Communication challenges in a major crisis
February 7th 2009 now named ‘Black Saturday’ is clearly written in history as the worst disaster ever encountered in Australia. Major bushfires took over 200 lives and thousands of people were displaced, losing property, businesses and in some cases whole communities, particulaly in the state of Victoria.
This is change that has been thrust upon people, and quite understandably has created shock, anger and blame as the logical reaction. These reactions are no different to what we manage as we change within our organizations, but it's always interesting to see what communication challenges come up during times of major crisis.
No matter how well communication to communities have been over the years in being prepared for fire and encouraging people to have a fire plan, nothing could have prepared people for a day with over 46c heat and 100kmh winds that created the fire storm. Still, it's what we do during and after a crisis that brings us our biggest challenges.
Reacting in a crisis
During the crisis and for days after there was a constant stream of media coverage, not only showing devastation and heartbreak, but a sense of appeal and community spirit to show support. That support in terms of money, clothes, food and even blood donations was outstanding. The messages were clear in what was needed and the action from the public was a clear message to victims that they were supported and help was there.
However the debate would start about how people could have been given warnings earlier and did authorities do enough to communicate? A very hard debate indeed, but blame is yet another emotion that is associated with crisis and change.
On March 2nd just earlier this month, the Victorian Police issued a warning about extreme temperatures and wind conditions matching those of "Black Saturday". They decided to work with the major telecommunication providers and issue the warning directly to everyone's mobile telephone via text message, just asking people to prepare and seek further information from the local radio. Over 5 million people received this message in a two-hour period. What followed was a huge debate about whether this was just striking fear into people, or if there was a real threat. Sending out these kind of warnings can quite often be a case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't". It was interesting to see this debate play out quite clearly on the various blogs and social media platforms.
So what does this mean for us as communicators?
It's always the case that in a crisis, just like any change there are certain needs:
- To be heard, listening is so important, allowing people to grieve and de-brief is the first step.
- The need for information, particulaly more detail is crucial right through the crisis and after.
- It's also important to be very clear about who needs to know what information and how will you get that message out? Focus on the key messages to the right audience via the most effective channels.
One of the most fascinating things I found through this particular crisis, was the amount of communication through the widest variety of channels and how much of this communication was via "citizen journalism". Also how the debates about communication raged on multiple blogs and organization websites, in many cases the general public would either attack or defend the actions of the nation's emergency services or government. The value in fact was through the debate… Is our role sometimes to simply provide the platform?
Let me leave you with a link to one of the many YouTube videos and one of Australia’s major media sites.
Adrian Cropley, ABC
Managing Director, Cropley Communications
www.cropleycomms.com
Have your say
As Cropley asks above: "Is our role sometimes to simply provide the platform?" How much crisis warning is too much?
Further reading
Delivering successful change communication
Latest podcast |
Deal of the week |
|
New podcast on audience segmentation for internal comms
See all Melcrum podcasts |
|
