he had got his position preapproved by his supervisors and colleagues. On the other hand, he did not cause much damage and even on the contrary – he received considerable support. After this event we have talked for several times how one should communicate in the future, i.e. what should be avoided.”

Kasparavičius slightly contradicted his colleague and said that “namely such employees who freely express their opinion, who make statements very naturally and spontaneously, help to form not only their own image but the image of the institution as a whole, therefore it would be unreasonable to prohibit them from talking freely”. On the other hand, an opinion which is not approved and is debatable can be like a ticking bomb for a state institution – until the first failure. It is for this reason that strict rules must often be obeyed and consulting a colleague is always a good idea – a second look has never done any harm to anyone.

To erase the negative image

Still, no matter how well the Lithuanian police communicate, it is not able to totally erase the negative image. “It is sad that the police are still treated as some closed force structure”, R. Matonis said. “The institution also has older people, who have worked here for a long time already. They make rebukes and do not understand why the police publish information. They say that we do not need this. I cannot agree with them. Our actions and communication only proves that we are open and do not conceal anything. One of our long-term goals would be to prove that the Lithuanian police is not an outdated repressive force structure and when people hear the word “police”, they would think about an open and transparent organisation not afraid of committing any actions that would not have been tolerated some 10 years ago.”

These are nice and welcome aspirations. And crises management principles mentioned by our interlocutors – openness, truth dissemination, keeping in contact or expeditiousness – are a straight way towards creation of an image of trust. Actually, both state and public sector institutions should follow the example of the Lithuanian police and make brave public statements. Properly presented information and qualitative work of public relations specialists can help not only to manage arising crises but even to avoid them.

Why falsehood is so colourless and truth so multicolour?

It is paradoxical that the world being so variegated is full of extremities. I have heard several times saying “There is no one truth. There are many forms of truth or “This is the only truth and we all should believe it”. Worse still, however, is that the person saying this indeed hardly distinguishes truth from falsehood, since seeing only black or white in a really colourful world often prevents one from getting to the heart of the matter. Today falsehood may even seem very similar to truth. Nevertheless, everything is much simpler than it may seem. Truth exists and it may be easily supported by facts, evidenced by the respective statements and tangible arguments. Proving falsehood is considerably more complicated, since falsehood may be justified only by an even greater lie. And popular common sense says that you cannot hide an eel in a sack.

Let us now get down to the fundamental terms of good and bad. A human being is inherently prone to spread good things and create new meaningful things. The theory of hierarchy of needs published by the American psychologist Abraham H. Maslow already in 1943 states that the highest step of human needs is striving for morals, creation, acceptance of facts and certainly no prejudice. Only self-actualization and creation allow a person to feel happy. After all, we instinctively engage in doing good and creation without further considerations, since this is inherent in us. Nevertheless, there will always be such people who are not willing to create and do the good; thus, they seek to involve the people surrounding them in their own colourless space. They enjoy doing wicked actions, in particular, causing special harm and despising the people surrounding them.

Both creators and destroyers are inherently social and communicate with each other; thus, they understand that major works and accomplishments require support from others. Creators may easily receive assistance, it is enough to tell one’s goals to like-minded people and they quickly contribute.  This is a way more difficult for destroyers: one must convince that the evil and falsehood spread by them is “truth”. Thus, they must invent the “truth” and try to justify it. This is why such people too often justify themselves and pretend to be the victims. And we are inherently emphatic beings always sympathizing the disadvantaged people. Having listened to such falsehood spread by such “victim” for a long time, the person often does not realize that he got lost in the mist of false information. Such lie-based information should be referred to as the mist that lulls us and illuminates our eyes. This is referred to as black technologies in the field of public relations, propaganda in policy and simply slander at domestic level.

The psyche of the human being is rather fragile; thus, it is easy to induce it if the person himself allows this. The more of negative false information is stuffed into one’s head, the greater the mist in which the person gets and each time it is getting harder and harder to get out of it.  The mist is spreading and thickening until finally the person becomes a fanatic of some trashy conspiracy theory. As a rule, destroyers apply a very simple formula. They take a naked truth and dress it with a warm sweater in a midsummer, since the popular common sense says fair heat breaks no bones and it would be a sin not to believe it. In order words, destroyers force us to doubt about the truth by telling lies of the values that are important to us. Let’s say that they explain that doubts constitute the basis of democracy, that allegedly there any many opinions and several truths exist. The lower the education and the narrower the viewpoint of the person, the easier to deceive and convince him and bring the mist into one’s eyes. Such people do not see anything outside the walls of their home, live in their bubble and do not let anyone in. And, contrary to fake falsehood, the truth which is a relative of ethics is tactful and does not want to be an unwelcome guest. Falsehood must convince that namely it is the truth at any price. And this is not difficult if the person has never heard and seen the real truth. In principle, falsehood is destroying; thus, breaking a fence and visiting a person without an invitation does not mean anything contrary to the truth which creates things.

How the person should leave this vicious world of fences and see the truth? How the thick mist could be dispersed and how to see the truth? People should simply broaden own horizons, constantly take interest in different spheres, develop, check the facts, statistics, obtain information from several different reliable sources. The author of real information as opposed to information created for propaganda purposes never hides under unknown pseudonyms and never avoids answering unpleasant questions; he refers to several different well-known and reliable sources. He does not provide spoon-fed information, but leaves no room for doubt and forces to consider.

Finally, it should be recognised that we live in an ill, but quickly recovering society. Creators healers have medicine and are aware how to properly use it. If earlier a patient was sure that only black or white exists, today he already may see blue, red, yellow and even green colours. And there are so many shades! In order to improve and follow the examples of Scandinavian and Western countries, we should consistently spread the truth and under no circumstances not to deceive each other. This is the main function of multipliers. On the other hand, this is the fundamental rule of ethics which has already been followed for many years. The more lies we tell to the surrounding people, the thicker mist we create and narrow our activities as multipliers. The more truth is communicated, the greater opportunities we have, since the truth is always more appreciated than falsehood.

