Crisis Communication Comments on Walter Pierce

Comment on these two post as if you were me and put there names back on top so I can identify who is who. 100 WORDS and DO NOT COMPARE THE POSTS:
Walter Pierce:
I would argue that government and private companies should NOT eliminate the communications approval process, but CAN potentially reduce the time taken to approve messages prior to public release. If I am a government employee with access to information regarding a particular incident and simply push it out to the public in order to be as near-real time as possible, I may have the benefit of delivering very current information indeed but at the very high risk of having inaccurate information. This in turn will have a two-prong negative effect: a) it confuses the public when the agency keeps amending its information, leading to a decrease in trust by the public, and b) it opens the door for individual retaliation against me by my superiors, who have been left out of the approval process and are now free to hold me accountable for inaccurate information (even if it was the most accurate I had at the time). As an actual government employee, I don't want to be in that position! Or as Ann Wylie stated, "I…never want to spend a day giving a deposition because of something I wrote in a press release” (Wylie, n.d.)

However, I do believe that the communications approval process is often very unwieldy and can lead to really outdated information being released to the public. I think two steps can aid with this. The first is that whenever possible, stick to either hard copy/faxed draft communications or emailed PDFs, with the purpose of reducing the amount of potential rewriting by superiors (Wylie, n.d.). Another idea is to lean on your agency’s/company’s Public Information Officer (PIO) to be able to aggressively but politely engage face-to-face with upper-level decision makers and essentially press them to make a timely decision on communications releases. The 2007 FEMA Basic Guidance for PIOs states simply that a role of the lead PIO is to “obtain approval from those in authority before releases are made” (FEMA, 2007). I would take role as literally as possible and, whenever possible, just walk into the Incident Commander’s, CEO’s, or other decision-maker’s office with a printed draft in hand.

I know this sounds much simpler than it really is, but I believe that part of our problem today is that so much communications traffic is delivered via email that it can easily become “out of sight, out of mind”. Rather, using traditional methods like hand-walking drafts in is always a best practice in my mind.
Leah Batisse:
During a crisis period, were lives are perhaps at stake, taking too long to release information can cause emotional distress to families of potential victims. Following bureaucratic rules in a crisis may not always be the most efficient method to ensure that stakeholders get the information they need. If the situation is fluid, waiting until a message is completely accurate may prove to be a futile activity. Additionally, the timely release of information could be critical to saving lives, such as in the case of an active shooter or food contamination.
However, there is a need to make sure that someone has reviewed the content of a message before it goes out, to make sure that information is as accurate as can be expected and to reassure the public. It would be counter-productive to release rumors and unverifiable information that causes the audience to panic or act on false information. There is perhaps no perfect solution to ensuring that information is released in a timely and fact-based way. However, one could argue that an organization, whether it be a government body or private enterprise, should put in place communication plans specific to likely crises. Communicating via social media as part of regular operations is one thing and following the approval chain does not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the public.
In a time of crisis however, an organization should have in place triggers that result in a leaner, more efficient communication team specific for the purpose. In this case, perhaps fewer authorities need to review and approve a message than in the normal course of business, in order to increase efficiency. As Zaremba (2015) has suggested, “Organizations must recognize their vulnerability to crises, establish an effective communication infrastructure, apply stakeholder theory to develop relationships and be sensitive to diverse cultural orientations” (p. 96). If an organization plans effectively, it can communicate effectively. In a time of crisis, if a plan is in place, the organization should no what to communicate, who to communicate to, and how, in the context of the given situation. One of the conditions may be a simplified approval process. Indeed, to some extent, messages can be prepared in advance as part of the plan and therefore speed up communications even more.

References
Zaremba, A.J. (2015). Crisis Communication Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.