COMMUNICATION STANDARDS:

THE PRINCIPLES AND PROTOCOLS FOR STANDARD-SETTING INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE COMMUNICATION)

James E. Lukaszewski, APR, Fellow PRSA
White Plains, New York, U.S.A.


Published by The Lukaszewski Group Inc., Ten Bank Street, Suite 530, White Plains, New York 10606-1933, 914.681.0000. Copyright © 1995, James E. Lukaszewski. All rights reserved. ISBN 1-883291-12-7.

---

INTRODUCTION

Webster defines a standard as something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality. When it comes to crisis communication, that authority is derived from the expectations of constituents -- usually those most directly affected by the problem your organization has caused or is causing.

Principles are comprehensive, yet fundamental rules, laws, doctrines, or assumptions. Here again, in the matter of crisis communication management, the explanations that will be necessary and the understanding that must be achieved rapidly have to be based on solid thinking, fundamentally sound approaches, and predetermined standards of conduct that are publicly acceptable.

Protocols are detailed plans and procedures. In this case, the protocols described here are based on standards and principles, which time and experience have demonstrated are so critical to effective crisis communication management.

If you have an existing plan, the first place to begin analyzing its effectiveness is against these standards. If you're examining plans from other companies or organizations as potential models for your planning process, test them against these standards, too.

You might ask what "authority" established the concepts presented here as standards in the traditional sense. The answer, based on more than 20 years of experience, is that the principles and protocols outlined here simply will have to be observed. The more damaging the situation, the more likely it is that these standards will be imposed by demanding victims, a demanding public, a demanding government, and a demanding media. Since the organization will be forced to observe these conventions sooner or later, why not incorporate them at the very beginning of your planning process?

Time and time again when we analyze how poor, delayed, or unnecessarily manipulative communication has damaged or destroyed the reputation, credibility, brand name, or the future of an individual, organization, or product, it often seems that then, and only then, does the search begin for the rules and tests to apply to achieve effective, problem-anticipating, ethically sound communication.

This monograph, which is based on handling hundreds of hands-on situations, outlines standard-setting protocols and fundamentally sound approaches that meet or exceed constituent or community communication expectations.

The standards are divided into three sections: communication goals; fundamental communication principles; and standard communication protocols.

STANDARD-SETTING COMMUNICATION GOALS

Model Communication Policy

The organization interested in having an effective, consistent, positive ongoing relationship with its constituencies must work within the framework of those constituencies' expectations. These expectations are the strategic communication standards that reflect the behaviors constituencies anticipate:

1.. Openness, accessibility . . . availability and willingness to respond.

2.. Truthfulness . . . unconditional honesty is the only policy.

3. Responsiveness . . . recognition that any constituent concern is by definition legitimate and must be addressed.

4. No secrets . . . our behavior, our attitudes, our plans, even our strategic discussions must be unchallengeable, unassailable, and positive.

Communication Priorities

Although actual communication response steps will vary based on specific scenarios, successful short and long term communication is the result of sound communication priority setting:

Priority #1: Those most directly affected (victims, intended and unintended).

Priority #2: Employees (sometimes they are victims, too).

Priority #3: Those indirectly affected -- neighbors, friends, families, relatives, customers, suppliers, government, regulators, third-parties.

Priority #4: The news media, and other channels of external communication.

Emergencies may require almost simultaneous communication activity in all priority areas, but the order is important. Effective execution is a primary concern precisely because time is insufficient and crisis resources are limited and stretched. This order of priority is most effective for containing, controlling, and reducing the visibility impact of emergent situations and the resulting reputational damage. It also tends to reduce the media's ability to alter the outcomes of situations because those affected hear directly from you without the filtration, inaccuracy, or emotionalism reporters and the media bring to high-profile situations. Besides, is this not the way our mothers, neighbors, victims, and employees would want us to do it anyway?

STANDARD-SETTING FUNDAMENTAL COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES

1. Communicate with those most directly affected first. Our organization's first obligation is to the health, welfare, and safety of the people most directly affected, our employees, and the protection, restoration, and recovery of company operations.