We should realize that there are no many truths. Instead, there are many shades of one truth as the world of the good is heterogeneous and multicoloured. Meanwhile, there is only one falsehood which is colourless, wearisome and dull. It is important to understand that we have to choose not between truth and falsehood, but between many shades of truth and always spread the truth by ourselves. The world of truth allows us to dispute, argue and discuss. Let’s learn to live a more colourful live.

Refugee crisis communication or refugee communication crisis?

“Refugees from Syria invade Europe”, “How to solve the refugee problem?”, “Is Lithuania ready to accept war refugees?” – every day similar headlines appear all over Lithuanian, European, and international press. Probably many people have already started to ask themselves: “Is there nothing else to talk about?”. Indeed, we cannot complain that this topic does not receive enough coverage. On the other hand, what do we truly know about it?

Essentially, the main and the oldest function of the media is to provide as many people as possible with objective information. While one might question objectivity in Lithuania, one cannot argue that there is not enough information. A considerably more important question is why we, having access to so much information, still know nothing? It’s very simple, actually. The amount of information is not directly proportional to its quality. Times have changed and the media is no longer content with merely providing information. First of all, it needs our attention as readers, so, although it is unfortunate, sometimes we are exposed to exceedingly superficial communication – captivating headlines, hot news, emotionally charged issues without solutions, etc. Properly delivered objective content as the main goal of the media stays far away for now. On the other hand, apparently, many Lithuanians would rather read about crime than look into new viable business opportunities. But this is a different matter. Today we have what we have. Barring a few pleasant exceptions when Lithuanian reporters travelled to dangerous areas and started reporting objective (positive as well as negative) information directly from refugee camps, we have a lot of noise, shrugging, and scaremongering. The media has achieved its goal – it presented the facts that are beneficial to it (that is, the ones attracting the most attention) and made everybody think and ask: “What will happen now?”

The answer to this question is expected not from news portals, newspapers or television broadcasts, but from directly responsible state authorities: refugee centres, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior, embassies, the European Union (EU) itself, etc. What do we hear from them? Absolutely nothing. We have many institutions working with this phenomenon which provide no information or only very limited, sometimes delayed, information. Essentially, there is a problem of improper performance of communication specialists or a lack of such specialists altogether. An inability to deal with crises. Communication of crises – this is what should be taught in our universities; communication specialists in particular should be in high demand in public sector bodies. On the other hand, one cannot say that there is a lack of such specialists. They exist, but they are successfully operating in the private sector.

Those who work in corporate communication are perfectly aware that their job is to always know everything and to be one, or better still, several steps ahead. The main task of a communication specialist is planning. Predicting communication actions if everything goes according to plan. Anticipating “what if?” situations as well. That is, having at least a couple of “B” or even “C” crisis plan options. As to the refugee situation, it was not all that difficult to predict people’s reactions and questions that will arise, right? Is it really so hard to just tell who the refugees are, what they are escaping from, why we have to help them, where we will accommodate them, how they will be integrated, etc.? These are simple questions that can be answered by any employee of the Refugees Reception Centre. Because for them, working with asylum seekers is a routine job. In addition, there are multiple channels for answering those questions: from social networks and blogs to particularly interested media, who will gladly listen and publish the information. After all, when a journalist asks a question, we do not talk about what he or she is not asking, and often really important things are not discussed because nowadays journalists have a different goal – sensation. Sometimes at any cost. The public forms an opinion which it is given, so what people will think wholly depends on responsible authorities.

We cannot say that our public authorities are completely silent. They do speak, but so little and so rarely that their messages are simply lost in an endless flow of information. In addition, they start talking too late, when the issue becomes particularly difficult and when a solution is suddenly needed. Then, when asked, they communicate very grudgingly. In other words, communication is not planed in advance, but carried out here and now, when the situation so requires. Most authorities don’t even have social network accounts, not to mention outdated spread of information via bought articles that no one reads. On the other hand, this problem exists not only in Lithuania, but also in other states and even in the European Union (EU), a huge institution with a generous budget, itself. Have your ever heard an account of the EU opinion on refugees that would comprehensively explain the situation in Europe? Probably not.

However, there are positive examples in our country and they are easy to find. One of the best examples is the Lithuanian police. Officers gladly participate in television and radio programmes, actively communicate in the social network “Facebook”, show daily police work in the long-running programme “Farai” (”Cops”), etc. Unsurprisingly, trust in police has been growing for the last several years. Why cannot other public bodies, for instance, the aforementioned Refugees Reception Centre, follow this example? Why, for instance, there is no information group online, where today most of us find all relevant information, that would provide explanations as to how many, where and what refugees will arrive and what stages of integration will be implemented, a group that would tell successful and less successful stories of refugees that are already here, present new arrivals, etc. For the public to understand that refugees may bring more benefits than problems to our country, all we need is imagination and people who would do this. Certainly, one can always blame the budget, but the aforementioned positive example of “To Defend. To Protect. To Help.” has a limited budget as well. If we want, we can always find excuses. Unsolved problems as well. Today we can be happy that within 25 years of independence we have made enough progress that information exists and, despite its gaps, is delivered to the public. There are still countries in the world that cannot boast even comparatively free media, where strict censorship is still in effect, and where there is a lot of propaganda, etc. Let’s be glad that the situation is steadily improving and let’s not forget that communication may be slightly improved every day. Very little is required: talking and sharing knowledge.