“A Jesuit priest made sexual advances on me!” This was the famous claim of Mayor Rodrigo Duterte on the Presidential campaign trail in 2015. I first heard of it while being interviewed at ABS-CBN’s morning talk show Umagang Kay Ganda. I was there in my capacity as the spokesperson of the Philippine Jesuits to talk about the ongoing visit of Pope Francis who was a fellow Jesuit. I think it was host Ka Tonying Taberna who asked me to respond to the allegations of the future president. I was taken aback by the surprise question. And that would be a crisis moment for communicators!
Perhaps Ka Tonying sensed my uneasiness, and so even before I could make up a word, he signaled for a commercial break. During the gap, the rest of the hosts filled me in on Duterte’s story. Immediately I called our Jesuit archivist who gave me a few sketchy details. When we went back on air I knew what to say.
It helped that I had training and experience in crisis communications even before that fateful morning. We continue to teach a module on this at the Loyola School of Theology to seminarians, nuns, and lay students. The first and most important rule of crisis communications we share is Speed. This can be the make-or-break of a company’s response to a crisis. Within a few hours of a significant or tragic happening, the company must be able to face the public and communicate a cogent explanation based on available facts. The response can be through a statement or what is called a “holding statement.” But depending on the gravity of the incident, if it involves death for example, a live press conference is better advised.
The element of speed in crisis communications is crucial. The rationale is that if you don’t tell your story, others will tell it for you. You must control the narrative. This is most especially true in our social media age. Like vultures, would-be influencers are just waiting with a myriad of conspiracy theories to explain away your crisis incident. So the advice of experts is “Tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself!” Silence, therefore, in a crisis would be a crime. Needlessly, it gives the impression that the company is covering up or lawyering up. From a modern management perspective, this is also untenable. Progressive companies talk about consultative leadership, open communication lines, transparency, etc. Even the Catholic Church now talks about “synodality.” To deprive their many stakeholders of valuable information in a time of crisis, to keep them in the dark would be a suicidal act for a management team.
In truth, a good company is never caught by surprise by any crisis. I enrolled in an expensive and intensive training program in Singapore, and our mentor would insist that companies can in fact prepare for any crisis. That would be counter-intuitive, of course, but this is at the heart of what crisis-proofing companies means. Indeed, to a certain extent, crises are predictable. In the case of erring priests, for instance, the crisis can fall under a handful of categories—sex scandal, financial mismanagement or disobedience. Company executives foolproof their organizations by putting in place various protocols, such as Emergency protocols, safeguarding protocols, etc. With all these in place, the company is ready for any crisis. Absent of any of these, a crisis can break out and the crisis management and crisis communications team would easily detect and explain the problem. This is why speed is expected in highly functioning management teams, while delays and confusion from highly inefficient ones.
The ‘Weaponization’ of the Deaths of Rene and Divine
The next important principle of crisis communications is compassion or empathy. I mentioned earlier the “holding statement” which is the first response mechanism in a time of crisis. It is composed of three R’s (some say four) which are words of Regret, Reassurance, and Reform. Regret is saying that the company is sorry for what has tragically happened. Reassurance is communicating to the public the immediate actions the company is undertaking. And Reform is promising the necessary changes in terms of policies and structures so that the tragedy could be avoided in the future. These are the necessary messages that the public wants to hear from any erring company. But the first word, the first R, is that of compassion or empathy: We are sorry. Forgive us. Our hearts are broken. In a crisis moment, what paves the way for understanding and healing is kindness and generosity. People affected by a tragedy would look for humaneness or humanity in the company’s response. If the first word they hear is legal gobbledygook, that would be unforgiveable. That is why it is important to talk about the Spokesperson. People look for a human face to talk to and not just bland, perfunctory statements. In light of this, there is a longstanding tradition that the spokesperson should be a woman because women convey sympathy more naturally. In general, lawyers are not preferred as spokespersons, for they tend be square, formal, and legalistic. When I was new in this kind of work, I got a priceless advice from Cardinal Chito Tagle. He said just be sincere. People will see that and relate to that.
Finally, let’s address one nagging issue about crisis communications. Many mistakenly think that the latter is simply public relations work. PR work is of course all about image building. You sell your product by building your brand. Tragedies or accidents, however, can instantaneously destroy that brand. They are bad news for the business. But will you protect the brand to the extent of lying or manufacturing stories? Crisis communications on the other hand is all about the truth. You seek out the truth to protect or save not the image but the long-term credibility of the company or organization. And the truth, and in case of crisis, the hard and painful truth is always the foundation of the trustworthiness or integrity of an institution. Like humans, institutions are imperfect and prone to mistakes. That, people accept and understand. But a deceitful, dishonest, and lying institution is ultimately doomed. That’s why while many institutions seem to be allergic or fearful of media or journalists, they are in fact partners in the search for truth. They are allies, as my Singaporean mentor would tell us. And indeed, in that morning talk show, my friends in ABS-CBN fed me the information needed in order to respond to the allegations of Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. But my first word was one of humility, sincerity and sympathy. “Dear Mr. Mayor, if what you say really happened, I am truly and deeply sorry.”
0 Comments