When events are unanticipated, we will:

• Respond quickly;
  
  
• Act conclusively;
  
  
• Take appropriate responsibility;
  
  
• Ask for help and understanding;
  
  
• Inform company employees immediately;
  
  
• Show concern;
  
  
• Strive for transparent decision-making, behavior, and results;
  
  
• Be open to suggestion;
  
  
• Explain to the community as soon as possible;
  
  
• Invite local officials to help with explanations, where appropriate;
  
  
• Seek out and talk to affected groups;
  
  
• Seek out and talk to affected agencies;
  
  
• Use simple, direct, positive messages;
  
  
• Stick to the facts and company policy;
  
  
• Use common sense;
  
  
• Be unassailable, unchallengeable;
  
  
• Be bullet-proof; and
  
  
• Be untouchable.

2. Local communication is best. Communication should be handled as close to the site of impact or emergency as possible. Field operations and facility managers, rather than the public affairs staff at headquarters, should speak, unless companywide effects are anticipated.

3. Speak with one voice, but not necessarily with a single spokesperson. Consistency, accuracy, and promptness are important goals in communication with the media, employees, local officials, and others. Although the spokesperson can be flexible in the way information is presented to different audiences, messages should be consistent. In field and plant emergencies, headquarters should remain in frequent contact to ensure that everyone has the same information and that spokespersons are saying the same things at each location.

4. Act quickly in communicating news of any adverse incident. The first hour or two are critical in getting the word out and setting the record. The media can broadcast a story across the country within seconds. If the coverage is based on facts our company has confirmed rather than on speculation by reporters, the news is likely to be more accurate and balanced. The first hour of emergency response is critical to establishing the perception of our ability to manage a crisis.

5. Cooperate with the media. Make every effort to respond promptly to press inquiries and provide appropriate assistance, after having dealt first with those most directly affected.

6. Make fundamentally sound decisions. Fundamentally sound decision-making involves simple, but subjective criteria:

• How many raised eyebrows and shoulder shrugs does a decision cause among base audiences (and employees)?
  
  
• Does the decision fly in the face of questions that can be anticipated? Such questions might be:

-- Why didn't you act sooner?

-- What did you know about this?

-- When did you know about this?

-- How long have you known about this?

-- Why didn't you tell us sooner?

-- Why do you have to do it that way?

-- Why did you wait until now to act?

-- Why now?

-- Is there no other way?

-- How many alternatives have you looked at?

-- Why do you have to make us fearful?

-- How can we trust you now when we couldn't trust you before?

-- What do you plan to do about it?

-- What if your approach doesn't work?

• Is our approach merely based on love of our own technology, site, data, and habits rather than on community or specific constituent expectations?
  
  

7. When the issue involves integrity or moral or ethical dilemmas, do the moral questioning1 quickly. When the public's deepest values are offended, extraordinarily fast action is required. It demands the moral courage to ask tough questions immediately and a commitment (the strength of heart) powerful enough to take the most appropriate action promptly. It may be necessary to go to extremes as a matter of principle to counteract the negative impact of situations the public, employees, and other audiences find morally troublesome.

Use a reasoning process based on moral questioning to move toward solution options:


• What did we know and when did we know it?
  
  
• What are the relevant facts of the situation?
  
  -- What are the decisions that have to be made?
  
  -- Who and what are involved in these decisions?
  
  -- What needs to be sacrificed to benefit the greatest number of people?
  
  
• What alternative actions are available?
  
  
• Who would be affected?
  
  -- Decisions should advantage the largest number of people.
  
  
• What ethical principles or standards of conduct are involved or at issue?
  
  -- "What are the morally debatable aspects of the issue or question at hand?"
  
  
  
  
• How would these principles be advanced or violated by each alternative action?
  
  -- Will someone's job or reputation need to be sacrificed to preserve the larger integrity and moral character?
  
  
• Is there a duty to update and inform?
  
  
• Who should be advised or consulted?
  
  
• What was the fundamental cause -- omission, commission, negligence, neglect, accident, arrogance, other?
  
  
• How could this have been avoided?
  
  
• Are all the crucial ethical questions being asked and answered?
  
  
• Are the actions we are considering open, honest, and truthful?
  
