Well, it depends. This idiom of how-long-is-a-piece-of-string strikes a chord with me. As crisis communicators, we are often confronted with questions for which definitive answers aren’t immediately available.
“When will a suitable port of refuge be identified?”
“How long will the fire continue to burn?”
“When will the vessel be refloated?”
“When exactly will the media coverage fizzle out?”
“When will the online hate and negativity stop?”
The parties who pose such questions are certainly aware that crises are unpredictable and recognise that crisis outcomes or timelines are difficult to predict due to the many factors – known and unknown – at play.
It does not stop them from asking.
Indeed, when a crisis hits, the questions come in thick and fast. The pressure to address these questions mounts quickly as emergency teams scramble to make sense of what they can cobble together from preliminary information.
The pressure could be relentless – the board of directors may expect hourly updates while inboxes get flooded with emails from various stakeholders including fretful partners, angry customers and uptight regulators.
The 24-hour news cycle only compounds the problem. Some journalists may badger for updates, which is somewhat understandable as they often face pressure from their editors in the form of tight deadlines.
Where do we go from here?
First, we need to triage the questions. This includes collating them, understanding what information is being sought, identifying dominant themes in the questions, establishing the identities and legitimacy of the enquiring parties, and determining whether we should address the questions – either in full or in part – if we can do so in the first place.
Second, we need to ensure ample and dedicated staffing. Media and stakeholder relations can be laborious, and it may overwhelm staff who wear multiple hats during a crisis. The staff should undergo the requisite training so that they are prepared to take on the work.
Third, we need to manage expectations especially for enquiries with hard deadlines. With deadlines looming, we could also find ourselves committing to promises, against deadlines that we cannot honour.
Worse still, we may feel obligated or compelled to provide holding answers laden with conjectures. Both are equally dangerous and ill-advised – there is little to gain and much to lose. If we cannot provide the answers, we should be clear and unequivocal about it.
Fourth, we must recognise that effective crisis communication requires commitment and determination to stay the course.
The rhetorical question that comes to mind is: “How long will the crisis last?”
The simple answer is that no one knows. Crises can, and often do, evolve unpredictably. We must be prepared to modify our strategies and tactics rather than sticking to a rigid plan based on a predetermined timeline.
Finally, it is worth remembering that crisis communication should be a two-way process. As the esteemed academics Harald Hornmoen and Klas Backholm aptly put it, “Listening is just as important as informing in crisis communication”.
Two-way communication provides avenues for affected individuals and stakeholders to voice their concerns and ask questions. When people feel heard and understood, they are more likely to cooperate and to trust your ability to manage the crisis.
Furthermore, two-way communication fosters real-time information exchange which is essential in managing the misinformation that has become so characteristic of the digital age we live in.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
