Читать книгу Communicating in Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice - Vincent T. Covello - Страница 43

Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Bitter cold. Long months of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success.

— Newspaper ad attributed to Sir Ernest Shackleton to solicit participants for his fateful 1914 Imperial Trans‐Antarctic Expedition.

A central question addressed by risk communication researchers is why some individuals and organizations are trusted as sources of risk information while others are not. The Antarctic expedition leader Sir Ernest Shackleton (quoted above) achieved much of his success and admiration through the high levels of trust he engendered in his expedition crews. He communicated, through both words and actions, essential trust‐building characteristics: listening, caring, empathy, conviction, honesty, and optimism. Shackleton’s risk management and communication skills were vividly demonstrated during the 1914 Imperial Trans‐Antarctic expedition, saving the lives of all 28 crew members after the ship was crushed by ice. Although Shackleton was personally concerned about the outcome, he concealed his anxiety to ensure that it did not spread. He communicated his conviction that the crew would survive and get home. It was a message he repeated frequently.

Unfortunately, many technical, engineering, and scientific professionals, together with government and industry authorities – among the most visible, prominent, and important sources of risk information – lack effective risk communication skills. Leaders, risk managers, and technical experts are frequently insensitive to, or unaware of, the information needs of interested and affected parties.

Numerous examples can be cited. For example, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, at a news briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, famously said:

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 12 February 2002).

In another example, outrage swept through Canada in 2003 when it was revealed the beloved Tim Hortons fast‐food restaurant chain had been freezing its doughnuts rather than serving them fresh, undermining the company’s “Always fresh” marketing motto. A media spokeswoman for the company unwisely said: “Until I confirm or deny anything, it simply doesn’t exist.” Unfortunate statements such as this communicate a lack of caring and undermine trust, key building blocks of effective risk communication.

Despite the vulnerability of a nation’s food supply to terrorism as indicated by the thousands of foodborne illnesses that occur accidentally, Tommy Thompson, in his farewell address as US Secretary of Health and Human Services, shockingly said:

I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do. (Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, 3 Dec. 2004).

Unfortunately, risk communication spokespeople often make similar errors. Many of these errors occur because many risk communications are unplanned. One major result of the lack of communication skills among spokespeople is the loss of trust and credibility in experts and risk management authorities.

Many risk managers and spokespersons lack the skills needed to effectively communicate information about risk. A partial listing of these skills is shown in Tables 3.2–3.4. As one example, many use complex and difficult technical language and jargon in communicating information about risks to the media and the public. Technical language or jargon is not only difficult to comprehend but creates perceptions that the person is unresponsive, uncaring, or evasive.

Table 3.2 Risk communication skills, traps, and pitfalls.

Category	Dos	Don'ts
Jargon, technical terms, and acronyms	Avoid using technical jargon. Define technical terms and acronyms; limit their use and explain those you do or must use.	Do not use undefined jargon, technical terms, or acronyms.
Absolutes	Avoid absolutes – never say never in high‐stress situation.	Do not offer guarantees; do not use the terms such as “every” or “all.”
Truthfulness	Tell the truth; be open and transparent.	Do not lie or present half‐truths.
Negatives	Use positive or neutral terms.	Do not use terms with strong negative associations; do not use highly charged analogies; do not repeat the words used in an allegation.
Defensiveness	Respond to issues, not personalities; stay calm and collected.	Do not let your temper interfere with your ability to communicate.
Clarity	Confirm understandings.	Do not assume understandings.
Visuals	Use graphics, examples, metaphors, and analogies to aid understanding.	Do not talk in abstractions.
Attack	Focus attacks on issues.	Do not make peripheral attacks against persons or organizations.
Promises	Promise only what you are certain will occur or what you can deliver.	Do not make promises you cannot back up or keep.
Speculation	Stick to the facts: state what you know, what you don’t know, and what is being done to answer the question.	Do not discuss extreme worst‐case scenarios.
Humor	The benefits of humor are seldom worth the risks in high‐stress situations.	Do not use, as the audience may be offended, may think you are not taking the issue seriously, or may think you don’t care, don’t have empathy, or don’t have compassion.
Blame	Accept your fair share of responsibility; focus on how problems can be solved and how challenges can be overcome.	Do not point your finger at others as a means of dodging responsibility.
Risk comparisons	Use comparisons to gain perspective; cite trustworthy sources of data; compare the same risk at two different times or circumstances; compare with a standard or regulation that is understood by the listener.	Do not use comparisons for gaining acceptance of a risk.

Table 3.3 Risk communication skills of spokespersons.

Category	Skills/profile
Interpersonal communication	Is able to convey empathyIs an effective active listenerIs respectful of the emotions, concerns, values, and beliefs of othersUses personal pronouns and words such as “I,” “we,” and “our”Is able to talk about shared responsibilitiesCan be eloquent, creative, innovative, and imaginative
Knowledge	Is able to answer basic questions about the issue in questionIs able to convey clear, accurate, and factual messages with confidenceIs able to reinforce messages with visuals and experienceCommunicates a workable strategy
Trust/credibility	Is associated with a respected organization or institutionIs able to use nonverbal communication to enhance trust and credibilityIs able to make a personal connection with the target audienceIs able to communicate hope and optimismIs able to communicate self‐sacrifice, determination, and restraint

Table 3.4 Eight ways to avoid mistakes with the media.

Follow These Guiding Principles
Your words have consequences – think about them in advance and make sure they are the right ones.
Know what you want to say, say it, and then say it again; don’t over‐reassure or offer guarantees.
If you don’t know what you are talking about, stop talking; never say anything you don’t want to see as a media headline.
Focus on informing people, not impressing them.
Use everyday language.
Be the first to share bad news.
Don’t speculate, guess, or assume. When you don’t know something, say so. Don’t say “No comment” as you will look as if you are hiding something.
Don’t get angry; when you argue with the media, you are likely to lose – and you will lose publicly.

Experts often operate on the assumption that they share a common framework with their audience for evaluating and interpreting risk information. However, this is seldom the case. People consider complex emotional, psychological, cultural, qualitative, and quantitative factors when defining, evaluating, and acting on risk information. Different assumptions, considerations, and definitions – such as what dimensions (values) to consider in an analysis or how to measure a particular consequence – produce different evaluations. People inherently trust their own evaluations and distrust evaluations by others. One of the costs of mistrust is the reluctance to believe risk information provided by leaders, risk managers, and technical experts, especially those from government and industry. Efforts to overcome such mistrust require, at a minimum, a commitment to enhanced risk assessment, management, and communication.