  
• What affirmative action is being taken now to remedy or remediate the situation?
  
  
• Did this happen because we have an institutional "code of silence" when morally questionable decisions or actions come to light?
  
  
• How will we disclose unethical behavior? To whom? How fast?
  
  
• What lessons can the organization learn as this dilemma isresolved?
  
  
• As an organization, are we prepared to combat the behaviors that lead to ethical compromises, such as lack of self-respect, self-discipline, self-confidence, or lack of ethical supervision?

8. Use problem-solving based decision-making processes management can support and use. A strategic management decision-making framework management can support involves:

Step 1. Description: Describe the nature of the issue, problem, or situation.

Step 2. Analysis: Analyze what the situation means, what its implications are, and how it threatens the organization.

Step 3. Options: Develop at least three response options for the situation presented from which management can choose. More can be suggested, but three is optimal.

Step 4. Recommendation: Make a recommendation. Is this what you would do if you were in the boss' shoes, and why?

Step 5. Unintended Consequences: Anticipate negative unintended consequences. Your most useful options will be the ones that cause the fewest negative unintended consequences.

STANDARD-SETTING COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS

Further analysis of communication breakdowns between constituencies and businesses, employees and businesses, and neighbors and businesses reflects a lack of fundamental thinking about what recipients of corporate and organizational communications expect. It is really a combination of attitude, behaviors, and specific language. The protocols below are designed to respond to constituents' expectations of effective communications.

1. Responsiveness: When problems occur we will be prepared to talk about them internally and externally as aggressively as we respond to them operationally.

2. Openness: If the public should know about a problem we have or are about to have, which could affect them or our credibility, we will voluntarily talk about it as quickly and as completely as we can, especially to those most directly affected.

3. Concern: When business problems occur, we will keep the communities and constituencies most directly affected posted on a schedule they set until the problem is thoroughly explained or resolved.

4. Respect: We will answer any question any constituent may have and suggest and volunteer additional information in the event they do not ask enough, or the right questions. We will respect and seek to work with those who oppose us.

5. Cooperation: We will co-operate with the news media as far as possible, but our major responsibility is to communicate compassionately, completely, and directly with those most directly affected by our problems, as soon as possible.

6. Responsibility: Unless incapacitated or inappropriate, the senior operating executive on-site will be the spokesperson during emergencies and other significant events.

7. Sensitivity: At the earliest possible moment we will step back and analyze the impact of the problems we are having or causing. Our intention is to inform and/or alert all appropriate audiences.

8. Integrity: If we are at fault or there is the perception that we are, we will acknowledge the situation promptly, be empathetic, and explain our mistakes, if any, or the misperceptions as quickly as possible. We will be true to our corporate and personal consciences. Our conduct will be morally correct.

9. Compassion: We will always exhibit concern, empathy, sympathy, remorse, or contrition -- whatever the case may require. Use such words as:

Alarmed	Regret/regrettable
Appalled	Sad/saddened
Ashamed	Shocked/surprised
Concerned	Sorrowful/sorry
Disappointed	Sympathize/sympathetic
Embarrassed	Tragic
Empathize	Unfortunate
Failed/failure	Unhappy
Humiliated	Unintended/unintentional
Let you down	Unnecessary
Mortified	Unsatisfactory

10. Consent: We will achieve consent based on viewing the issues from the perspective of our constituents. The process involves seven steps designed to alleviate community or constituency anguish, restore confidence, rebuild relationships, and reduce media coverage:

• Identify constituent issues, questions, vulnerabilities, including those they may not recognize.
  
  
• Analyze/Prioritize/Link issues to stakeholder segments including:
  
  -- Voluntary impact; and
  
  -- Involuntary impact.
  
  
• Create a timeline of events and look for patterns.
  
  
• Build stakeholders' opinions, attitudes, and misconceptions into the timeline.
  
  
• Revise the timeline to realistically reflect stakeholder impact and concerns.
  
  
• Develop a positive counteractive action/message strategy.
  
  
• Decide to postpone or abandon efforts based on whether they are acceptable to stakeholders.
  
  

11. Accountability: We will use an aggressive, conclusive, and unassailably specific seven-step process to regain public credibility.

