The growing trend toward social media involvement has brought renewed emphasis to the idea of transparency for companies and organizations. It has become almost an expectation for some individuals that their personal lives and actions are constantly monitored by friends, colleagues, casual acquaintances and even complete strangers. With some people describing their every move on-line, their lives have become a constantly updated news release in which they provide nearly unlimited access to the who, what, when, where and why of their daily routines.
Such transparency has implications for companies and organizations as expectations rise that they, too, will provide more and more access directly to the general public through Web sites, blogs, Facebook and MySpace groups, Twitter postings and on-line interactive newsrooms. Combine these expectations with the prevalence and power of search engines, and we have a culture in which people expect to be able to find the answer to virtually any question they can imagine within seconds. With wireless Internet access, there is an understanding that the answers to all questions are literally in the air all around us at all times. Simply stated, people today expect to be able to find out anything they want to know, whenever they want to know it.
In a crisis communication situation, this expectation can pose significant tension between a company or organization’s interests and the public’s “right” to know what is going on. The company typically is scrambling to gather information in order to understand the scope, details and implications of whatever is happening, often while the crisis is still developing. The tendency of most executives is to treat the situation as an internal, private matter until they have all their facts in order and have a comprehensive course of action laid out to address the crisis. In addition, the company’s legal counsel often will advocate that as little as possible be said publicly in an effort to mitigate potential liability.
Yet the public may be clamoring for information at the same time as this internal assessment and planning is going on. Whether they are shareholders, neighbors, the news media or simply interested parties, these people expect information and regular updates. If the company stalls for time and says little or nothing, these audiences often assume the worst and conclude that there must be something the company is trying to hide. Protecting the company’s legal interests by avoiding comment is certainly a consideration, but so are the ramifications of damage in the “court of public opinion,” which, even though it may be a tired phrase, is nonetheless a vital consideration because of its long-term business implications. Any vacuum of information will be filled somehow, and it is usually in the company’s best interest to fill it themselves, even if only partial information is available.
It is possible to strike a balance that provides a degree of transparency while giving an organization time to gather more information and make thoughtful decisions. The key is to establish a channel of communication as quickly as possible, allowing interested parties to know where more information will be available. This channel may be a specific spokesperson, a regularly scheduled news conference, a Web site, an e-mail blast, a telephone calling system, or any means of disseminating information that is visible and regularly updated. A utility company recently added Twitter to its outreach efforts to customers during a widespread power outage, helping to keep a rapidly growing audience up to date and garnering praise for innovative communication.
Another expectation today is that communication will be two-way. The newer technologies in widespread use are creating unprecedented opportunities for various audiences to have actual conversations with companies, not just receive information. Accordingly, good communication channels set up during crisis events should include an element to allow feedback. This creates not only a greater sense of transparency, but also can provide valuable insight into what issues are most important to key audiences.
Once these communication channels have been established, they must be used as often as possible. Even if there is little substantive information that may be shared immediately, an acknowledgement from the organization that the situation is being addressed goes a long way toward focusing people’s attention on where their answers eventually will come from. Whatever facts can be assembled about what is going on should be included, and, if possible, the organization may provide a general idea of what the process will be as the situation is assessed. Then, even before final courses of action or outcomes may be in place, additional messages may be delivered about how the process itself is developing.
These efforts to provide as much information as is practical or possible will provide a degree of transparency to the situation, with one critical caveat: increasingly substantive bits of information must be delivered in a timely fashion. Those wanting information are usually willing to be somewhat patient as long as there is a strong sense that real answers are on the way. But if no new information is forthcoming, early efforts to be responsive may be forgotten and the organization ultimately criticized for stonewalling.
There are many definitions of what “transparency” means for a company or organization, particularly in the context of a crisis communication situation. Making a good faith effort to share as much information as is practical typically will meet most people’s standards of being responsive – and responsible – even in the midst of a crisis.
