I’ve noticed a major strategy issue emerging in some recent crises I’ve been involved in. When is addressing issues and concerns in your statements providing too much information?
For example, eliminating the potential source of a food borne illness. Saying something like: “The illness is not linked to this source because of …” Or, “we have eliminated the possibility of the accident being caused by…”
The disagreement in strategy relates to the belief that it is best to say as little as possible. People may not have even considered that source or cause, or those observing might not have even know that that was food was served or that situation existing to possibly cause an accident, so why bring it to their attention? It is a very good point and I can see the danger of doing so.
However, my philosophy has long been to identify the potential questions and address them in your statements as much as you possibly can. This does two things: communicates openness and transparency. More important, it reduces the questions that have to be answered. If some media outlets (or stakeholders) ask a question about it and others don’t, the reports are going to come out mixed and likely inconsistent. That undermines trust.
Managing a large volume of inquiries is one of the biggest challenges in a major crisis and most plans that I’ve seen to not adequately prepare for it. Providing consistency of responses and insuring information discipline is another big problem. Both of these are addressed, in my thinking, by providing answers to potential questions in the published statements.
No doubt there are circumstances where raising an issue is going to cause considerably more harm than the benefit gained. But, in general I’ve seen there is an unwarranted reluctance to address touchy subjects even when it is clear the question will have to be addressed.
But, would love to hear your thoughts on this.