Step 1. Candor: Outward recognition, through promptly verbalized public acknowledgement (or outright apology), that a problem exists; that people or groups of people, the environment, or the public trust is affected; and that something will be done to remedy the situation.

Step 2. Explanation (no matter how silly, stupid, or embarrassing the problem-causing error was): Promptly and briefly explain why the problem occurred and the known underlying reasons or behaviors that led to the situation (even if we have only partial early information). Also talk about what you learned from the situation and how it will influence your future behavior. Unconditionally commit to regularly report additional information until it is all out, or until no public interest remains.

Step 3. Declaration: A public commitment and discussion of specific, positive steps that will be taken to conclusively address the issues and resolve the situation.

Step 4. Contrition: The verbalization of regret, empathy, sympathy, even embarrassment. Take appropriate responsibility for having allowed the situation to occur in the first place, whether by omission, commission, accident, or negligence.

Step 5. Consultation: Ask for help and counsel from "victims," government, and from the community of origin -- even from your opponents. Directly involve and request the participation of those most directly affected to help develop more permanent solutions, more acceptable behaviors, and to design principles and approaches that will preclude similar problems from re-occurring.

Step 6. Commitment: Publicly set your goals at zero -- zero errors, zero defects, zero dumb decisions, zero problems. Publicly promise unconditionally that to the best of your ability situations like this will never occur again.

Step 7. Restitution: Find a way to quickly pay the price. Make or require restitution. Go beyond community and victim expectations and what would be required under normal circumstances to remediate the problem. Adverse situations remediated quickly cost a lot less and are controversial for much shorter periods of time.

12. Generosity: We will find a way to go beyond what is expected or required, even to "do penance" where appropriate.

13. Honesty: We will learn from our mistakes, talk publicly about what we've learned, and renew our commitment to keeping errors, mistakes, and problems from re-occurring. Our goal is zero errors, zero defects, zero mistakes, zero crises.

COMMUNITY/CONSTITUENCY TRUST-BUILDING COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS

Building, maintaining, and reconfirming a trust relationship with our community/constituencies is based on acceptable behaviors followed by constituent-sensitive communication. The two major aspects to community trust building are being proactive and having answers ready for the questions we know will be asked.

1. Be proactive:

• Provide advance information.
  
  
• Ask for community input.
  
  
• Really listen to the community and respond to its concerns.
  
  
• Demonstrate having heard by modifying or altering plans, goals, or approaches.
• Stay in touch.
  
  
• Build conversation-based relationships; speak their language.
  
  
• Bring the community into the decision-making process.
  
  
• Insist on fundamentally ethical behavior.
  
  
• Prioritize actions and decisions from the community's perspective.
  
  
• Develop values-sensitive strategies.
  
  
• Work within the values structure of the community.
  
  
• Act like the neighbor you'd like to have next door.
  
  

2. Have ready answers for these questions:

• Where is the need for what you'd like to do?
  
  
• How can there be no other ways of doing this?
  
  
• Why does something have to be done at all?
  
  
• Why do you have to put it there?
  
  
• Why now?
  
  
• Why in our back yard?
  
  
• Why do something that makes us extremely uncomfortable and fearful?
  
  
• Why should we trust you?

TRUST-BUSTING BEHAVIORS AND LANGUAGE TO AVOID

It is relatively easy to tell when an organization, or its leadership, is behaving in ways that will reduce credibility and cause additional reputational damage. The media and those who oppose tend to focus on corporate trust-busting behaviors and language, often killing any hope of negotiation, mediation, or solution. This is not the fault of the media or the opposition; but instead is strictly the failing of those who use this approach in the mistaken belief that it is effective or will somehow avoid having to deal with issues and questions. The price is very high. Avoid it. Since there is a relatively limited range of these unwanted behaviors and language, it seems appropriate to place them here as protocols to avoid. There are 12 categories of trust-busting behaviors and language:

1. Aloofness:

• Wait to respond -- "Maybe no one will notice."
• Develop our own story -- "They are uneducated and unsophisticated."
• "It's only one or two hotheads."

