It is not uncommon for the Ammerman office to get a "rush order." Some executive somewhere has agreed to an interview with CNN, The Wall Street Journal or a trade publication and wants to be prepped to face that one reporter with knowledge and confidence. But put that same person in front of 5,000 employees and he/she will decide to just wing it. Wrong. So wrong.

Here in the post-dot.com/Enron world, internal audiences can be the toughest sell of all, yet the need to win their trust and get their buy-in is often ignored. Smart managers understand that a message ill delivered at home will have little luck in the larger arena of clients, industry analysts and shareholders, let alone in the competition-driven news media.

Harsh economic reality often means delivery of bad news to the (loyal?) troops. Even good or neutral news is viewed suspiciously, especially if communication has been unclear or less than forthright in the past. Cuts in benefits, layoffs, realignments that create stress - these announcements are left to HR to figure out because nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news. Even if your HR department is top-notch and has had thorough communications training, there are many situations where other managers must be a point of contact.

Yes, crummy communicators get to top positions for many reasons, sometimes even good reasons. We have seen these awful speakers read notes stiffly or ad lib awfully, fumbling and flailing and ultimately failing. Others aren’t so damaging, just ineffective. They leave listeners baffled, miss chances to inspire and come across dull when it is time to shine. Some people are mediocre messengers because they don’t make an effort to be good. Some are bad because they speak in terms only their peers understand. Others admit they aren’t good speakers and thus feel free to quit trying. What all these people fail to acknowledge is that these communication skills can be learned. We see huge improvements take place in a single day!

Lest we let one newsletter go by without saying it, here is it; audiences today are savvy, both outside and inside your company. Trotting out clichés and reading bullet points from slides will not cut it. Clunky video and webcast presentations may not be worth the cost of electricity. Treating associates with less care and concern than the other stakeholders is a mistake.

An organization that cannot communicate internally turns its back on itself. Or as the old cartoon character Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Back to top

The tragic accident at the Sago Mine in West Virginia has served as an opportunity for people to reexamine their own communications plans. While International Coal Group executives did a laudable job communicating information during the initial phases of the crisis, control of the communications process went horribly awry after incorrect information about the fate of the trapped miners went unchallenged by company officials. This worst-case scenario in crisis communications illustrates how easily things can get out of control in today’s lightning-fast media environment. Below are answers to some of the questions raised by this disaster and the breakdown in communications. This can serve as a guide for asking questions about your preparedness.

Q. When there was confusion about the fate of the miners, what could ICG executives have told reporters?
A. The issue here illustrates a key gap in strategy - having people prepared to credibly refute incorrect information - or information that is not verified. In this instance, the hesitation essentially destroyed the goodwill company officials had developed during the first few days of the crisis through their tireless efforts to provide updated information to the public. Company officials were concerned about the accuracy of the information about the miners being found alive, but were unsure what information was in fact accurate. Their energies were directed in trying to verify information - not raising questions about the information that everyone wanted to believe was true. In retrospect, what could have been done was an immediate statement expressing concern about the accuracy of the information. This would have helped stem the wave of media reports that essentially gave credibility to the incorrect information. It’s important to understand that the company’s silence allowed this to continue without challenge. This may have been a difficult position for executives since they wanted to communicate only fact but did not have any different information to refute what was being said. This is a situation all communicators should be prepared to adeptly manage in today’s lightning-fast media world.

Q. In analyzing the communications breakdown at Sago, some have pointed out that the company had new owners and couldn’t be expected to perform as a team. Does that explain things?
A. It does not. You must have people prepared at all levels to communicate to the different critical audiences during an emergency, or during management of a sensitive business issue. In addition, all employees must be sensitive to how information should be managed during an incident - especially information that needs to be relayed to family members. Ensure that your leaders are well trained and ready for a variety of challenges and opportunities. Today, they don’t get a second chance when the chips are down.

Q. How about communication with the miners’ families waiting for word in the church?
A. This is the most sensitive part of the process and perhaps the biggest gap that surfaced during the mine crisis. Company officials left that to the local clergy when it was completely their (the owners) responsibility. Assumptions are commonly made about how an organization should handle family members of those injured or killed.  We work with airlines and others on Human Services Response, and the misinformation we saw at Sago is what we call a “second assault.” The families had to bear the tragedy twice. A best practice is to have plans established and people trained for this effort in advance of a situation.

Q. Is taking care of workers and especially their families’ emotional needs really an employer’s job?
A. To do otherwise invites a landslide of other problems.

Q. Is that a function of the HR department?
A. It can be, but most companies assume HR has it covered without ever making sure that they do, although most HR people have not been trained for that. That, too, is a serious gap in the plan. But companies frequently fill the gap with EAPs (Employee Assistance Programs) that are completely outsourced and ineffective. Does it really show compassion for people at a tragic time to hand them an 800 number? Furthermore, the public judges companies by how they are perceived to treat their employees.

Q. Who should handle crisis communications - the company, its PR firm, a specialized crisis communications consultant or a combination?
A. Of course, a combination is the best alternative; but, in most cases, we believe the one who presents the company’s face to the public should be the highest-ranking person who is capable of doing it well. Research shows that people believe that when the PR firm or attorney is sent out to talk to the media, the facts are being spun. They want to know why high-ranking individuals are not visible and accountable. They are suspicious.

Q. How many trained people should a company have?
A. There needs to be at least one designated spokesperson per site who can handle the basics or even just delay properly until backup from headquarters gets there. And then there is the issue of the need to sensitize everyone. Part of the problem at Sago Mine was that people who overheard bits of a phone conversation were spreading around information. Controlling rumors and access to the site are critical components of crisis management from the first minute. That means that every employee plays a part, especially receptionists and security guards - the front-line people when it comes to outside contact. Every employee needs to be included in the plan and needs to understand his or her role, even if it is only refusing to gossip or speculate.

Q. Ammerman creates and implements crisis communications drills for clients. Since every crisis is unique, how useful is that really?
A. Our clients who drill regularly say it is amazing how much you can learn in just one day. You get an insight into the functionality of the plan, the abilities of the crisis team and most importantly - where the gaps are. And because personnel changes and many key people may travel, these drills really should be done at least yearly. An untested crisis plan is worth the binder it sits in, but not much more.

Back to top