2. No Commitment:

• Refuse to talk; volunteer nothing. "Let them figure it out for themselves, like we had to."
• Answer only if they get the question right.

3. Delay:

• Stall responses.
• Hire big-time outside expert to study; report something next year (maybe).
• "We can't talk until we know all the facts."

4. Disdain:

• Avoid opponents; disparage them.
• Belittle uneducated questions and people.

5. Irritation:

• "They have no business being involved in this."
• "Let's get the emotion out of it . . . ; just stick to the facts."
• "There is no news here, why do they care?"
• "Be careful not to take responsibility."
• "It's only an activist fund-raising technique."
• "It's political."

6. Stonewall:

• Have the lawyers convey our "no comment."
• "Not to my knowledge."
• "Talk to the lawyers."

7. Hunker Down:

• "Anything we learn will be saved for litigation."
• "We'll talk only as a litigation prevention strategy."
• "If they can't get it right, we don't and won't have to talk to them."

8. Arrogance:

• No apology; no admission; no empathy.
• "Up yours."
• "Butt-out."

9. Reticence:

• "We must not set a precedent."
• "Let's not get all emotional about this. Stick to the facts."
• "It will probably go away by itself."

10. Avoidance:

• "Offer them ten percent less than they need; that way they'll have to turn it down."
• "Let them sue. We'll investigate, stall, and pay as little as possible much later on, if ever."
• "They don't deserve this much attention."

11. Abstention:

• "Our mistakes are our business. Accidents happen; everything in life carries some risk."
• "Zero is impossible."
• "We'll do the best we can and that will just have to do."

12. Defensive Threats:

• "There aren't even any standards to cover this, so how can you expect us to comply?"
• "We can't make a decision until the data is complete."
• "You don't understand why this process is important."
• "This is the only way this can be done!"
• "If you don't leave us alone, we'll take our jobs, industry, and payroll elsewhere."

IMPLEMENTATION

Whether you use all or just some of these concepts, the first step is to agree on a brief, positive public communication policy that will be adhered to, advocated, and practiced by the most senior managers. Without this leadership approach, it is unlikely that your organization can truly develop a principled communication environment. Sooner or later issues and problems that matter must be handled by those at the top. If their behaviors, attitudes, and language do not reflect these principles, your organization will not have a principled communications program.

By the same token, it is not necessary to include every section of this monograph in your program. But remember, these concepts are based on the lessons learned by companies that got into serious trouble by not thinking through these issues, questions, and situations in advance; or that talked a good game while their actions and behaviors failed to match their words.

These are very serious matters -- so serious in fact that they can define the careers of executives, the reputations of companies and brands, and the professional competence of those in charge of management communication.

The overall goal is to have an unchallengeable, unassailable, pragmatic approach to crisis communication. Frankly, this is the only sure way to control the perceptions that result from your company's external and internal attitudes and behaviors. Good luck!



1 Adapted from a concept discussed in West Point Way of Leadership, copyright © 1993, Col. Larry R. Donnithorne (ret.), Bantam Doubleday, Dell Publishing, 1540 Broadway, New York, NY 10036.

---

THE LUKASZEWSKI GROUP IS PREPARED TO HELP

We're experts in helping clients develop and implement compliance, ethics, and integrity programs that meet or exceed Federal and judicial mandates and, even more importantly, constituent, community, or employee expectations, especially during adverse situations. Client companies that have adopted the standards outlined in this monograph are becoming models of integrity and ethics in their industries.

In addition, we're specialists in crisis planning; designing and executing intense, situation-specific crisis simulations; managing litigation visibility related to civil and criminal proceedings; and coaching senior executives, including the CEO, to speak for their organization.

If it's a tough, touchy, sensitive communications problem, please call us at 914.681.0000. We'd be delighted to provide for more information about our consulting services and in-house simulations and professional development workshops.

Copyright © 1995, James E. Lukaszewski. All rights reserved.

James E. Lukaszewski owns the copyright to this material under Unites States and International Copyright Acts. No portion of this document may be reproduced, in whole or part, in any form or by any means, without the express written consent of The Lukaszewski Group Inc. Any unauthorized copying or use of the information contained herein will be treated as a violation of applicable International, Federal and State laws.